OT: Politics Thread - Do Not Open Unless You Want to Argue

[awaz]

Honestly not trying to seem like I'm piling on, because I appreciate your point and agree that there are changes that need to be made here. I think we agree on the principle of reform being needed, just not the method for implementing.

Because in this type of scenario 1) we assume they get caught for robbing the person (don't know statistics, but possibly a big "if") and 2) there are then court costs associated with prosecuting them, not to mention the jail costs that you cite. Not to mention that people will then complain about the high crime rate, so we have to hire more police, which again costs money.

Again, just trying to stress the fact that there's always a downstream impact and that REAL changes are needed, not just these one-off moves that they make constantly.

just curious sabresfan.. if you were to propose a suggestion what would it be? you seem to have good 'big picture' thought, just wondering what you would do

 

[KillerVee]

I don't have time to read this right now but it's safe to say that I probably don't agree with Jeff.

 

[jerseyjigroe]

Yikes. This is why raising taxes is a bad idea. We need to raise revenue by expanding the tax base, not by raising taxes.

Michael Boskin: Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate - WSJ.com

 

[Comeds]

Then they need to find a way... Nothing in life should be free. They either pay themselves, or they can opt for volunteer work in the county they live to receive the drug test for free (tax payers $).

Nothing in life is free, but in the case of the government most of us have paid huge amounts in taxes over our working lifetimes so if I suddenly need some sort of public assistance I think I more than paid for a drug test in your scenario.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

just curious sabresfan.. if you were to propose a suggestion what would it be? you seem to have good 'big picture' thought, just wondering what you would do

That's kind of a big question. This is mostly pipe dream territory since these same people that are the problem would have to enact the changes. That said:

My starting point would be to eliminate direct election of Congress, as I stated in an earlier post. That would give them a greater willingness to vote based on what's right, not on what will help them in their re-election.

I would make significant adjustments to the tax code. Corporations would be taxed on all income, regardless of whether it's hidden overseas or wherever.

I would abolish all local (city/county) taxes and I would centralize the collection and distribution of all taxes to a single agency. This would be another area to benefit from not having direct election of Congress, because you wouldn't have each person fighting against each other to bring money to their location vs. another location. We're one country that should be in this for the greater good, not competing against each other like what different states do right now.

I would eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes.

I would eliminate the death penalty to save money on appeals and such, since it costs taxpayers less for a life without parole conviction than a death penalty conviction.

I would eliminate tax exempt status for all religious groups, regardless of religion.

Just a few starting points, since a lot more would be needed, but that would take a long time to type them all

 

[SLY]

Nothing in life is free, but in the case of the government most of us have paid huge amounts in taxes over our working lifetimes so if I suddenly need some sort of public assistance I think I more than paid for a drug test in your scenario.

I'm referring to people who dont work and have paid close to nothing if anything to the govt.

 

[Comeds]

I would make significant adjustments to the tax code. Corporations would be taxed on all income, regardless of whether it's hidden overseas or wherever.

That makes far too much sense to ever be passed. Plus think of all the billions that would spent opposing those proposed changes to the tax code.

However its also been my experience that a lot of people get far more upset with someone on welfare collecting $600 a month than corporations avoiding paying billions of dollars in taxes.

 

[awaz]

However its also been my experience that a lot of people get far more upset with someone on welfare collecting $600 a month than corporations avoiding paying billions of dollars in taxes.

i think that's because more people are aware of welfare and it's issues than of corporations avoiding taxes.. which is another problem in itself..

 

[BostonAJ]

However its also been my experience that a lot of people get far more upset with someone on welfare collecting $600 a month than corporations avoiding paying billions of dollars in taxes.

Fucking. A.

 

[BostonAJ]

Warren Buffet claims he could solve the American deficit in five minutes:

"You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."

 

[jerseyjigroe]

That makes far too much sense to ever be passed. Plus think of all the billions that would spent opposing those proposed changes to the tax code.

However its also been my experience that a lot of people get far more upset with someone on welfare collecting $600 a month than corporations avoiding paying billions of dollars in taxes.

True, however that's because these 'evil' companies and corporations are the ones who provide jobs (and income) to people. Raising taxes on them means less jobs for them to give out. Or they will pick up and leave the country all together. Costs will be cut some where. Same thing goes for small businesses.

 

[awaz]

That's kind of a big question. This is mostly pipe dream territory since these same people that are the problem would have to enact the changes. That said:

My starting point would be to eliminate direct election of Congress, as I stated in an earlier post. That would give them a greater willingness to vote based on what's right, not on what will help them in their re-election.

I would make significant adjustments to the tax code. Corporations would be taxed on all income, regardless of whether it's hidden overseas or wherever.

I would abolish all local (city/county) taxes and I would centralize the collection and distribution of all taxes to a single agency. This would be another area to benefit from not having direct election of Congress, because you wouldn't have each person fighting against each other to bring money to their location vs. another location. We're one country that should be in this for the greater good, not competing against each other like what different states do right now.

I would eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes.

I would eliminate the death penalty to save money on appeals and such, since it costs taxpayers less for a life without parole conviction than a death penalty conviction.

I would eliminate tax exempt status for all religious groups, regardless of religion.

Just a few starting points, since a lot more would be needed, but that would take a long time to type them all

interesting. i have a few questions, in no particular order.

1. what is a cap on social security taxes? i've never heard this before. there's like a limit on how much you can pay in social security? so, for simplicity, a guy making 100,000 a year pays the same as a guy making 1,000,000 a year because the percentage is capped?

2. the direct election of congress thing. i read this before and had questions, didn't read who posted it though haha. how do you want us to pick congress then? we vote on a party, republican, democrat, green, communist, whatever, and then they pick who the congressman will be? i dont really understand how that scenario would help things. from my limited understanding that would just make it a longer process, and would lead to more corruption with people only having to buy the party's opinions rather than a whole voting demographic.

3. elimination of local taxes. i agree that centralizing things would make it a lot easier in some respects, but i disagree that you would have less fighting over where the money goes. if everyone pays money into one central government, then the government has to dole it back out. and it can't be an even split, states like california, florida, ny, etc. need more money than say south dakota. just on sheer numbers. but even if you went to a strict population percentage breakdown that wouldn't account for the fact that michigan has to pay a bunch more in road care (cause of the winters) than say arizona does. and thus you have a basis for argument. plus then you have citizens of south dakota paying for california residents to have 7 lane roads instead of 6, which isn't exactly fair. maybe i'm misunderstanding you, or maybe we just have differing opinions, but i think eliminating local taxes would do more harm than good.

the rest i think i agree with. religious groups, corporations, death penalty (assuming the death penalty costs more than life w/out parole, but i've heard that from more than just you)

 

[jerseyjigroe]

Warren Buffet claims he could solve the American deficit in five minutes:

"You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."

The GOP is pushing a balanced budget amendment but the Democrats are against it. That's more of a long-term solution though.

 

[BostonAJ]

Raising taxes on them means less jobs for them to give out.

I've always thought that was too idealist to be true. I think for the most part, they just pocket that shit. Besides, the rich owe the poor.

 

[BostonAJ]

The GOP is pushing a balanced budget amendment but the Democrats are against it. That's more of a long-term solution though.

You know what doesn't come up very often from either side? Ending the fucking "war". That trillion dollar, money sucking, what-the-fuck-are-we-getting-out-of-it war. They're laying off teachers all over the place and cutting funding for some pretty damn necessary programs, but that fight with those cave-dwellars on the other side of the planet? We need to keep that going.

 

[Darkstone42]

We should just eliminate politics altogether.

 

[Comeds]

True, however that's because these 'evil' companies and corporations are the ones who provide jobs (and income) to people. Raising taxes on them means less jobs for them to give out. Or they will pick up and leave the country all together. Costs will be cut some where. Same thing goes for small businesses.

You used the word evil, not me.
I just think they should pay a fair tax and shouldn't be able to have an empty storefront in Bermuda as a way to avoid paying their share.

If a company doesn't want to pay and leave then so be it. But then if they want to sell their wares in the US then impose import tariffs on them.

 

[elocomotive]

I dont think "Grandmas medical care" should be touched. Nor do I believe our defense should be hindered. However the pension plans and benefits of government officials and state workers needs to be drastically cut. And as far as welfare only taking up a portion, it still is a waste the way it is run. Every state should have it mandatory to pass a drug test to be on any state aid (Welfare, Food Stamps, anything and everything).

But see, you've provided a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. You're reaction to touching "grandma's medical care" is an immediate negative one, but it's many times over more expensive than the unemployment benefits of welfare you are talking about. As I also mentioned earlier, the political groups and media machine use buzz words that only exacerbate your fears of what this means. Like when we heard "death panels" a lot a couple years ago in a matter that was related to living wills. That's not a real debate, that's clouding the truth. That's using buzz words to attack a piece of legislation and make it something it's not rather than an actual debate on the contents and alternatives to that legislation.

We pay for really expensive procedures for 86-year olds that only prolong their life a few years or where the cost way outpaces the quality return they are getting. It's a cold way to think about things, but you have to at some point say we aren't going to pay for a $130,000 procedure for someone who has lived a full life. If they have private insurance, they can pay for it that way. No one is stopping them from doing that. But these costs are a huge drain and there have to be some measures of control.

Instead politicians target tort reform and medical malpractice lawsuits, which make up about 2% of health care costs. Again, it's easier to go after the money-grubbing lawyers than think about possibly denying poor grandma a procedure. But how much money does it save?

It's politically convenient. It plays into our steretypes. The media runs with that and nobody has really saved any or much money at the end of the day to help improve people's lives and alleviate the budget/deficit crisis.

 

[jerseyjigroe]

I've always thought that was too idealist to be true. I think for the most part, they just pocket that shit. Besides, the rich owe the poor.

No one owes any one else anything. We all work for what we get.

 

[awaz]

I've always thought that was too idealist to be true. I think for the most part, they just pocket that shit. Besides, the rich owe the poor.

say wha?

You know what doesn't come up very often from either side? Ending the fucking "war". That trillion dollar, money sucking, what-the-fuck-are-we-getting-out-of-it war. They're laying off teachers all over the place and cutting funding for some pretty damn necessary programs, but that fight with those cave-dwellars on the other side of the planet? We need to keep that going.

the terrorist attacks are on troops and civilians in the middle east, instead of in the US..

i'm not entirely behind the war, but we are getting something out of it