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

[dare2be]

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/synthesis/reports_and_briefs/pdf/no8_primer.pdf

Some good info on the issue of malpractice insurance.

 

[CatScrap]

see i disagree with you there.. IMO those who dont earn money deserve to be taxed.. what right does John Smith have to the 100 million dollars over Sally Jones? John Smith's dad had a brilliant idea?

so John Smith has the right to live a life of luxury and expense, while Sally Jones has to work hard to scrape together a living?

Letting John Smith have the majority of the money is fine (and proper), but i see no reason why it shouldn't be taxed again

i get that you can look at it as John Smith's dad wanting to 'spend' his money on giving it to his son, and he should be allowed to 'spend' it however he wants. but in an economy like ours (aka needs a lot of help), that is one of the fairest places to take money from, IMO

I am not poor, and if I do have children, I will be leaving them a large sum of money that I ammassed throughout my life. So I suppose you could include me as one of the rich people who has been taxed every which way but up, especially in NY. However, I agree that money should be taxed if I pass it from myself to my child or another person. I do however disagree that this tax should be a separate higher tax than normal income tax. If I choose to spend my money at a car dealership and they make $3 million on me this year, they are going to be taxed at 35% on that $3 million, so why should there be a higher tax than that if I were to spend my money by giving it to my son. In summation, I agree that whenever money transfers from one owner to the next, it should be taxed as income to the new party, however I do not think inheritance should be a higher tax.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

That money was already taxed every which way... Shouldn't be taxed at all. Handing money to your children or any estate should not be taxed at all whatsoever when it changes hands.

Actually, that money has generally been taxed less than regular income, which is why the inheritance tax was created in the first place.

There's a few aspects at work, but the capital gains tax in the US is the primary driver. Long term capital gains, which are often earned by rich investors over their lifetime and are generally the types of items left to their children are taxed at a rate below the standard income rate in the US.

The idea of the inheritance tax is to try to get people to spend their money (i.e., put it back into the economy where it can do good) rather than to simply hold on to it to pass to their children, which is generally what ends up happening.

 

[jerseyjigroe]

I'm on phone now so I can't write long posts. I'll check back later.

 

[awaz]

1. There is a cap on what portion of a person's income is taxable for Social Security. Right now, I believe it is $106K. So your first $106K you pay full SS tax. But anything about $106K isn't subjected to that tax. So proportionately, those who make less money are paying a higher tax rate because they are being taxed on 100% of their income vs. a high earner who is taxed on "only" $106K, regardless of whether they make 100x that.

2. The direct election, in other countries at least, generally reduces the length and cost of campaigns. In general, only the party leaders have their faces on promotional posters (think only for example, Boehner, Cantor, Reid, and Pelosi on posters, nobody else). Because individual candidates aren't trying to get their name known, they have less reason to campaign. And yes, you would vote for the party who would then choose the representatives. Regarding buying opinions, I guess that was one item I left out of my abbreviated list of ideas, is that all elections would be publicly financed. No individual contributions and no corporate money. Period.

3. I wasn't totally clear on my point, but yes, your roads example is right. I would expect it to be need-based rather than a simple % base, so the higher cost of maintenance would be accounted for, as would larger populations. And the unfairness already happens to a large extent, but in the reverse order people generally assume. In fact, the "blue" states generally (emphasis here because there are exceptions) pay more in federal taxes than they get in services while "red" states generally pay less in taxes than they get in services. It also would eliminate the need to have as many levels of bureaucracy, thereby reducing the total costs that have to be paid with those same taxes.

1. ok, got it. that's stupid. it should be a percentage, across the board. aka, i agree with you.

2. alright.. that makes more sense now.. and by publicly funded you mean taxes. which, while a burden on the taxpayers, eliminates big corporations 'buying' votes and corrupting who is in power. i like it. i guess the only, thing, i have with that is wouldn't the party leaders be the ones being elected? so in essence it would still be directly voting for your senators. i guess there would only be a handful of them, then they get to pick the rest of the group, almost like the president is elected and the people are trusting of him to appoint the cabinet.. interesting..

3. i'll agree that the tax structure needs to be changed in terms of local and federal taxes, but i'm not sure i agree that getting rid of local taxes fixes the problem. those local taxes go a long way in determining the amount/quality of services a location gets. i dont think the federal government or the national tax payers should decide if a community in alabama wants to build a 30 mile long bike path.. and that isn't something that would ever be allowed in a tight budget nationally.. if you want the town wants that to be built, they should raise their own taxes to get that service.. i suppose you could have votes in that community in alabama and they could pay more money to the federal government with the promise that that money will go towards their bike path? same way you would do it with local taxes.. but then you haven't really done much. just changed where the tax money goes. it would still be spent the same way and raised the same way

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I am not poor, and if I do have children, I will be leaving them a large sum of money that I ammassed throughout my life. So I suppose you could include me as one of the rich people who has been taxed every which way but up, especially in NY. However, I agree that money should be taxed if I pass it from myself to my child or another person. I do however disagree that this tax should be a separate higher tax than normal income tax. If I choose to spend my money at a car dealership and they make $3 million on me this year, they are going to be taxed at 35% on that $3 million, so why should there be a higher tax than that if I were to spend my money by giving it to my son. In summation, I agree that whenever money transfers from one owner to the next, it should be taxed as income to the new party, however I do not think inheritance should be a higher tax.

I think they're both 35% right now.

And just for the record, the first $5M right now in any inheritance is not taxed.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

1. ok, got it. that's stupid. it should be a percentage, across the board. aka, i agree with you.

2. alright.. that makes more sense now.. and by publicly funded you mean taxes. which, while a burden on the taxpayers, eliminates big corporations 'buying' votes and corrupting who is in power. i like it. i guess the only, thing, i have with that is wouldn't the party leaders be the ones being elected? so in essence it would still be directly voting for your senators. i guess there would only be a handful of them, then they get to pick the rest of the group, almost like the president is elected and the people are trusting of him to appoint the cabinet.. interesting..

3. i'll agree that the tax structure needs to be changed in terms of local and federal taxes, but i'm not sure i agree that getting rid of local taxes fixes the problem. those local taxes go a long way in determining the amount/quality of services a location gets. i dont think the federal government or the national tax payers should decide if a community in alabama wants to build a 30 mile long bike path.. and that isn't something that would ever be allowed in a tight budget nationally.. if you want the town wants that to be built, they should raise their own taxes to get that service.. i suppose you could have votes in that community in alabama and they could pay more money to the federal government with the promise that that money will go towards their bike path? same way you would do it with local taxes.. but then you haven't really done much. just changed where the tax money goes. it would still be spent the same way and raised the same way

2. Generally the way this works is that you vote for a party and then the party selects the specific individuals, and then those individuals would elect someone like Speaker of the House from within their ranks (as they do currently), though it's generally known who will end up in that position (as it is now). So essentially it's party delegates who elect which members of their party sit in congress based on the number of seats they've won.

3. Agreed there are issues that would have to be worked out. I think if you eliminate some of the current issues though, the federal government is more distant from the proposed bike path (just borrowing your example) so can more objectively assess the actual need for it, rather than the current earmark system where the senator would want the money because it benefits their district, even if they don't really need it.

 

[CatScrap]

I think they're both 35% right now.

And just for the record, the first $5M right now in any inheritance is not taxed.

It should all be taxed.

 

[elocomotive]

Some good points in this article.

GOP wants Obama's unconditional surrender - CNN.com

Good article, Jeff.

My general party feeling these days is I'm tired of the Dems not having better ideas and I'm tired of the Repubs not having any ideas at all.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

what opportunity do they have that they are giving up?

As far as education goes, I was shocked when my wife told me her school always gave her new books at the start of each school year. Our books were recycled and 5-10 years old. There is no way in hell I should have passed missing 52 days in a school year, but I did.

Obviously, the number 1 problem is parents..Parents don't give a shit so the kid doesnt. It's an endless problem that no one gives a shit about until that kid shoots up some white dude in a gas station hold up. Trust me..if you didn't feel like people gave two shits about you, you wouldn't make some of the same decisions.

My wife used to work as a teacher and she couldn't get funding for any text books for her class. Not trying to replace old ones. She literally had no text books.

 

[elocomotive]

Obviously, the number 1 problem is parents.

I think a lot of us can agree with that one in general. Need more parents, better parents, and better families to nurture and develop the talents and abilities of our youth. Tough with so much divorce and so many families with two wage earners.

 

[elocomotive]

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/synthesis/reports_and_briefs/pdf/no8_primer.pdf

Some good info on the issue of malpractice insurance.

Oh man! Dare just gave us homework?

But from your source another estimate on malpractice costs (even lower than what I cited earlier):

A recent estimate suggests that claims costs amounted to $4.4 billion in 2001, legal defense costs amounted to $1.4 billion and insurance administration amounted to $700 million. Thus, total direct costs were probably about $6.5 billion in 2001, or 0.46 percent of total health care spending (2). These and all estimates of the costs of the malpractice system, however, are back-of-the-envelope calculations; no hard cost figures are available.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I think a lot of us can agree with that one in general. Need more parents, better parents, and better families to nurture and develop the talents and abilities of our youth. Tough with so much divorce and so many families with two wage earners.

I will disagree with that part. Many countries' entire system is based upon the idea that both parents (or more appropriately, every individual) works, and it works very well for a lot of them.

I whole-heartedly agree with the issue about quality parents though.

 

[SLY]

Good article, Jeff.

My general party feeling these days is I'm tired of the Dems not having better ideas and I'm tired of the Repubs not having any ideas at all.

If I had to lean to a side it would definitely be Republican. However, as the years have passed and I have matured, I see that both parties are nothing more than giant steaming piles of shit. And sadly I don't know if things will ever change, meaning people straying away from just voting for one or the other. Maybe in the near future, but definitely not the next term, and I pray to whatever the hell created us that Obama does not get re-elected.

 

[elocomotive]

I will disagree with that part. Many countries' entire system is based upon the idea that both parents (or more appropriately, every individual) works, and it works very well for a lot of them.

It definitely can. I was just saying it's harder with both parents working. Definitely easier to manage the home and parenting when at least one is on duty full-time.

 

[elocomotive]

If I had to lean to a side it would definitely be Republican. However, as the years have passed and I have matured, I see that both parties are nothing more than giant steaming piles of shit. And sadly I don't know if things will ever change, meaning people straying away from just voting for one or the other. Maybe in the near future, but definitely not the next term, and I pray to whatever the hell created us that Obama does not get re-elected.

Depends on who is running against him. I'm not impressed by Obama, but I'm not disappointed in him either and I think he is certainly a person of good character whether you agree with his policies or not. He has a shitty hand and a cold deck right now. Not sure how much he could have done. A lot of terrible things converging at once that were not of his creation.

 

[SLY]

The same could be said for Bush, he wasn't really handed the easiest terms.

 

[SLY]

I must say that I really like 46's concept of allowing a President a term of 6 years with no chance of re-election. They waste way too much time campaigning. This would also in turn give them enough time to work their policies and see what comes to fruition.

 

[awaz]

what opportunity do they have that they are giving up?

As far as education goes, I was shocked when my wife told me her school always gave her new books at the start of each school year. Our books were recycled and 5-10 years old. There is no way in hell I should have passed missing 52 days in a school year, but I did.

Obviously, the number 1 problem is parents..Parents don't give a shit so the kid doesnt. It's an endless problem that no one gives a shit about until that kid shoots up some white dude in a gas station hold up. Trust me..if you didn't feel like people gave two shits about you, you wouldn't make some of the same decisions.

i'm not saying the education system is perfect.. it's far from it.. i just dont like the idea that the rich have to 'let' the poor get better.. that thought process drives me crazy.. nobody has to 'let' you do anything, regardless of your race, gender, upbringing, number of fingers, quality of spit ball skills.. nobody lets anybody do anything.. if you have the desire, you can do it.. for some in less fortunate circumstances it takes more desire, but if you have the desire you can make your life better than it is now, and better than your parents' lives were.. it may not be perfect, but nobody has to let you make your life better, you have to work your ass off

and i agree parents have to do better. haha.

 

[dare2be]

The same could be said for Bush, he wasn't really handed the easiest terms.

Yeah, so after 8 years of each, we'll be able to sit down and make a good comparison.