It's Time: Which Candidate Do You Currently Favor?

[Programmer]

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

You too can take the risk to make a significant contribution to society. Why would you choose to vote to tax 90% of someone else's income? What does this 'do for society'?

 

[Arianrhod]

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

You too can take the risk to make a significant contribution to society. Why would you choose to vote to tax 90% of someone else's income? What does this 'do for society'?

Eisenhower used it to build the interstate highway system.

During the Reagan era the top bracket was 70%.

Two things are missing from the "OMG, TAXES!!!!" conversation. One is a discussion about taxes on corporations (or in many cases, no taxes on corporations). The other is offshoring.

Tax the big corporations at the same rate as the little guys, tax individuals and corporations on real income, not "revenue I didn't have time to transfer to the Cayman accounts," and you'd have something to work with.

 

[dcraelin]

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

You too can take the risk to make a significant contribution to society. Why would you choose to vote to tax 90% of someone else's income? What does this 'do for society'?

SMH, I TOLD you it isnt likely to be 90% of someone elses income......I think the effective rate is 17% or something like that.

And I told you why, to pay down the debt........

I can borrow the money if I have some great idea

 

[Programmer]

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

You too can take the risk to make a significant contribution to society. Why would you choose to vote to tax 90% of someone else's income? What does this 'do for society'?

SMH, I TOLD you it isnt likely to be 90% of someone elses income......I think the effective rate is 17% or something like that.

And I told you why, to pay down the debt........

I can borrow the money if I have some great idea

Bolshevic simpleton.

This is very simple math. You can't tax 91% of someone's income above $430k and effectively tax them 17%. That's just laziness not using a calculator. Marginal Tax Rate Calculator . You'd easily steal 80% of earnings from someone earning 3-4 million a year.

Through your greed and inability to imagine why a system from the 1950s wouldn't work, small businesses would struggle paying your stupid dues, while big business execs just convert earnings to capital gains or whatever loophole your politicians will offer them.

...And your brilliant use for all this cash is to 'pay down the debt' in advance, like a dolt.

 

[dcraelin]

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

You too can take the risk to make a significant contribution to society. Why would you choose to vote to tax 90% of someone else's income? What does this 'do for society'?

SMH, I TOLD you it isnt likely to be 90% of someone elses income......I think the effective rate is 17% or something like that.

And I told you why, to pay down the debt........

I can borrow the money if I have some great idea

Bolshevic simpleton.

This is very simple math. You can't tax 91% of someone's income above $430k and effectively tax them 17%. That's just laziness not using a calculator. Marginal Tax Rate Calculator . You'd easily steal 80% of earnings from someone earning 3-4 million a year.

Through your greed and inability to imagine why a system from the 1950s wouldn't work, small businesses would struggle paying your stupid dues, while big business execs just convert earnings to capital gains or whatever loophole your politicians will offer them.

...And your brilliant use for all this cash is to 'pay down the debt' in advance, like a dolt.

techno-fascist

first of all, wrong, if they make 431 k and the lower rates are under 17% yes, you can...

now the 17% ive seen must include other breaks, and tax avoidance these folks get.

I really couldn't care less how much we take from those making 3 to 4 million a year....fuck them. As for "small business", they seem to be offered anyway all sorts of cheap government loans and subsidies. Even have a governnment bureaucracy for them the small business administration.

the country did good under Eisenhower. Ideally I would eliminate loopholes such as the lower capital gains rate and not go as high as Eisenhower.

 

[JoshuaZ]

I have a feeling Fiorina will be the VP pick. My POTUS pick right now is Rubio. He seems to be up on the issues very well, and can articulate his positions and reasoning with clarity. Both Trump and Carson pale in comparison and I think are more personality favorites. I like Cruz too for the same reasons but I'm afraid he will have more trouble bringing in the middle roader/undecided/can't be bothered constituents, the ones that decide our fate.

What probability do you estimate that Fiorina will be the VP nom?

 

[Iceweasel]

I have a feeling Fiorina will be the VP pick. My POTUS pick right now is Rubio. He seems to be up on the issues very well, and can articulate his positions and reasoning with clarity. Both Trump and Carson pale in comparison and I think are more personality favorites. I like Cruz too for the same reasons but I'm afraid he will have more trouble bringing in the middle roader/undecided/can't be bothered constituents, the ones that decide our fate.

What probability do you estimate that Fiorina will be the VP nom?

What am I, a Vegas bookie?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me help you.

To tax less than 90%, the top bracket will have to be significantly higher for a billion dollar income.

For example, let's say NO TAX for the first $1,000,000. Not 35%, but 0%. Not $413K, but $1M, just to concede to your point.

Then 91% tax for the other $999,000,000 makes for $909,000,000 in Bolshevik dues. That's more than 90%, Bernie.

That's the overtaxing I was referring to.

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

No, Chuckles, as much as you think every criticism is merely a generalized "I don't like you" insult, this is actually a precise descriptor of behaviors and attitudes, and so it does NOT work to say, "I'm not, YOU are!" in time-honored, leftist-kindergarten fashion.

The right does not really talk about "fair share" unless it's addressing leftist accusations. Nor does it talk about concepts like "enough" or "obscene wealth" or "inequity". And at no time whatsoever does the right EVER talk about tax rates in terms of how much wealth people will have left afterward.

Cloak it in all the high-minded "good of society" crap talk you like, but it still comes down to the fact that only the left thinks it is ordained by God - or the universe, or whoever - to determine how much people should be allowed to keep.

 

[dcraelin]

What in the world?, you make absolutely no sense.

This is a thinking capacity shortage on your part. 91% of the money earned above the highest tax bracket is more than 90% of a billionaire's earnings, but you deny that.

For a BILLIONaire? ...I dont know, plug in the numbers in the site I gave.......regardless theyd still have plenty of money after taxes.

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

No, Chuckles, as much as you think every criticism is merely a generalized "I don't like you" insult, this is actually a precise descriptor of behaviors and attitudes, and so it does NOT work to say, "I'm not, YOU are!" in time-honored, leftist-kindergarten fashion.

The right does not really talk about "fair share" unless it's addressing leftist accusations. Nor does it talk about concepts like "enough" or "obscene wealth" or "inequity". And at no time whatsoever does the right EVER talk about tax rates in terms of how much wealth people will have left afterward.

Cloak it in all the high-minded "good of society" crap talk you like, but it still comes down to the fact that only the left thinks it is ordained by God - or the universe, or whoever - to determine how much people should be allowed to keep.

Eisenhower was not a leftist and his rates were 90+% on the top tier.

but it is indeed more likely the right who is always bellyaching...as you do, about what is left over after taxes,....tax freedom day etc. THats what I was getting at when I replied to your "Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have "....What do rightists think the code is about then?

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

 

[OldLady]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

I don't know BECAUSE none of the Republican candidates' debates have been on a television station I can afford to subscribe to. I get the basic or I don't get tv (I live in the sticks) but I can't afford $50 + a month to get the fancy news stations package. Am I the only one who thinks this stinks? Are the Republicans all too rich to care? I am glad to hear they will be on CBS in February, but so far, I've only been able to hear the Democratic candidates debate.

 

[Arianrhod]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

I don't know BECAUSE none of the Republican candidates' debates have been on a television station I can afford to subscribe to. I get the basic or I don't get tv (I live in the sticks) but I can't afford $50 + a month to get the fancy news stations package. Am I the only one who thinks this stinks? Are the Republicans all too rich to care? I am glad to hear they will be on CBS in February, but so far, I've only been able to hear the Democratic candidates debate.

It's interesting that not one of the RWs here could bother telling you that the GOP debates are available on YouTube:

republican debate 2015 - YouTube

Or that you can read the full transcripts here:

Republican Debate: Read the Transcript of the Primetime Debate
Transcript: Read the Full Text of the Second Republican Debate | Popular Liberty at the Daily Paul
The third Republican debate transcript, annotated
Republican Debate: Read Transcript of Fox Business Debate

 

[OldLady]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

I don't know BECAUSE none of the Republican candidates' debates have been on a television station I can afford to subscribe to. I get the basic or I don't get tv (I live in the sticks) but I can't afford $50 + a month to get the fancy news stations package. Am I the only one who thinks this stinks? Are the Republicans all too rich to care? I am glad to hear they will be on CBS in February, but so far, I've only been able to hear the Democratic candidates debate.

It's interesting that not one of the RWs here could bother telling you that the GOP debates are available on YouTube:

republican debate 2015 - YouTube

Or that you can read the full transcripts here:

Republican Debate: Read the Transcript of the Primetime Debate
Transcript: Read the Full Text of the Second Republican Debate | Popular Liberty at the Daily Paul
The third Republican debate transcript, annotated
Republican Debate: Read Transcript of Fox Business Debate

Thank you!

 

[Penelope]

No it isn't "time". This isn't even an election year. Get a ride to a clue store.

Then fuck off and don't discuss it. I don't recall anyone sending you an engraved invitation, desperate to hear your opinions, anyway.

Possum boy wants to be the center of attention in a discussion he doesn't belong in.


I'm still behind Marco Rubio. He has modified his immigratiin stance to where I can live with it and I think he can carry enough Conservatives into Congress along with him that the GOP would have 2 or maybe 4 years to fix a lot of what the current community organizer in chief has broken.

Let's get frank for a bit here. The Presidential election is nearly as much a beauty contest as a political rivalry.
It looks like the Democrats will end up with an old white guy from Vermont, or maybe what's her name, if she can stay out of jail long enough.
Beating either in a beauty contest isn't much of a challenge, but you gotta admit that Ted Cruz looks a lot like a grown up Eddie Munster. Kind of creepy... think Richard Nixon
Rubio is a good looking guy, very personable who I actually spent some time talking with back when he was running for the Senate.
He's got a cheerleader wife and cute kids.... John Kennedy

http://communitytable.parade.com/151898/galinaespinoza/at-home-with-marco-rubio/

How interesting , so you for open boarders and SSM, who would of thought.

 

[Penelope]

Not Rubio, not Hillary, at this point I do not know.

 

[Programmer]

Only a leftist thinks the tax code is about determining what people have LEFT.

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

You too can take the risk to make a significant contribution to society. Why would you choose to vote to tax 90% of someone else's income? What does this 'do for society'?

SMH, I TOLD you it isnt likely to be 90% of someone elses income......I think the effective rate is 17% or something like that.

And I told you why, to pay down the debt........

I can borrow the money if I have some great idea

Bolshevic simpleton.

This is very simple math. You can't tax 91% of someone's income above $430k and effectively tax them 17%. That's just laziness not using a calculator. Marginal Tx Rate Calculator . You'd easily steal 80% of earnings from someone earning 3-4 million a year.

Through your greed and inability to imagine why a system from the 1950s wouldn't work, small businesses would struggle paying your stupid dues, while big business execs just convert earnings to capital gains or whatever loophole your politicians will offer them.

...And your brilliant use for all this cash is to 'pay down the debt' in advance, like a dolt.

techno-fascist

first of all, wrong, if they make 431 k and the lower rates are under 17% yes, you can...

now the 17% ive seen must include other breaks, and tax avoidance these folks get.

I really couldn't care less how much we take from those making 3 to 4 million a year....fuck them. As for "small business", they seem to be offered anyway all sorts of cheap government loans and subsidies. Even have a governnment bureaucracy for them the small business administration.

the country did good under Eisenhower. Ideally I would eliminate loopholes such as the lower capital gains rate and not go as high as Eisenhower.

First of all, you're being a lazy, ignorant bolshevic. You cannot derive an effective rate of 17% from a 91% top marginal rate by using math. Just use the calculator and type in $430k. Tax rates for someone making half as much as $430k are twice as high as 17%.

Eisenhower didn't more than double the tax rate like you propose. I'm sure he could do better arithmetic.

 

[Programmer]

{snip}

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

 

[Slyhunter]

First time I've ever wanted to vote FOR someone. Voting for TRUMP!

 

[dcraelin]

{snip}

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

 

[dcraelin]

actually thats more like a 'rightist" isnt it, I think it is also about what can be done for society as a whole ....

You too can take the risk to make a significant contribution to society. Why would you choose to vote to tax 90% of someone else's income? What does this 'do for society'?

SMH, I TOLD you it isnt likely to be 90% of someone elses income......I think the effective rate is 17% or something like that.

And I told you why, to pay down the debt........

I can borrow the money if I have some great idea

Bolshevic simpleton.

This is very simple math. You can't tax 91% of someone's income above $430k and effectively tax them 17%. That's just laziness not using a calculator. Marginal Tx Rate Calculator . You'd easily steal 80% of earnings from someone earning 3-4 million a year.

Through your greed and inability to imagine why a system from the 1950s wouldn't work, small businesses would struggle paying your stupid dues, while big business execs just convert earnings to capital gains or whatever loophole your politicians will offer them.

...And your brilliant use for all this cash is to 'pay down the debt' in advance, like a dolt.

techno-fascist

first of all, wrong, if they make 431 k and the lower rates are under 17% yes, you can...

now the 17% ive seen must include other breaks, and tax avoidance these folks get.

I really couldn't care less how much we take from those making 3 to 4 million a year....fuck them. As for "small business", they seem to be offered anyway all sorts of cheap government loans and subsidies. Even have a governnment bureaucracy for them the small business administration.

the country did good under Eisenhower. Ideally I would eliminate loopholes such as the lower capital gains rate and not go as high as Eisenhower.

First of all, you're being a lazy, ignorant bolshevic. You cannot derive an effective rate of 17% from a 91% top marginal rate by using math. Just use the calculator and type in $430k. Tax rates for someone making half as much as $430k are twice as high as 17%.

Eisenhower didn't more than double the tax rate like you propose. I'm sure he could do better arithmetic.

if your talking about the tax calculators thats because the lower rates are higher than 17

 

[Programmer]

{snip}

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.