THE OFFICIAL POLITICS THREAD

[cardsfan04]

I love Nate Silver. He wrote a decent article on Trump polling so high and why it doesn't mean anything (or much) for getting the nomination. Nothing overly groundbreaking, but he explains why early polling doesn't mean much.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dona ... ination-2/

[glen a richter]

I am partly guilty for this thread deviating from politics to religion, so I agree--this is clearly an issue we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm getting suckered in by the same wedge issues that I think are holding back real progress in this country.

I do believe that unless the Supreme Court has specifically ruled on something being legal nationwide, many things should be left up to the states, but they should also rely heavily on the taxes accrued from the things they have legalized to finance themselves rather than relying on federal money. The majority of states dependent on federal assistance coincidentally happen to be the states that most want the federal government out of their business (aka: red states). If you're going to go ahead and make everything under the sun illegal, then be prepared for it to still happen but you don't get a piece of the pie. No matter what you feel about homosexuality, marijuana (or pretty much any presently illegal drug, for that matter) or abortion, people will find a way (usually a dangerous way) to work around the existing laws. Dealers who lace their drugs with even worse drugs to get their clients hooked on the more expensive stuff, women who will use rusty coat hangers to get the job done, whatever. Prohibition of anything doesn't prevent it from being out there. That includes things which are protected constitutionally like firearms and things which are illegal in many places, or frowned upon in many places. The financial windfall states could experience by just legalizing and regulating these things would solve so many problems. And I know that if cocaine (for example) was legal, I wouldn't magically feel inclined to start using it, because I'm not a moron. But there are people out there who do already and would continue to, except the money would go to the state and not the skeevy dealer. From an economic standpoint, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with legalizing and regulating pretty much everything. From a moral standpoint, perhaps this could be an issue for a lot of people. But in a nation being destroyed by China, we may want to get our financial house in order first. I think anything pertaining to finances needs to be priority #1... individual states dependence on federal funding, income inequality (which is frequently directly connected to racial inequality), affordability of housing and affordability of education.

[abc789987]

I love Nate Silver. He wrote a decent article on Trump polling so high and why it doesn't mean anything (or much) for getting the nomination. Nothing overly groundbreaking, but he explains why early polling doesn't mean much.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dona ... ination-2/

He had a podcast last week that talked about his too. Very interesting! And it's what I've been trying to explain to my friends.

[The Flake]

I am partly guilty for this thread deviating from politics to religion, so I agree--this is clearly an issue we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm getting suckered in by the same wedge issues that I think are holding back real progress in this country.

I do believe that unless the Supreme Court has specifically ruled on something being legal nationwide, many things should be left up to the states, but they should also rely heavily on the taxes accrued from the things they have legalized to finance themselves rather than relying on federal money. The majority of states dependent on federal assistance coincidentally happen to be the states that most want the federal government out of their business (aka: red states). If you're going to go ahead and make everything under the sun illegal, then be prepared for it to still happen but you don't get a piece of the pie. No matter what you feel about homosexuality, marijuana (or pretty much any presently illegal drug, for that matter) or abortion, people will find a way (usually a dangerous way) to work around the existing laws. Dealers who lace their drugs with even worse drugs to get their clients hooked on the more expensive stuff, women who will use rusty coat hangers to get the job done, whatever. Prohibition of anything doesn't prevent it from being out there. That includes things which are protected constitutionally like firearms and things which are illegal in many places, or frowned upon in many places. The financial windfall states could experience by just legalizing and regulating these things would solve so many problems. And I know that if cocaine (for example) was legal, I wouldn't magically feel inclined to start using it, because I'm not a moron. But there are people out there who do already and would continue to, except the money would go to the state and not the skeevy dealer. From an economic standpoint, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with legalizing and regulating pretty much everything. From a moral standpoint, perhaps this could be an issue for a lot of people. But in a nation being destroyed by China, we may want to get our financial house in order first. I think anything pertaining to finances needs to be priority #1... individual states dependence on federal funding, income inequality (which is frequently directly connected to racial inequality), affordability of housing and affordability of education.

Economic justifications for legalizing thing that are sure to kill people....Governments make laws to protect the citizenry not the other way around. I've joked before that this would be a great method for population control and weeding out stupidity. But, not in a million years would I legalize coke, meth, heroine, etc. because people are stupid and it would lead to mass deaths, people blaming the government and suing for millions of dollars because they didn't realize it would kill you or send you into a killing frenzy or any number of excuses.

Not a good idea.

Abortionists should be tried as murderers. We will be looked back at thru the scope of history as worse than the Nazi's, committing genocide and infanticide. If women want rid of their children that bad...enough to murder the life growing within them, let them use a coat hanger and die of infection.

Making something illegal doesn't stop it but it does a good job of impeding it.

Getting our financial house in order should be issue #1 agreed. We do that by controlling spending. We cant keep taxing people to death. We need judicial system reform, welfare reform, social security reform, healthcare reform, non profit reforms. We need a leader that can take a surgical knife to the countries budget and cut out all the fat like a good butcher. Alleviate taxes on those who DO work. Give further tax breaks for job creation or better yet, cut out income tax all together, have a flat tax on sales of goods...that way everyone pays their fair share.

[cardsfan04]

I am partly guilty for this thread deviating from politics to religion, so I agree--this is clearly an issue we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm getting suckered in by the same wedge issues that I think are holding back real progress in this country.

I do believe that unless the Supreme Court has specifically ruled on something being legal nationwide, many things should be left up to the states, but they should also rely heavily on the taxes accrued from the things they have legalized to finance themselves rather than relying on federal money. The majority of states dependent on federal assistance coincidentally happen to be the states that most want the federal government out of their business (aka: red states). If you're going to go ahead and make everything under the sun illegal, then be prepared for it to still happen but you don't get a piece of the pie. No matter what you feel about homosexuality, marijuana (or pretty much any presently illegal drug, for that matter) or abortion, people will find a way (usually a dangerous way) to work around the existing laws. Dealers who lace their drugs with even worse drugs to get their clients hooked on the more expensive stuff, women who will use rusty coat hangers to get the job done, whatever. Prohibition of anything doesn't prevent it from being out there. That includes things which are protected constitutionally like firearms and things which are illegal in many places, or frowned upon in many places. The financial windfall states could experience by just legalizing and regulating these things would solve so many problems. And I know that if cocaine (for example) was legal, I wouldn't magically feel inclined to start using it, because I'm not a moron. But there are people out there who do already and would continue to, except the money would go to the state and not the skeevy dealer. From an economic standpoint, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with legalizing and regulating pretty much everything. From a moral standpoint, perhaps this could be an issue for a lot of people. But in a nation being destroyed by China, we may want to get our financial house in order first. I think anything pertaining to finances needs to be priority #1... individual states dependence on federal funding, income inequality (which is frequently directly connected to racial inequality), affordability of housing and affordability of education.

Economic justifications for legalizing thing that are sure to kill people....Governments make laws to protect the citizenry not the other way around. I've joked before that this would be a great method for population control and weeding out stupidity. But, not in a million years would I legalize coke, meth, heroine, etc. because people are stupid and it would lead to mass deaths, people blaming the government and suing for millions of dollars because they didn't realize it would kill you or send you into a killing frenzy or any number of excuses.

Not a good idea.

Abortionists should be tried as murderers. We will be looked back at thru the scope of history as worse than the Nazi's, committing genocide and infanticide. If women want rid of their children that bad...enough to murder the life growing within them, let them use a coat hanger and die of infection.

Making something illegal doesn't stop it but it does a good job of impeding it.

Getting our financial house in order should be issue #1 agreed. We do that by controlling spending. We cant keep taxing people to death. We need judicial system reform, welfare reform, social security reform, healthcare reform, non profit reforms. We need a leader that can take a surgical knife to the countries budget and cut out all the fat like a good butcher. Alleviate taxes on those who DO work. Give further tax breaks for job creation or better yet, cut out income tax all together, have a flat tax on sales of goods...that way everyone pays their fair share.

Replacing income tax with a sales tax is an idea that sounds great because it impacts everybody "evenly," but wouldn't really work well. It just shifts the amount of taxes away from the upper class even more than it already does at the expense of the lower and middle class. It sounds good in theory, but would widen the wealth gap.

The drug stuff gets complicated. I'd legalize marijuana because it's more on par with alcohol than it is other schedule 1 narcotics. Other stuff I'd decriminalize. Not sure I'd go as far as to legalize though. Nobody abstains from heroine (for example) because of fear of going to jail. People don't do it because they know it's bad for them. When it's illegal, it just causes us to incarcerate non-violent offenders at the tax payers' expense.

I think the government's role is to inform and educate people as to the risks of certain things, but should let people make their own decisions so long as it doesn't hurt others. Protect citizens, but not from themselves.

[glen a richter]

All that keeping these drugs illegal do is put more dangerous varieties on the black market. Whether heroin, for example, is legal or not, some people will still use it. The differences are that non addicts, by and large, will not decide to start using because they can and the user will probably be less inclined to murder you for drug money.

[The Flake]

All that keeping these drugs illegal do is put more dangerous varieties on the black market. Whether heroin, for example, is legal or not, some people will still use it. The differences are that non addicts, by and large, will not decide to start using because they can and the user will probably be less inclined to murder you for drug money.

No surprise that we disagree but your logic doesn't makes sense. If drugs are readily available then absolutely yes more people will try it because it is available and they wont get in trouble for just trying it. Then they are hooked and with hard drugs, this is always a downhill road. Hard drugs take a toll on the family unit more than anything...neglect and abuse (physical and mental) are the most common affects.

Secondly, saying that because a user, who has spent all his money on drugs, neglected their family, stopped paying their bills, resorted to stealing, etc. to get their next high wont steal or kill for it because its legal is rubbish. If anything, They will need to steal more often because the cost with government taxes will make it more expensive. And the effect of the drug that blurs the conscious of the user won't mean he won't kill for money and or drugs.

[cardsfan04]

All that keeping these drugs illegal do is put more dangerous varieties on the black market. Whether heroin, for example, is legal or not, some people will still use it. The differences are that non addicts, by and large, will not decide to start using because they can and the user will probably be less inclined to murder you for drug money.

No surprise that we disagree but your logic doesn't makes sense. If drugs are readily available then absolutely yes more people will try it because it is available and they wont get in trouble for just trying it. Then they are hooked and with hard drugs, this is always a downhill road. Hard drugs take a toll on the family unit more than anything...neglect and abuse (physical and mental) are the most common affects.

Secondly, saying that because a user, who has spent all his money on drugs, neglected their family, stopped paying their bills, resorted to stealing, etc. to get their next high wont steal or kill for it because its legal is rubbish. If anything, They will need to steal more often because the cost with government taxes will make it more expensive. And the effect of the drug that blurs the conscious of the user won't mean he won't kill for money and or drugs.

How many people do you know that don't do heroin only because it's illegal? I don't see that being a factor for anybody's decision on whether to do it or not.

[The Flake]

Replacing income tax with a sales tax is an idea that sounds great because it impacts everybody "evenly," but wouldn't really work well. It just shifts the amount of taxes away from the upper class even more than it already does at the expense of the lower and middle class. It sounds good in theory, but would widen the wealth gap.

If there is a national sales tax of 10% lets say and you take this percentage vs. the total goods purchased by the rich, middle class and the poor, the rich will be paying way more taxes than the middle class and the poor. For starters, they spend more on a daily basis without a forethought as to 'how much' they are spending. The middle class will budget the same way and decide what they can and can't afford as usual. The poor will most definitely pay the least because they have less to spend and they will find other methods of gaining goods and services away from mainstream economic markets such as farming, trade, etc. (the middle class will start doing this as well)

Plus, this method will 'tax' all those who escape the income tax whether it be drug dealers, side job specialist who don't turn their income in to be tax, etc., etc. This list goes on and on.

If you apply the same percentage of tax to sales how can this "widen the wealth gap"?

[cardsfan04]

Replacing income tax with a sales tax is an idea that sounds great because it impacts everybody "evenly," but wouldn't really work well. It just shifts the amount of taxes away from the upper class even more than it already does at the expense of the lower and middle class. It sounds good in theory, but would widen the wealth gap.

If there is a national sales tax of 10% lets say and you take this percentage vs. the total goods purchased by the rich, middle class and the poor, the rich will be paying way more taxes than the middle class and the poor. For starters, they spend more on a daily basis without a forethought as to 'how much' they are spending. The middle class will budget the same way and decide what they can and can't afford as usual. The poor will most definitely pay the least because they have less to spend and they will find other methods of gaining goods and services away from mainstream economic markets such as farming, trade, etc. (the middle class will start doing this as well)

Plus, this method will 'tax' all those who escape the income tax whether it be drug dealers, side job specialist who don't turn their income in to be tax, etc., etc. This list goes on and on.

If you apply the same percentage of tax to sales how can this "widen the wealth gap"?

Not everybody spends the same percentage of their income on taxable goods. Somebody living paycheck to paycheck is going to spend nearly all of their income on various things whereas somebody that makes a lot of money is going to invest it (tax free) or save it (tax free). You'd essentially be taxing 100% of the lower class's income and not 100% of the upper class's income.

This also wouldn't tax drug dealers, etc. You think a drug dealer is going to charge sales tax on a dimebag?

[The Flake]

All that keeping these drugs illegal do is put more dangerous varieties on the black market. Whether heroin, for example, is legal or not, some people will still use it. The differences are that non addicts, by and large, will not decide to start using because they can and the user will probably be less inclined to murder you for drug money.

No surprise that we disagree but your logic doesn't makes sense. If drugs are readily available then absolutely yes more people will try it because it is available and they wont get in trouble for just trying it. Then they are hooked and with hard drugs, this is always a downhill road. Hard drugs take a toll on the family unit more than anything...neglect and abuse (physical and mental) are the most common affects.

Secondly, saying that because a user, who has spent all his money on drugs, neglected their family, stopped paying their bills, resorted to stealing, etc. to get their next high wont steal or kill for it because its legal is rubbish. If anything, They will need to steal more often because the cost with government taxes will make it more expensive. And the effect of the drug that blurs the conscious of the user won't mean he won't kill for money and or drugs.

How many people do you know that don't do heroin only because it's illegal? I don't see that being a factor for anybody's decision on whether to do it or not.

Availability. Not everyone who wants to do something knows who to contact to acquire said items. I may want to own (not really but just as an example) a fully automatic machine gun that would otherwise be illegal but have no resources to purchase said black market gun. Once it is available, many people who didn't want to be involved with "drug dealers" or didn't know anyone to get it from will flood the market because they can now. I see this as a huge problem with youth, especially 16 to 30 years of age.

[cardsfan04]

All that keeping these drugs illegal do is put more dangerous varieties on the black market. Whether heroin, for example, is legal or not, some people will still use it. The differences are that non addicts, by and large, will not decide to start using because they can and the user will probably be less inclined to murder you for drug money.

No surprise that we disagree but your logic doesn't makes sense. If drugs are readily available then absolutely yes more people will try it because it is available and they wont get in trouble for just trying it. Then they are hooked and with hard drugs, this is always a downhill road. Hard drugs take a toll on the family unit more than anything...neglect and abuse (physical and mental) are the most common affects.

Secondly, saying that because a user, who has spent all his money on drugs, neglected their family, stopped paying their bills, resorted to stealing, etc. to get their next high wont steal or kill for it because its legal is rubbish. If anything, They will need to steal more often because the cost with government taxes will make it more expensive. And the effect of the drug that blurs the conscious of the user won't mean he won't kill for money and or drugs.

How many people do you know that don't do heroin only because it's illegal? I don't see that being a factor for anybody's decision on whether to do it or not.

Availability. Not everyone who wants to do something knows who to contact to acquire said items. I may want to own (not really but just as an example) a fully automatic machine gun that would otherwise be illegal but have no resources to purchase said black market gun. Once it is available, many people who didn't want to be involved with "drug dealers" or didn't know anyone to get it from will flood the market because they can now. I see this as a huge problem with youth, especially 16 to 30 years of age.

I think that describes a really small demographic. Regardless, that's partly why I'm in total favor of decriminalization, but not as much with legalization. I think most people that would be interested in doing hard core drugs could find them if they tried anyway.

[The Flake]

Replacing income tax with a sales tax is an idea that sounds great because it impacts everybody "evenly," but wouldn't really work well. It just shifts the amount of taxes away from the upper class even more than it already does at the expense of the lower and middle class. It sounds good in theory, but would widen the wealth gap.

If there is a national sales tax of 10% lets say and you take this percentage vs. the total goods purchased by the rich, middle class and the poor, the rich will be paying way more taxes than the middle class and the poor. For starters, they spend more on a daily basis without a forethought as to 'how much' they are spending. The middle class will budget the same way and decide what they can and can't afford as usual. The poor will most definitely pay the least because they have less to spend and they will find other methods of gaining goods and services away from mainstream economic markets such as farming, trade, etc. (the middle class will start doing this as well)

Plus, this method will 'tax' all those who escape the income tax whether it be drug dealers, side job specialist who don't turn their income in to be tax, etc., etc. This list goes on and on.

If you apply the same percentage of tax to sales how can this "widen the wealth gap"?

Not everybody spends the same percentage of their income on taxable goods. Somebody living paycheck to paycheck is going to spend nearly all of their income on various things whereas somebody that makes a lot of money is going to invest it (tax free) or save it (tax free). You'd essentially be taxing 100% of the lower class's income and not 100% of the upper class's income.

This also wouldn't tax drug dealers, etc. You think a drug dealer is going to charge sales tax on a dimebag?

No I don't think a drug dealer is going to tax his drug. but the drug dealer will have to pay tax on his food, his new ride, his new TV and any other good or service they purchase. As always there are ways around paying your fair share of tax if you really want to dodge it but a sales tax makes the playing field more even than it is now.

The rich will still buy extravagant goods and services and they will pay a lot of tax aside from smart (tax free) investments.

Plus, if we cut out the income tax, the savings to the amount of payroll for government workers in the IRS would be astounding. Tax laws now revolve around who has the best accountants and tax lawyers to figure out the code and loopholes. Middle class and poor tax payers usually get the short end of the stick on this deal.

We still need a system that rewards those who work hard and are innovative. I don't get behind the shtick of the 99% movement. If 99% of Americans want what the 1% of Americans have, they have every opportunity to go out and make it just like the 1%.

[cardsfan04]

Replacing income tax with a sales tax is an idea that sounds great because it impacts everybody "evenly," but wouldn't really work well. It just shifts the amount of taxes away from the upper class even more than it already does at the expense of the lower and middle class. It sounds good in theory, but would widen the wealth gap.

If there is a national sales tax of 10% lets say and you take this percentage vs. the total goods purchased by the rich, middle class and the poor, the rich will be paying way more taxes than the middle class and the poor. For starters, they spend more on a daily basis without a forethought as to 'how much' they are spending. The middle class will budget the same way and decide what they can and can't afford as usual. The poor will most definitely pay the least because they have less to spend and they will find other methods of gaining goods and services away from mainstream economic markets such as farming, trade, etc. (the middle class will start doing this as well)

Plus, this method will 'tax' all those who escape the income tax whether it be drug dealers, side job specialist who don't turn their income in to be tax, etc., etc. This list goes on and on.

If you apply the same percentage of tax to sales how can this "widen the wealth gap"?

Not everybody spends the same percentage of their income on taxable goods. Somebody living paycheck to paycheck is going to spend nearly all of their income on various things whereas somebody that makes a lot of money is going to invest it (tax free) or save it (tax free). You'd essentially be taxing 100% of the lower class's income and not 100% of the upper class's income.

This also wouldn't tax drug dealers, etc. You think a drug dealer is going to charge sales tax on a dimebag?

No I don't think a drug dealer is going to tax his drug. but the drug dealer will have to pay tax on his food, his new ride, his new TV and any other good or service they purchase. As always there are ways around paying your fair share of tax if you really want to dodge it but a sales tax makes the playing field more even than it is now.

The rich will still buy extravagant goods and services and they will pay a lot of tax aside from smart (tax free) investments.

Plus, if we cut out the income tax, the savings to the amount of payroll for government workers in the IRS would be astounding. Tax laws now revolve around who has the best accountants and tax lawyers to figure out the code and loopholes. Middle class and poor tax payers usually get the short end of the stick on this deal.

We still need a system that rewards those who work hard and are innovative. I don't get behind the shtick of the 99% movement. If 99% of Americans want what the 1% of Americans have, they have every opportunity to go out and make it just like the 1%.

Fair enough on drug dealers, etc. But, it still would be taxing 100% of lower class income and a small percentage of upper class income. It would shift where the national budget gets its money toward the lower class.

[theohall]

Replacing income tax with a sales tax is an idea that sounds great because it impacts everybody "evenly," but wouldn't really work well. It just shifts the amount of taxes away from the upper class even more than it already does at the expense of the lower and middle class. It sounds good in theory, but would widen the wealth gap.

Not necessarily. Rich people tend to buy more expensive things - especially clothes, cars, luxury items, etc. that lower and middle class folks generally cannot afford. Result - they are paying 8% sales tax on those high end items and wind up paying more money into the system than the lower and middle class folks who aren't spending as much.

Using percentage of income is a massively flawed argument. Why should someone who has busted their ass to be uber-successful pay more taxes than someone who is choosing just to get by? The one guy worked hard to get what he has. The other didn't. Yet, the guy who worked really hard to earn it is supposed to pay the government for it to support those choosing not to try??

Flat taxes - in which ever way they would be implemented - eliminates this bias against those who earned what they have.

FYI - sales taxes work fine in Texas and Florida without any need for a state income tax. If it can work for a state, it can work for a country.

[The Flake]

Replacing income tax with a sales tax is an idea that sounds great because it impacts everybody "evenly," but wouldn't really work well. It just shifts the amount of taxes away from the upper class even more than it already does at the expense of the lower and middle class. It sounds good in theory, but would widen the wealth gap.

If there is a national sales tax of 10% lets say and you take this percentage vs. the total goods purchased by the rich, middle class and the poor, the rich will be paying way more taxes than the middle class and the poor. For starters, they spend more on a daily basis without a forethought as to 'how much' they are spending. The middle class will budget the same way and decide what they can and can't afford as usual. The poor will most definitely pay the least because they have less to spend and they will find other methods of gaining goods and services away from mainstream economic markets such as farming, trade, etc. (the middle class will start doing this as well)

Plus, this method will 'tax' all those who escape the income tax whether it be drug dealers, side job specialist who don't turn their income in to be tax, etc., etc. This list goes on and on.

If you apply the same percentage of tax to sales how can this "widen the wealth gap"?

Not everybody spends the same percentage of their income on taxable goods. Somebody living paycheck to paycheck is going to spend nearly all of their income on various things whereas somebody that makes a lot of money is going to invest it (tax free) or save it (tax free). You'd essentially be taxing 100% of the lower class's income and not 100% of the upper class's income.

This also wouldn't tax drug dealers, etc. You think a drug dealer is going to charge sales tax on a dimebag?

No I don't think a drug dealer is going to tax his drug. but the drug dealer will have to pay tax on his food, his new ride, his new TV and any other good or service they purchase. As always there are ways around paying your fair share of tax if you really want to dodge it but a sales tax makes the playing field more even than it is now.

The rich will still buy extravagant goods and services and they will pay a lot of tax aside from smart (tax free) investments.

Plus, if we cut out the income tax, the savings to the amount of payroll for government workers in the IRS would be astounding. Tax laws now revolve around who has the best accountants and tax lawyers to figure out the code and loopholes. Middle class and poor tax payers usually get the short end of the stick on this deal.

We still need a system that rewards those who work hard and are innovative. I don't get behind the shtick of the 99% movement. If 99% of Americans want what the 1% of Americans have, they have every opportunity to go out and make it just like the 1%.

Fair enough on drug dealers, etc. But, it still would be taxing 100% of lower class income and a small percentage of upper class income. It would shift where the national budget gets its money toward the lower class.

I still don't understand how the rich get out of paying taxes with this method and the middle class pays 100%. Please explain. With a flat sales tax, the percentage doesn't change and the rich spend more money. It would appear to me that the rich would still be paying the lions share (which they already do if you look at the numbers.) This method would capture all the lost tax by undocumented wage earners which has to be billions nationwide.

[cardsfan04]

I could be wrong about the impact it would have. It just seems to me that it would be taxing all of somebody's income that's already struggling as opposed to not all of somebody's income that doesn't struggle. I know it would still tax the rich moreso than the poor, but my assumption (and I'll admit it's an assumption, maybe I'm wrong) is that it lowers the amount that the rich pay and makes up for it by taxing the poor more. If that assumption is correct, it would widen the wealth gap. Maybe it's a poor assumption though.

I think it's a pretty massive oversimplification to say the rich just work harder than the poor though. Not saying that's not true in certain instances, but it's a pretty huge generalization.

[cardsfan04]

Forbes wrote an article about the expected impact of a Fair Tax.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/ ... -below-10/

It has this graphic that shows the expected impact for each quintile if a national sales tax were to replace an income tax. 80% of the country would have it's tax burden go up while the top 20% would have it's tax burden decrease. That's not going to help the middle class.

[glen a richter]

I would be in favor of a VAT, but it's not particularly likely to ever happen.

As far as the tax burden goes, the highest tax rate in this country, once upon a time, was 92%. President Eisenhower faced steep criticism from many other politicians because he dared to want to lower the tax rate to 91%. Now businesses find every which way around their tax responsibilities. Big money is getting bigger, the middle class is disappearing, I mean for crissake how much money does a CEO need? They're not the drivers of the economy, the middle class is. If we don't have money because the rich are pocketing it all instead of using it to create jobs, how can we survive as a country? And I don't even want to hear that lower taxes on businesses increases employment. That's a load of garbage and everyone knows it, but no one wants to admit it.

Here's what I want to see. I want to see a small business owner walk outside their store, find a homeless guy, buy him a hot meal, a suit, get him a shave, a haircut and give him a job. There's an old joke that Republicans circulate about the girl who wanted to help the homeless man, so her dad told her to do some work and give him half the money... you know the joke. Here's the real joke: How many business owners out there will even give the time of day to a homeless guy? I'm not saying all the time, but there are plenty of homeless people who are homeless because of circumstances related to bad luck, horrible fortune or whatever. They're not always homeless because they were crack addicts. But regardless of how they got where they are, I'd bet 99.999% of businesses wouldn't even consider for a split second hiring one of these people. That's socially what's wrong with this country. We, as a society, care about the almighty dollar. We boldly say "work hard and you'll get rewarded", and hey so did the nazis at Auschwitz! Yes, people should work hard. Yes, people should be productive members of society rather than leeches. Yes, welfare is an inherently broken system that needs to be reformed, not destroyed. But also yes, not everyone is equally employable in a society that is so hostile, whether passively or actively, towards anyone who is different from everyone else. Don't attack the homeless man and blame him for his plight. Help him up, help him get back on his feet. If need be, get him to abuser anonymous meetings, be a benefit to society. Don't shove all the money in your pockets like a scrooge and then complain about unemployment, homelessness, crime, etc... be part of the solution. Corporations have been given an altogether wildly leg up by having such low tax rates and so many ways to work around them, use that money to be socially responsible. If not, then go back to the tax rates from the 1950's and 1960's.

[The Flake]

I would be in favor of a VAT, but it's not particularly likely to ever happen.

As far as the tax burden goes, the highest tax rate in this country, once upon a time, was 92%. President Eisenhower faced steep criticism from many other politicians because he dared to want to lower the tax rate to 91%. Now businesses find every which way around their tax responsibilities. Big money is getting bigger, the middle class is disappearing, I mean for crissake how much money does a CEO need? They're not the drivers of the economy, the middle class is. If we don't have money because the rich are pocketing it all instead of using it to create jobs, how can we survive as a country? And I don't even want to hear that lower taxes on businesses increases employment. That's a load of garbage and everyone knows it, but no one wants to admit it.

Here's what I want to see. I want to see a small business owner walk outside their store, find a homeless guy, buy him a hot meal, a suit, get him a shave, a haircut and give him a job. There's an old joke that Republicans circulate about the girl who wanted to help the homeless man, so her dad told her to do some work and give him half the money... you know the joke. Here's the real joke: How many business owners out there will even give the time of day to a homeless guy? I'm not saying all the time, but there are plenty of homeless people who are homeless because of circumstances related to bad luck, horrible fortune or whatever. They're not always homeless because they were crack addicts. But regardless of how they got where they are, I'd bet 99.999% of businesses wouldn't even consider for a split second hiring one of these people. That's socially what's wrong with this country. We, as a society, care about the almighty dollar. We boldly say "work hard and you'll get rewarded", and hey so did the nazis at Auschwitz! Yes, people should work hard. Yes, people should be productive members of society rather than leeches. Yes, welfare is an inherently broken system that needs to be reformed, not destroyed. But also yes, not everyone is equally employable in a society that is so hostile, whether passively or actively, towards anyone who is different from everyone else. Don't attack the homeless man and blame him for his plight. Help him up, help him get back on his feet. If need be, get him to abuser anonymous meetings, be a benefit to society. Don't shove all the money in your pockets like a scrooge and then complain about unemployment, homelessness, crime, etc... be part of the solution. Corporations have been given an altogether wildly leg up by having such low tax rates and so many ways to work around them, use that money to be socially responsible. If not, then go back to the tax rates from the 1950's and 1960's.

And this is what I like about Kasich as a candidate for President. He understands the balance of economic freedom and social responsibility. It is all of our responsibility to give those around us a hand up and show charity. This is the exact reason why my wife and I are so active in our church. They have a heart for the community. You can see charity / love being extended to those who attend church with you and others in the community that need real help....a hand up.

That being said, I am a small business owner in Ohio. Higher taxes and letting the government dole out charity from an unseen hand is what has proliferated system abuse. I want to be active in the charity that my labor thru God is capable of generating. Great things happen then!! People realize real joy when giving of themselves to help others much like the joy and freedom of practicing Christianity.

Also, there are tons of programs in my local tri-state community that house the homeless, feed the hungry, cloth those who need it, programs that help people acquire jobs (both in training and physical appearance). Some are funded by the government and some are funded by the church. I would assume my area is not any different than the rest of the nation.