2016 US Presidential Election Thread

[SleepyKrew]

Don't praise willful ignorance.

[Kublai Khan]

I wouldn't have a problem at 35% for the rich, but not 50%. People deserve to keep some of their income.

Are you in favor of rolling back the tax rate back to 1950 levels?

[T S O]

Can I just say, major respect to MM576 for talking coolly and calmly. I'm of the leftward inclination, but I still respect how you're standing up for your views despite strong opposition.

I agree with this a lot.

[Psyche]

me too!

[MonkeyMan576]

I wouldn't have a problem at 35% for the rich, but not 50%. People deserve to keep some of their income.

Are you in favor of rolling back the tax rate back to 1950 levels?

It would depend on what those are.

[zoraster]

Basically no one pays even 35% much less 50. (On their overall income)

[MonkeyMan576]

So, apparently 20% of ESPN employees registered on Ashley Madison are female. If this is indicitive of the site as a whole, the female users must really get around, or there must be a lot of empty handed male users.

[zoraster]

What???

[MonkeyMan576]

http://www.businessinsider.com/100-espn ... son-2015-8

[Yosarian2]

So, apparently 20% of ESPN employees registered on Ashley Madison are female. If this is indicitive of the site as a whole, the female users must really get around, or there must be a lot of empty handed male users.

Actually, it's a lot worse then that, even. Most of the female accounts are either faked, or else they never used the site at all.

If you look at active users, people who checked their messages, it's about 20 million men, and only about 1400 women. That's it.

The whole thing was a scam. It was mostly just pathetic guys spending a lot of money to send messages to women who either weren't there at all, didn't exist, or in some cases might have been Ashly Madison employees leading them on to keep them spending money. There were basically no real female users there at all, at least not enough to matter.

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-w ... 1725558944

[Psyche]

a lot of empty handed male users

though their hands are probably not very empty if you know what i mean

[Kublai Khan]

I wouldn't have a problem at 35% for the rich, but not 50%. People deserve to keep some of their income.

Are you in favor of rolling back the tax rate back to 1950 levels?

It would depend on what those are.

A little over 90%. It's important to understand that after a war (WWII), income tax on the rich watypically raised to high levels to pay off all debts incurred. The rate was dropped to about 70% during the early 60s when everything was pretty copacetic. When Reagan took office, he slashed it down to about 29% under the theory that the savings would be passed down to the poor (they weren't). They went back up to 40% under Clinton, then dropped to 35% under Walker Bush and raised back up to 40% under Obama. Statistically, the Obama tax increase was pretty insignificant.

Most of our debt is due to the 15 year (and ongoing) war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and on-going War on Terror). Raising the tax of the poor to the levels of the tax on the rich (the "flat tax") only results in the poor being fleeced and driven into further poverty.

[MonkeyMan576]

I would say 35% is about right.

[MonkeyMan576]

Well, men spend their money on stupid things all the time. *shrug*

[Kublai Khan]

I would say 35% is about right.

Finish this sentence: "I don't feel like we should pay for our recent and on-going wars because...."

[MonkeyMan576]

It's based on faulty information anyway and both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are dead.

[Kublai Khan]

It's based on faulty information anyway and both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are dead.

I didn't ask if you personally agreed with the war.

The war happened (and is still happening) regardless of your personal feelings. Money was borrowed to pay for that war.

The US can't just ignore the financial obligations because of buyer's remorse. You can't just propose a flat tax and force the poor to pay for that war.

[sthar8]

So, apparently 20% of ESPN employees registered on Ashley Madison are female. If this is indicitive of the site as a whole, the female users must really get around, or there must be a lot of empty handed male users.

Actually, it's a lot worse then that, even. Most of the female accounts are either faked, or else they never used the site at all.

If you look at active users, people who checked their messages, it's about 20 million men, and only about 1400 women. That's it.

The whole thing was a scam. It was mostly just pathetic guys spending a lot of money to send messages to women who either weren't there at all, didn't exist, or in some cases might have been Ashly Madison employees leading them on to keep them spending money. There were basically no real female users there at all, at least not enough to matter.

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-w ... 1725558944

There was a lawsuit at one point from an employee alleging that she developed a repetitive stress injury from creating fake female profiles.

[MonkeyMan576]

It's based on faulty information anyway and both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are dead.

I didn't ask if you personally agreed with the war.

The war happened (and is still happening) regardless of your personal feelings. Money was borrowed to pay for that war.

The US can't just ignore the financial obligations because of buyer's remorse. You can't just propose a flat tax and force the poor to pay for that war.

That doesn't mean we can't be financially responsible.

[shaft.ed]

You can't just propose a flat tax and force the poor to pay for that war.

actually wouldnt work because the poor dont have enough money to pay for it anyway

[Sudo_Nym]

It's based on faulty information anyway and both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are dead.

I didn't ask if you personally agreed with the war.

The war happened (and is still happening) regardless of your personal feelings. Money was borrowed to pay for that war.

The US can't just ignore the financial obligations because of buyer's remorse. You can't just propose a flat tax and force the poor to pay for that war.

That doesn't mean we can't be financially responsible.

And being financially responsible involves paying back loans, right?

[inte]

It depends on your definition of "hurt". Obviously 30% of a $30K income is going to be felt more than 30% of a 100K income. But at what point of a progressive tax do you say enough is enough?

would you be for a consumption tax?

food is untaxed, income is untaxed, but all purchases deemed to not be essential to basic quality of life deal with a 40% flat tax

i'm trying to determine if you're being idealistic or boneheaded

[zoraster]

I don't think what he said is facially unreasonable. Maybe you're reading into it more than is there?

[inte]

I don't think what he said is facially unreasonable. Maybe you're reading into it more than is there?

not unreasonable, but very shortsighted. flat tax benefits only those who are already benefiting from our system.

i'm saying hes severely underestimating how much it would affect the person making 30k. there are minimums that it take to give yourself an

opportunity

to improve your situation in america (a steady home, internet, reliable transportation) and

30% of 30k turns out to be 800 for a bi-weekly paycheck.
30% of 100k turns out to be 2700 for a bi-weekly paycheck.

how about i shoot out my expenses for what i believe to be a fairly frugal person

rent + utilities (gas, water, electric, internet, sewage, etc.) come out to be around $700 a month. from my understanding this is on the low end in my area
gas for an average commute $80/mo (old toyota camry)
food - $120/mo (possible to cut this down a bit, but why the fuck would you cut out nutrition?)
insurance - $70/mo (paid every 6 months, but averaged out)

these are all

basic

necessities that i require to keep earning what I do. if you live somewhere where you can bike to work and save $150/mo, good for you but the majority of people are not that fortunate.

for someone pulling only 1600/mo, this seizes up 60% of my income.
for someone earning 5400/mo, this seizes up 18% of my income

car broke down, $400 to fix one month?

for a person earning 30k, this turns into 85% of the month's expenses.
for a person earning 100k, this turn into 25% of the monthly expenses.

this doesn't even consider other basic necessities that are less apparent such as saving for retirement or medical insurance or saving for a big expense such as a bed or car

i'm not saying that people who have more wealth aren't entitled to enjoy it. i've only said that the base minimums it takes to live a productive life would be prohibitive for the majority of people. no matter what you use for the flat tax rate, it only benefits those who are already extremely fortunate in their wealth

[zoraster]

oh, well you quoted a part of his stuff that didn't even mention flat taxes. In fact, the statement quoted implies he kind of does believe in progressive taxes... just not too progressive.