Tax Plans

[scottmcneal]

You just have to know how to pick a subject that most of us can relate to.


Jeeps, booze, women, jeeps, mud,rocks, jeeps.. I think thats all

 

[buschwhaked]

I just think that it's funny that when faced with something slightly complicated requiring a rational approach versus a gutteral emotional approach, all the Republican's on this forum don't have a bunch of quips to throw out.

EDIT: Nevermind, spoke too soon (see below)

 

[Tom R.]

I think it would be worthwhile to read more of that report. If you're just looking at proposed tax rates at each income bracket, then you're not fully comprehending the plans and the implications. There are concerns with each proposal.

Both plans have severe flaws according to the Urban and Brookings Insitute. When it comes to individual income tax rates, Obama's plan is progressive while McCain's is regressive. Obama wants to increase the tax percentage for the top income bracket, while McCain wants to reduce the tax. Tax relief at the low end of income is greater with Obama's plan, while McCain's provides only marginal relief.

Obama's plan also increases the complexity of the tax code and adds undue burden on both the IRS and the Social Security Administration (bigger government). His plan also targets certain groups, whereas McCains is more uniform (across the board).

I think it's safe to say that for most people who don't earn enough money to be in the top income bracket, a tax break is usually welcomed. However, if you truly look at it from a fairness stand-point, reducing the tax for the top income earners makes sense. After all, these people pay significantly more in taxes than the vast majority of tax payers. Right now it doesn't affect me either way, so this isn't driven by any bias.

I agree with RichP. My overall impression is that neither candidate is stepping up to fix the tax code. Instead, each is adding to a broken system. I also can't help but think Obama and McCain are using their proposals to appeal to certain voter groups. Not like that's every happened.

By the way, I searched for information (dirt or otherwise) on Urban and Brookings Insitute and it seems they do a pretty job of staying politically neutral.

 

[TRNDRVR]

[buschwhaked bangs head on wall]:sure:[/buschwhaked]

 

[buschwhaked]

I think it would be worthwhile to read more of that report. If you're just looking at proposed tax rates at each income bracket, then you're not fully comprehending the plans and the implications. There are concerns with each proposal.

Both plans have severe flaws according to the Urban and Brookings Insitute. When it comes to individual income tax rates, Obama's plan is progressive while McCain's is regressive. Obama wants to increase the tax percentage for the top income bracket, while McCain wants to reduce the tax. Tax relief at the low end of income is greater with Obama's plan, while McCain's provides only marginal relief.

Obama's plan also increases the complexity of the tax code and adds undue burden on both the IRS and the Social Security Administration (bigger government). His plan also targets certain groups, whereas McCains is more uniform (across the board).

I think it's safe to say that for most people who don't earn enough money to be in the top income bracket, a tax break is usually welcomed. However, if you truly look at it from a fairness stand-point, reducing the tax for the top income earners makes sense. After all, these people pay significantly more in taxes than the vast majority of tax payers. Right now it doesn't affect me either way, so this isn't driven by any bias.

I agree with RichP. My overall impression is that neither candidate is stepping up to fix the tax code. Instead, each is adding to a broken system. I also can't help but think Obama and McCain are using their proposals to appeal to certain voter groups. Not like that's every happened.

By the way, I searched for information (dirt or otherwise) on Urban and Brookings Insitute and it seems they do a pretty job of staying politically neutral.

I did go back and read about half of it in depth and skimmed the rest. I also think it's funny how, for both candidates, they stated that some of the stump speach policies are truly impractical and oversimplified to the point of nonsensical so they didn't take it into account for the study. Or, they adjusted it to a more realistic approach.

I really just wish that we could see a realistic approach to a campaign. One not dicated by 30 second adds or clever one liners in debates ("funny numbers?"). Somehow, I would like to see them both challenged by experts in the various fields (economic, foreign, and social policy). Ahh, but what am I smoking...

 

[Darky]

I just think that it's funny that when faced with something slightly complicated requiring a rational approach versus a gutteral emotional approach, all the Republican's on this forum don't have a bunch of quips to throw out.

EDIT: Nevermind, spoke too soon (see below)

Notice how no democrats have chimed in with any answers either...


If you're going to point out "shortcomings" be fair and point out both sides.
I think right now people are just tired of all this. Its an internet forum where we come to hang out, there's been too much crap lately, and that's all any of this is, conservative or democrat. Any "debate" goes to non-sense. And then you start one specifying that you want to people to remain civil, whaddya expect? We're all a bunch of low life degenerates, think we're gonna carry on a logical debate, especially on something like the tax system (which not even the IRS understands most likely)? Come on be real.

 

[Tom R.]

I did go back and read about half of it in depth and skimmed the rest. I also think it's funny how, for both candidates, they stated that some of the stump speach policies are truly impractical and oversimplified to the point of nonsensical so they didn't take it into account for the study. Or, they adjusted it to a more realistic approach.

Yes, I caught that, too. I understand there are many, many issues to talk about while campaigning, but they shouldn't put just anything on the table until they've actually developed a solid plan.

I really just wish that we could see a realistic approach to a campaign. One not dicated by 30 second adds or clever one liners in debates ("funny numbers?"). Somehow, I would like to see them both challenged by experts in the various fields (economic, foreign, and social policy). Ahh, but what am I smoking...

Agreed, but sadly, it will likely never happen.

Hehe...I'd like to see that approach taken here at during officer and BOD elections.

 

[red91]

Notice how no democrats have chimed in with any answers either...


If you're going to point out "shortcomings" be fair and point out both sides.
I think right now people are just tired of all this. Its an internet forum where we come to hang out, there's been too much crap lately, and that's all any of this is, conservative or democrat. Any "debate" goes to non-sense. And then you start one specifying that you want to people to remain civil, whaddya expect? We're all a bunch of low life degenerates, think we're gonna carry on a logical debate, especially on something like the tax system (which not even the IRS understands most likely)? Come on be real.

This happens every fall around here.

We should all just down a couple of vicodin, hit the bong once or twice, and swill alcohol until we all pass out.

Just a thought.


I know that worked in Moab for more than a couple of members


we should just concentrate on the "important" things in life...

 

[TRNDRVR]

Work....Work.....Work.....Work....Work....Hello there!!!!

 

[buschwhaked]

Notice how no democrats have chimed in with any answers either...


If you're going to point out "shortcomings" be fair and point out both sides.
I think right now people are just tired of all this. Its an internet forum where we come to hang out, there's been too much crap lately, and that's all any of this is, conservative or democrat. Any "debate" goes to non-sense. And then you start one specifying that you want to people to remain civil, whaddya expect? We're all a bunch of low life degenerates, think we're gonna carry on a logical debate, especially on something like the tax system (which not even the IRS understands most likely)? Come on be real.

Yeah, I thought about that as well. And I think I'm one of the few Dem's here that tries to avoid posting just random crap in the other debates, so the others chiming in wouldn't really facilitate my goal here. But you're right, there has been a lot of crap here lately. If nothing else, it's an enlightening read and could facilitate some people making a more informed decision come November.

Can't fault me for trying right?

 

[Darky]

Can't fault me for trying right?

Sure I can!!


But it wouldn't make much sense if I did

 

[scottmcneal]

Work....Work.....Work.....Work....Work....Hello there!!!!

Now, that is the greatest movie made... The old lady in the street was funny as hell at the jail window...Chit got to get the movie out now... OK almost, but dam it is funny:yelclap:

 

[TRNDRVR]

Now, that is the greatest movie made... The old lady in the street was funny as hell at the jail window...Chit got to get the movie out now... OK almost, but dam it is funny:yelclap:

Now I'll give up my age saying I remember when it came out. I saw it at the Fashion Square Mall (Beach Blvd and Imperial Hwy) way back in the early 70's.

72? 74? I don't exactly remember when.

Think that movie would be 'PC' by today's standards? :dunno:

 

[tbburg]

Think that movie would be 'PC' by today's standards? :dunno:

Float that script around Hollywood today, and you'd be blackballed by the entire industry. 'Never work in movies again.


All of Mel Brooks work is great.






I'm tired,... Sick and tired of love,...

 

[5-90]

"Boris, I've got a special for you!"

"Get a letter?"
"I don't know - it's addressed to the 'Deputy Spade'."

"Are we awake?"
"We're not sure. Are we... black?"
"Yes, we are."
"Then we're awake. But very puzzled."
"Need any help?"
"Oh, all I can get."

Mel Brooks FTW. I like to think he's got one "in the can" somewhere along the vein of "Mel Brooks' Last Laugh", to be released after he finally does shuffle off. Oh, I do hope so - just to get all the touchy-feely lunatic fringe cranked up one last time...

Back to the original subject - the essential problem is the tax code itself. It's so damned Byzantine that you can't get a straight answer out of the IRS, the organisation is arranged like a bunch of stovepipes, and they're too damned Draconian for their own good. Here's my answer:

Eliminate the "Income Tax." Apparently, it was never properly ratified in the first place.

Implement either a "National Retail Sales Tax" of 5-7%, or a "Flat Income Tax" of 7-8%. All across the board - same tax bracket. No deductions, no credits, and no filling out those asinine forms every year. Period. (Do you know how thick the file copies of my tax returns for the last few years are? I haven't gotten to a foot thick yet, but it's getting there...)

Reduce the IRS - as a result of reduced workload - but some 75-90%.

The principal problem I see with most tax reform proposals (cf. www.fairtax.org) is that they're trying to be "revenue neutral." Which would be all well and good - but that means that we don't have to make cuts in government. We need to make cuts in government - and not just the IRS. Some departments can probably be eliminated outright, most can be reduced significantly, and I'd rather see money for retirement and retiree benefits going into military/police/fire than Congresscritters and other politicians (most of them are independently wealthy anyhow - and all of them get better retirement than someone who spend 30-40 years actually doing something to make this country better/safer/whatever.) I'm willing to bet money that Ted Kennedy, the Massachusetts Erection, didn't pay anything for his recent brain surgery - but my mom's new husband (retread Army/ANG, retarded 3YAD/25YRD/3ACT) is still getting clobbered with hospital bills and such from his recent kidney failure (PKD.) And, Daniel has done more for this country than Fat Ted has, I can tell you that without even looking at their records. But, since Daniel isn't sixty yet, his retirement hasn't kicked in, and they're still fighting with bills.

Fortunately, mum works in the medical field herself (CST/RN, working on BSN,) so she knows how to talk to these people and how things work, and she's been able to get a few things handled already.

Fortunately, Ted Kennedy is pretty much the last of the Kennedys in politics. The only one that was really worth a damn was JFK...

(You know why Maria Shriver married Arnold Schwarzenegger? They were trying to breed bulletproof Kennedys. I know - it's old. But, it still gets a chuckle out of me, and I keep thinking of it whenever I hear something about Ted the Whale...)

 

[Rob Mayercik]

I really just wish that we could see a realistic approach to a campaign. One not dicated by 30 second adds or clever one liners in debates ("funny numbers?"). Somehow, I would like to see them both challenged by experts in the various fields (economic, foreign, and social policy). Ahh, but what am I smoking...

I think what I'd wish for is for the two candidates (with no support staff) to be locked in a room for a debate with nothing but a table, three chairs, and a closed-circuit TV camera. No outside communications for either of them, until the debate is over

Wait - I said three chairs? yes, silly me, I forgot about that - the third one's for the moderator: 5-90.

I'd wager nearly everyone on this forum would pay real money to watch/listen to that one - I know I'd enjoy the heck out of it.

Rob

 

[RichP]

I think what I'd wish for is for the two candidates (with no support staff) to be locked in a room for a debate with nothing but a table, three chairs, and a closed-circuit TV camera. No outside communications for either of them, until the debate is over

Wait - I said three chairs? yes, silly me, I forgot about that - the third one's for the moderator: 5-90.

I'd wager nearly everyone on this forum would pay real money to watch/listen to that one - I know I'd enjoy the heck out of it.

Rob

You would need two additional people, armed with 2x4's standing behind both 'debators' to whack them when they started politicizing, at 5-90's direction of course

 

[karstic]

Now I'll give up my age saying I remember when it came out. I saw it at the Fashion Square Mall (Beach Blvd and Imperial Hwy) way back in the early 70's.

72? 74? I don't exactly remember when.

Think that movie would be 'PC' by today's standards? :dunno:

When's the last time you where at that intersection? Doubt you would recognize it.

Did you grow up in the area?

 

[5-90]

I think what I'd wish for is for the two candidates (with no support staff) to be locked in a room for a debate with nothing but a table, three chairs, and a closed-circuit TV camera. No outside communications for either of them, until the debate is over

Wait - I said three chairs? yes, silly me, I forgot about that - the third one's for the moderator: 5-90.

I'd wager nearly everyone on this forum would pay real money to watch/listen to that one - I know I'd enjoy the heck out of it.

Rob

Do I get a bit of dimension lumber and discretion to apply FM22-102/AFI22-102 at will? (I'm a big guy, I'm damn sure going to keep that stick. For those of you unfamiliar with FM22-102, Google it. Enjoy...)

 

[TRNDRVR]

When's the last time you where at that intersection?

Actually April of this year......

Doubt you would recognize it.

When I lived there, all the housing that's now on the hillside was oil wells and oil tanks. Knowing what use to be there, I'm not entirely sure I'd want to live in any of those neighborhoods.

Did you grow up in the area?

Little neighborhood at First and Lambert.

Haven't lived there since 1975.