My Vote is for sale!

[BmorePat87]

(08-10-2016, 06:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 23% national sales tax while eliminating the IRS. (May 2012)
Get rid of income tax and capital-gains tax. (Feb 2012)

Wow. That sounds like a massive tax break to the super rich. And a tax increase that the lower and middle class would be paying for.

(08-10-2016, 06:40 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Noticed you left this one out...


Essentially it would be a tax break for everyone. Well unless you don't pay income tax.

Though in reality it'll come down to whatever Congress wants to do. This is why I tend to focus more on policy that POTUS has a direct involvement in. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-10-2016, 07:44 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: "A little more" 

Let's use your example of a jet. A low end private jet costs about 4 million dollars. (http://www.privatejetcosts.net) 

4 million means this fictional evil 1%'er will be paying $920,000 alone in taxes on that jet. 

Now let's say Joe is buying a new car for $15,000. His price just went up $3,450 because of this huge tax cut for the rich. 

If you're bad with your money and buy a lot of pointless things, sure you'll end up paying a lot in taxes. I would hope most middle class Americans aren't spending 100% of their income each year.  

Let's do another example: Joe and his wife make $100,000 a year, so when they file their taxes currently their income is taxed at 25%. That's $25,000 in income taxes alone (ignoring deductions for the sake of time and simplicity). Let's say they spend all $75,000 they have left. If they made and spent that same amount under the Fairtax plan they'd pay $17,250 in taxes, or $7,750 less in taxes then they currently do. 

For simplicity if they file jointly there is a $12,600 standard deduction... Ill let you do the math.

If the average Joe buys a new car at the real average cost of over $33,000 that $7,000+ cost increase seems kinda crazy. Especially if you dont get a 0% interest rate.


No income tax and no capital gains tax is like a millionaire or billionaires dream. 

[Aquapod770]

(08-10-2016, 08:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: For simplicity if they file jointly there is a $12,600 standard deduction... Ill let you do the math.

If the average Joe buys a new car at the real average cost of over $33,000 that $7,000+ cost increase seems kinda crazy. Especially if you dont get a 0% interest rate.


No income tax and no capital gains tax is like a millionaire or billionaires dream. 

A $12,600 deduction would decrease Joe' taxes by $3,150. He'd still be paying more than he would under Johnsons plan. 

P.s. math is awesome 

[NATI BENGALS]

In your scenario do you think $75,000 gets you the same amount of goods/services when there is a 23% tax compared to the tax on goods/services now?
I dont know what qualifies. If food goes from no tax to 23%. Aside from the top 10% getting 90%+ of the wealth tax free and investing freely with no tax consequences the food thing would really be the rapage of the middle class.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-10-2016, 04:18 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Taxes


SS, Welfare


As far as the socially liberal...

In light of this information, I will definitely look more into him and his policies.

[Rotobeast]

(08-11-2016, 11:32 AM)PhilHos Wrote: In light of this information, I will definitely look more into him and his policies.

At first, there were a few things that I didn't agree with, but I stood back and thought about the cost saving measures with his plans.
(ie: make immigration easier Vs build wall/deport illegals)


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*PhilHos*]

Another question that I'm having to consider, would it be worth it to vote 3rd party even if it meant a Hillary presidency?

I know that's what a couple of you actually want and I'm not exactly in favor of a Trump presidency, but I'm finding myself worried that she might win and what it'll mean for America. How do you 3rd party guys do it? Besides recognizing that the President doesn't have as much power and authority as we all seem to think, but I don't know if that will be enough for me come Election Day.

[Belsnickel]

(08-11-2016, 12:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Another question that I'm having to consider, would it be worth it to vote 3rd party even if it meant a Hillary presidency?

I know that's what a couple of you actually want and I'm not exactly in favor of a Trump presidency, but I'm finding myself worried that she might win and what it'll mean for America. How do you 3rd party guys do it? Besides recognizing that the President doesn't have as much power and authority as we all seem to think, but I don't know if that will be enough for me come Election Day.

That's really what it amounts to for me. Recognition of checks and balances. Even on the whole issue of the SCOTUS, Senate still have to approve that. I said before in another thread where someone said they probably wouldn't vote that you really need to. Yes, our choices for POTUS are crap, but 33% of the Senate and 100% of the House seats are being voted on as well, and that is how we stop the crazy.

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2016, 12:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Another question that I'm having to consider, would it be worth it to vote 3rd party even if it meant a Hillary presidency?

I know that's what a couple of you actually want and I'm not exactly in favor of a Trump presidency, but I'm finding myself worried that she might win and what it'll mean for America. How do you 3rd party guys do it? Besides recognizing that the President doesn't have as much power and authority as we all seem to think, but I don't know if that will be enough for me come Election Day.

I think the justification for the Anti Trump Republicans is that 4 years of Trump will damage the party in local, state, and congressional elections and potentially lead to 8 more years of a Democrat in 2020.

Better to give Hillary 4 years now, attack her as a failure, and have 8 years in 2020.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-11-2016, 12:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think the justification for the Anti Trump Republicans is that 4 years of Trump will damage the party in local, state, and congressional elections and potentially lead to 8 more years of a Democrat in 2020.

Better to give Hillary 4 years now, attack her as a failure, and have 8 years in 2020.  

That's what I have seen from a lot of Republicans as well.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-11-2016, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's really what it amounts to for me. Recognition of checks and balances. Even on the whole issue of the SCOTUS, Senate still have to approve that. I said before in another thread where someone said they probably wouldn't vote that you really need to. Yes, our choices for POTUS are crap, but 33% of the Senate and 100% of the House seats are being voted on as well, and that is how we stop the crazy.

And stopping the "crazy" is what it's all about for me in this election.

[Rotobeast]

(08-11-2016, 12:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Another question that I'm having to consider, would it be worth it to vote 3rd party even if it meant a Hillary presidency?

I know that's what a couple of you actually want and I'm not exactly in favor of a Trump presidency, but I'm finding myself worried that she might win and what it'll mean for America. How do you 3rd party guys do it? Besides recognizing that the President doesn't have as much power and authority as we all seem to think, but I don't know if that will be enough for me come Election Day.

You could always track the polling numbers, closely.
If there didn't seem like a reasonable chance of your choice winning, you could switch to whoever would have the best chance at beating Hilldog.
I'm not sure how dirty you would feel, but it's an option.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2016, 12:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's what I have seen from a lot of Republicans as well.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/republicans-urge-rnc-cut-funds-trump-226918

“We believe that Donald Trump’s divisiveness, recklessness, incompetence, and record-breaking unpopularity risk turning this election into a Democratic landslide, and only the immediate shift of all available RNC resources to vulnerable Senate and House races will prevent the GOP from drowning with a Trump-emblazoned anchor around its neck. This should not be a difficult decision, as Donald Trump’s chances of being elected president are evaporating by the day.”


Vulnerable Republicans in Congress are worried Trump will ruin their reelection chances.

[*Nately120*]

(08-11-2016, 12:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Better to give Hillary 4 years now, attack her as a failure, and have 8 years in 2020.  

Ehh, if 8 years of calling Obama a giant failure at best and an outright antichrist dictator at worst didn't roll out the red carpet for a Republican in 2016 I don't see what 4 years of calling Clinton a failure will do.

I can relate to the notion of "giving 4 years" because I keep telling people who warn me that voting for Johnson will put the person he/she FEARS in office is worth it if it actually alters the political landscape.

[Benton]

(08-11-2016, 12:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Another question that I'm having to consider, would it be worth it to vote 3rd party even if it meant a Hillary presidency?

I know that's what a couple of you actually want and I'm not exactly in favor of a Trump presidency, but I'm finding myself worried that she might win and what it'll mean for America. How do you 3rd party guys do it? Besides recognizing that the President doesn't have as much power and authority as we all seem to think, but I don't know if that will be enough for me come Election Day.

the system in place has been for decades. Its not going anywhere regardless of who sits in the oval office. So there's some solace there.

but the big thing for me is: Vote for the current parties and things stay the same indefinitely. Vote third party one or two elections and maybe (hopefully) enough people follow suit that you get 4-8 years of crapy leadership, but you fox the system for decades.

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2016, 01:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Not really, but I was hoping to get your attention (though, if you pay me enough, I'll vote for whomever you want me to vote, even Hillary Clinton).

Anyway, right now, my plan is to vote for Donald Trump. Not because I like him or think he'll do the best job for president, but rather because with my vote for Trump, I'm sending a message to Washington that I'm fed up with the current state of politics here in America. Now, I recognize that if Trump wins, that may not be the message that is received, but my expectations are that no matter who wins, things will pretty much stay the same.

With that said, I would really rather have my vote go to someone I favor instead of just sending a message. So, with that said, I want you to convince me to vote for a 3rd party candidate. I don't care if they have a chance at winning. Just convince me, a conservative Republican not in favor of Trump, that [fill in the blank] would be a good choice.

Please don't tell me not to vote for Trump and why, because the whole point of this thread is that I want to vote FOR someone. The last time I voted FOR someone and not against someone was when I voted for George W. Bush.

So, have at it.

Your logic fails.

The worst way to send the message that you are fed up with the current state of politics in Washington is to vote for either of the two major parties.

Voting for the same party you always vote for does not send any message at all escept that you will vote Republican no matter how crazy their candidate is.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2016, 11:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Your logic fails.

The worst way to send the message that you are fed up with the current state of politics in Washington is to vote for either of the two major parties.

Voting for the same party you always vote for does not send any message at all escept that you will vote Republican no matter how crazy their candidate is.

My logic doesn't fail because Trump may TECHNICALLY be the Republican candidate, but, IMO, the GOP and RNC are basically doing what they can to not get him elected. In other words, Trump may be the Republican candidate, but the Republican leadership doesn't seem to be supporting him the way that they should.

In any event, because of the great liberal state of Connecticut, my only option currently is to vote either Hillary or Donald. If this is the case come election day, then my vote for Donald will simply be a vote AGAINST Hillary and not to send any message, because I'm really starting to lean heavily towards a 3rd party candidate.

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2016, 07:44 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Let's do another example: Joe and his wife make $100,000 a year, so when they file their taxes currently their income is taxed at 25%. That's $25,000 in income taxes alone (ignoring deductions for the sake of time and simplicity). Let's say they spend all $75,000 they have left. If they made and spent that same amount under the Fairtax plan they'd pay $17,250 in taxes, or $7,750 less in taxes then they currently do. 

But the 23% is "inclusive".  So if they spend 75K they only get 57.75K worth of goods.

A 23% income tax means you pay 23 cents on every dollar you earn, but this 23% consumption tax means you actually pay 30 cents of tax on every dollar worth of goods you buy.  It is a shell game they use to trick the lesser educated into supporting this scam.


if it is really is a "fair tax" then why not apply it to homes and real estate?  I'll tell you why.  Because those are the largest expenses for the wealthy and it gives them a HUGE advantage over the poor and middle class.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 12:07 PM)PhilHos Wrote: My logic doesn't fail because Trump may TECHNICALLY be the Republican candidate, but, IMO, the GOP and RNC are basically doing what they can to not get him elected. In other words, Trump may be the Republican candidate, but the Republican leadership doesn't seem to be supporting him the way that they should.

In any event, because of the great liberal state of Connecticut, my only option currently is to vote either Hillary or Donald. If this is the case come election day, then my vote for Donald will simply be a vote AGAINST Hillary and not to send any message, because I'm really starting to lean heavily towards a 3rd party candidate.

So you always vote Republican, but you think you will send a message by doing the exact same thing this year?

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2016, 07:44 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: If you're bad with your money and buy a lot of pointless things, sure you'll end up paying a lot in taxes. I would hope most middle class Americans aren't spending 100% of their income each year.  

being "bad with money" has nothing to do with the amount of money the middle class have to spend on investments.  The fact is that the wealthy elite have a MUCH greater amount of income devoted to homes, real estate, and investments than the middle and lower classes.

The wealthy elite have been taking a bigger and bigger portion of the wealth and income in the United States for the last three decades and this "fair tax" will just increase the benefits they already have.

It is the most "unfair" tax system that anyone could devise.