Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

After a family get together with the in laws, where usually I sit through hours of Liberal-socialist-communist this or Reid-Nancy that. I got fed up and asked them this simple question. What would you have done differently.

1 The banks are failing, the Auto and housing industry is in collapse, the economy is in a complete nosedive, and credit+money are in danger of freezing up

What would you do,and don't say cut taxes be specific.

2.How would you handle the jobs issue (A)If your position is the government should stay out of the free market, should the government even do anything. (B) If the answer is taxes cuts for major companies , how, or would this help job growth, would you stop them from just pocketing the income, seeing as if they do pocket it the taxes cuts have done nothing to jump start hiring.

3. The answer to a lot of questions poised to the economic issues at hand is tax cuts, what if taxes witches don't work, whats the plan B.

4 How small and limited should government be? I hear smaller more limited government all the time. What is the official stance on the size of government?

5.How free should we be. Should people be free to dress act as they please within the law, or should they be free to integrate into the majority?

6 Do you agree with the Republican stance that this is a Christian country, does that conflict with freedom of religion?

7.Republicans were in power while this issue continued to build up, Mccain ran on a "I'm not like the other republicans" What exactly will republicans do differently now? Do you blame the senators who are still in congress for letting Bush tarnish the republicans so?

8. Who would you like to be President and why? Policy please not I like him/her.


Here is your chance to make your case without mentioning Democrats, just your policy ideas.



Edited for spellchecking, Auto spellcheck didn't work

Are we to believe that someone could convince to change sides?

No, not in this day and age, the lines have been drawns

I simply want to know what the other side would do, or will do once they regain power.

a gutless moderator wrote:
I have deleted this post anonymously because I don't want to put my name on my censorship.

There... fixed it for you.

inb4 flames.

Damn. I guess I meant after.

The Green Git wrote:Dear Lord, given the spelling and grammar above it's no wonder you're liberal. You should go slap your school teacher(s).

Green Git once again shows how classy h- wait, this isn't my line...

sexiest_hero wrote:After a family get together with the in laws, where usually I sit through hours of Liberal-socialist-communist this or Reid-Nancy that. I got fed up

Did it bug you when they compared President Bush to Hitler? Or called him a fascist? That bugged me, but its something you have to deal with. I don't like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, but I certainly don't think you should say such horrible things about people. But until people remember a thing called civility, you had better just calmly listen and let them rant.

sexiest_hero wrote:1 The banks are failing, the Auto and housing industry is in collapse, the economy is in a complete nosedive, and credit+money are in danger of freezing up

The collapse of the banking industry and the auto industry was largely overblown IMHO. Ford, Toyota, VW, Honda, etc. None of these companies took federal loans. GM and Chrysler did, they didn't pay them back, and they are still functioning. I personally would have been in favor of letting Chrysler collapse, and GM cut the fat. There is a reason we can't compete with Toyota and Honda, its called the United Auto Workers. Ford got smart to that a few years back and is starting to build plants in non-union territory and began a restructuring process 5 years ago. The banks were never in danger of complete collapse. The CEO of BofA stated after the fact that he should never have let his company take any federal loans, and that he didn't believe it was needed. Sure it helped out jittery investors, but it didn't really prop up the banking industry like the media said it would. I personally think that it only encouraged bad behavior because they saw that when things get risky, and the media starts screaming, "Collapse ZOMG!!!!!" the government will step in and promise them money.

sexiest_hero wrote:2.How would you handle the jobs issue (A)If your position is the government should stay out of the free market, should the government even do anything. (B) If the answer is taxes cuts for major companies , how, or would this help job growth, would you stop them from just pocketing the income, seeing as if they do pocket it the taxes cuts have done nothing to jump start hiring.

There is no way to jump start hiring, it isn't possible. America should lower its corporate income tax, its the highest in the Western world, but it should also push for stricter ethics requirements. I personally think that our economy can be run ethically, and if it had been done so, this might not have happened. Instead of worrying about what companies do with their profits, which is really none of our business, we should worry instead about their business practices and their manner of conducting their business. Predatory loans? Might not have happened if the government had been more concerned with the deception that went into these programs rather then nailing the companies for their profits.

sexiest_hero wrote:3. The answer to a lot of questions poised to the economic issues at hand is tax cuts, what if taxes witches don't work, whats the plan B.

What are "taxes witches"?

sexiest_hero wrote:4 How small and limited should government be? I hear smaller more limited government all the time. What is the official stance on the size of government?

That's a tough stance to take. What level of government are we talking about? Federal, state, local? To much of any is a bad thing, but to little is equally bad. Balance would be very, very nice.

sexiest_hero wrote:5.How free should we be. Should people be free to dress act as they please within the law, or should they be free to integrate into the majority?

Per the law, they should be able to do all those things as they please. What we have now though is a fundamental change in perceived social values and actual social values. The media says one thing, but the average Joe and Jane thinks another.

sexiest_hero wrote:6 Do you agree with the Republican stance that this is a Christian country, does that conflict with freedom of religion?

I don't really think that is a Republican stance. That is certainly not endorsed by the party to my knowledge. There are definitely individual politicians that say that, and a majority of the party base does, but I don't think you will ever find the party endorsing it as a single entity. Speaking in terms of demographics though, yes they are correct. The vast majority of this country claims to be Christian, but the government does not endorse or propagate any one faith. Its as simple as that.

sexiest_hero wrote:7.Republicans were in power while this issue continued to build up, Mccain ran on a "I'm not like the other republicans" What exactly will republicans do differently now? Do you blame the senators who are still in congress for letting Bush tarnish the republicans so?

Personally I blame Congressional Republicans for the publics view of the party over Pres. Bush. It doesn't help that the media hammered him everyday. I think he is a good man, and that he honestly tried to make this country safer and better. Sure he did stuff that I didn't agree with, and there is still stuff in place that I don't like, but Congress has the ultimate say on money and money decides what happens. But I have always viewed of Congress in a different light....

sexiest_hero wrote:8. Who would you like to be President and why? Policy please not I like him/her.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:3. The answer to a lot of questions poised to the economic issues at hand is tax cuts, what if taxes witches don't work, whats the plan B.

What are "taxes witches"?

Tax cuts + an accidental "n" + the word filter

Orkeosaurus wrote:Tax cuts + an accidental "n" + the word filter

Oh..OH! Oh my

Alternatively, they cast spells that ward off taxes.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alternatively, they cast spells that ward off taxes.

Yeah, but you know how high a level you have to be for that to work?

14 for "Magic Circle Against Taxation". By that point you're better off casting Bigby's Invisible Hand, or Power Word: Invest.

The Green Git wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote: <much atrocious typing snipped>
8. Who would you like to be Prisident and why? Policy please not I llike him/her.
Here is your chance to make your case withough mentioning Democrats, just your policy ideas.

Dear Lord, given the spelling and grammar above it's no wonder you're liberal. You should go slap your school teacher(s).

And you should get slapped by yours. Repeatedly. Until you aren't moving.

The collapse of the banking industry and the auto industry was largely overblown IMHO. Ford, Toyota, VW, Honda, etc.

Honda, VW, and Toyota were all foreign owned and not subject to federal bailout offers. Of the big three GW and Chrysler were in very real danger of defaulting (Chrysler did). Without aid GM may still be around (though it's unlikely they would without a large and impactful restructuring further effecting unemployment rates), but chrysler would not. As for the bank industry, if you think that was overblown you really need to pay better attention. It was bigger than the government and media liked to say (The government didn't want to tell it straight and the media has a hard time explaining difficult concepts to stupid people). Without government assistance to the banking industry the very real truth would have unemployment likely around 20% and still rising steadily as the American economy went into total collapse over a period of years.

The banks were never in danger of complete collapse.

Funny then that several did, and that nearly unanimously it's agreed that without federal intervention it would have snowballed into a industry wide collapse. The bad banks take the good ones with them.

ShumaGorath wrote: Our corporate tax is also high in name only, as their are numerous and widely used holes in the code that allow corporations to circumvent large portions of their tax burden.

The issue is that our current, effective corporate tax is still the 5th highest in the developed world; encouraging companies to report income abroad, and thereby reduce tax revenue. Its very likely that the government could generate more revenue by undercutting these offshore tax shelters; especially given that GAO estimates from 2008 reported that 68% of US corporation report no tax liability due to overseas income. There's also something to be said for simplifying the tax code in order to ease the creation of small businesses; at least insofar as that's a wonderful conservative MacGuffin.

Edit: That's to say nothing of foreign corporations that would be encouraged to report income in the United States.

Edit: I am attempting to limit my sarcasm...

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Our corporate tax is also high in name only, as their are numerous and widely used holes in the code that allow corporations to circumvent large portions of their tax burden.

The issue is that our current, effective corporate tax is still the 5th highest in the developed world; encouraging companies to report income abroad, and thereby reduce tax revenue. Its very likely that the government could generate more revenue by undercutting these offshore tax shelters; especially given that GAO estimates from 2008 reported that 68% of US corporation report no tax liability due to overseas income. There's also something to be said for simplifying the tax code in order to ease the creation of small businesses; at least insofar as that's a wonderful conservative MacGuffin.

Edit: That's to say nothing of foreign corporations that would be encouraged to report income in the United States.

What would be the effective result of lowering corporate taxes to the point of undercutting offshore tax shelters. Wouldn't it be easier to simplify the tax code and make such shelters less effective or legal as an alternative? If offshore shelters are so low, why would the companies cease doing as they currently do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Edit: I am attempting to limit my sarcasm...

Would you rather I post about tax witches?

ShumaGorath wrote:
What would be the effective result of lowering corporate taxes to the point of undercutting offshore tax shelters. Wouldn't it be easier to simplify the tax code and make such shelters less effective or legal as an alternative?
If offshore shelters are so low, why would the companies cease doing as they currently do?

The rates of other countries in which income is reported aren't that low, they're merely lower than ours. The GAO claim that 68% of corporations operating in the US claim zero liability relates only to the US tax code. They still pay taxes, just not here. Therefore the whole thing, from a standpoint of foreign reporting (essentially making payments to overseas subsidiaries in order to post zero total profits), can be resolved by encouraging the reporting of profits here through lower rates (somewhere between 5 and 15% would be fairly effective). That said, most corporations will still report zero total profits through the standard process of investment, but we want them to do that; particularly if they do it here.

sexiest_hero wrote:After a family get together with the in laws, where usually I sit through hours of Liberal-socialist-communist this or Reid-Nancy that. I got fed up and asked them this simple question. What would you have done differently.

1 The banks are failing, the Auto and housing industry is in collapse, the economy is in a complete nosedive, and credit+money are in danger of freezing up

What would you do,and don't say cut taxes be specific.

2.How would you handle the jobs issue (A)If your position is the government should stay out of the free market, should the government even do anything. (B) If the answer is taxes cuts for major companies , how, or would this help job growth, would you stop them from just pocketing the income, seeing as if they do pocket it the taxes cuts have done nothing to jump start hiring.

3. The answer to a lot of questions poised to the economic issues at hand is tax cuts, what if taxes witches don't work, whats the plan B.

4 How small and limited should government be? I hear smaller more limited government all the time. What is the official stance on the size of government?

5.How free should we be. Should people be free to dress act as they please within the law, or should they be free to integrate into the majority?

6 Do you agree with the Republican stance that this is a Christian country, does that conflict with freedom of religion?

7.Republicans were in power while this issue continued to build up, Mccain ran on a "I'm not like the other republicans" What exactly will republicans do differently now? Do you blame the senators who are still in congress for letting Bush tarnish the republicans so?

8. Who would you like to be President and why? Policy please not I like him/her.


Here is your chance to make your case without mentioning Democrats, just your policy ideas.



Edited for spellchecking, Auto spellcheck didn't work

Round up the nonbelievers in the true faith of TexMex. Appropriate their stuff. Launch a global war against the forces of yogurt, brussel sprouts, and Liechtenstein. We will free ourselves from Liechtensteinian tyranny once and for all.

Frazz are you slipping you forgot haggis

Fix taxes every person who makes money pays %15 of there total pay in taxes no loopholes for charity or that rubbish it is called charity for a reason you give it away without any return.

No-one can defeat Haggis.

The tax code in both the USA and UK need to be simplified.

A lot of money is wasted calculating how much tax to pay and then calculating that the first calculation was correct.

Corporation tax is not the only reason companies base themselves or their plants in one country or another.

National infrastructure and support functions such as law and order, an educated workforce, transportation, local markets, and even the quality of life for higher management, all play a role.

These things are not free to build and require companies to contribute back to society by taxation.

Kilkrazy wrote:No-one can defeat Haggis.

Exactly. It can only be contained. Even the mighty state of Texas won't feth with haggis.

The best method of containment is to cull and eat a proportion every year.

The cull is usually done in the New Year.

That is why Burns' Night is on the 25th of January.

Yerrp.

sonofruss wrote:Frazz are you slipping you forgot haggis

Fix taxes every person who makes money pays %15 of there total pay in taxes no loopholes for charity or that rubbish it is called charity for a reason you give it away without any return.

So person A makes 100,000 per year, and will pay 15,000 per year in taxes for the same road that a guy who makes 10,000 per year only pays 1,500 for? Obviously it climbs from there, but still. What's fair about that situation?


Probably the best way is the Fair Tax. If a guy buys a Toyota for 10,000 and pays 26% tax on it, he will pay a total of around 12,600 bucks. If a guy pays 100,000 for something nicer, then he will end up paying 110,000 bucks for it. The rich have nicer things, and will pay extra tax for them. But it's their choice at that point. Also, a sales tax would get all the illegal immigrants, as well as criminals who don't pay taxes currently. It would also allow for letting most of the IRS go find other work.



Clay

Taxes aren't about being fair.

They have two purposes.

1. To raise the revenue required for government spending.

2. To distort market prices in order to provide incentives for or against behaviour such as smoking or installing solar panels.

In a socialist nation, taxes are used to redistribute wealth from the richest in favour of the poorest through government spending on education, healthcare and so on. Some people see that as fair.

Primarch wrote:Probably the best way is the Fair Tax. If a guy buys a Toyota for 10,000 and pays 26% tax on it, he will pay a total of around 12,600 bucks. If a guy pays 100,000 for something nicer, then he will end up paying 110,000 bucks for it. The rich have nicer things, and will pay extra tax for them. But it's their choice at that point. Also, a sales tax would get all the illegal immigrants, as well as criminals who don't pay taxes currently. It would also allow for letting most of the IRS go find other work.

Sounds regressive.

So he pays more taxes than he makes? I'm impressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Taxes aren't about being fair.

They have two purposes.

1. To raise the revenue required for government spending.

2. To distort market prices in order to provide incentives for or against behaviour such as smoking or installing solar panels.

In a socialist nation, taxes are used to redistribute wealth from the richest in favour of the poorest through government spending on education, healthcare and so on. Some people see that as fair.

I'd proffer the most important reason for taxation for politicians is neither, but instead is about rewarding the special interests that gave them money to run.

I have a question, How much is the income tax in the states?
In sweden where i live the percentage is around 30-32%
Still, where the second most tax paying country in the world (after denmark)
Total overall taxes in sweden is something like 48-49% per person

Kilkrazy wrote:Taxes aren't about being fair.

Well, at least someone willing to admit it. The Progressive tax system in the US is blatently unfair to the upper end wage earners.

Kilkrazy wrote:

They have two purposes.

1. To raise the revenue required for government spending.

2. To distort market prices in order to provide incentives for or against behaviour such as smoking or installing solar panels.

I would submit that taxes have a further purpose... to preserve the power base in it's position of power. If elected officials take possessions away from their rightful owners and distribute them amongst the voters they preserve their office. Voters don't care that it's wrong to steal from others in the name of the greater good, just as long as they get to be fat and lazy and get their goverment checks.

Kilkrazy wrote:In a socialist nation, taxes are used to redistribute wealth from the richest in favour of the poorest through government spending on education, healthcare and so on. Some people see that as fair.

Some people are in fundametal opposition to the Founding Fathers of the United States and the principles they created our nation upon. I would submit that such people move to a Socialist nation and leave the Republic.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:And you should get slapped by yours. Repeatedly. Until you aren't moving.

All I have to say to you Mr. Shuma is "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Oh, and go change your diaper. I can smell it from here.

Well, at least someone willing to admit it. The Progressive tax system in the US is blatently unfair to the upper end wage earners.

Who work less hours for more pay while spending a significantly smaller percentage of their income on basic necessities. Capitalism isn't fair, why the feth would capitalist taxes be?

I would submit that taxes have a further purpose... to preserve the power base in it's position of power. If elected officials take possessions away from their rightful owners and distribute them amongst the voters they preserve their office. Voters don't care that it's wrong to steal from others in the name of the greater good, just as long as they get to be fat and lazy and get their goverment checks.

So you live in a magical world where ~50% of our political system doesn't talk about lowering taxes like its some sort of nervous condition they have?

Some people are in fundametal opposition to the Founding Fathers of the United States and the principles they created our nation upon. I would submit that such people move to a Socialist nation and leave the Republic.

Yes, opposition like demanding offshore torture prisons be shut down, or demanding that the government stop wiretapping its citizens. I wish I had the blinders you have on, it must be a colorful world of socialists vs good red blooded americans.

All I have to say to you Mr. Shuma is "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

So you want to be tortured in a foreign country after you increase your insurance companies premiums 110% in one month?

Oh, and go change your diaper. I can smell it from here.

I'm pretty sure your smelling your own bs.