The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**Kilkrazy**

Prestor Jon wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Eh, it's at best a fairly low brow pop culture reference that I fully expected would fly over some heads

It's the exact same principle the only thing changing is the amount and the number of people it affects is tiny so why be punitive towards those people just because?

At every point that money is taxed, having more is taxed more because duh, a millionaire can afford to give more to society that the local burger flipper at Wendy's and most people aren't going to shed a tear that a millionaire had to pay more than the burger flipper because they're a millionaire and complaining about paying more just reeks of greed and envy.

There's obviously only one choice. The oppressed must rise up and overthrow the corrupt government that treats their vast stores of money differently from everyone else's measily piggy banks! How dare the huddled masses tell the mighty they shouldn't be free to do as they please! Shame on them!

Everyone who earns income pays income tax, everyone who owns property pays property tax, everyone who buys stuff pays sales tax, but only a tiny percentage of people who get an inheritance pay the estate tax. If the government can't convince people on its merits that it's a tax that should apply to everyone then it's not a tax that should be levied. Everyone who lives in a society benefits from that society and owes a contribution to that society to keep it functioning.

Whilst I disagree with your premise, Eeveryone doesn't pay all those other taxes anyway so your point is invalid.

**BlaxicanX**

All taxes are conceptually a fundamental aspect of socialist ideals, and a tacit assumption that the government has to take your money because you're too dumb to use it properly. "b-but that's socialist!" is not a self-evidently valid criticism of his point.

**Ensis Ferrae**

LordofHats wrote:
I think we can probably take it as a given that any business that can afford an army of lawyers will put at least some of them to work trying to find ways to help the business not pay the fees its supposed to. Not just Wal-Mart

That's my ultimate point, however, as is readily apparent, I detest that company, and it tends to be the low-hanging fruit, so I tend to use it as an example.

It's a luxury that a company like say, Stewart's Meat Shoppe (local butcher in my area) or Billy-Ray's Auto-Wrecking cannot have.

**jasper76**

This was interesting to me. 14.5% jump in naturalization applications Estimated 4.5 million Latinos in the US are eligible for naturalization...

HTTP://www.CNN.com/2016/03/16/politics/Latino-voters-naturalization-Trump/index.html

**Kilkrazy**

BlaxicanX wrote:
All taxes are conceptually a fundamental aspect of socialist ideals, and a tacit assumption that the government has to take your money because you're too dumb to use it properly. "b-but that's socialist!" is not a self-evidently valid criticism of his point.

Taxes are conceptually a way for government to get the money needed to operate.

Otherwise good luck getting your neighbours in your street to club together to fund a new aircraft carrier for the navy. It's hard enough getting four co-owners of an apartment building to club together to repair a leaking roof.

**skyth**

Kilkrazy wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
All taxes are conceptually a fundamental aspect of socialist ideals, and a tacit assumption that the government has to take your money because you're too dumb to use it properly. "b-but that's socialist!" is not a self-evidently valid criticism of his point.

Taxes are conceptually a way for government to get the money needed to operate.

Otherwise good luck getting your neighbours in your street to club together to fund a new aircraft carrier for the navy. It's hard enough getting four co-owners of an apartment building to club together to repair a leaking roof.

The two statements are not mutually exclusive

**Prestor Jon**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

A quick Google search resulted in this article that says Walmart pays property taxes:

http://www.oregonlive.com/forest-grove/index.ssf/2013/07/cornelius_wal-mart_not_so_bad.html

At one location.... And from further looking up, that particular location is newer than the specific one I was referring to... So it would seem that the State of Oregon has gotten a bit wiser in dealing with the evil smiley-face, and gets them to pay for stuff up front.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-americas-tax-dead_b_68334.html

Probably not the best source here:

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/state_detail.html?state=OR

But shows a different story

And still further evidence of trying to get out of paying their due:
http://www.corp-research.org/e-letter/rolling-back-property-tax-payments

Often state officials agree to give tax breaks to certain business in order to get them to operate in the state. Sometimes it's in the form of waiving certain taxes for a set time period or reducing rates. I know my state offered big tax breaks to the movie industry to help get them to film the Hunger Games movies here at old textile mills.

http://www.wral.com/film-productions-dry-up-with-loss-of-nc-tax-credit/14372675/
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/03/film-incentives-could-return-to-north-carolina

Govts like to set tax rates high and then give people and corporations deductions, credits etc. to incentive behavior or leave rates high to disincentivize other behaviors.

**jmurph**

>Govts like to set tax rates high and then give people and corporations deductions, credits etc. to incentive behavior or leave rates high to disincentivize other behaviors.

Which is part of the reason why we have incoherent tax systems. Politicians love to try to steer behavior with tax incentives.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

Looks like some prominent conservatives might be eyeing third party challenges should Trump prevail at the convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/donald-trump-hill-republicans-conservatives/index.html

**jasper76**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Looks like some prominent conservatives might be eyeing third party challenges should Trump prevail at the convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/donald-trump-hill-republicans-conservatives/index.html

It's probably a good idea for conservatives to at least test the waters with a third party. Conservatives do deserve a party, and if Trump actually gets elected POTUS, you can kiss alot of very long-standing, staple conservative issues like free trade, entitlement reform, and religion goodbye forever as priorities of the new Republican party.

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Looks like some prominent conservatives might be eyeing third party challenges should Trump prevail at the convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/donald-trump-hill-republicans-conservatives/index.html

It's probably a good idea for conservatives to at least test the waters with a third party. Conservatives do deserve a party, and if Trump actually gets elected POTUS, you can kiss alot of very long-standing, staple conservative issues like free trade, entitlement reform, and religion goodbye forever as priorities of the new Republican party.

The Whigs?

**jasper76**

whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Looks like some prominent conservatives might be eyeing third party challenges should Trump prevail at the convention.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/donald-trump-hill-republicans-conservatives/index.html

It's probably a good idea for conservatives to at least test the waters with a third party. Conservatives do deserve a party, and if Trump actually gets elected POTUS, you can kiss alot of very long-standing, staple conservative issues like free trade, entitlement reform, and religion goodbye forever as priorities of the new Republican party.

The Whigs?

I dunno, this might help: http://project.wnyc.org/party-name-generator/#

"Put Our Children Off Until Tomorrow Party" has a nice ring

**whembly**

Heh... nice!

Is "The Federalist Party" taken?

**jasper76**

Not that I know of. Google says they went out business, so to speak, in the 1820s.

**Nostromodamus**

Monster Raving Looney party seems appropriate.

**Breotan**

Trying the "third party" route is a surefire way to fail. How do you expect to win? The best you would do is draw votes away from the Republican and give the election to the Democrat.

**feeder**

What about "The Real Republican Party with a winky face emoticon?

**Prestor Jon**

jmurph wrote:
>Govts like to set tax rates high and then give people and corporations deductions, credits etc. to incentive behavior or leave rates high to disincentivize other behaviors.

Which is part of the reason why we have incoherent tax systems. Politicians love to try to steer behavior with tax incentives.

Totally agree with you on that. It's a big impediment to simplifying tax codes too. Politicians want complex tax codes they can mess with to curry favor and play political games with and not nearly enough focus on figuring out how much money we need to cover essential govt functions and figuring out the best way to get it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Trying the "third party" route is a surefire way to fail. How do you expect to win? The best you would do is draw votes away from the Republican and give the election to the Democrat.

Maybe that's the point. I'm sure there are some people in the Republican Party hierarchy that view candidate Trump or President Trump as an extinction level event for the Republican Party. Better to run a 3rd party candidate to pull votes away from Trump and let Clinton win and continue being obstructionist and playin to the base.

**jasper76**

Breotan wrote:
Trying the "third party" route is a surefire way to fail. How do you expect to win? The best you would do is draw votes away from the Republican and give the election to the Democrat.

Your operating under the assumption that Trump is a conservative. He's taken the party over, and if he gets elected, the Party platform will be permanently redefined. Everyone deserves to have candidates to vote for that reflect their own priorities. That's my opinion anyway.

EDIT: Prestor Jon made the point better than I did.

**A Town Called Malus**

Kilkrazy wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
All taxes are conceptually a fundamental aspect of socialist ideals, and a tacit assumption that the government has to take your money because you're too dumb to use it properly. "b-but that's socialist!" is not a self-evidently valid criticism of his point.

Taxes are conceptually a way for government to get the money needed to operate.

Otherwise good luck getting your neighbours in your street to club together to fund a new aircraft carrier for the navy. It's hard enough getting four co-owners of an apartment building to club together to repair a leaking roof.

My gran lived on a private road, so the residents of the road were responsible for organising repairs to the road etc. For all of my memory that road has been in need of completely re-tarmacing. 20 years and it still isn't done

**BlaxicanX**

Kilkrazy wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
All taxes are conceptually a fundamental aspect of socialist ideals, and a tacit assumption that the government has to take your money because you're too dumb to use it properly. "b-but that's socialist!" is not a self-evidently valid criticism of his point.

Taxes are conceptually a way for government to get the money needed to operate.

Otherwise good luck getting your neighbours in your street to club together to fund a new aircraft carrier for the navy. It's hard enough getting four co-owners of an apartment building to club together to repair a leaking roof.

I was too lazy to edit my post and quote who I was responding to- you and I are essentially in agreement.

**Prestor Jon**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
BlaxicanX wrote:
All taxes are conceptually a fundamental aspect of socialist ideals, and a tacit assumption that the government has to take your money because you're too dumb to use it properly. "b-but that's socialist!" is not a self-evidently valid criticism of his point.

Taxes are conceptually a way for government to get the money needed to operate.

Otherwise good luck getting your neighbours in your street to club together to fund a new aircraft carrier for the navy. It's hard enough getting four co-owners of an apartment building to club together to repair a leaking roof.

My gran lived on a private road, so the residents of the road were responsible for organising repairs to the road etc. For all of my memory that road has been in need of completely re-tarmacing. 20 years and it still isn't done

If your gran and the other residents along the road didn't feel the need to pay for resurfacing the road then it didn't need to get done. Their road their choice if they're happy then everything is copacetic.

**Compel**

Except when you take into account: The Tragedy of the Commons.

**Ratius**

BlaxicanX wrote:
All taxes are conceptually a fundamental aspect of socialist ideals, and a tacit assumption that the government has to take your money because you're too dumb to use it properly. "b-but that's socialist!" is not a self-evidently valid criticism of his point.

Taxes are conceptually a way for government to get the money needed to operate.

Otherwise good luck getting your neighbours in your street to club together to fund a new aircraft carrier for the navy. It's hard enough getting four co-owners of an apartment building to club together to repair a leaking roof.

My gran lived on a private road, so the residents of the road were responsible for organising repairs to the road etc. For all of my memory that road has been in need of completely re-tarmacing. 20 years and it still isn't done

If your gran and the other residents along the road didn't feel the need to pay for resurfacing the road then it didn't need to get done. Their road their choice if they're happy then everything is copacetic.

Now try that on a National scale - lets say anywhere from a population of 5-330 million. See how it works out and watch the whinging/riots that goes with when road xyz has potholes and "da guvament shud fix dat". Give me a break

**Tannhauser42**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Breotan wrote:
Trying the "third party" route is a surefire way to fail. How do you expect to win? The best you would do is draw votes away from the Republican and give the election to the Democrat.

Maybe that's the point. I'm sure there are some people in the Republican Party hierarchy that view candidate Trump or President Trump as an extinction level event for the Republican Party. Better to run a 3rd party candidate to pull votes away from Trump and let Clinton win and continue being obstructionist and playin to the base.

Arguably, "being obstructionist and playin to the base" is what inevitably lead to the rise of Trump.

**Prestor Jon**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Breotan wrote:
Trying the "third party" route is a surefire way to fail. How do you expect to win? The best you would do is draw votes away from the Republican and give the election to the Democrat.

Maybe that's the point. I'm sure there are some people in the Republican Party hierarchy that view candidate Trump or President Trump as an extinction level event for the Republican Party. Better to run a 3rd party candidate to pull votes away from Trump and let Clinton win and continue being obstructionist and playin to the base.

Arguably, "being obstructionist and playin to the base" is what inevitably lead to the rise of Trump.

It didn't seem to hurt them in the last couple mid term elections and their incumbents are doing well enough.

**Breotan**

OMG! The gloves are officially off.

Spoiler:

**jasper76**

Breotan wrote:
OMG! The gloves are officially off.

Spoiler:

Oh Bernie, that's low...Best attack ad ever!

**whembly**

Heh... or, how 'bout this:

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:
Heh... or, how 'bout this:

Lol, OK. That's a good one. I am legitimately Loling right now.