Giuloiani says that Obama does NOT love America

[cewfa]

You know, I'm going to do something that I have never done before in 2016. When I go to vote, I am voting Democrat in everything from the President down to the city dog-catcher.

Politically, I typically lean Republican, although I have voted on both sides of the aisle before, but not this time around, because accompanying my votes are going to be letters to the Republican candidates in my area. You see, I am voting nothing but Democrat in 2016 to send a message to the Republican party I align with the most, and that message is that they need to start doing the right thing for America. Writing these letters may not do a lot of good, but I can say that I have done something other than bitch about the state of affairs in America.

In case anyone is curious, I'll sum up what I feel is right for America this way.

1. Fair taxes across the board. Everyone pays 10% of their income in taxes, no more, no less, and businesses pay 1% of their receipts in taxes, no more, no less.

2. Quit making war on the poor and downtrodden, quit trying to defund Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. Yes, they should be fixed, but not at the expense of making the poor in the downtrodden suffer. Since the Republican party is supposed to be the party of family values and Christianity, I will refer them to Proverbs 14:31 and 19:17.

3. Quit making war on Obamacare. Yes, Obamacare needs some changes (30 hour week work vs. 40 hour work week, and the fines) but instead of gutting the whole thing, work to get those things changed. Healthcare should be a public investment rather than an entitlement only for the rich.

4. Quit denying the rights of Gay people. Gay people have every right to marry like everyone else, and denying the rights because of their lifestyle is no different than the civil rights movement 50 years and is quite frankly Un-American.

[mjr]

In case anyone is curious, I'll sum up what I feel is right for America this way.

1. Fair taxes across the board. Everyone pays 10% of their income in taxes, no more, no less, and businesses pay 1% of their receipts in taxes, no more, no less.

My only real qualm here is that I would (even if I owned my own business, which I hope to do one day) make the business tax you speak of higher than 1%. I recall a few years back, Exxon (I believe it was) made something like $13 billion in a quarter. Paying 1% in tax in that case is $130 million. That's nothing to sneeze at, but if you increased that even to 5%, that would be $650 million for the quarter, and $2.6 billion for a year (on $52 billion in "profit").

2. Quit making war on the poor and downtrodden, quit trying to defund Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. Yes, they should be fixed, but not at the expense of making the poor in the downtrodden suffer. Since the Republican party is supposed to be the party of family values and Christianity, I will refer them to Proverbs 14:31 and 19:17.

Fixing social security is fairly easy. Lift the $90K cap. That's really the first step, and it's a VERY easy one.

I'm still pondering responses to 3 and 4...

[KabeRinnaul]

It's the people who stand in the way of fixing those flaws *cough*conservative*right-leaning*cough* that really don't love the US.

There are some I’d say don’t love the country. Those who are being obstructive against positive change solely because they have a personal bias against the source, for one. Or those who push their own personal interests at the expense of the less-fortunate.

But the majority who take on conservative opinions, I think, do love their country. That doesn’t mean they aren’t doing terrible damage, of course. They just have too much pride in their nation to admit that it has these flaws, and allowing the changes to go through would require that admission.

Basically, a mother might be told her son has a reading disability, but refuse any form of special education because “my boy’s not retarded!” Sure, she loves him, but she’s still being a bad parent.

Fair taxes across the board. Everyone pays 10% of their income in taxes, no more, no less, and businesses pay 1% of their receipts in taxes, no more, no less.

The rest is fine, though you might just summarize it as “Find a platform other than ‘undo everything the democrats have done’.”

But flat tax rates are a bad idea. Always. 10% on a person making $20,000 a year is a much larger burden than 10% on a person making $200,000 a year, even though the latter pays a larger sum.

[TheHuckster]

For me, whether it's a flat tax or a progressive tax, or whatever, the key is to have something that works (e.g. funds the government adequately, doesn't burden the poor, and doesn't burden the economy) and is much simpler than the codes we have now.

It shouldn't require a 1,000-page book of laws to determine who pays what. Just have a few deductions for business expenses and maybe considerations for families like dependent deductions, and that's it. As it stands now, so many people are undeservedly paying far lower taxes than they should not because the base tax rate is too low, but because they get to take advantage of so many deductions and loopholes.

[mjr]

For me, whether it's a flat tax or a progressive tax, or whatever, the key is to have something that works (e.g. funds the government adequately, doesn't burden the poor, and doesn't burden the economy) and is much simpler than the codes we have now.

It shouldn't require a 1,000-page book of laws to determine who pays what. Just have a few deductions for business expenses and maybe considerations for families like dependent deductions, and that's it. As it stands now, so many people are undeservedly paying far lower taxes than they should not because the base tax rate is too low, but because they get to take advantage of so many deductions and loopholes.

I get what you're saying, Huckster.

The big issue there as I see it is that money is finite, and want/need is not. So to your three examples (funds the government adequately, doesn't burden the poor, and doesn't burden the economy), those are good goals -- in theory. But where does it stop? Where do we draw the line? I know I'm stretching here, but do we really want a tax on the lowest-income individuals to be 25 or 30%, and 80% or more on the "top" wage earners?

I don't think either one of those is fair.

[TheHuckster]

The big issue there as I see it is that money is finite, and want/need is not. So to your three examples (funds the government adequately, doesn't burden the poor, and doesn't burden the economy), those are good goals -- in theory. But where does it stop? Where do we draw the line?

We draw the line at: If the policy is burdening the economy (e.g. people don't have the funds to start and invest in businesses) something's wrong. If the policy is burdening the poor (e.g. people can't afford to eat) something's wrong. If the policy isn't funding the government adequately (e.g. bridges are falling down) something's wrong.

There's really not much else to it. I agree that an 80% tax on the wealthy would be detrimental to our economy. I'm not saying we put them that high. All a progressive tax means is the wealthy do pay a higher rate than the poor, and it has to be done in such a way that there's still an incentive to invest in the economy, while still letting people in the lower tax brackets... well, you know, survive.

And it doesn't end at taxes. Cutting wasteful spending is needed as well. Unfortunately that's an even bigger can of worms, since nobody can agree on which parts need to be cut, and by how much.

All to often I hear "where do we draw the line?" as if that rhetorical question is the basis for giving up and not doing anything. Clearly something needs to be done, and it starts with at least agreeing on the end goals.

[mjr]

All a progressive tax means is the wealthy do pay a higher rate than the poor, and it has to be done in such a way that there's still an incentive to invest in the economy, while still letting people in the lower tax brackets... well, you know, survive.

I've given this some thought, and I think that we could set a tax rate as low as possible for those making between say $35K and $40K per year. I'd even say that, in cases of income below $50K, you take the first digit (in this case, 5) and use that as the tax rate. So if you make $25K per year, your tax rate is 2.5% ($625 per year, I would think, wouldn't be burdensome). You make $50K, your tax rate is $5%, or $2,500. Reasonable?

And it doesn't end at taxes. Cutting wasteful spending is needed as well. Unfortunately that's an even bigger can of worms, since nobody can agree on which parts need to be cut, and by how much.

Therein lies the rub. One person may think Program A needs more funding and/or shouldn't be cut, and another person may think Program B needs the same.

All to often I hear "where do we draw the line?" as if that rhetorical question is the basis for giving up and not doing anything. Clearly something needs to be done, and it starts with at least agreeing on the end goals.

Agreeing on the end goals would be a good place to start. But I think "Where do we draw the line?" is a legitimate question, because as I stated earlier (and I think it's a tenet of one of the "schools" of economics): Want is infinite, money is not.

[TheHuckster]

I've given this some thought, and I think that we could set a tax rate as low as possible for those making between say $35K and $40K per year. I'd even say that, in cases of income below $50K, you take the first digit (in this case, 5) and use that as the tax rate. So if you make $25K per year, your tax rate is 2.5% ($625 per year, I would think, wouldn't be burdensome). You make $50K, your tax rate is $5%, or $2,500. Reasonable?

It's only reasonable if it fulfills the three goals I've outlined. In order to really determine that you need to study and research the implications of that policy.

I should also add another big issue in the realm of income on the federal level: Cost of living. Making $25K in Arkansas is a helluvalot different than making $25K in the northeast... which I suppose might need to be accounted for in a tax policy.

Therein lies the rub. One person may think Program A needs more funding and/or shouldn't be cut, and another person may think Program B needs the same.

Yep, welcome to the world of politics.

Agreeing on the end goals would be a good place to start. But I think "Where do we draw the line?" is a legitimate question, because as I stated earlier (and I think it's a tenet of one of the "schools" of economics): Want is infinite, money is not.

Agreeing on goals should better pinpoint the line. If you have goals which proscribe parameters where if you go too far in one direction it counteracts one goal, and if you go too far in the other direction it counteracts the other. My goals do just that: If you institute a tax rate of 90% for the wealthy, you stymie the economy and investment power too much. If you institute a tax rate of a mere 10% across the board, government funding may become dismal, and there's not much support for the poor.

As long as there's a point that satisfies all the goals (which I think there is) and people in Washington actually discuss it without going into a partisan flamewar, causing counterproductive filibusters and executive orders, we just might actually make some progress.

Tough to swallow in today's political climate, but if something's not done soon, the income gap is going to reach critical mass.

[cewfa]

I did some personal research a few years (and a couple of computers ago) on this very subject and found that in the state of Alabama alone, the goverment would make roughly 100 trillion dollars in tax receipts alone with a 10% flat tax. It would be interesting to do an update on this research and see how it shakes out now in 2015. I did the research in 2008-2009.

I believe a 10% tax is not a burden on anyone. If you make $200 a week, your tax burden is $20. There just comes a point when people need to tighten their belts some. Personally, I am currently on Social Security due to an incident happening in my life, and don't make a lot of money. Even with not making a lot of money, I still manage to put some money away and go on vacation once a year. Yes, I have to sacrifice some things I like (such as cable and going out to eat every day) but in the end it is worth it to be able to put even a little bit of money away. Most people don't want to hear this, but if people gave up the fast food, cable TV, and cigarettes and booze, they would be better off. Hulu Plus is only $7.99 a month, and has quite a few shows on it.

[Andara Bledin]

I believe a 10% tax is not a burden on anyone. If you make $200 a week, your tax burden is $20. There just comes a point when people need to tighten their belts some.

Oh, goodie, a 'bootstraps' argument.

I was kind of wondering how long it would be before someone came in to claim that since some people can make it on a shoestring, everybody should be able to make it on a shoestring.

Bootstraps arguments are, fundamentally, about bad assumptions, and more often than not, they're also wrong.

When you make 100X and cost of living is 95X, taking 10X for taxes is going to leave the person involved in a hole that cannot be gotten out of by the tightening of purse strings. There is a lower threshold you can't just handwave away and pretend that it's not really a threshold. The cost of living isn't going to automagically be reduced for people who cannot get above it just so they can pay taxes.

It's a vile and pernicious myth that needs to die a permanent death.

Sure, a lot of people fritter money away on stupid shit, like cable and eating out, but a lot of people are working two jobs and deciding which bill they're going to be accruing late fees on so they can pay the others on time.

[cewfa]

I would daresay that in a vast majority of those cases that the person would have nearly as big of a problem financially if they cut out the majority of their extra expenses. There are, of course, legitimately poor people out there who need help, and help should be made available for them. However, those people who are working two jobs as you say to decide which bill they are not going to be late on often have bigger spending problems than just their bills. More than likely, they need to sit down and have an honest look at their finances and cut the fat out of their budget.

I've worked two jobs before, and it wasn't so I could decide which bill I was going to be late on, it was either to catch up and pay all of the bills I had, or so that I could afford the "fat" I wanted in my budget. I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy for people who mismanage their money either ignorantly or willfully. My sympathy is for the legitimate poor.

You can call it a "boostrap argument" all you like, but the truth is the truth, and I bet you more often than not that those who work two jobs and then complain about not being able to make their bills, probably also have some more fat they could trim from their budget.

[Greenday]

I believe a 10% tax is not a burden on anyone. If you make $200 a week, your tax burden is $20. There just comes a point when people need to tighten their belts some. Personally, I am currently on Social Security due to an incident happening in my life, and don't make a lot of money. Even with not making a lot of money, I still manage to put some money away and go on vacation once a year. Yes, I have to sacrifice some things I like (such as cable and going out to eat every day) but in the end it is worth it to be able to put even a little bit of money away. Most people don't want to hear this, but if people gave up the fast food, cable TV, and cigarettes and booze, they would be better off. Hulu Plus is only $7.99 a month, and has quite a few shows on it.

Are you living alone? Are you getting assistance with housing? Food stamps? Where do you live? All of these things matter. Clearly you are lucky enough that you live somewhere it's feasible. Where I live, that's not nearly enough to even afford a roof over your head. Forget feeding yourself, transportation, utility bills, etc. When what you make isn't enough to live on in the first place, any tax is excessive.

[TheHuckster]

You can call it a "boostrap argument" all you like, but the truth is the truth, and I bet you more often than not that those who work two jobs and then complain about not being able to make their bills, probably also have some more fat they could trim from their budget.

There's a lot more than just "unnecessary" expenses like cable that could make one's budget vastly different from another's.

As Greenday said, the mere geographic location you live in makes a difference already. Even ignoring things like rents being higher in certain places, the higher north you go, the more you're going to pay in heat. And, no, the costs are not at all equivalent to air conditioning costs.

Some people are lucky enough to have jobs they can walk to. Other people, not so much. Gas costs are a huge factor in a budget for someone who's struggling. Others are struggling to find a job in their chosen career after they graduated college, and their student loans are hemorrhaging their wallets. Others have unforeseen challenges like a sick loved one.

What you're describing, being able to get by on $200 a week is based on a best-case scenario where they live in a cheap region in the US, have no debt from prior problems, are in good health, and have an easy, low-cost commute. And, hell, even if they were irresponsible to reach the point they are at now, letting them starve to death or become homeless is hardly a justified result. Obviously there are programs right now that give a little relief to the most misfortunate, but giving a blanket tax rate on a good portion of the poorest people could be disastrous to their well-being.

[cewfa]

I knew I was forgetting something in my first post, and that was the fifth thing that I think needs to be done for Americans. Every person working in America should get paid enough money to provide a roof over their heads without government assistance, enough money for utility costs without assistance, food without assistance, clothing without assistance, and transportation costs without assistance. This should be figured out at the county level and this figure should the minimum amount of money that an employer, or social security, or public assistance would have to pay you.

I was just using $200 a week as an example. I will not disclose my personal financial situation on here more than I already have, other than to say that I do have some help, but I have cut my budget to the bone as well. I don't pay for anything I don't have to, and if I want something that is not in my budget, then I save my money for it. It really isn't that hard.

I also live in Michigan, which has a moderate cost of living. Not the highest, but definitely not the lowest in the country. Our gas prices are some of the highest in the country, thanks to a gas tax of 41 cents a gallon.

[Andara Bledin]

I also live in Michigan, which has a moderate cost of living. Not the highest, but definitely not the lowest in the country. Our gas prices are some of the highest in the country, thanks to a gas tax of 41 cents a gallon.

Wow. This is so mind-boggling misinformed...

First, Michigan has one of the lowest overall costs of living in the US. Like bottom 5-10 level of low.

Second, it's not only not 'one of the highest' gas prices in the country, it's not even in the top half. Plus, while it's a full $0.25 higher on average than the lowest state, it's also a full $1.00 lower than the highest. You could double the taxes you pay on your gas and still not be paying what the "highest in the country" are paying.