RE: Ben Carson for President?

RE: Ben Carson for President? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/9/2013 10:14:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The flat tax will only help the wealthier and force middle and lower income folks to pay more.Been there,done that,got the tee-shirt on that farce. The other "big idea" isn`t a bad one but isn`t his. The writers fixation with being "PC" ...or not....gets old quick and then becomes anoying.Probably his own pet peeve or something else just as interesting.... Another note,anyone who I`ve meet who graduated from JHUH was an arrogant elitist jerk type Dr. with all/most of the F-ed traits of such doctors,including an inlaw of mine. Not if done right. The Armie flat tax gave a married couple a 23,000 deduction plus 5000 per dependent. Family of four paid nothing on the first 33000 The real reason is that it does not allow them to use the tax code for social engeneering. And what would the rate be to be revenue nuetral and to make the first 23k of income tax exempt? Would that meant that some taxpayers not presently paying the top marginal rate would pay a higher rate (it has to). How big a break would those paying the present top marginal rate get? Again with the Armie plan it was 17% due in no small part in the elimination of all of the loopholes the rich use to avoid taxes I am not addressing other plans because I am not as familiar with the details. The greatest advantage to the flat tax is that it simplifies the tax code so that even xxxxxxx (name edited out for curtesy reasons) can understand it and if they can anyone can.

BamaD -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/9/2013 10:20:52 PM)
Simlicity is the reasons the political class in general will oppose it. The power to tax is the poower to destroy. The power to destroy is the power to rule.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 12:54:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So it would be an entirely regressive tax. That would mean that it would hurt the poor drastically while the rich would get a massive reduction in taxes. Bull Fuck. First of all, somebody has to pay for food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing and the like. So if the people getting those benefits have to give a small portion of their dole, good. A family of 4 with a combined an income of $50K is hardly poor. And aren't you one of the people here saying the rich don't pay enough taxes because of loop hole, tax shelters and such. That would all be over, so they would likely be paying MORE taxes.

BamaD -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 6:04:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So it would be an entirely regressive tax. That would mean that it would hurt the poor drastically while the rich would get a massive reduction in taxes. Bull Fuck. First of all, somebody has to pay for food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing and the like. So if the people getting those benefits have to give a small portion of their dole, good. A family of 4 with a combined an income of $50K is hardly poor. And aren't you one of the people here saying the rich don't pay enough taxes because of loop hole, tax shelters and such. That would all be over, so they would likely be paying MORE taxes. exactly

DomKen -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 7:37:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 What Ken said... Because we all know the 1% don't buy the same groceries as the 99%, they grow them on trees... And we all know it's the 99% that buys those million dollar houses, and automobiles... Let's not forget all those limousines, and jet airplanes, the 1% grow them too. They never spend any of their money, everything is just handed to them on a 99% skin platter.[8\|] Do they spend the same percent of their income as those who make less? Who stimulates the economy more, 50 families that make $50k or 1 family that makes $2.5M? Would YOU rather have 20% of $50,000 or 20% of $50,000,000? Chances are the multi millionaire is going to spend more in one year than 4 $60,000 families. How much is the $2.5M person going to spend on an automobile compared to the $50K guy? Which is more likely to spend $50K and which is more likely to spend $20K on a car? Try learning enough math to compare apples to apples. Or are admiting that wealth is better distributed more equitably but you are unwilling actually write such an admission?

DomKen -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 7:41:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The flat tax will only help the wealthier and force middle and lower income folks to pay more.Been there,done that,got the tee-shirt on that farce. The other "big idea" isn`t a bad one but isn`t his. The writers fixation with being "PC" ...or not....gets old quick and then becomes anoying.Probably his own pet peeve or something else just as interesting.... Another note,anyone who I`ve meet who graduated from JHUH was an arrogant elitist jerk type Dr. with all/most of the F-ed traits of such doctors,including an inlaw of mine. Not if done right. The Armie flat tax gave a married couple a 23,000 deduction plus 5000 per dependent. Family of four paid nothing on the first 33000 The real reason is that it does not allow them to use the tax code for social engeneering. And what would the rate be to be revenue nuetral and to make the first 23k of income tax exempt? Would that meant that some taxpayers not presently paying the top marginal rate would pay a higher rate (it has to). How big a break would those paying the present top marginal rate get? Again with the Armie plan it was 17% due in no small part in the elimination of all of the loopholes the rich use to avoid taxes I am not addressing other plans because I am not as familiar with the details. The greatest advantage to the flat tax is that it simplifies the tax code so that even xxxxxxx (name edited out for curtesy reasons) can understand it and if they can anyone can. 17% with an exemption for the first 23k is not revenue nuetral. Also that is not what Armey and the tea scum proposed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Choice_Act

DomKen -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 7:43:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So it would be an entirely regressive tax. That would mean that it would hurt the poor drastically while the rich would get a massive reduction in taxes. Bull Fuck. First of all, somebody has to pay for food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing and the like. So if the people getting those benefits have to give a small portion of their dole, good. A family of 4 with a combined an income of $50K is hardly poor. And aren't you one of the people here saying the rich don't pay enough taxes because of loop hole, tax shelters and such. That would all be over, so they would likely be paying MORE taxes. For a flat tax to be revenue nuetral the tax rate would have to be far higher than most people pay but also lower than the top marginal rate and therefore would shift the tax burden onto the lower and middle class. That's just math.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 9:08:19 AM)
So what? The rich folks in this country are a tiny tiny minority. Most of the services and personal benefits are collected and used by NON RICH PEOPLE! The first $23k should not be exempt either.

DomKen -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 9:14:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy So what? The rich folks in this country are a tiny tiny minority. Most of the services and personal benefits are collected and used by NON RICH PEOPLE! The first $23k should not be exempt either. Actually the wealthy use a disproportionate amount of government services and they should pay more for that reason beyond the issues of fairness which dictate that they should pay more since it impacts them less.

Moonhead -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 9:18:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Chances are the multi millionaire is going to spend more in one year than 4 $60,000 families. Chances are that most of that money will go straight out of the local economy rather than trickling down as well. But hey: they need a tax break to support German industry [img]http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/mercedes-benz-sls-18.jpg[/img] French industry [img]http://www.just-booze.co.uk/images/products/originals/Champagne-Moet-and-Chandon.jpg[/img] Chinese industry [img]http://tidbits.com/resources/2012-10/iPad-mini-black.jpg[/img] and Russian industry [img]http://www.datelush.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cheap-hooker.jpg[/img]

BamaD -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 9:53:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So it would be an entirely regressive tax. That would mean that it would hurt the poor drastically while the rich would get a massive reduction in taxes. Bull Fuck. First of all, somebody has to pay for food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing and the like. So if the people getting those benefits have to give a small portion of their dole, good. A family of 4 with a combined an income of $50K is hardly poor. And aren't you one of the people here saying the rich don't pay enough taxes because of loop hole, tax shelters and such. That would all be over, so they would likely be paying MORE taxes. For a flat tax to be revenue nuetral the tax rate would have to be far higher than most people pay but also lower than the top marginal rate and therefore would shift the tax burden onto the lower and middle class. That's just math. You forget that it would eliminate very single tax break.

DomKen -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 12:08:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So it would be an entirely regressive tax. That would mean that it would hurt the poor drastically while the rich would get a massive reduction in taxes. Bull Fuck. First of all, somebody has to pay for food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing and the like. So if the people getting those benefits have to give a small portion of their dole, good. A family of 4 with a combined an income of $50K is hardly poor. And aren't you one of the people here saying the rich don't pay enough taxes because of loop hole, tax shelters and such. That would all be over, so they would likely be paying MORE taxes. For a flat tax to be revenue nuetral the tax rate would have to be far higher than most people pay but also lower than the top marginal rate and therefore would shift the tax burden onto the lower and middle class. That's just math. You forget that it would eliminate very single tax break. No, I didn't. the biggest tax break eliminated would be the mortgage deduction which is a major deduction for the middle class and far offsets the value of the upper class deductions. The flat tax has been studied by reputable groups and it is always shown that it shifts the tax burden down onto the lower and middle classes while providing a huge tax break for the wealthy. Why else do you suppose the mega rich are pushing it?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 12:34:03 PM)
They would not need the mortgage deduction! Want two flat rates... OK... two then, one for everybody making under $1mil and higher flat rate for everyone above it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 2:01:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy They would not need the mortgage deduction! Want two flat rates... OK... two then, one for everybody making under $1mil and higher flat rate for everyone above it. And, you'd have a horrible fight on your hands with people attempting to dicker with the top rate all the time. That's a huge problem now. The big part of it is the exemption for $X of income. All income will be taxed, after the exemption. 2013 tax brackets: [image]http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kellyphillipserb/files/2013/01/mfj-.png[/image] So, if we take that $50k family of 4 and look at their taxes. Current Plan Standard Deduction + 2 kids = $14,200, reducing their income to $35,800 (keeping it simple) Bracket One Tax Liability: $1785 Bracket Two Tax Liability: $2692.5 Total Liability: $4477.5 (8.96% effective rate) Flat Rate (17%; $23k exempt) $27k taxable income Total Tax Liability: $4590 (9.18% effective tax rate) Accepting, of course, that there are other deductions, the difference may be larger. Let's make up a $450k family of 4 where $100k is income and the rest is capital gains Same exemptions leaving a taxable income of $85,800 + $350k @ 15% Income Liability: $11977.5 Cap. Gains Tax: $52500 Total Liability: $64477.5 (14.33% effective tax rate) Flat Rate $427k taxable income Liability: $72590 (16.13%) The more you make, the closer to 17% you pay. Buffett, taking his 2010 income ($62.856M) would pay $1,0681,610 (16.994% effective).

DomKen -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 3:17:56 PM)
Which just shows that as I said before the 17% rate is not revenue nuetral. At 17% government revenues would decline drastically. And that is even with the middle class already paying more.

Owner59 -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 5:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And what would the rate be to be revenue nuetral and to make the first 23k of income tax exempt? There should be ZERO exemptions... If you make $5k a year or $500k a year or $500mil, one rate, everybody pays and.... for most people, it would come right out of their pay checks for others maybe it comes out of their dole but the small amount that comes out tends to go back to them ten fold. Sure but we all know your party will let rich folks cheat....again. That is if history is any indication. The federal tax won`t be flat b/c the 50 different states and their 50 different tax systems will guarantee inequity. We`ve debate this numerous times here and to date,no one has offered plan that doesn`t in the end,favor the Mitts. We`ll just stick with the present system along with raising taxes of rich folks....tyvm.

BamaD -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 6:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And what would the rate be to be revenue nuetral and to make the first 23k of income tax exempt? There should be ZERO exemptions... If you make $5k a year or $500k a year or $500mil, one rate, everybody pays and.... for most people, it would come right out of their pay checks for others maybe it comes out of their dole but the small amount that comes out tends to go back to them ten fold. Sure but we all know your party will let rich folks cheat....again. That is if history is any indication. The federal tax won`t be flat b/c the 50 different states and their 50 different tax systems will guarantee inequity. We`ve debate this numerous times here and to date,no one has offered plan that doesn`t in the end,favor the Mitts. We`ll just stick with the present system along with raising taxes of rich folks....tyvm. Keep it complicated, allow the government to use it for social engineering and most important to keep up the class war sounds great, and let us not forget that the current system has tax writeoffs are that make the morgage deduction look like a quarter tip but God please lets accept all that so we can pretend to stick it to the rich because they are all evil and diserve all the pain we can give them no matter what it costs us. Those plans would make the total tax burden more proggressive which should mak you happy.

BamaD -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 6:17:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy They would not need the mortgage deduction! Want two flat rates... OK... two then, one for everybody making under $1mil and higher flat rate for everyone above it. And, you'd have a horrible fight on your hands with people attempting to dicker with the top rate all the time. That's a huge problem now. The big part of it is the exemption for $X of income. All income will be taxed, after the exemption. 2013 tax brackets: [image]http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kellyphillipserb/files/2013/01/mfj-.png[/image] So, if we take that $50k family of 4 and look at their taxes. Current Plan Standard Deduction + 2 kids = $14,200, reducing their income to $35,800 (keeping it simple) Bracket One Tax Liability: $1785 Bracket Two Tax Liability: $2692.5 Total Liability: $4477.5 (8.96% effective rate) Flat Rate (17%; $23k exempt) $27k taxable income Total Tax Liability: $4590 (9.18% effective tax rate) Accepting, of course, that there are other deductions, the difference may be larger. Let's make up a $450k family of 4 where $100k is income and the rest is capital gains Same exemptions leaving a taxable income of $85,800 + $350k @ 15% Income Liability: $11977.5 Cap. Gains Tax: $52500 Total Liability: $64477.5 (14.33% effective tax rate) Flat Rate $427k taxable income Liability: $72590 (16.13%) The more you make, the closer to 17% you pay. Buffett, taking his 2010 income ($62.856M) would pay $1,0681,610 (16.994% effective). Armie plan would only have a family of 4 making 50g paying taxes on 17 grand meaning that they would only pay $2890 making your point even stronger.

Owner59 -> RE: Ben Carson for President? (2/10/2013 6:28:50 PM)
We`ve always used our tax system to promote the things we want,like home ownership and investment.....and discourage the things we don`t want. Where have you been? This is a big country,w/ 300 plus million people......and 50 states......of course it`s complicated.Communism(the real kind) is simple and un-complicated..... Remember that dope who ran for president...the one with the 9-9-9 plan?He suggested that all bills be less than three pages......which is just as stupid as a bag of hammers..... "Simplify" is just another weasel word. Again,every time one of the schemes gets introduced and is then taken apart with honest math and reality....it always works out that rich folks make out like bandits and the tax burden gets shifted to the middle class. I think the right need to adopt a new paradigm......Terms like socialism,social engineering,regulation,etc. ,aren`t the scary,dirty words the GOP had hoped they`d be... Con terms used like marxist,communist,nazi,totalitarian,etc have lost all potency and their true meaning through sheer abuse of them.

Owner59 -> Not any fucking more!..... (3/28/2013 5:42:07 PM)
Hey fdd.....Lol....Now we see what ben`s appeal, WAS..... "Nasty, Petty, And Ill-Informed": Ben Carson's Johns Hopkins Colleague Responds To His Marriage Equality Attack" "The co-director of Johns Hopkins University's sexuality studies program is speaking out against his colleague Dr. Ben Carson's recent comments comparing supporters of marriage equality to members of NAMBLA and practitioners of bestiality. "I don't think most people at Hopkins think what he says on this subject matters," Professor Todd Shepard, co-director of the university's Program for the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, said in a statement to Media Matters. "They make him look nasty, petty, and ill-informed. It doesn't tell us anything about his amazing abilities as a surgeon. It does remind us, however, that those abilities do not mean we should listen to what he says in any other domain." During a March 26 appearance on Fox News, Carson said, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition." "So, it's not something against gays," added the Johns Hopkins Hospital neurosurgery professor, who has recently become a sensation among the conservative media. "It's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications." http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/28/nasty-petty-and-ill-informed-ben-carsons-john-h/193337

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875