Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Ben Carson for President?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Ben Carson for President? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/9/2013 10:14:30 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 2/9/2013 10:18:06 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/9/2013 10:20:52 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 12:54:02 AM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
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.



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 6:04:51 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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


< Message edited by BamaD -- 2/10/2013 6:05:50 AM >

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 7:37:05 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

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?

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 7:41:26 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 7:43:11 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 9:08:19 AM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 9:14:49 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 9:18:32 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
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

French industry

Chinese industry

and Russian industry


< Message edited by Moonhead -- 2/10/2013 9:19:07 AM >

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 9:53:38 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 2/10/2013 9:54:45 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 12:08:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 12:34:03 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		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.







(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 2:01:50 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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:


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).


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 3:17:56 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 5:44:44 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 6:13:55 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 2/10/2013 6:19:36 PM >

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 6:17:44 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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:


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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Ben Carson for President? - 2/10/2013 6:28:50 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		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.


< Message edited by Owner59 -- 2/10/2013 6:45:26 PM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 39
Not any fucking more!..... - 3/28/2013 5:42:07 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Ben Carson for President? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.203