McCain or Obama?

[Cale]

Tax stuff aside, I question McCain's temper and his judgment. Best historical model is what would have happened if he had been POTUS in October 1962. Based on his aggressive foreign policy and his (self-admitted) hot-headedness, all of Cuba and most of the US eastern seaboard would've become a radioactive wasteland.

He's 72, a four-time cancer survivor and looked less than hale during his acceptance speech. Given that, I sure as heck wouldn't want someone like Palin that close to power. Someone who says that Iraq is America's "God-given task" and doesn't accept that global warming is man-made...do Americans really want someone like that steps away from the Oval Office?

Personally, I think John McCain is a decent and honourable man who has served his country, if not always wisely, then with its best intentions at heart. I just don't think that he would be a good President.

 

[Kimball]

Obama.

Watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions, and the Saddleback forum.

McCain has experience for sure, and I did like the man up until lately.

Didn't anybody say anything about religion and politics in conversation? Something about it getting ugly?

Politicians don't seem to keep the promises they make when they're trying to get elected anyways.....


P.S. My real candidate didn't even make the ballot, so I'm having to substitute. It's a 'which douchebag do I vote for in order to keep the bigger douchebag out of office'.

 

[Linguofreak]

Where do you get the idea that "intangible property" (whatever that is) isn't taxed?

Because the bill Cobalt linked to (the Fair Tax Act of 2005) says that intangible property is not a taxable good.

`(14) TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE-
`(A) GENERAL RULE- The term `taxable property or service' means--
`(i) any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property) but excluding--
`(I) intangible property, and
`(II) used property, and

There's a bit more defining the "service" half of "Taxable Property or Service."

It defines "intangible property" as:

`(6) INTANGIBLE PROPERTY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `intangible property' includes copyrights, trademarks, patents, goodwill, financial instruments, securities, commercial paper, debts, notes and bonds, and other property deemed intangible at common law. The Secretary shall, by regulation resolve differences among the provisions of common law of the several States.
`(B) CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTY- Such term does not include tangible personal property (or rents or leaseholds of any term thereon), real property (or rents or leaseholds of any term thereon) and computer software.

 

[Sherrif of Nottingham]

Sorry, I vote McCain... I'm just sick of hearing, "Lets make history!"

Thats no reason for me to vote for him. I haven't been paying attention to all of this anyway.

 

[GregBurch]

Because the bill Cobalt linked to (the Fair Tax Act of 2005) says that intangible property is not a taxable good.

oops, sorry, didn't see what the subject of your post was.

 

[Brad]

As far as I see it, if your trying to decide between McCain and Obama, then you'll have to overlook their policies on:

1) Energy - Both of them have a failed approach that benefits the same old oil companies and dependence on foreign oil. Other than "drill, drill, drill." or a so called "invest in green tech." the real solution is to make using anything that uses foreign oil cost prohibitive and use that money (taxes, etc...) to fund future technologies.

and....

2) Define what "change" actually means.

 

[tl8]

^ This is why Mickey Mouse is such a good vote this time around

 

[Cobalt]

It still helps the rich much more than it helps anybody else. The problem is not with whether you're taxing necessities of life (everyone needs to eat), it's the fact that the rich spend much more money, and much more of a percentage of their income, than anybody else on investments that fall into what, under that law, is "intangible property" and thus exempt from taxation.

Sure, by not taxing "neccesities of life" you help the poor keep food on the table, but by not taxing "intangible property" you let the rich get away practically scot free. Under practically *any* tax system you can arrange for a tax rebate or welfare program so that the poor can keep food on the table, but this so called "fair tax" is horribly regressive whether or not it keeps the poor fed.

For one, since the FairTax also stops withholding Medicare and Social Security, the poor will already have more income than they did. They'll actually keep what they earn by working. And since they're paying no taxes on basic necessities, they're getting an entirely free ride.

And if the "poor" decide to invest, since they will have more available funds, that too won't be taxed. Or they can further educate themselves.

Looking into the effects of the FairTax show that the poor have a better standing than they do under the income tax. Why this is a bad thing is beyond me.

Now, if the rich do spend more investing, that's fine, but every time they buy a new house, go to the doctor, get a new car, they'll be paying taxes. Naturally, there'll be people who avoid buying just to avoid the taxation. But this still will allow stimulation of the economy, because there'll be more available funds (for everyone) and will potentially be the most effective tool against poverty in a long time.

The FairTax treats everyone the same. The FAQ is full of useful information.

^ This is why Mickey Mouse is such a good vote this time around

Gotta love write ins!

 

[Linguofreak]

For one, since the FairTax also stops withholding Medicare and Social Security, the poor will already have more income than they did. They'll actually keep what they earn by working. And since they're paying no taxes on basic necessities, they're getting an entirely free ride.

And you can't stop witholding Medicare and SS under the income tax system? I'm all for stopping witholding Medicare and SS, and getting rid of both entirely.

And if the "poor" decide to invest, since they will have more available funds, that too won't be taxed. Or they can further educate themselves.

Looking into the effects of the FairTax show that the poor have a better standing than they do under the income tax. Why this is a bad thing is beyond me.

It's not. The fault of the FairTax, at least as envisioned in the Fair Tax Act of 2005, is not that it places a burden on the poor. It's the fact that the rich hardly even feel the tax.

But you can get the same effects for the poor with a sensibly designed income tax system without letting the rich get away quite as scot-free as the "FairTax" does. If you eliminate SS and Medicare, simply taxing all income above the poverty line proportionally will do better than the "FairTax." And, in fact, I don't like the idea of any tax more progressive than that. But the "FairTax" can't even pretend to be progressive or even proportional. It is out and out regressive. The better proposals of the type (such as the Act of 2005), at least have mercy on the poor, but for the middle class and above, the tax is horribly regressive. The best "FairTax" proposals tax the middle class heavily while the rich pay almost nothing. The worst "FairTax" proposals (those without an exemption for necessity-of-life goods) tax the poor to death and the middle class into unconsciousness while the rich run off laughing.

 

[Eagle]

FairTax

As much as you may like the fair tax, it will not be implemented.

The problem is the tax is regressive.

Generally, the poor spend almost all of their income each year. This gives them an effective tax rate near the national sales tax. (yes I'm figuring in the prebate, but it still holds true) (part of the problem is that a lot of the poor don't manage their money well, but that's a different topic)

In the middle class a significant amount of the yearly salary is saved. But, still most of the income gets spent. Their effective tax rate would be much lower than the poor.

There is a lot of variety among the rich, so it may be best to see this as a continuation of the middle class. In general, the more money you make, the more you spend, but the portion you save/invest increases faster. There are exceptions, but those people don't stay rich.

As much as I hate defending it. A mildly progressive tax is probably ideal. The poor can't really pay any more than they do and as a person gets more rich, the less they need the extra cash.

 

[Andy44]

It's the fact that the rich hardly even feel the tax.

Why is it important for you that the rich "feel" the tax? Is the purpose of the tax code to punish certain people and help others, or is it to provide revenue for funding the gevernment?

 

[Cobalt]

The thought that the rich wouldn't be taxed is false. Here's an op-ed piece, and a study done by a member of the Centre for European Economic Research and an economics professor at Boston University.

The basic results are that the low and middle class will have a noticable increase in wealth, and that even if even if money is invested instead of spent, once it actually does finally get spent, it'll still be taxed.

As far as the middle class, the fact is they're already getting hit by the taxes you don't think about when you're buying goods now. Again, they'll also have increased wealth because they aren't getting taxes withheld.

This study shows that the current average tax rate for a single household, 30, earning $50,000 a year is 21.1 percent, under the FairTax, it would be 13.5 percent under the FairTax. The study concludes it would in fact be progressive.

 

[John_L]

#1: Offshore drilling is a WASTE. Because the oil will never reach us until 5 years from now, and oil is a NON-renewable resource! We need to invest in wind, solar, and bio-fuels for energy.

Correct, but the minute congress ok's the drilling, oil will begin to drop in price THAT DAY because they know that the supply is being boosted. Besides, 5 years, 10 years, what's the difference. The sooner we start, the sooner we'd realize the benefit. All the more reason to start sooner rather than later.

 

[Cobalt]

I'd like to add that I don't want to turn the thread into a flame war or anything. To those I'm discussing the tax issue with, I mean absolutely no disrespect or hard feelings.
As mentioned, I nearly lost a friend over a political disagreement, so I'm personally against making fights out of things like this. I have nothing but respect for everyone here, including those who disagree. And I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong on a position if overwhelming evidence says I am. But in no way am I trying to force you to conform to my views. I like the fact that there are dissenting voices. To much similarity would make for a boring world.

So, I sincerely hope that this political discussion doesn't hamper any interaction we may have in the future.

 

[Urwumpe]

Correct, but the minute congress ok's the drilling, oil will begin to drop in price THAT DAY because they know that the supply is being boosted. Besides, 5 years, 10 years, what's the difference. The sooner we start, the sooner we'd realize the benefit. All the more reason to start sooner rather than later.

Why should the oil price drop? Can you explain this please, what makes you sure, that a temporary influx of a little bit of new oil, will have any noticeable effect on the oil price?

I think this is the critical aspect you oversee in your enthusiasm.

The oil inside the US part of the ANWR is only estimated to be maximal 10 billion barrel. The mean estimate is 7.7 billion barrel and the oil is not considered proved. For comparison, the amount of oil in still undiscovered or not accessed oil fields in the heartland of the USA are 120 billion barrel. The DOE confirmed that 29 billion barrel of oil are already considered proved.

The USA consume per day 20 million barrel oil currently (at least in 2005) and the maximum possible production of the ANWR is only 780,000 barrel oil per day. And that not earlier as 2027, and dropping to 710,000 barrel oil per day in 2030.

Unless you really reduce the consumption of oil, these 700,000 barrel will not bring you much joy - they will only cover 3.3% of your daily consumption currently. In 2030, the ANWR will only be 0.4 - 1.2 percent of the worlds production, when accessed now. Almost all economic experts say that this production would not even have a measurable impact on the oil price.

But of course, stupid voters buy anything, as long as it makes them feel good. And I am sure, most who applaud for this McCains plan* (which is actually Bushs plan, and guess which company is already preparing the bids...), expect a 10-30% drop in the US oil price... but that is wishful thinking. In reality, you will still pay a high price.

The only people, who will make profit from drilling in the ANWR, will be the oil companies. The USA maybe in form of some taxes, but you can be sure, there are economic support programs around, which should have more effect...

* Actually, McCain opposed drilling oil there just as well as Obama - both only promised to consider it during the campaign, but McCain And Obama both rejected drilling there earlier. It is only Bush's plan.

 

[replicant]

Tax stuff aside, I question McCain's temper and his judgment. Best historical model is what would have happened if he had been POTUS in October 1962. Based on his aggressive foreign policy and his (self-admitted) hot-headedness, all of Cuba and most of the US eastern seaboard would've become a radioactive wasteland.

I was thinking of that myself. It was very clever how Kennedy kept himself from being boxed into starting World War three by the Joint Chiefs.

I can picture Obama doing that, and McCain actually, as well as Biden.

I cannot picture Palin avoiding such a trap.

Obama wants to cut funding to NASA. Nuff said?

Now that's hitting below the belt. Just when I thought my Anti Palin vote would be guilt free.

Why is it important for you that the rich "feel" the tax? Is the purpose of the tax code to punish certain people and help others, or is it to provide revenue for funding the gevernment?

Not to punish, but everyone should share the BURDEN. Having the basic necessities costs X. If my income is such that 95% of it goes to pay X, and my taxes are 30% of my income, that's 25% in the hole. That is a VERY heavy burden is it not? If on the other hand, my income is such that only 5% of it goes to pay X, and 30% is taxed, that is hardly feeling the burden of the other, who quite often is where they are by fortune and circumstance. The wealthy counterpart would do well to admit the same.

This is somewhat moot, because what is really at issue here is not the tax burden of those who draw paychecks at any level. The issue is those who are ridiculously wealthy who share virtually no burden at all. I know what's coming, they "earned" their fortunes. I doubt that, it has been my experience that the extremely wealthy either inherited it, or screwed someone for it. I don't buy the whole hard working, positive attitude, benevolent billionaire B.S.

Correct, but the minute congress ok's the drilling, oil will begin to drop in price THAT DAY because they know that the supply is being boosted. Besides, 5 years, 10 years, what's the difference. The sooner we start, the sooner we'd realize the benefit. All the more reason to start sooner rather than later.

It isn't just a supply issue. I read in one of my company newsletters from Chip Childs who is the COO of Skywest Airlines that a huge problem is greedy speculators driving up prices for legitimate buyers.

When a ruthless businessman whose whole life must be wrapped up in oil and fuel costs tells me it is not simply drilling, I tend to listen.

 

[simonpro]

Not to punish, but everyone should share the BURDEN. Having the basic necessities costs X. If my income is such that 95% of it goes to pay X, and my taxes are 30% of my income, that's 25% in the hole. That is a VERY heavy burden is it not? If on the other hand, my income is such that only 5% of it goes to pay X, and 30% is taxed, that is hardly feeling the burden of the other, who quite often is where they are by fortune and circumstance. The wealthy counterpart would do well to admit the same.

So you're saying that the burden should be equal to all? Isn't that exactly what the Soviets tried? Didn't work out too well..

 

[replicant]

By the way, has anyone but me noticed the irony that the pic of Palin has drawn in a lot of men, and alienated a lot of women? As Mr. Spock would say....fascinating.


-----Posted Added-----

So you're saying that the burden should be equal to all? Isn't that exactly what the Soviets tried? Didn't work out too well..

Not equal, but equitable. No one should have to bear more than what their basic necessities are. Trust me, I know, I have been there.

 

[Urwumpe]

So you're saying that the burden should be equal to all? Isn't that exactly what the Soviets tried? Didn't work out too well..

Yes, sort of. they tried to make all equal. And the most equal state was dead...

But honestly, I think it is fair, when somebody who is rich has to pay a larger fraction of his income as tax - as long as he is still rich afterwards.

But this system only works fair, when there are no exceptions to the taxes. Currently, at least in Germany, rich people are able to calculate their taxable income into the negative and even successfully apply for welfare, by the exceptions in the tax laws. Exceptions, which can only be exploited by people with a very high income. I am sure, the problem is not different in the USA.

Also, I wonder if a maximum income for persons (not companies) would be against capitalism. I companies, there is the famous buzzword "salary structure", which is usually used by employers for declining raises. But the valid reason to exist for such a structure is simple: Motivate people to excel and gain promotions, and also make sure, that the people do not get demotivated when somebody gets more money for worse work or much more money for only slightly more work.

Such a structure could also be applied to countries, without the end of capitalism. Like one employer once said "You can choose any car as your fleet vehicle, that you want, as long as it is not more expensive as my fleet vehicle."

 

[simonpro]

I don't think people who earn more should be taxed more, that just seems unfair. Everyone should be taxed the same level, with those at VERY low levels of income (i.e: Poverty line) being given govt subsidies on food, housing etc in return.
Those who earn more should be encouraged to invest their money, put it into something productive like shares or a bond. That way the entire economy benefits.