I am often misunderstood. I am an enigma. This is your only chance. You won't get another for me to be so open, honest, and unguarded, non-sarcastic, non-satirical or non-spiteful.
Ask me political/idealogical questions. Will answer them 100% honestly, no trolling
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
What is your view on where the tax code should go?
Is the corporate tax regressive or progressive?
What is your take on the wars on poverty/drugs?
Is the corporate tax regressive or progressive?
What is your take on the wars on poverty/drugs?
Ok for starters, I've never been very good at understanding the nuances of tax codes, tax laws, the implications of expanding one bracket, shrinking another, etc. In fact, it's probably my weakest area. So I will have to speak more ideologically than on specifically policy.
I dont like the progressive tax code we have. it doesn't keep me up at night, but in an ideal world, I would prefer a flat tax, say of 15% of everyone. (this would coincide with massive spending cuts) I don't buy the argument that just because people are rich, they should pay more. They use the same roads we do. It's their property, I don't feel that the public has a right to a higher share just because they want it. I think there needs to be a more compelling argument made than simply it's "easier for them to part with more." It's a matter of principle for me.
Corporate taxes, I think they should be done away with. You are taxing a collective entity and then taxing the employees when they are paid for their own specific income. (right? not sure how this works, but pretty sure I've got it.) That sounds like double taxation to me.
Again, I suck at tax stuff. Basically, people should be entitled to keep what they earn, taxation of income should be treated equally. And if it comes at a detriment to society, then oh well. (but even if we took all the networth of the top 10%, it still would hardly make a dent in paying off our debt). Taxation isn't the be all, end all solution.
War on poverty - I believe in real solutions. I don't want to make people dependent on government. I do think that if you can help people out of the poor house, it's better for everyone. A more educated, well off populace provides for a better democracy and country. But the trick is to make sure the money is for people that truly need it, and for people that will truly use it. If those that are receiving government aid aren't being proactive enough, they should be cut off. Completely.
War on drugs - Is a complete joke. I favor the legalization of all drugs, I also favor the legalization to deal drugs, except to minors.
I dont like the progressive tax code we have. it doesn't keep me up at night, but in an ideal world, I would prefer a flat tax, say of 15% of everyone. (this would coincide with massive spending cuts) I don't buy the argument that just because people are rich, they should pay more. They use the same roads we do. It's their property, I don't feel that the public has a right to a higher share just because they want it. I think there needs to be a more compelling argument made than simply it's "easier for them to part with more." It's a matter of principle for me.
Corporate taxes, I think they should be done away with. You are taxing a collective entity and then taxing the employees when they are paid for their own specific income. (right? not sure how this works, but pretty sure I've got it.) That sounds like double taxation to me.
Again, I suck at tax stuff. Basically, people should be entitled to keep what they earn, taxation of income should be treated equally. And if it comes at a detriment to society, then oh well. (but even if we took all the networth of the top 10%, it still would hardly make a dent in paying off our debt). Taxation isn't the be all, end all solution.
War on poverty - I believe in real solutions. I don't want to make people dependent on government. I do think that if you can help people out of the poor house, it's better for everyone. A more educated, well off populace provides for a better democracy and country. But the trick is to make sure the money is for people that truly need it, and for people that will truly use it. If those that are receiving government aid aren't being proactive enough, they should be cut off. Completely.
War on drugs - Is a complete joke. I favor the legalization of all drugs, I also favor the legalization to deal drugs, except to minors.
yeah I'm really not good at answering tax questions.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You did pretty well. Corporate tax is double taxation for shareholders of the company. The entity they own pays the corporate tax and then any dividends or capital gains get taxed again. The corporate tax is also highly regressive. There are four groups to whom the tax can be passed:
1) Executives via salary/benefit reductions
2) Shareholders
3) Other employees via lower salaries/benefits
4) Consumers
Ask anyone who thinks corps should be taxed (typically the corps are evil crowd) who they think ends up paying that corp tax. If you simply tax salary, dividends and cap gains at the same rate and eliminate the corp tax, the top two above would be the primary recipients of the tax.
I agree on the personal tax side. I think the 70k pages of current tax code should be tossed. Implement a flat tax with standard deduction (to protect the poor). I would personally have a two tiered flat tax, but that is preference.
I agree with your position on the war on drugs. It is one of the most monumentally stupid things we do. We burden our prison system and destroy people's lives over drug possession/use. Non-violent offenders should be released immediately.
The war on poverty is great in theory, but our current system is one of dependence. That has to change. We need job training/retraining in addition to child care while the adults are in training.
1) Executives via salary/benefit reductions
2) Shareholders
3) Other employees via lower salaries/benefits
4) Consumers
Ask anyone who thinks corps should be taxed (typically the corps are evil crowd) who they think ends up paying that corp tax. If you simply tax salary, dividends and cap gains at the same rate and eliminate the corp tax, the top two above would be the primary recipients of the tax.
I agree on the personal tax side. I think the 70k pages of current tax code should be tossed. Implement a flat tax with standard deduction (to protect the poor). I would personally have a two tiered flat tax, but that is preference.
I agree with your position on the war on drugs. It is one of the most monumentally stupid things we do. We burden our prison system and destroy people's lives over drug possession/use. Non-violent offenders should be released immediately.
The war on poverty is great in theory, but our current system is one of dependence. That has to change. We need job training/retraining in addition to child care while the adults are in training.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Do you believe racism has been eradicated, or close enough to eradicated that anyone who brings it up is "whining" or "playing victim"?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
you're like a parrot: 'racism, squawk; racism, squawk'
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I believe that anyone who can find humor in that target, doesn't see Trayvon Martin as human. I believe there can only be one reason for that. I stand by that.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
'racism, squawk; racism, squawk'
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Or maybe they use humor as a way to cope. My mom and I made jokes about cancer when she was dying of it.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Yes, I believe humor is a coping mechanism. But in this context, no. It's really not, that's a cop-out. Coping implies you are under some emotional distress. Is grind emotionally distressed over Martin's death? do you really believe that Billy?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I think that Grind found it humorous for the same reason I did. It's an incongruity and socially unacceptable, so someone decided to use it as a means of profit. In that instance, the shock value is funny. It's not always the case, but that's how humor is.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I think you both found it funny because it upset liberals.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Eh, maybe subconsciously, but I laugh at a lot of things, including those that would otherwise piss me off, were they not so funny.
no, I do not believe racism has been eradicated. Not even in the slightest. Concerning whining or playing the victim card, I think it depends on context. I DON'T believe that someone who is a minority or less privileged has carte blanche to determine if something is racist/sexist/etc without at the very least providing some sound logic to back up their assertions. Everybody is human, and our brains and interpretations of our environment can be fallible. Our perceptions can be off, it's not always absolute. I don't believe someone has the right to end a debate on their saying so.
And just like it's probably wrong for one party to say to the other that they shouldn't be offended, I also believe that's a two way street. If one side can't speak for the other's worldview, then I also think it's faulty to assume it could go in the other direction. Sometimes one might misread someones intention, mind, or heart, and simply just be wrong. simple as that.
There is also a large part of me that has come to realize that no matter how worldly, enlightened, or experienced some group is with dealing with prejudice, everyone is trying to get theirs. Humans are self serving, and the less privileged are no exception. I do not believe they are beyond the point of being able to lie, or exaggerate their situations/encounters to some particular end.
So for me, it's not a matter of believing it doesn't exist, or is sparse. It all comes down to the specific individual. Some people, and anecdotes, I accept and understand, and others, I disagree with. Like anything else in life
Last edited:
Yes I think we have numerous problems with it. I find it very illogical that it seems the general sentiment is that a presidency is a failure if you are only a one-termer, so you need to play it safe to get elected again. This creates a situation where you have the following:
1) President elected, doesn't want to step on toes, wants to be re-elected so he can do what he "really wants"
2) first term nothing gets done
3) gets re-elected, now has 4 years to be the president they really wanted to be, since they have nothing to lose.
4) half the time, they lose the midterm elections and become a lame duck.
See the problem here? If you are only going to be pushing your principles for 4 years balls to the wall, why not just do it the first term and roll the dice on getting re-elected?
You also have:
1) nearly a year where your energy is devoted to campaigning, rather than running the country. You are forced to take positions you would otherwise not take
2) To go along with the above, you are bending to the fickle will of the people. You might know the populace is full of shit and doesn't know what they are talking about, but you still have a play along unless you have a "failure presidency"
The presidency needs some degree of autonomy. The public isn't always right, they don't understand the nitty gritty details of policy, and they already have an entire branch dedicated for their representation. If the judicial branch is often made up of un-elected judges completely removed from the political process, and we have congress running elections every 2-6 years, then I think it makes sense to put the presidency somewhere in the middle of how much say the public gets. The president needs to be able to make decisions without worrying about the next election around the bend.
For that, I think the answer is quite simple, make the presidency a single term, perhaps of 5-6 years. This would eliminate a lot of the grandstanding, wishy-washy politics. It provides maximum time for an incumbent to get stuff done, without being interrupted by having to perform political theater. And lastly, it's still short enough that the public can have their say within a reasonable time frame of who governs them.
darla, I said 2-3 times already today, that I was trolling. I said it in the very thread you keep citing. I don't think it was actually a good thing. it was bad. It was wrong.
But billy is right, laughing and joking is often a good way to deal with serious issues. Sometimes the burden of seriousness needs to be lifted from us. I just like ruffling everyones jimmies.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I was referring more towards Congress.