OT: Talk me out of my anti-partisian views.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Excellent post, CAR, and one that speaks directly to partisanship in this political age. There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself a few questions about President Obama:
– Is Gitmo closed yet?
– Have Patriot Acts I and II been repealed, or even slightly rolled back?
– Have we truly exited from Iraq?
– Are we winding down the war in Afghanistan?

We all know the answers, but the real question remains: How is Obama fundamentaly different from Bush on the above topics? Answer: He isn’t.[/quote]

Agree 100%, Allan.

IMHO, the extreme partisanship we’re witnessing in the U.S. is a well-crafted tool that’s being used to control people and to divert their attention away from what really matters — where is the money going to and coming from? Who is pulling the strings…how, and why? We need to look beyond today and really examine what the long-term effects of today’s actions will be.

We need to stop bickering with one another and start holding our leaders accountable for their actions, and we need to stop paying attention to words, promises, and campaign slogans.

Unfortunately, I just don’t think the American electorate is up to it right now. There are small glimmers of hope, though, as at least some people are beginning to question what’s going on.

[CA renter]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]

But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Sorry about the good Clinton/bad Clinton bit. I was just trying to point out that even during our “good times,” things were being done that set the stage for the failures that occurred during the next presidential term. In other words, nobody is blameless, and both parties serve the will of their masters (not “regular” U.S. citizens).

As for the voting question, I think it’s best to vote for a third-party candidate, but as the Dem and Repub leaders (the people *behind* the candidates) catch onto this trend, they will try to infiltrate these parties these parties as well. That’s why it’s particularly important to verify who is behind the candidates and where their money is coming from.

[CA renter]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]

But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Sorry about the good Clinton/bad Clinton bit. I was just trying to point out that even during our “good times,” things were being done that set the stage for the failures that occurred during the next presidential term. In other words, nobody is blameless, and both parties serve the will of their masters (not “regular” U.S. citizens).

As for the voting question, I think it’s best to vote for a third-party candidate, but as the Dem and Repub leaders (the people *behind* the candidates) catch onto this trend, they will try to infiltrate these parties these parties as well. That’s why it’s particularly important to verify who is behind the candidates and where their money is coming from.

[CA renter]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]

But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Sorry about the good Clinton/bad Clinton bit. I was just trying to point out that even during our “good times,” things were being done that set the stage for the failures that occurred during the next presidential term. In other words, nobody is blameless, and both parties serve the will of their masters (not “regular” U.S. citizens).

As for the voting question, I think it’s best to vote for a third-party candidate, but as the Dem and Repub leaders (the people *behind* the candidates) catch onto this trend, they will try to infiltrate these parties these parties as well. That’s why it’s particularly important to verify who is behind the candidates and where their money is coming from.

[CA renter]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]

But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Sorry about the good Clinton/bad Clinton bit. I was just trying to point out that even during our “good times,” things were being done that set the stage for the failures that occurred during the next presidential term. In other words, nobody is blameless, and both parties serve the will of their masters (not “regular” U.S. citizens).

As for the voting question, I think it’s best to vote for a third-party candidate, but as the Dem and Repub leaders (the people *behind* the candidates) catch onto this trend, they will try to infiltrate these parties these parties as well. That’s why it’s particularly important to verify who is behind the candidates and where their money is coming from.

[CA renter]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.

The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]

But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Sorry about the good Clinton/bad Clinton bit. I was just trying to point out that even during our “good times,” things were being done that set the stage for the failures that occurred during the next presidential term. In other words, nobody is blameless, and both parties serve the will of their masters (not “regular” U.S. citizens).

As for the voting question, I think it’s best to vote for a third-party candidate, but as the Dem and Repub leaders (the people *behind* the candidates) catch onto this trend, they will try to infiltrate these parties these parties as well. That’s why it’s particularly important to verify who is behind the candidates and where their money is coming from.

[Hobie]

SK: My comments were regarding campaigns and their funding. If a certain industry perceives a candidate will press for favorable tax treatment ( or legislation ) then they will donate to the campaign. More dollars, better advertising and usually a win. Rub my back, I’ll rub yours. Including large industry who realist the cyclical nature of the parties in power which donates to both sides to keep in good standing and access.

The tax code is very complicated as a result of these special favors. Both for industry as well as social engineering — sorry buzz words again 😉 –providing incentives for changes on behavior. For example, tax credits for investing in certain technologies like solar or tax exempt for groups like an art conservatory.

As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?

[Hobie]

SK: My comments were regarding campaigns and their funding. If a certain industry perceives a candidate will press for favorable tax treatment ( or legislation ) then they will donate to the campaign. More dollars, better advertising and usually a win. Rub my back, I’ll rub yours. Including large industry who realist the cyclical nature of the parties in power which donates to both sides to keep in good standing and access.

The tax code is very complicated as a result of these special favors. Both for industry as well as social engineering — sorry buzz words again 😉 –providing incentives for changes on behavior. For example, tax credits for investing in certain technologies like solar or tax exempt for groups like an art conservatory.

As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?

[Hobie]

SK: My comments were regarding campaigns and their funding. If a certain industry perceives a candidate will press for favorable tax treatment ( or legislation ) then they will donate to the campaign. More dollars, better advertising and usually a win. Rub my back, I’ll rub yours. Including large industry who realist the cyclical nature of the parties in power which donates to both sides to keep in good standing and access.

The tax code is very complicated as a result of these special favors. Both for industry as well as social engineering — sorry buzz words again 😉 –providing incentives for changes on behavior. For example, tax credits for investing in certain technologies like solar or tax exempt for groups like an art conservatory.

As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?

[Hobie]

SK: My comments were regarding campaigns and their funding. If a certain industry perceives a candidate will press for favorable tax treatment ( or legislation ) then they will donate to the campaign. More dollars, better advertising and usually a win. Rub my back, I’ll rub yours. Including large industry who realist the cyclical nature of the parties in power which donates to both sides to keep in good standing and access.

The tax code is very complicated as a result of these special favors. Both for industry as well as social engineering — sorry buzz words again 😉 –providing incentives for changes on behavior. For example, tax credits for investing in certain technologies like solar or tax exempt for groups like an art conservatory.

As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?

[Hobie]

SK: My comments were regarding campaigns and their funding. If a certain industry perceives a candidate will press for favorable tax treatment ( or legislation ) then they will donate to the campaign. More dollars, better advertising and usually a win. Rub my back, I’ll rub yours. Including large industry who realist the cyclical nature of the parties in power which donates to both sides to keep in good standing and access.

The tax code is very complicated as a result of these special favors. Both for industry as well as social engineering — sorry buzz words again 😉 –providing incentives for changes on behavior. For example, tax credits for investing in certain technologies like solar or tax exempt for groups like an art conservatory.

As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]As discussed later in the thread, a flat tax allows for only one lever and a much more visable one. This is the control I’m referring to and its positive effect. It would also save companies lots of money in the tax accounting and save taxpayers the cost of a large IRS. Sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, for example how to incentivise people and companies to donate to charity. It would also bring the underground cash economy to the surface and make for easy collection of the tax. Companies spend lots of unproductive time trying to outguess the government’s next tax move. A straight tax would reduce this considerably enabling them to make more accurate long term plans for growth, which I believe will make them more productive. As the the regressiveness of it, I like to look at the total amount of tax paid by a firm or individual. Not the percentage. Treats everyone fairly and those with more, spend more.

So we can agree the use of tax code in this manner is a tool of control?[/quote]

No. Wrong on just about every item. Nothing there we can agree on.

A flat tax changes multiple rates to a single rate. It does nothing to simplify calculation of taxable income. It does not allow for just one lever. (whatever that means.) It wouldn’t save companies a single dollar in tax accounting, unless you’re proposing a flat tax on gross income. And with all due respect, that wouldn’t be a bad idea, it would be a moronic one. Entire essential industries would cease to exist. No way a grocery store could survive. Or a gas station. Costco? They’re out of business.

I don’t see how it would bring a single dollar of underground economy above ground. Or make collection any easier. It wouldn’t help tax planning. If we change to a flat tax system (which isn’t going to happen anyway), we could just as easily move back to a progressive system. (And as an aside, if you think big companies have problems doing long term tax planning, you’re wrong. It’s not a problem for small companies either, they just don’t do it near as often.)

Flat tax is not a simple solution. It is a simple idea put forward by simpletons. People who have no understanding of the current tax code. It is not a serious idea. Unless a new tax system addresses the complexity of how businesses operate. Any that suggests a flat tax on gross business income doesn’t do that. It’s not even worth talking about.

[Author]

Posts