Its Time! ..Who should be the next President?

[Joel]

Yeah but it is that 1% that tends to be able to find the most tax loopholes and write offs so that in the long run they are paying a smaller percentage of their gross, not net, income than the so called working class. That is one of the reasons why we need a flat tax based on gross income.

Actually according to Howard Phillips income taxes are unconstitutional.

Joel

[Bixler]

Let's return the discussion for a moment to the subject of the electoral college "fix" that Gurm referred to earlier.

I hate to catch you in an error Gurm, cause I know the consequences. I've been running from that boomstick for 18 months now.

Here goes: (gulp)

From Gurm:

Ross Perot received not a single electoral vote, despite a healthy popular turnout.

Rightly or wrongly heres how the electoral college really works. ALL of the electoral college votes in a given state go to the popular vote winner. Perot didn't win any states, therefore no electoral votes. It has happened (back in the 1800's, I don't remember which one) for a president to be elected without winning the popular vote simply by barely winning in the large states, and loosing BIG in the smaller states. But back to the point...Perot didn't recieve any electoral votes simply because he didn't win in any single state.

It's also my understanding that 'electors' are no longer free to vote as they please, but must, instead cast their vote for the statewide winner, making all of this electoral college stuff a PURE formality.

[LAMFDTK]

That which Owlbore speaks of in his tax plan is Socialism. Why is this even an option in a great Rebuplic like America? How has Socialism become a "perferred" option? Has everyone gone mad? I never want to see my elected officials decide who gets what.

The man in the Regan costume last night is so left wing it is sick. Bush raised Taxes and Clintoon raised taxes both to balance the budget. The budget is balanced its time to give it back!

Am I the only one who see this: Clinton\Gore raised taxes so much that there is a huge surplus. And this they want to hold up to the American people as an accomplishment!

Joel I perfer a national sales tax on goods. That way all the "Underground" cash can enter into the system. Flat tax is still better than what we have now but then lower income American would pay more.

I wake everyday looking for a way into that 1%. Why are people with money the villians? This is scary.

[Thundrchez]

A couple of things that they really ought to do, but they are waaaay too scared to do it:

1. Do not allow withholding taxes from your paycheck
2. Make the full and only payment of your taxes due on April 15, and require that you have to pay in person
3. Make election day on April 15, and let you vote at the same place that you just paid your taxes

You ever wonder why they make election day as far as possible from tax day? They want to dumb you down into forgetting that you just paid an @$$load of money to these same schmucks that you are electing. Haven't they mismanaged your money enough?

A nation cannot tax itself into prosperity.

[Joel]

But it all boils down to something I have said before that no matter what they say during the campaigns, once elected they are going to do what the hell they want to anyway. Most of the time they are only telling us what they think we want to hear. IMO it's all a crock but I vote because I feel that anyone who doesn't, doesn't have a right to complain.

Joel

[Rags]

I am against a national sales tax for one reason. It's biased. If there were a national sales tax, the lower your income, the higher the percentage of your income you would be taxed. You take a guy who makes say 800 dollars in a month. He spends say 300 dollars on groceries, 200 dollars on rent, and the other 200 on other consumables (such as electricity, entertainment, etc.). This would add up to 5/8ths (63 percent) of his income being taxed. Now take a guy who makes 5000 a month. He spends 800 dollars on groceries, 800 on rent/mortgage, 500 on consumables, and pays his car payment and saves the remainder. Since his car was already taxed when he purchased it, and mortgage was already taxed at purchase, and property taxes are separate, his percentage of income being taxed by the Fed. sales tax is roughly 25 percent of his income that is taxed. The more a person makes, the more likely they are to save, and the less likely they are to spend all of their money on consumables. This would not be fair to the people who are not as well off.

Rags

[Thundrchez]

How about an absolute flat tax? Not a flat tax rate, but a fixed, flat tax amount per person. Every citizen should be treated fairly by the gov't with the same rights and privilidges, and therefore tax for that citizenship should be the same fair amount for everybody. Something such as everybody 18+ years old will pay $500/year as a generic citizenship tax.

Wouldn't that be an incentive to make more money? Imagine how nice it would be if you were able to keep everything you made over $500, or whatever the amount came out to be. With the irresponsible, out of control spending that these schmucks do, the amount probably would be closer to $50,000/person.

IMHO, taxing one man more than the other is saying that he is more important than the other. Too bad he doesn't receive any more benefit from contributing more than his fair share.

Maybe I've just gone looney.

[Bixler]

Never happen Thunderchez, but thanks for backing me up on the witholding thing. As long as there is one man, one vote, the masses will have some power (taxation) over the elite. It sometimes gets out of hand, but generally corrects itself over time, when the wealthy begin doing things to hide money instead of make money, and the Govt. backs off.

This was the case with Reagan's dropping of the highest marginal rate from 75% to 30%, and with the lowering of the capital gains rate...Both resulted in HIGHER revenues, at which point the "class warfare" types begin chipping away again, in the name of 'fairness.'

Rags has a point about the sales tax, but there still should be one in order to capture all the underground economy's money. Some combination of a national sales tax and a simple lower flat tax would be the best solution to all of this, but will never happen IMHO as long as politicians succeed with this class warfare strategy. It seems to be working.

[Joel]

I prefer a flat tax percent. Say 10% of your total gross income. With a flat tax amount those who make less money pay a higher percentage of their income. And isn't that part of the arguement, yet in reverse, that the rich are having to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Yeah you may paid more, dollar wise, as you make more but then again you are making more. And that $2.99 value meal at Burger King cost the same for everyone but yet it utilizes a smaller percentage of your income.

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 05 October 2000).]

[Pneumatic]

One more thing while we are on the subject of taxes. The inheritance tack really chaps my butt. My father has worked his whole life, and as a result has a lot of money. He is in the top 1% (which the Democrats hate so much). He has been paying taxes for all of those years (at a higher tax rate, mind you) and has always stepped up to the plate when asked. I am an only child so when my parents die I am the only heir. The way it is right now the government will take almost 50% of the money that is over $600,000.00. Can someone please explain to me why this is a good idea? The man has paid, and paid, and paid. Then when he dies they take most of what he has worked so hard for. They are taxing him even after he dies. I'm sick of it!!! Bush will most likely change the inheritance tax plan, but Gore sees no problem with it. So if you plan on doing well for yourself and would like to leave a little something for your kids (and not the Government) go for Bush. If you are the kind that likes to stand around with your hand out, and expect the Government to take care of you Gore is your man.

[LAMFDTK]

Joel, what part of Al Gores Career has led to believe that he in for smaller government? Where has he campaigned on the Constitution? Has he ever used the word Liberty?

Al Gore is a Socialist. He has no convictions or core beliefs. He has flipped on almost every position that he has had in public service. Abortion, Guns, Tobacco and more. His states that his father spent his life as a champion for civil rights yet his father cast on of the few votes against the civil right bill in the 60's. Al Gore is a liar.

[Gurm]

Frank,

Don't forget "criminal" to add to that list. Just because he was never prosecuted for all that illegal fundraising he did doesn't mean it was suddenly "legalized" or anything.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[LAMFDTK]

here's a great one if you think that there is a problem then you are right, stroke of the pen=Law of the land.

the FCC is part of the EXECUTIVE branch, right?

FCC Lifts Attack Rules

Thursday, October 05, 2000

By Pamela McClintock and Paula Bernstein

WASHINGTON (Variety) - For the first time in more than 30 years and seven presidential elections, TV and radio broadcasters will be free in coming days to endorse candidates or make character attacks without providing free airtime to opponents.

A bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission Wednesday voted 3-2 to lift its political editorial and personal attack rules for 60 days in order to study whether the policies should be modified -- or abolished. Both the Radio-Television News Directors Assn. (RTNDA) and the National Assn. of Broadcasters (NAB) long have urged the courts to overturn the rules, which they say are antiquated and impinge on their First Amendment rights.

NAB president-CEO Edward Fritts accused the FCC of playing politics in a crucial election period. "We hope the court quickly puts an end to this charade."

Gee now Dan Rather can wear an Al Gore button and tell everyone how wonderful he is!
Not that these Left-wing socialists in the media are not there already...

[Joel]

Joel, what part of Al Gores Career has led to believe that he in for smaller government? Where has he campaigned on the Constitution? Has he ever used the word Liberty?

I don't think that I ever specifically stated who I was going to vote for. I was just trying to point out how wrong I think it is about using generalizations on a group of people just because of their choice in a candidate.

Personally I don't think any of them is qualified but I have to vote for someone. If I could I would do a write in for NONE OF THE ABOVE. I probably won't even make that ultimate decision until I am actually standing in the voting booth.

I guess I should have just left this thread alone in the first place. Because IMO there are two topics that will turn friends into enemies quicker than anything else, Politics and Religion.

Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 05 October 2000).]

[Pneumatic]

So what are you trying to say, Joel? Because I go to church I'm suddenly your enemy? What do you have against Church, huh?