Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[carlfense]

Hillary is too old.

Maybe. I'd guess that most Republicans think that it worked out ok for Reagan.

[tschu]

All I know is, a two-term Democratic black president followed by a Democratic woman president would cause a lot of rich white male racist GOP head exploding. BUT WHY, WHY DOES EVERYONE WANT TO BE PROGRESSIVE AND HELP THE POORS

[tschu]

God, it's gonna be delicious. Maybe, one-by-one, the crazy Fox News Tea Party faction will one-by-one tire themselves out, see some tiny bit of reason, or just plain die. And we can actually get some real change done to fix the tax code, healthcare, inequality, education, poverty, wasteful defense spending, corruption, hilarious banking regulations, god it goes on and on.

[Hooked on Huskers]

God, it's gonna be delicious. Maybe, one-by-one, the crazy Fox News Tea Party faction will one-by-one tire themselves out, see some tiny bit of reason, or just plain die. And we can actually get some real change done to fix the tax code, healthcare, inequality, education, poverty, wasteful defense spending, corruption, hilarious banking regulations, god it goes on and on.

Yep. Top priority, Fair Tax. Good bye IRS.......no deductions and loopholes. I will celebrate by burning tons of 1040 forms, much more better than 4th of July fireworks. Next attack, wasteful defense. Finally, abolished all lawyers

[strigori]

. . . 2016 is not going to go well for the GOP. They have only a small chance at taking the White House.

Maybe. A lot depends on Hillary . . . who else would the DNC run if for some reason she doesn't or has to drop out? That said, I think that if she runs we'd better get used to saying President Clinton again.

If the GoP runs Cruz, pretty much anyone would beat him. The cast of clowns that are up front for them right now are simply not electable on a nationwide vote.

[strigori]

God, it's gonna be delicious. Maybe, one-by-one, the crazy Fox News Tea Party faction will one-by-one tire themselves out, see some tiny bit of reason, or just plain die. And we can actually get some real change done to fix the tax code, healthcare, inequality, education, poverty, wasteful defense spending, corruption, hilarious banking regulations, god it goes on and on.

Yep. Top priority, Fair Tax. Good bye IRS.......no deductions and loopholes. I will celebrate by burning tons of 1040 forms, much more better than 4th of July fireworks. Next attack, wasteful defense. Finally, abolished all lawyers

The 'fair tax' is as far from fair as you can get. It is one of the most regressive forms of taxation in existence.

[tschu]

Fair Tax is borderline retarded.

 

Taxes need to go up especially for the top 2 brackets. There is zero reason that the top bracket shouldn't be at 50% or above. And capital gains tax at 15% is one of the most corrupt and broken policies that has ever existed.

[rawhide]

Entertainers and Pro athletes should be in the 75% bracket.

[Hooked on Huskers]

Fair Tax is borderline retarded.

 

Taxes need to go up especially for the top 2 brackets. There is zero reason that the top bracket shouldn't be at 50% or above. And capital gains tax at 15% is one of the most corrupt and broken policies that has ever existed.

I didn't know that. I thought Fair Tax = Straight Tax.

 

For example, let's say $100,000 individual income (salary). The US government cut, $100,000 x 20% = $20,000 tax. No deductions, no loopholes.

Another example, $20,000 income x 20% = $4,000 tax. Again, no deductions, no loopholes. Rich or poor, the same percentage rate. Kinda like sales tax.

 

Sorry H&R Block, CPA's, IRS employees ...........

[AR Husker Fan]

The problem with a "straight" tax is the highly disproportionate impact on disposable income. No matter the rate you set, it will have a far higher negative impact on the poor and middle class in terms of what they have to spend beyond absolute essentials and necessities of life. When this country has had sustained economic gains or surpluses, the result was due to increasing discretionary spending on the poor and middle class. The wealthy, under either a higher tax rate or poor economic conditions, aren't really impacted; they still have considerable discretionary income. Of course, because they do, they also are less inclined to spend on discretionary goods - they already have them. That's why tax cuts for the wealthy have always failed to have any real positive impact on the economy. However, give those to the middle class and the poor and they immediately spend it, driving up demand, and thereby jobs - the money goes back into the economy. This is even more evident in today's climate - take a look at the rate of taxes paid by the wealthy over the last 50 years or so. It is the lowest it's been over that period. Under the logic of "remove the tax burden on the wealthy and it will create jobs", there should be a SURPLUS of jobs out there - and there isn't. Nor has any version of that trickle-down theory ever produced such gains. An examination of Reagan's time in office is particularly illustrative; he cut taxes on the wealthy, and the economy tanked. Trickle down failure. He finally equalized the tax breaks somewhat, and the economy improved.

 

To spur the economy, you have to stimulate demand. You can cut taxes on the wealthy and it won't increase job creation because the wealthy won't start increasing production - and thus increase jobs - absent any demand. Demand doesn't come through more disposable income to the wealthy - it comes when the poor and the middle class get some additional discretionary income and feel they can afford to buy that new car or large-screen TV. A straight tax rate sounds appealing due to its simplicity, but its impact will actually harm the economy, not improve it.

[Hooked on Huskers]

........To spur the economy, you have to stimulate demand. You can cut taxes on the wealthy and it won't increase job creation because the wealthy won't start increasing production - and thus increase jobs - absent any demand. Demand doesn't come through more disposable income to the wealthy - it comes when the poor and the middle class get some additional discretionary income and feel they can afford to buy that new car or large-screen TV. A straight tax rate sounds appealing due to its simplicity, but its impact will actually harm the economy, not improve it.

Good argument but I still hate deductions and loopholes, especially loopholes......mostly corporate and wealthy families. I like simplicity just like sales tax. We need to change tax code......... major overhaul.

 

Warren Buffet pays less income tax than his secretary. Incredible.

 

Oh, coming up, Tax Day .

[tschu]

I do find it strange how many people absolutely idolize Reagan, but the fact of the matter is that we're going to look back on him presidency as a time that was horrific for the American economy in the long term and had a broad negative and faulty-logic-causing impact on the general conservative movement. He destroyed the middle class, tripled the deficit, took the top bracket from like 70% to 35% - started us on the train that led to this absurd inequality and stupidly rich 1% and 0.1%. And the economy appeared to be okay under Reagan, but his presidency started on the upturn of a recession cycle, so of course it was going to look okay no matter what he did within reason. But the long-term effects on the economy and more importantly on the general public's misguided ideologies, and fairly disastrous. It's amazing how many people think that trickle-down is a real thing.

[tschu]

Anyways, do we have single-payer yet?

[Hooked on Huskers]

I do find it strange how many people absolutely idolize Reagan, but the fact of the matter is that we're going to look back on him presidency as a time that was horrific for the American economy in the long term and had a broad negative and faulty-logic-causing impact on the general conservative movement. He destroyed the middle class, tripled the deficit, took the top bracket from like 70% to 35% - started us on the train that led to this absurd inequality and stupidly rich 1% and 0.1%. And the economy appeared to be okay under Reagan, but his presidency started on the upturn of a recession cycle, so of course it was going to look okay no matter what he did within reason. But the long-term effects on the economy and more importantly on the general public's misguided ideologies, and fairly disastrous. It's amazing how many people think that trickle-down is a real thing.

The best post ever. Short and sweet. I remember trickle-down motto...... failed miserably

 

No, not a democrat left-winger guy nor Republican nut case. I am a "Repubicrat" ..... middle of the road (Independent). I voted Reagan in 1984 presidential election .

 

I'm tempted to pee on Ronald McDonald Reagan's grave.

[ZRod]

But guys he did spend the Soviets into oblivion.