The Dream Team - DPChallenge Forums

08/24/2012 02:37:01 AM · #276

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Federal 20.1%, State 7.2% for a 27% cumulative rate, not counting sales tax.

That sounds like you grabbed rates straight from your paycheck and included social security?

No, not at all. I did not include social security, and "grabbed the figures" directly from my tax statement for the 2010 tax year. If you'd like, I'll do the same for 2011. These are the percentages I paid in taxes, after deductions. Edit to add that I obviously need help finding loopholes.

Ohhhhh noooooo - 2010 and 2011?? We want ten years worth! ;-)

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

08/24/2012 08:17:45 AM · #277

anyone in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College?

08/24/2012 09:13:47 AM · #278

Originally posted by Melethia:

Edit to add that I obviously need help finding loopholes.

Indeed!

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/24/2012 09:21:52 AM · #279

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Edit to add that I obviously need help finding loopholes.

Indeed!

Open to suggestions!

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/24/2012 09:22:14 AM · #280

Originally posted by mike_311:

anyone in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College?

Yes. But someone here will tell me why I'm wrong for wanting that, I'm sure.

08/24/2012 09:27:52 AM · #281

Originally posted by mike_311:

anyone in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College?

Definitely not.

It was set in place to ensure popularity of a candidate was spread evenly among the states.

It would be theoretically possible that a candidate could somehow muster nearly 100% of votes in certain areas. These particular areas could therefore have huge influence on the election if popular vote was adopted. The electoral college evens the playing field between populous and rural areas.

Also, the government is a federal one, not a national one. Being federal, it's the states that technically send their votes, not the people directly. I think that's often forgotten.

The basic principals that the founding fathers built the federal government on was that it was only to be a smaller unifying element among the sovereign states. However power has slowly shifted towards the federal government.

Message edited by author 2012-08-24 09:29:27.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

08/24/2012 10:30:37 AM · #282

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by mike_311:
anyone in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College?

Definitely not.

It was set in place to ensure popularity of a candidate was spread evenly among the states.

It would be theoretically possible that a candidate could somehow muster nearly 100% of votes in certain areas. These particular areas could therefore have huge influence on the election if popular vote was adopted. The electoral college evens the playing field between populous and rural areas.

Also, the government is a federal one, not a national one. Being federal, it's the states that technically send their votes, not the people directly. I think that's often forgotten.

The basic principals that the founding fathers built the federal government on was that it was only to be a smaller unifying element among the sovereign states. However power has slowly shifted towards the federal government.

then how about we split up the electorate votes. that way it its still a weighted system. I dont think its fair that in California the victor gets 55 electorates when traditionally 50% vote for the victor and 40% vote against him.

talk about not having your vote count.

Venser

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

08/24/2012 10:33:31 AM · #283

Originally posted by mike_311:

It's even worse than a first past the post system.

A good book on fixing voting schemes and how to game any voting method is Gaming The Vote by Poundstone.

Message edited by author 2012-08-24 10:33:46.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/24/2012 10:34:56 AM · #284

And there you go!

I don't vote in the presidential elections because of the Electoral College. What would be the point? When I lived in Texas, that state would cast all of its votes for the Republican candidate, regardless of who that candidate was. So if I wanted to vote for the Republican, I could do nothing - he would win! If I wanted to vote for the Democrat, well, that would be a waste of time given the state's past 8 electoral votes. So basically I can just skip the election all together, and Texas will do what it wants with or without my vote.

The Electoral College process also completely defeats any chance for a third party candidate to ever succeed. That may be the true point of having it.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/24/2012 10:40:58 AM · #285

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Let me take one more crack at this because I think I see where the disconnect is...

Your blathering about deductions is irrelevant. We're talking about fairness, so make a fair comparison. All groups have various loopholes and deductions, including carried stock losses and no payroll tax for investors. In this case we're assuming they both deduct the same number (which is why I said "similar deductions"). Obama probably pays a higher tax rate than you or I, and that's how progressive taxes are supposed to work. There will be some variation, of course, but the top 1% has typically paid an EFFECTIVE tax rate of around 30% like Obama and Gingrich. They are NOT supposed to make $21 million and pay a lower rate than Melethia.

08/24/2012 10:52:50 AM · #286

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by mike_311:
anyone in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College?

Definitely not.

It was set in place to ensure popularity of a candidate was spread evenly among the states.

It would be theoretically possible that a candidate could somehow muster nearly 100% of votes in certain areas. These particular areas could therefore have huge influence on the election if popular vote was adopted. The electoral college evens the playing field between populous and rural areas.

Also, the government is a federal one, not a national one. Being federal, it's the states that technically send their votes, not the people directly. I think that's often forgotten.

The basic principals that the founding fathers built the federal government on was that it was only to be a smaller unifying element among the sovereign states. However power has slowly shifted towards the federal government.

then how about we split up the electorate votes. that way it its still a weighted system. I dont think its fair that in California the victor gets 55 electorates when traditionally 50% vote for the victor and 40% vote against him.

talk about not having your vote count.

Talk to California about it then. It's up to the state as to how they allocate the votes. Look at Maine and Nebraska... they divvy it up.

Originally posted by Melethia:

I do feel you about feeling like your vote doesn't matter... I live in a state that is considered a sure thing for one party.

A third party candidate has just as good of a chance. However a third party that actually has influence does create interesting situations in our system. Look at the election of 1824. Because there were 4 parties that were strong enough to be awarded significant amounts of electoral votes, the election had to ultimately be decided by the house. The ultimate winner didn't have plurality of the popular or electoral vote.

Message edited by author 2012-08-24 10:54:23.

08/24/2012 11:07:48 AM · #287

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me take one more crack at this because I think I see where the disconnect is...

Your blathering about deductions is irrelevant. We're talking about fairness, so make a fair comparison. All groups have various loopholes and deductions, including carried stock losses and no payroll tax for investors. In this case we're assuming they both deduct the same number (which is why I said "similar deductions"). Obama probably pays a higher tax rate than you or I, and that's how progressive taxes are supposed to work. There will be some variation, of course, but the top 1% has typically paid an EFFECTIVE tax rate of around 30% like Obama and Gingrich. They are NOT supposed to make $21 million and pay a lower rate than Melethia.

Blathering. Pfft. I'm sure you are a hit a parties.

I don't disagree with you. Just your rhetoric.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/24/2012 11:11:16 AM · #288

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Blathering. Pfft. I'm sure you are a hit a parties.

OK... inane, fallacious tangent purely for the sake of argumentation over a point that isn't even disputable. Better? ;-D

08/24/2012 11:24:47 AM · #289

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Blathering. Pfft. I'm sure you are a hit a parties.

OK... inane, fallacious tangent purely for the sake of argumentation over a point that isn't even disputable. Better? ;-D

From you? That's grudging praise. :)

The progressiveness of the system works better than we assume, but, as you point out, there are some obvious exceptions and the Romneys and Buffets of the world are the example. They pay less as a % than people who are well off but not dynastically rich. I'm not above fixing this at all.

Message edited by author 2012-08-24 11:25:18.

08/24/2012 11:40:44 AM · #290

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...the Romneys and Buffets of the world are the example. They pay less as a % than people who are well off but not dynastically rich.

Point of order, I'm not sure that calling the Romney family a dynasty is factually correct. His dad was successful, and as a result became wealthy, but that's about as far as it went.

However, I'm seeing some basis for agreement on a progressive capital gains tax.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/24/2012 01:46:01 PM · #291

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...the Romneys and Buffets of the world are the example. They pay less as a % than people who are well off but not dynastically rich.

Point of order, I'm not sure that calling the Romney family a dynasty is factually correct. His dad was successful, and as a result became wealthy, but that's about as far as it went.

Perhaps but it doesn't take much speculation to know that future Romneys will also be wealthy. Yet, we'll continue to look up at people like Mitt as if he was self-made. What's even more f*up is how we treat the poor in this country. As if the assistance we give them amounts to anything more than peanuts. If we gave every poor person the type of start Mitt Romney got, we'd have a boatload of Romneys, but we can't have that since it's that inequality that allows people like Mitt to stand out who wouldn't otherwise.

Message edited by author 2012-08-24 13:47:00.

08/24/2012 02:26:55 PM · #292

I would actually be more in favor of a "death tax" with teeth than an increase in capital gains tax. I think it would accomplish the same thing (recirculated stuck money) while avoding all those other arguments about discouraging investing.

08/24/2012 02:40:01 PM · #293

Originally posted by yanko:

What's even more f*up is how we treat the poor in this country. As if the assistance we give them amounts to anything more than peanuts. If we gave every poor person the type of start Mitt Romney got, we'd have a boatload of Romneys, but we can't have that since it's that inequality that allows people like Mitt to stand out who wouldn't otherwise.

I almost hate to say this out loud, because I know it is taken as being 'heartless'. But those living on government handouts should not get enough to allow them to live "comfortably" (with the exception of those with physical disabilities, and old people, but that's a different story) and should require the recipients to work. Its a matter of motivation, and I know many that live off of the system and are not interested in working to improve their situation. I'm all for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that Clinton passed.

I am not a fan of the recent developments under Obama, which basically nullify the main premise of the 1996 act which required work from 50% of the recipients.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Looks like beginning on Jan 1st, you'll get your wish.

55% on assets over $1M.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/24/2012 02:46:51 PM · #294

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...while avoding all those other arguments about discouraging investing.

What arguments? Raising the capital gains tax does not discourage investing. Do you seriously think raising capital gains to 25% would prompt anyone to give up his trust fund or pull money out of stocks and put it in a savings account? We already tax short term gains like regular income, and day traders abound. Besides, capital gains and dividends are on new income, while a death tax is on money that's already been taxed.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/24/2012 02:48:03 PM · #295

If you are going to advocate the return of the "death tax" at least quit calling it that. The term used to be "Estate tax" or "Inheritance Tax" before 1993 when Jim Miller (head of 60 plus, a conservative version of AARP) coined the term to make taxes on inter-generational inheritance seem some how evil. It is a bit like calling a medical review board a death panel.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/24/2012 02:54:55 PM · #296

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Looks like beginning on Jan 1st, you'll get your wish.

55% on assets over $1M.

Weeel, not really. Sure anything over the first million cash will get taxed heavily but no one smart will get touched. This is how Mr Romney will pass on $100 million to his children tax free. I am not attacking him for doing so, all families with high value assets do similar things with trusts to minimize taxation exposure. Only the very poorly advised will be hit with this new tax.

08/24/2012 02:56:46 PM · #297

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...while avoding all those other arguments about discouraging investing.

What arguments? Raising the capital gains tax does not discourage investing. Do you seriously think raising capital gains to 25% would prompt anyone to give up his trust fund or pull money out of stocks and put it in a savings account? We already tax short term gains like regular income, and day traders abound. Besides, capital gains and dividends are on new income, while a death tax is on money that's already been taxed.

I didn't say the arguments held water, just that we can avoid them. I don't think we know they discourage investing, but I don't think we know they don't either. (I know the world is more black-and-white to you.)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/24/2012 03:07:41 PM · #298

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Looks like beginning on Jan 1st, you'll get your wish.

55% on assets over $1M.

Weeel, not really. Sure anything over the first million cash will get taxed heavily but no one smart will get touched. This is how Mr Romney will pass on $100 million to his children tax free. I am not attacking him for doing so, all families with high value assets do similar things with trusts to minimize taxation exposure. Only the very poorly advised will be hit with this new tax.

I just like to be dramatic Brennan, using the word "death". :) And what you are referring to is what I would try to reduce with the "teeth" of the tax. Money acts like a magnet and money attracts money. An inheritance tax is a good method of declumping the money and making sure it recirculates through the economy.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/24/2012 03:11:22 PM · #299

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Romney has vowed to abolish the estate tax entirely, along with all taxes on US corporations earned in other countries (c.f. Adelson and his casinos in Macao(?)) ...

yanko