Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jimmy Leeds

Presidential Election Poll

Presidential Election/Unscientific Poll   42 members have voted

  1. 1. For those eligible, who are you voting for in November?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

175 posts in this topic

The only wasted votes are the ones that are cast for someone you don't truly support. Also even though Stein or Johnson most likely won't win, if they get a certain percentage of the vote, I believe their party is automatically on the ballot the next time around, so it is not at all a wasted vote. It actually ends up being more meaningful than a vote cast for Romney in a state that Obama wins because it's actually going to count for something.

Is that true in New Jersey? I think each state's ballot access laws are different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that true in New Jersey? I think each state's ballot access laws are different.

Ah good point, I'm not sure about that. Tomorrow I'll call the NJ Division of Elections and see if they can tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NObama...that is all.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new money you are gaining was never taxed so it should be fair game, even if the money used to make it was taxed. If you put 500k into a stock, and make 600k, you aren't taxed 15% on 600k, you are taxed 15% on 100k. Where exactly is this supposed "double taxation"?

Because it's not "earned" income, it is investment income. Someone originally earns income and gets taxed on that at a higher rate, in the 30% area. What they have left over, they can invest........if they are fortunate enough to make money on that, it's taxed as "investment" income and is taxed at a lower rate, 15%, therefore it has now been taxed twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's not "earned" income, it is investment income. Someone originally earns income and gets taxed on that at a higher rate, in the 30% area. What they have left over, they can invest........if they are fortunate enough to make money on that, it's taxed as "investment" income and is taxed at a lower rate, 15%, therefore it has now been taxed twice.

You are making the argument for why it should be taxed less, you aren't making the argument that the money is taxed twice. Someone makes $100, gets taxed %30, takes home 70. That person takes their money and invests it, if they make $50 over the long term, they are taxed not on the $120 total, but just the $50. This money was *never* taxed. Sure, if the original 70 were being taxed then yes just that portion is taxed twice, but that's not what happens, you are taxed on your *gains*.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/capital-gains-tax.htm

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are dealing with stocks, most stocks gains and dividends are relatable to company profit which was taxed as corporate income. So my gain was lessened due to corporate taxes which is why I should pay less on the actual gain, to avoid the invested funds being taxed fully at both the corporate and individual level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are dealing with stocks, most stocks gains and dividends are relatable to company profit which was taxed as corporate income. So my gain was lessened due to corporate taxes which is why I should pay less on the actual gain, to avoid the invested funds being taxed fully at both the corporate and individual level.

When I go to a store to buy a widget I am using after tax money. That company accounts for the tax they have to pay and raises their price accordingly. Does that mean I am "double taxed" on everything I purchase? How about my savings account? While my pathetic 1% isn't doing to much for me, why should I have to lump the profits in with my total gross income? my bank's interest rate it offers me is based partly on it's bottom line which affects my rate. Double taxation!

Income is income, it wasn't taxed twice the rich are just trying to find creative ways to justify a lower tax rate on their money. Often these people aren't even working anymore and just collecting on investments. I actually don't even care that much about the 15% long term rate, just call a spade a spade, make the argument that its better for the country, the economy, that it spurs growth etc etc. Just drop this "double tax" argument, it's so transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your widget argument, the capital used in company formation is after tax money so capital gains are triple taxed using your scenarios logic.

Savings accounts aren't capital, they aren't invested in a company, they aren't double taxed.

I put money in a CD or savings account and get a taxable personal income. I put capital into a company and it's return is taxed corporately and personally, so once more than the CD or savings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your widget argument, the capital used in company formation is after tax money so capital gains are triple taxed using your scenarios logic.

Savings accounts aren't capital, they aren't invested in a company, they aren't double taxed.

I put money in a CD or savings account and get a taxable personal income. I put capital into a company and it's return is taxed corporately and personally, so once more than the CD or savings.

How is it triple? it's different in that one is a states sales tax and federal, but it's not 3x. My SA money is most definitely invested in 'a' company, where do you think the money goes? they lend it back out at a slightly higher rate and return my a small share of that profit.

How about wages then? My company adjusts my salary based on what they pay in taxes, that means any income I receive has been taxed twice. I put in work hours, and the return I get is taxed at the corporate level and personal level.

This is so silly, no one forces you to invest, you don't have to put money in the market. The money you make on the market has been taxed ONCE to you. Trying to use vague indirect justifications for how it is taxed twice opens the argument for other stream as well. You were never taxed twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say they weren't taxed twice but clearly they were. I believe the vast majority of people in finance and accounting would agree with that.

I uses neither vague nor indirect methods to show money is taxed twice. It's simply summed up in a few sentences and saying no doesn't make those sentences untrue.

Your savings is not an investment, you do not own part of the bank when you put money in a savings account. Your wages are not capital, they're income, completely different and not taxed at a corporate level first, they come funds before tax is paid.

Obviously further discussion is unnecessary, you will fail to understand or agree with these explanations as well but they're really intro level concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say they weren't taxed twice but clearly they were. I believe the vast majority of people in finance and accounting would agree with that.

I uses neither vague nor indirect methods to show money is taxed twice. It's simply summed up in a few sentences and saying no doesn't make those sentences untrue.

Your savings is not an investment, you do not own part of the bank when you put money in a savings account. Your wages are not capital, they're income, completely different and not taxed at a corporate level first, they come funds before tax is paid.

Obviously further discussion is unnecessary, you will fail to understand or agree with these explanations as well but they're really intro level concepts.

clearly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More dirty tricks by the Republicans to try to kick Johnson off the ballot in Pennsylvania.

I was told similar stories from half a dozen witnesses with whom I spoke over the telephone. All of these witnesses were paid petitioners or notaries. Each was approached by a man who only indentified himself by showing a badge and giving the implied or express impression that he was an FBI agent. This occurred in late August or early September. This man contacted the petitioners to discuss the signatures that they obtained. Most contacts were reported to be in person, without warning, although at least one person was contacted by telephone. This man, identified by some of the witnesses as Reynold Selvaggio, offered petitioners money (the sum reported by most witnesses was $2000) and other benefits to testify that they had falsified signatures. He also threatened the petitioners with prosecution if they did not testify to falsifying signatures.

The parties who claim they are bringing democracy to the Middle East are the same parties who will do just about anything to crush democracy here.

Edited by devilsfan26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@df26: I've been disgusted for awhile, but some of what you've had to say pushed me, and I started to think more about voting 3rd party. I will probably be voting Stein. I'm liberal as all hell, and I've been trying to defend Obama and, since it's gonna be him or Romney, I hope he wins, but I'm realizing more and more that I hated Bush. I think he was one of the worst presidents ever, but things are no better now than they were four years ago, and I think it has a lot more to do with the crap the 2 parties spew than any individual (good or bad). I agree with what Stein has to say, and I'm tired of making excuses. If I help someone I can get behind make some noise, I'll feel a little better about my vote than if I get someone I used to like, still think is a decent guy, but who has been hamstrung by a broken system, elected. Thanks for elevating this discussion and forcing me to reconsider some of my assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. Vote for Stein, I agree.

Really, you "hated" Bush? I dislike Obama's policies cause they are killing a great country, but I sure don't "hate" him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. Vote for Stein, I agree.

Really, you "hated" Bush? I dislike Obama's policies cause they are killing a great country, but I sure don't "hate" him.

By the end of his term, I did. I acknowledge it may be excessive. To my credit, I wanted him to succeed, because I care more about the country than my feelings, at least in an abstract, idealistic way.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the end of his term, I did. I acknowledge it may be excessive. To my credit, I wanted him to succeed, because I care more about the country than my feelings, at least in an abstract, idealistic way.

When Obama won in '08, I publicly declared here, that I hoped he would succeed.

Unfortunately he miserable failed us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@df26: I've been disgusted for awhile, but some of what you've had to say pushed me, and I started to think more about voting 3rd party. I will probably be voting Stein. I'm liberal as all hell, and I've been trying to defend Obama and, since it's gonna be him or Romney, I hope he wins, but I'm realizing more and more that I hated Bush. I think he was one of the worst presidents ever, but things are no better now than they were four years ago, and I think it has a lot more to do with the crap the 2 parties spew than any individual (good or bad). I agree with what Stein has to say, and I'm tired of making excuses. If I help someone I can get behind make some noise, I'll feel a little better about my vote than if I get someone I used to like, still think is a decent guy, but who has been hamstrung by a broken system, elected. Thanks for elevating this discussion and forcing me to reconsider some of my assumptions.

Cool, glad I could help out and thanks for the props. Every time someone considers voting outside the two-party stranglehold it gets us one step closer to fixing this country, whether you consider yourself a liberal or conservative there are far better options for whoever you are than the Democrats and Republicans.

Excellent. Vote for Stein, I agree.

Really, you "hated" Bush? I dislike Obama's policies cause they are killing a great country, but I sure don't "hate" him.

Have you checked out Gary Johnson's platform? Based on years of reading your posts I think you would like him a lot more than Romney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a very brief debate between Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party, with a short preface on the obstacles thrown in the way of third parties.

And remember, there is another debate hosted by a nonpartisan group on October 23rd. The top six candidates were invited, but of course Romney and Obama know they would get lambasted when up against real candidates so they agreed with each other that they wouldn't enter into debates with anyone other than each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Obama won in '08, I publicly declared here, that I hoped he would succeed.

Unfortunately he miserable failed us all.

You also said if he kept us safe you would consider his presidency a success. I am sure you will try to point to several terrorist attacks during his tenure, but Obama's 4 years are better then any other presidents 4 years for the last 3 or 4 decades. So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Obama won in '08, I publicly declared here, that I hoped he would succeed.

That wasn't meant to be a dig at you. Sorry if you interpreted it as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, considering this thread is an informal poll, I'm still undecided (could end up going for Obama, Romney or Gary Johnson), will make my decision in the voting booth, and exercise my right to a secret ballot. Brief pros and cons for each candidate:

Obama: Despite recent events, he's been pretty good on foreign policy, although that represents a change in my attitude about how much the US can affect the worldview of people in foreign countries (not at all). He's been kind of close foreign policy-wise to Eisenhower in the "do no harm". Domestically, I'm fearful of what he has in store. He's manifestly anti-business, or at least anti-businesses that doesn't provide goods and services he approves of or that donate to his campaign. He clearly does not understand how capitalism works. He's not necessarily a socialist, but rather a technocrat that thinks its up to the government to control the economy. There's a role for that in the banking industry, but that won't do anything so long as he sees it as his role to inflate housing prices, and largely regulate things that had nothing to do with the financial crises (things like "predatory lending"). His philosophy, if not actual policy, on taxes is very frightening... basically amounting to, your income presumptively belongs to the government, which decides what you get to keep, as opposed to seeing taxes as a means to pay for government spending. And, as a general matter, liberals are just wrong about most Constitutional issues and the proper role of the judiciary. (Note, conservatives do it to, but just to a lesser extent).

Romney: Unncessarily belicose and neoconish foreign policy, but at least, so far as I'm concerned, recognizes who our real friends are. Domestically, understands how business works and what effect taxes and government regulations have on them, not just in the theoretical sense. My taxes will most likely end up being lower since I got hit with the AMT this year, which he's said that he'll eliminate without qualifications. Doesn't really have a serious proposal to cut spending in any meaningful way. Also a bit troubling that he's giving lip service to the idea of going back on the gold standard, and replacing Bernake, the one guy who you could really attribute the avoiding of a depression. (He's been praised by people who get economics on both sides of the isle, and did exactly what Milton Friedman said should have been done to stave off the Great Depression, i.e. increase the money supply). He'll also appoint better judges (at least from my point of view) that are more likely to further rein in the worst abuses of plaintiff's attorneys.

Gary Johnson: I don't consider voting for a third party as throwing my vote away. I like his instincts about the proper role of government, but, there are some things that the government does these days that are here to stay, which he doesn't seem to recognize. He's way too isolationaist and naive in foreign policy realm to the point of saying that our embassies are there solely to assist US tourists. Espouses the libertarian nutiness about the gold standard, etc. He would probably decriminalize drugs at the federal level. While I agree with this in principle, it won't really have that much of an effect on the overall picture of things, and we'd likely see a spike in the violent crime rate for reasons that I won't get into. Basically, if I vote for the guy, it'll be with the knowledge that I'll never have to live with seeing how libertarian policies will actually work out, which has a kind of feel good quality to it.

Since the election will almost certainly come down to my vote, feel free to try to persuade me one way or the other, or just using this a jumping off point for further random discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the election will almost certainly come down to my vote, feel free to try to persuade me one way or the other, or just using this a jumping off point for further random discussion.

:lol: I think you should vote for kodos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the election will almost certainly come down to my vote, feel free to try to persuade me one way or the other, or just using this a jumping off point for further random discussion.

lol.

Well written post. I will admit being naive about Johnson, but that is because I want Obama out, and I will not waste my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Johnson: I don't consider voting for a third party as throwing my vote away. I like his instincts about the proper role of government, but, there are some things that the government does these days that are here to stay, which he doesn't seem to recognize. He's way too isolationaist and naive in foreign policy realm to the point of saying that our embassies are there solely to assist US tourists. Espouses the libertarian nutiness about the gold standard, etc. He would probably decriminalize drugs at the federal level. While I agree with this in principle, it won't really have that much of an effect on the overall picture of things, and we'd likely see a spike in the violent crime rate for reasons that I won't get into. Basically, if I vote for the guy, it'll be with the knowledge that I'll never have to live with seeing how libertarian policies will actually work out, which has a kind of feel good quality to it.

For reasons you won't get into? That reads like a cop-out and flies in the face of most everything that is stated about decriminalizing certain drugs. The fact is, Johnson has only spoken about decriminalizing marijuana, not heroin, not cocaine. Mexico's #1 illegal export is marijuana (per Johnson's website) and it would absolutely lower the violent crime rate at the border. Obviously, drugs like heroin and cocaine would still be illegal and there would still be crime problems related to them, but those drugs enter through Florida and airports more than the Mexican border. It would also lessen the strain on our prison systems were people are in jail for non-violent offenses. "For reasons I won't get into" is a lame response to a widely held perspective in terms of pro-decriminalization. One of the main reasons people are for decriminalization is because of the fact that it would lessen crime in the case of certain substances because of the elimination of the black market for that substance.

The rest of what you say about Johnson I agree with for the most part. I would, however, like to see him allowed to debate. I would certainly consider voting for him if he stood a chance and the rest of the country was able to see what he had to offer, but I agree with Jimmy in the sense that I consider it a wasted vote and I do not want Romney in.

Edited by ghdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0