Jump to content

Photo

Presidential Election Poll


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

Poll: Presidential Election/Unscientific Poll (42 member(s) have cast votes)

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

  1. Barack Obama (16 votes [39.02%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 39.02%

  2. Mitt Romney (16 votes [39.02%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 39.02%

  3. Other (8 votes [19.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.51%

  4. Eligible but not voting (1 votes [2.44%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.44%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:14 AM

As for wasting a vote, actually that article is one that has pretty much cemented my view to vote for GJ not Romney nor Obama. Somewhere, sometime, we as a people need to express our displeasure with the two parties and their comical platforms and groupthink. I choose to make my stand now. Hopefully, more and more people will join me and the two goliaths will have to take notice of those that are unhappy with their rigid extremist platforms.

Well put. How much worse do things need to get before we wake up and stop arguing over things that distract us from the real issues, inconsequential things like who paid what in taxes, birth certificates, who is a better "job creator" etc? This nonsense just derails us from focusing on stuff that actually matters like the government continuing to take our rights away via Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA/PIPA, spying on citizents, etc; constant multiple simultaneous wars; drone strikes that terrorize scores of civilians; the skyrocketing national debt; the dollar continuing to lose value; the list goes on. It's time we stop this downward spiral and steer this country in the right direction by abandoning the Democrats and Republicans and moving on.

http://youtu.be/q_qgVn-Op7Q
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#42 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,022 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:47 AM

What a reward for getting off your ass and being successful, lets tax the sh!t out of them.
  • 0

#43 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,282 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:18 AM

What a reward for getting off your ass and being successful, lets tax the sh!t out of them.

Yes, "tax the sh!t out of them" by treating all income fairly or raising the top bracket from 35 to 39.6%. The rich (and middle class) have basically never seen their tax burden so low in anyone's lifetime (with apologies to the scarce 100+ year old millionaires), they aren't getting the "sh!t taxed out of them", they are being asked to pay what they did 12 years ago, still substantially less then what they were taxed under Reagan.

Edited by squishyx, 03 October 2012 - 09:19 AM.

  • 0

#44 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:25 AM

Figured I'd share this comment I found on facebook because it does a decent job of summing up my feelings about the Democrats...

Please recall that Obama’s savaging of social security through his payroll tax reduction was part of a deal with the Republicans. What was that deal? Republicans got their much-coveted tax cut for the rich by extending the Bush Tax Cuts and Democrats got the opportunity to help destroy the future of Social Security by defunding it thru a payroll tax deduction. Now our own government informs us that Social Security has lost 3 years of projected solvency in only one year of Obama’s payroll tax cut: Solvency to 2037 has been lowered to solvency to 2034. Yes, please–let’s have four more years of that!!!

I would consider it funny if the effects of this administration’s activities weren’t so stark. Obama’s campaign of fighting for the middle class is positively Orwellian. How stupid are we? Answer: Very. We watch Wall Street take 2 billion dollars and give 1 billion to Obama and 1 billion to Romney. We watch this and think one of these candidates is really working for us and not the one who gave him a billion. God, that’s dumb!

When the history of this era is written the modern liberal will be the culprit which allowed America to become an Aristocracy. We stood by and watched the deterioration of the middle class and came out every two years to campaign for the Democrats under the illusion that they were fighting for us. We voted for the “lesser of two evils” and look at the results. We wouldn’t organize to take the bold actions needed to topple the Democratic Party leaders and reform it, or create a third alternative and new party.

Rahm Emmanual famously advised President Obama to ignore the liberals. He told Barack that they had no where to go and would be back at election time. He also called us “fxxking retards”. He was right. I’ve been a “fxxing retard” and pulled those Democratic levers automatically all my life. They didn’t have to do anything to earn my vote (and believe me–they didn’t). As long as they weren’t Republicans they had me. I was their stooge.

I’m not playing that game any more. I’m with you Lynn. My vote has to be earned now. I will no longer vote out of fear of the Republicans. I am a reformed “fxxking retard”. Some of my friends are still unreformed “fxxing retards”.

Some are in the anti-fracking movement and are voting & campaigning for the “drill, baby, drill” Democratic ticket.

Some are single-payer advocates and are voting for the party that killed the public option and wouldn’t give single-payer advocates a seat at the table during health care reform.

Some are Occupy Wall Street activists who seem unaware that it was the Democratic Party who shut down their movement. 18 Democratic mayors and 1 Independent mayor (Bloomburg) set the police on the Demonstrators–all under the direction of Obama’s Homeland Security Department.

Some are civil and constitutional rights advocates who watched this administration pass laws giving the President the right to kill and keeping demonstrators away from our Presidential election.

They are supporting the continuation of the Bush Doctrine.
They are supporting continued drone-bombing.
They are supporting endless war.
They are supporting the Shock Doctrine.
They are supporting the death of the liberal vision.


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#45 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:29 AM

Also, you can see Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson debate on Democracy Now! tonight.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#46 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,248 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:54 PM

Romney wants us to live in tax free utopia? Wow. Why assume lower rates in previous years or are you just making up assumptions to fit your view?

Do you know why Romney's effective tax rate is lower than yours? Have you looked into it? I have. I even reviewed his 2011 return. Romney's 8 figure income is primarily investment income, interest income and capital gains, which is favored under current tax law. Your income (I am making an assumption here, pls correct me if I am wrong) is probably mostly wage income as is mine. Romney actually had $0 in wages in 2011. My understanding of why investment income has a favored tax status when compared to wage income is that presumably you earn the money first through wages, then invest it and then are taxed on the income again. So after the money was given to you as compensation for your hard work, if invested, it is taxed twice before you get it (I am not even taking into account corporate taxes), hence the lower rate. On an absolute basis Romney's paid income tax is many multiples of what you paid (not to mention the amount he gave to "charity" which I'll assume is also many multiples of what you gave). The whole attack on Romney's tax return is a big non-issue. I hate the US tax code but having investment income taxed at a lower rate than wage income makes sense to me. Sure we can argue the absolute tax rates till we are blue in the face but the point is, their relationship to each other makes sense.

As for wasting a vote, actually that article is one that has pretty much cemented my view to vote for GJ not Romney nor Obama. Somewhere, sometime, we as a people need to express our displeasure with the two parties and their comical platforms and groupthink. I choose to make my stand now. Hopefully, more and more people will join me and the two goliaths will have to take notice of those that are unhappy with their rigid extremist platforms.


No, I'm an moron and I haven't heard anything on the tv over the past year, so I have no idea what the capital gains tax is, please explain it to my idiot self.

It's pretty clear Romney isn't releasing the 2009 and earlier tax returns because he's hiding that he probably paid 10% or less. If they were so similar to his 2 most recent returns, why would he care? Everyone already saw he paid that low rate over the 2 years, why not let people see that is was like that for a while, it wouldn't hurt him. What would hurt him would be clear sings that he finagled his way through 1000 loopholes to pay a pittance in taxes.

Also, giving to the Mormon church doesn't count as charity. That's enabling a cult. If he gave 100's out to homeless people I'd think it was more of a help to society than handing the Mormon church cash.

I know you're just trying to express your opinion, but you made a point to make it seem like I am ignorant or something and I don't appreciate that. I may be many things, but I am not ignorant.
  • 0

#47 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:48 PM

Also, you can see Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson debate on Democracy Now! tonight.


and Gary Johnson will be doing some sort of commentary on the debate in a Google+ hangout. I'm not too sure how Google+ works, but I think this is the link for it.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#48 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 03:06 PM

No, I'm an moron and I haven't heard anything on the tv over the past year, so I have no idea what the capital gains tax is, please explain it to my idiot self.

It's pretty clear Romney isn't releasing the 2009 and earlier tax returns because he's hiding that he probably paid 10% or less. If they were so similar to his 2 most recent returns, why would he care? Everyone already saw he paid that low rate over the 2 years, why not let people see that is was like that for a while, it wouldn't hurt him. What would hurt him would be clear sings that he finagled his way through 1000 loopholes to pay a pittance in taxes.

Also, giving to the Mormon church doesn't count as charity. That's enabling a cult. If he gave 100's out to homeless people I'd think it was more of a help to society than handing the Mormon church cash.

I know you're just trying to express your opinion, but you made a point to make it seem like I am ignorant or something and I don't appreciate that. I may be many things, but I am not ignorant.


Perhaps if you didn't make unsubstantiated assumptions and exagerations as part of your argument, I wouldn't have been so terse.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#49 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 03:26 PM

I've heard this before and it's bullsh!t. Income is income, it shouldn't doesn't matter if you are using money that was once taxed to make it. My saving's account doesn't get taxed at a lesser rate even though it's "taxed" money. When I go to the store and buy something I can't opt to pay a lower sales tax because I'm using after tax dollars.

The reason for the low tax rate of long term investments is to encourage people to do it rather then just sit on it.

I agree that Romney's federal income tax is a non issue to his candidacy, I don't expect someone to pay more in taxes then they technically owe, and I don't hold it against him. But it does highlight a problem (if you should see it that way) where the very rich have revenue streams taxed at lower rates. A simplified tax code would solve this problem, even a 20% flat tax (with a simple average 30k deduction) could possibly work.


Yes, but you don't necessarily need a very high national sales tax. You could just revert to the tax structure we had under Clinton. I am not suggestion that is the be all end all fix, but it's start to a balanced budget.


Well if you say its bullsh!t it must be true.

Anyway, instead of disagreeing with your explanation, I'll agree that it could be at least part of the explanation : the incentive to invest vs leaving money idle. No matter what, the difference in the tax rates was intended to encourage certain behavior just like giving tax credits for buying an electric vehicle. I'm not sure from your post if you agree with that incentive or not but regardless of the cause (preventing multiiple taxation or encouraging investment), I understand and think it is a noble cause.

I'd prefer a flat tax too. Just consider the ramifications however: impact on charitable organizations which depend on contributions, a probable housing crash again with the elimination of the mortgage deduction, the probable big hit to low income 5+ kid households that currently have multiple deductions for dependents. I understand your arguement concerning effective tax rate but the other side of the coin is the absolute tax paid which currently is overwhelmingly weighted towards those like Romney right now. Its not an easy answer but tax rate isn't the only thing to look at.

Edited by devilsadvoc8, 03 October 2012 - 03:28 PM.

  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#50 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,282 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:33 AM

Well if you say its bullsh!t it must be true.

So maybe i was also being a little terse (to steal your word) :P I just don't buy that argument. 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"?

Anyway, instead of disagreeing with your explanation, I'll agree that it could be at least part of the explanation : the incentive to invest vs leaving money idle. No matter what, the difference in the tax rates was intended to encourage certain behavior just like giving tax credits for buying an electric vehicle. I'm not sure from your post if you agree with that incentive or not but regardless of the cause (preventing multiiple taxation or encouraging investment), I understand and think it is a noble cause.

Truthfully I don't know if it's a net gain or not. I'm not an economist, and I don't have the deepest understand of how the extra liquidity trickles down, my guess is it's one of those complicated things with no direct answer. Ultimately though for simplicity I would prefer all income be treated the same.

I'd prefer a flat tax too. Just consider the ramifications however: impact on charitable organizations which depend on contributions, a probable housing crash again with the elimination of the mortgage deduction, the probable big hit to low income 5+ kid households that currently have multiple deductions for dependents. I understand your arguement concerning effective tax rate but the other side of the coin is the absolute tax paid which currently is overwhelmingly weighted towards those like Romney right now. Its not an easy answer but tax rate isn't the only thing to look at.

Any tax code change would be phased, I think that would help mitigate a lot of shock value. Say, in X years you will have an option to pay a flat tax, and then Y years later it will be mandatory or something. Charities will be fine IMO, the worse they would see is a 20% drop off in givings, and I doubt even that much. Whatever we come up with for deductions would basically have to cover what the average people are getting now.
  • 0

#51 95Crash

95Crash

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,979 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:44 AM

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.
  • 0



#52 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:53 PM

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.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#53 Devlin

Devlin

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 09:14 PM

NObama...that is all.


Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2


  • 0

#54 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,387 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 12:31 AM

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.
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#55 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,282 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 12:31 PM

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.howstuf...l-gains-tax.htm

Edited by squishyx, 06 October 2012 - 12:33 PM.

  • 0

#56 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 04:53 PM

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.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#57 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,282 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:24 AM

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.
  • 0

#58 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:24 AM

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.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#59 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,282 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:18 AM

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.
  • 0

#60 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,497 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

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.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users