-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
theprodigy
Member
you guys never answered my question
where's a summary of this tax plan
edit: and OT sure is hilarious today
where's a summary of this tax plan
edit: and OT sure is hilarious today
Black Mamba
Member
The top rate is 35%, not 25%. Furthermore, it leaves the ACA taxes in place, so for those it's still roughly 39%.
It also raises the long term capital gains by 1 percentage point. I mean, I agree there should be a counter proposal with different rates and stuff, but the top rate isn't 25%.
Black Mamba
Member
I agree. Which is why I'd counter by uncapping the long terms capital gains taxes after $1 million or something. Then that's basically 40%.
I'd compromise if need be to make it 20% exempt at that point, bringing it to at least 28%. That would be a very fucking large tax hike on the super wealthy. Not as big as I'd like, but that's why it's a compromise.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Silly question: It would require congressional approval to nationalize and make a utility of the internet and internet providers right? Shit lately has made me feel hopeless in terms of a free and open internet.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Indeed it would.
Bams fucked UP in the stimulus for Internet broadband expansion, because they, in their infinite wisdom, forgot to close loopholes in the contracts so the cable companies couldn't horde stimulus money used for CEOs instead of expansion
"Forgot" or just let some shit slide? You know Biden was a warrior for the RIAA/MPAA (and still is) in the Senate, right? It's one thing I really do not like about him.
RustyNails
Member
Dont worry guiz, Hillary will save us.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
We should make one of those gaming side "[X] Will save [Y]" blackboard things for the political landscape of the country.
theprodigy
Member
you'd think someone would have done this already
(also do a GOP parody of the blackboard for marriage equality or something lol)
empty vessel
Member
How so? I don't see any expression in a monetary transaction.
The top rate is 35%, not 25%. Furthermore, it leaves the ACA taxes in place, so for those it's still roughly 39%.
It also raises the long term capital gains by 1 percentage point. I mean, I agree there should be a counter proposal with different rates and stuff, but the top rate isn't 25%.
Ah, so it is still progressive. I wouldn't worry about raising the top bracket's rate so much as I would insist on another bracket to hit very high income earners more. Treating an individual who makes $20 million the same as one who makes $400k is criminal.
Yeah, really. It can be a list of the people who can save the GOP.
theprodigy
Member
starting from 2008:
Huckabee
McCain
Palin
Jindal?
the Cain train! (LOL)
Rick Perry
Santorum
Romney
Rubio
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Christie
Walker?
Black Mamba
Member
It's actually still worse because someone who makes $20 million most likely does it through capital gains. Those are taxed at 25% (21% + ACA taxes) compared to wages at 35%.
Which is why I think the exemption should be changed at some level (say $1 million) in some way (or removed). That would drastically change what is going on. The entire issue is how long term capital gains are taxed.
Sure, there are some athletes and celebs that actually bring in wages in the big numbers, but overall they're a very small part of the elite and they have to give out a lot of their money to things like agents, anyway.
Black Mamba
Member
It incenticizes investment.
There's no evidence of this and at such low income tax rates, I doubt you'd ever find any.
You're forgetting a couple:
- Ben Carson
- Condoleeza Rice
-Suzanna Martinez
- Phil Robertson
What do you guys think of this "my brother's keepers" policy?
It sounds like a ineffectual way to address poverty and seems more like it would feed into republican narratives about lazy minorities when it inevitably fails to produce any meaningful results
It sounds like a ineffectual way to address poverty and seems more like it would feed into republican narratives about lazy minorities when it inevitably fails to produce any meaningful results
also this sounds like battered wife syndrome, lol
Frank the Great
Banned
It's expressing support for a candidate.
Don't get me wrong, I still think it should be heavily regulated, for two reasons. First, limiting the amount that can be given does not burden the expression. If everyone could only give $1 to a candidate or PAC, they would be able to express support just as equally as if they could give $100 (as long as everyone can give everyone the same amount, avoiding any equal protection issues). It is simply not true that more money = more right to expression, as SCOTUS seemed to say. Second, if the government ever had a compelling interest in regulating anything, it is in regulating campaign contributions. And limiting the contributions is pretty much the only way to reduce corruption.
All I'm saying is that I see the logic in protecting contributions at least somewhat under the First Amendment. People like to point out how ridiculous "money=speech" is, but the First Amendment protects a lot more than just speech.*
I do differ strongly from SCOTUS though, particularly in their asinine, self-serving assumptions that 1) more money is more expression, essentially meaning wealthy people are automatically entitled to more First Amendment protection, and 2) it is impossible for corruption to exist through campaign contributions.
*I know SCOTUS might have used the term speech in Citizens United, but if they did, they were clearly wrong. This is conduct. Just like the ability to circulate petitions is protected under the First Amendment as conduct.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It strikes me as typical Obama: a half measure that misses the mark. It also strikes me as quite late. However I find myself defending this due to the predictable way opponents have attacked it. Multiple black leaders throw a fit every time Obama mentions personal responsibility. I have never heard Obama deny institutional impediments but the question becomes what can he do about them? He can't stop state governments from starving inner cities of tax money, he can't unilaterally close gun loopholes that allow trafficking, etc.
Obama is not Booker T Washington. Yet even thoughtful black commentators get upset when he says black people need to work harder at x. Self reliance was one of the pillars of Malcolm X and many other 60s leaders' platforms, anytime you watch a "black state of the union" conference you hear the same thing, yet Obama says it and they get mad. And if Obama says nothing they accuse him of ignoring the issue.
There's nothing stopping black people from taking over school boards, creating after school programs, helping tutor children, cleaning up blocks of the city, etc yet it's not being done.
Personally I've wanted Obama to work with black athletes, entertainers, etc and bring money into these types of inner city programs, and work alongside churches to organize blacks. A national drive focusing on things such as after school programs, buying schoolbooks, mentor programs, etc. It won't fix the issue of banks not giving black businesses loans but it could slowly return us to the days when we were more organized and activist.
I understand Obama can't do a lot of things as a black president, especially during his first term. But I often find myself thinking that in many ways he is the best first black president we could have had, and the worst black president we could have had. His image, his family, his intelligence, his cool...all that strikes me as exactly what the first black president had to be; can you imagine if he had a daughter like Bristol Palin, with a kid out or wedlock? On the flip side his general loner personality and lack of conviction has always angered me; he constantly seems paralyzed when in a position of leadership, is too concerned about every variable, and doesn't seem to take risks unless he has to (Bin Laden). Sure Obama couldn't go full black in the WH but he could have done and said a lot more. His mere image is powerful sure, but I wish he talked more in inner city schools. I wish he used the power of influence to stir change. His entire 2007/2008 mantra was about grass roots action yet he abandoned it in 2009. The energy we see in NC on Moral Mondays is what I'd want to see in Chicago, Detroit, etc. And what better way to spark it than with Obama getting church folk off their asses, inspiring kids, bringing LeBron to a Big Brother after school program, etc.
... You do know that the big companies didn't take any of the broadband stimulus money... Right?
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
i'm sorry, but are you saying you would have liked for Obama to concentrate more energy on helping poor black folks, to give them more energy than other poor people? Cuz you know, there are other poor folks than black folks
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I do at least understand where they were coming from. Most 'speech' requires money. If you have a picket sign you paid for that, if you hold a rally you probably paid for a few things, printing a newspaper requires money, they're smaller examples but the concept shows that sometimes money can be integral to speech. Having an extremely onerous restrictions on the publishing industry but framing it as just regulating money clearly would run afoul of the 1st amendment. Nominal restrictions could be targeted at the spending of money not at the speech but we include them together because often is directly tied to the speech. The expression of speech in many cases requires money. There are cases where a limit on money is limiting speech.
That being said I think its quite clear self evidently that campaign fiance and especially under its current form isn't about protecting speech. The first amendment wasn't created to allow special interests to flood the discourse and leave the other 300 million without much of a voice. I'm just not a great legal mind to express this very well. I think one thing they got wrong in Buckey v. Valeo was the fact that the law would limit speech (and I'm still not sure what they mean by the 'quantity of speech'). I don't think it did
Way to project something that isn't there. PD isn't saying he should ignore other people just the problems with the black community deserve a lot of attention. This 'class not race' deflection is tiring.
There are other poor folks who have been systematically placed there for the past 400 or so years? Not saying it's right or wrong. But African Americans definitely deserve more attention to try and reverse the trends that have been intentionally put in place to impede their social and economic progress.
Obama is too scared of pissing off people like you to actually do that tho. He could personally write the same plans to try and help black people out more and have a white president implement them and they wouldn't be seen as a bad thing.
PhoenixDark
Banned
That's exactly what I'm not saying. More than a few black commentators wanted Obama to pass some type of black stimulus aimed directly at black communities; iirc the black caucus withdrew support from the 2009 stimulus at one point because it allegedly overlooked black communities. Obama's counter argument was that a rising tide lifts all boats, which is less true for black people but still accurate (see black unemployment during Reagan or Clinton's terms). I'm not advocating for one groups being given more than another.
My point is that Obama was in a position to make a lot of impact in the black community due to being...black. I'm not saying he shouldn't go to rural white areas, I'm saying he has a better impact in black areas. The same way Bush and Clinton managed to effectively speak directly to rural whites, Obama was in a position to do that with blacks. He still is.
There's nothing controversial about the steps I laid out; the far right would complain but who gives a shit. Part of the reason black commentators dislike self reliance narratives is because they appeal to white people. Whites have always enjoyed black leaders who criticize their own race, starting with Booker T Washington telling nigger jokes. And while things have changed since then, whites still prefer black messages about self reliance. When Obama tells black men they need to be better fathers, white people respond positively. There's no danger in helping form big brother programs with private funds, or Obama spending an hour in some beat down black school talking about hard work, or getting churches involved in inner city issues. These are all constructive ways to address inequality instead of sitting around a table complaining with Cornell West.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the first black president wasn't in a position to talk to blacks in a way no other president has or could. And given how much conservatives discuss the death of the black family, I doubt many would outright complain over Obama taking a more direct role in advocating these issues with the backing of private money, celebs, etc. A lot of this work would also be behind the scenes anyway, from merging with black leaders to setting up events.
rocketknight
Member
Jon Huntsman! (lol)
- Paul Ryan
-Donald Trump for about 2 seconds as well.
Romney probably ought to be on the list about 3-4 times just for humor's sake (flipping between Moderate Mitt and Tea Party Mitt)
WayneMorse
Banned
Oh so the Daily Caller is now saying that Hillary wont run because of her health is in dire condition.
lol.
lol.
empty vessel
Member
Most of the money that corporate executives make is regular income. When they are paid in stock, that is not a capital gain, but compensation. (When they sell the stock that they earn, that is a capital gain.) There is of course a lot of income that is capital gains at the top (far more than elsewhere along the income spectrum), but there is also a lot of income at the top that is earned income (compensation) and not capital gains. Executive compensation is earned income, and executives make up a huge chunk of the top 0.01%. So I disagree that capital gains is all that matters. Certainly I support treating capital gains no better than earned income, but if you don't also address earned income at extremely high levels, you will be missing a lot of income.
Just gonna leave this right here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...wouldn-t-trust-them-with-scissors?detail=hide
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...wouldn-t-trust-them-with-scissors?detail=hide
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That's part of the reasoning behind it. But here's the main problem that Congress in 1921 tried to address by enacting the first preferential rates on capital gains:
House Ways and Means Committee said:
Yep. Needs a 45 bracket over the top, and a 55 over that (at 2 million and 10 million?)
Edit: Or shoot. Just make it 10, 20, 30, 40, 50.
speculawyer
Member
The top rate is 35%, not 25%. Furthermore, it leaves the ACA taxes in place, so for those it's still roughly 39%.
It also raises the long term capital gains by 1 percentage point. I mean, I agree there should be a counter proposal with different rates and stuff, but the top rate isn't 25%.
How the fuck is anyone supposed to take the GOP seriously?
GOP:The deficit! Obama is running up massive debt! The deficit is out of control! . . . So let's cut taxes!
Troll party.
Because they've convinced a wide swath of the general public that cutting taxes -> infinite revenue.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
People don't care about spending if they're not paying taxes.
Black Mamba
Member
Of course, and I'm not unopposed to creating a new bracket for millionaires or whatever the line is (I've always been in favor of it, in fact) but I'd rather close this loophole first and then work on bringing in a new rate because I think that is a much harder fight in this country.
That's the reasoning given today. The reasoning given in 1921 is also wrong for today.
Do you have data for this? Can't say that I will take something like this on the word of huge Laissez-faire, pro-business politicians.
Also, I am not really sure why a policy that, in effect, promotes long-term investments is a bad thing.
That's just a cornucopia of stupid. Practically every line will make you shake your head in frustration.
Black Mamba
Member
LOL
WayneMorse
Banned
Cruz/Jindal 2016
Aaron Strife
Banned
Democrats just landed amazing candidates in Kansas and Mississippi.
Too bad Kansas and Mississippi.
Too bad Kansas and Mississippi.
WayneMorse
Banned
Hm? Brownback was trailing in the last poll in Kansas, unless you're talking about Pat Roberts Senate seat. Which I have no idea why anyone would want to waste the time and resources on the Senate in Kansas, they haven't sent a Dem to the Senate since 1932, who was then voted out in 1938.
To be honest I can actually see a Dem win in Mississippi if Cochran goes down in the primary.
There's an inflation penalty on capital gains taxes. (Tax is assessed on both the real gain and the gain attributable to inflation over time.)
Capital losses are limited but gains are not. (For tax purposes you're only allowed to deduct capital losses of $ 3,000.00 and carry the remaining amount forward but there's no cap on how much of your capital gains may be taxed in the current year.)
Ronald Reagan's crying himself to sleep in rich man's heaven:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-incredible-shrinking-deficit
Alternative Republican friendly headline: Obama's job killing tax hikes subtract -$300 billion in revenues!
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-incredible-shrinking-deficit
Alternative Republican friendly headline: Obama's job killing tax hikes subtract -$300 billion in revenues!
Seriously, the past twenty years have been nothing but trouble for the supply-siders.
"You can't raise taxes! The job creators will flee to Somalia, and the economy will plunge into a major recession!"
Result: biggest peacetime economic boom in history
"Well, if so many jobs were created under Clinton's job killing tax hikes, imagine how many tens of millions MORE will be created if we cut taxes!"
Result: slowest growing economy since the Great Depression
And now we have this. Somewhere out there Grover Norquist is in a corner somewhere staring into space, while grinding his teeth furiously.
"You can't raise taxes! The job creators will flee to Somalia, and the economy will plunge into a major recession!"
Result: biggest peacetime economic boom in history
"Well, if so many jobs were created under Clinton's job killing tax hikes, imagine how many tens of millions MORE will be created if we cut taxes!"
Result: slowest growing economy since the Great Depression
And now we have this. Somewhere out there Grover Norquist is in a corner somewhere staring into space, while grinding his teeth furiously.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
"Money is speech except that it's different" just doesn't make much sense to me. In my mind you having to argue why money is different than speech proves that money isn't speech.
Also in what way is electronic speech different from physical speech in the eyes of the law?
RustyNails
Member
I am not sure if this is a good thing given our economy is experiencing deflation. EV can correct me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked