Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Flat Tax or Progressive Tax? Flat Tax or Progressive Tax?
View Poll Results: Which is better?
Flat Tax
14 22.22%
Progressive Tax
49 77.78%

02-05-2015 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Also given Obama has deported more people than any other president it blatantly isn't true, but feel free to support the lie.
That statement is false. There has been more removals by Obama. Total deportations, returns and removals, have been lower by Obama.

02-05-2015 , 03:26 PM
When people voluntarily leave without a legal hearing forcing them to go it clearly can't be attributed to the president in charge at the time. Not least because the numbers will fudge themselves as people cross back and forth over the border repeatedly.
02-05-2015 , 04:06 PM
A 'return' is not someone who voluntarily left the country. A 'return' is someone who is coerced to leave.
02-05-2015 , 04:45 PM
Bush gets in office. Economy is great, immigrants are trying to cross in droves. A "return" is a Canadian or Mexican (primarily Mexican obviously) that is caught near the border and turned around. Due to said great economy, border patrol catches tons of potential illegals and sends them back home. Bush got killed due to the catch and release nature of this because people would try and try again and the same person could be sent back multiple times with each return counting toward the overall number.

Due to this, Bush decided to start concentrating on removals, which add a formal charge while sending them home and denies any hope whatsoever of a legal immigration. You can see these numbers go up in jaash's graph as his administration went on. Finally, toward the end of W's years, the economy tanked and this persisted for much of Obama's administration as well. But Obama continued Bush's policies of removal, which is far more serious than a return, and these numbers have continued to increase despite a drop in people attempting to cross the border due to economic realities on our side.

So you have a guy formally removing and charging far more immigrants than Bush despite having less of a pool to do so and somehow he's weak on immigration? These other narratives assume some realities about the numbers of potential crossings that just don't make sense given the economy and the increased focus on formal removals over the last ten years, i.e. that they're going to be punished immeasurably harder for crossing than they used to be now that they have been removed.

In reality, Republicans should be campaigning on Obama simply taking a W policy that worked (to their ends) and claiming it as his own, but imagining some ever-growing hoard of Mexicans and Central Americans probably sells a lot better. The economy is getting better, we'll see how the numbers change going forward assuming the policy itself doesn't.

edit: Forgot to add that Obama has seen more and more immigrants that are not from Mexico at the border fleeing for reasons that are not as dependent on the economy as Mexican immigration is. These people cannot be "returned" by definition, so they must all be removed and this adds to the total in another way. This should also tell you why shipping home all those children given current laws is just abysmal morally.

Last edited by Noze; 02-05-2015 at 05:02 PM.
02-05-2015 , 05:03 PM
I mean, it should probably tell you something that Obama is touting how high his removal numbers to some are to some crowds while simultaneously showing how his total number of returns and removals being far lower than Bush to other crowds. The fact that he can do this and largely maintain a large amount of support amongst Latinos (it went down in 2014, but so did pretty much every demographic for Democrats) should probably tell you something about how stupid Republican rhetoric and policy toward immigration is.

Obama has basically removed and permanently exiled record numbers of immigrants while offering somewhat of an olive branch to those who might have skipped step A, but are following steps B,C, etc. toward being Americans (i.e. working and contributing) and would be impossible to root out unless you want to devote just a hilarious amount of money toward it. The man has quite a few policy faults, but this is pretty solid. It's almost like there are other issues at play that inform how this topic is discussed by the right, but I'll leave that exercise to you.
02-05-2015 , 08:44 PM
Everyone knows Bush43 was a terrible president. Obama has managed to be worst.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ame-of-christ/

Obama compares Christians to radical Islam. Silence from the audience.
02-05-2015 , 08:48 PM
Obama is the worst president because he said true things about the crusades? lol...
02-05-2015 , 09:15 PM
Christianity is about proud loud announcements of superiority, not humble self reflection.
02-06-2015 , 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benholio
Obama is the worst president because he said true things about the crusades? lol...
History is written by the winners. Obama speaks for the losers.
02-06-2015 , 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neg3sd
History is written by the winners. Obama speaks for the losers.
Wat
02-06-2015 , 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
flat tax is stupid. The marginal utility of money is much higher at the low end of the scale.
Flat tax is really a horrible idea, pretty much for the reason Ikes states. I honestly think that anyone who supports a flat tax is (a) a bad person; (b) dumb; or (c) hasn't given the issue much thought. And the idea that you need a flat tax in order to simplify the tax code is a complete red herring.
02-06-2015 , 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benholio
Wat
that's an applause line on whatever bigoted right-wing nutjob website he stole that line from
02-06-2015 , 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neg3sd
The flat tax does eliminate deductions for everyone's pet cause. A $30,000 personal exemption is huge for the lower middle class. Meaningless exemption for Gates and Buffett.
You don't need a flat tax to simplify or get rid of the current crazy quilt of deductions and exemptions.
02-06-2015 , 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
You don't need a flat tax to simplify or get rid of the current crazy quilt of deductions and exemptions.
Speaking of which, I was reading up on McDonald's CEO stepping down and came across this

02-06-2015 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12
Speaking of which, I was reading up on McDonald's CEO stepping down and came across this

It is in no way a "loophole" that corporations can deduct compensation paid to employees for services.
02-06-2015 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
Flat tax is really a horrible idea, pretty much for the reason Ikes states. I honestly think that anyone who supports a flat tax is (a) a bad person; (b) dumb; or (c) hasn't given the issue much thought. And the idea that you need a flat tax in order to simplify the tax code is a complete red herring.
Or someone who actually pays a huge $$ amount in taxes because close to 100% of their income is W2. A flat tax with a high enough income exemption threshold (say something like $50k per adult) and the elimination of most (if not all) income deductions, is not a stupid idea. The real question is would it actually generate enough revenue to pay for all the things the government now provides that were never part of its mandate when the income tax was introduced.

But frankly this discussion is most likely irrelevant as there is way too much incentive for politicians to continue to pile on exemptions to all sorts of voter groups (rich and poor alike) and they would never collectively vote to give away that power. Just listen to any campaign speech and it is almost impossible to not hear about some form of "tax credit" or "tax exemption" of some kind.

Bottom line, it is in politicians best interests to keep the tax code as complicated as possible.
02-06-2015 , 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorn7
Or someone who actually pays a huge $$ amount in taxes because close to 100% of their income is W2. A flat tax with a high enough income exemption threshold (say something like $50k per adult) and the elimination of most (if not all) income deductions, is not a stupid idea. The real question is would it actually generate enough revenue to pay for all the things the government now provides that were never part of its mandate when the income tax was introduced.

.
The trick is the choose the correct amount for personal exemption and the correct tax rate. The flat tax is in theory revenue neutral.
02-06-2015 , 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neg3sd
The trick is the choose the correct amount for personal exemption and the correct tax rate. The flat tax is in theory revenue neutral.
Agreed but that is easier said than done as the cost of living across the country varies so greatly. $50k exemption in North Dakota would be the nutz...living in Brooklyn it might not mean that much.
02-06-2015 , 12:48 PM
The federal govt does it for traveling expenses. One gets more when going to an expensive city.
02-06-2015 , 12:58 PM
The real problem of income inequality is that we are still using the linear compensation model. CEOs make nearly 500 times the average worker. I don't believe those estimates. I think CEOs make more. Just too difficult to calculate their actual pay.

IBM and HP has been doing poorly for the last 2 or 3 years. Both CEOs received a small raise, while many workers got laid off. There needs to be a rule that no corporation which is net laying off workers can give the CEO a raise.
02-06-2015 , 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Namath12
Speaking of which, I was reading up on McDonald's CEO stepping down and came across this

A widely exploited loophole in the progressive brain allows news organizations to....
02-06-2015 , 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman0330
It is in no way a "loophole" that corporations can deduct compensation paid to employees for services.
Meh, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. The author of the accompanying article referred to it as a "loophole" in the article and the chart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4372972.html

Quote:
At the same time workers claim they're struggling, McDonald's CEO pay is being subsidized through a tax loophole that is actually the result of a backfired effort to limit executive pay, according IPS' Anderson. In 1993, Congress capped the amount of pay companies could deduct from their tax bill at $1 million, but lawmakers left a loophole in place that lets companies deduct unlimited amounts of performance-based pay, like stock options and certain types of bonuses, from their tax bill.

“It led to this explosion of huge stock-options grants,” Anderson said. “That reform is really pointed to as one reason why CEO pay has exploded so much in the past couple of decades.”


Indeed, CEO pay has grown 127 times faster than worker pay over the past 30 years, according to a May 2012 report.
So if you're of the opinion that legislative intent was to cap that deduction at $1 million, but the law doesn't do that, I can see why you might call it a "loophole."
02-06-2015 , 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neg3sd
Everyone knows Bush43 was a terrible president. Obama has managed to be worst.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ame-of-christ/

Obama compares Christians to radical Islam. Silence from the audience.
Haters is maaaaaaad today.
02-06-2015 , 02:26 PM
It would be quite absurd to conclude that the legislative intent was to cap deductions for all types of compensation at $1 million, because, at the same time as they put the cap on salary in place, Congress drafted a detailed provision explaining that certain types of compensation would be deductible above the $1 million cap.
02-06-2015 , 02:39 PM
Then by that reasoning it could be argued that it is illogical to conclude that any loophole exists in any law, tax or otherwise.

I suspect that the people who originally brought the legislation to the floor intended for compensation to be capped at $1 million, then others added language to the bill based on whatever factors which made it more palatable to their particular base or whatever.

ETA: But was language actually drafted exempting other types of compensation? Or were they just silent on the issue? That's an important point I think.

      
m