Election Thread 2016

[Frogacuda]

Raising taxes on business is the government equivalent of downsizing while struggling.

I want to raise taxes on capital gains and individual income, not necessarily on business. I'd like to change the tax structure and regulations for businesses in certain targetted ways, but not with a mind toward burdening them, but rather incentivizing things like domestic job creation and disincentivizing risky investment. I realize these things are cost factors, but it's not fair to simply write them off as tax increases, because they're paired with incentives as well as penalties.

Just the possibility of it has made companies uneasy about investing. I understand your point about making sure we don't whack jobs when there is nowhere for those people to land, but the government's job isn't full employment. It's to allow the private sector to approach full employment, though clearly not through overpaying for services, as you said. It has to be through growth, which isn't likely to occur during uncertainty like this financial cliff irresponsibility.

Right, all I'm saying is that every job you cut not only lowers consumer demand from that person, but causes other people who have jobs to save their money for fear that they would lose theirs. The point is not to keep everyone employed, it's to put money in the hands of people that spend them.

The problem in our economy RIGHT NOW is not a lack of investment capital from the top, but a lack of consumer demand. We need to put money in middle class pockets, get people working, and create viable business opportunities for those with money to invest. Businesses won't expand until consumer demand expands and that can only happen by getting people back to work. If the private sector picks up some of that slack in the short term, or at least doesn't cut it, then that can be picked up by the private sector later.

Who cares about averages? You and I both know that's skewed phenomenally by a very small minority at the top.

At least among publicly traded companies, I'm not convinced it's a small minority.

It seems like a very slippery slope to me. I understand what you're trying to do, but it's a form of price fixing.

Allowing the board of directors (who OWN the company) to determine an employee's wage is not price fixing. That's ridiculous. That's how it's done in most of the rest of the world and it works just fine.

Protecting endangered species is far, far more important than the special rights that get rhetorically called civil rights these days.

I'm sorry but "right to a fair trial" is not a "special right," it's one of the main ones. And it's important to me. I don't like the increasingly authoritarian direction this country is going in.

If we want to dedicate resources to civil rights, let's protect citizens' right to vote by checking IDs to make sure non-citizens aren't voting and that no one is voting twice or after they're dead.

This sort of voter fraud doesn't really happen though. It happens on average something like .25 times per year in each state. Proponents of these regulations have repeatedly stated their intent is to disenfranchise minorities. Out loud, in public, even.

As further evidenced by the fact that these same lawmakers do nothing to address mail in votes, which is how most voter fraud takes place, because mail in votes skew away from minorities.

[icarusfall]

That's none of your damn business, but it was a non-zero number. I haven't gotten a refund in several years. And even people who do likely paid taxes. A refund just means you paid more than you "owed."

Oh for fuck sake. Just answer the goddamn question. It's the entire crux of your arguments.

Hell dance around it. put it somewhere in a range. 200-500. 2000-5000. 1000000-1000000000000.

This is like when people won't tell you who they voted for, as if they're ashamed of it in some fashion.

[Yoshi]

I want to raise taxes on capital gains and individual income, not necessarily on business. I'd like to change the tax structure and regulations for businesses in certain targetted ways, but not with a mind toward burdening them, but rather incentivizing things like domestic job creation and disincentivizing risky investment.

You'd definitely have to change the structure, because I believe people like icarus pay individual income tax for their small business. You'd also have to be incredibly careful with the incentives as to not hurt competitiveness or even cut off things that may be viewed as risky but necessary, like alternative energy.

Right, all I'm saying is that every job you cut not only lowers consumer demand from that person, but causes other people who have jobs to save their money for fear that they would lose theirs. The point is not to keep everyone employed, it's to put money in the hands of people that spend them.

The problem in our economy RIGHT NOW is not a lack of investment capital from the top, but a lack of consumer demand. We need to put money in middle class pockets, get people working, and create viable business opportunities for those with money to invest. Businesses won't expand until consumer demand expands and that can only happen by getting people back to work. If the private sector picks up some of that slack in the short term, or at least doesn't cut it, then that can be picked up by the private sector later.

I understand the desire. I just don't like these slippery slopes. It's awfully hard to lose a public sector job once you have it, so what may seem like a fair and good short term idea may lead to longer term issues, like the ridiculous way the post office is crippled by Congress.

At least among publicly traded companies, I'm not convinced it's a small minority.

I'm talking about the math. The average itself is likely skewed significantly by a small minority. Most wages and prices are. It's the logic behind median housing prices instead of average.

Allowing the board of directors (who OWN the company) to determine an employee's wage is not price fixing. That's ridiculous. That's how it's done in most of the rest of the world and it works just fine.

I misunderstood what you meant here. How do the CEOs get around the board and investors to begin with? For stock I own, I know I get a vote on supporting the CEO raises. Of course, I don't see firsthand what is done with that vote.

I'm sorry but "right to a fair trial" is not a "special right," it's one of the main ones. And it's important to me. I don't like the increasingly authoritarian direction this country is going in.

I'm with you there. I made the erroneous assumption you were talking changes to the status quo, as opposed to actually enforcing it.

This sort of voter fraud doesn't really happen though. It happens on average something like .25 times per year in each state. Proponents of these regulations have repeatedly stated their intent is to disenfranchise minorities. Out loud, in public, even.

As further evidenced by the fact that these same lawmakers do nothing to address mail in votes, which is how most voter fraud takes place, because mail in votes skew away from minorities.

I still don't understand how the sampling could be done to get the statistics on this, but it's a moot point, as I wouldn't be in favor of a federal law anyway.

[Yoshi]

Oh for fuck sake. Just answer the goddamn question. It's the entire crux of your arguments.

Hell dance around it. put it somewhere in a range. 200-500. 2000-5000. 1000000-1000000000000.

This is like when people won't tell you who they voted for, as if they're ashamed of it in some fashion.

I believe it was a four digit number at the federal level that I paid on top of what was taken out of my checks, but I don't understand what difference it makes.

[Yoshi]

No - I would. The chef should be able to cook whatever food he likes, so long as he isn't hiding potentially dangerous and known allergens in his food without posted warning (on menu or posted dietary info). He should not, however, get to choose who is able to enjoy his food without specific incident (some a-hole causing a scene and being banned). Otherwise that would be prejudicial and unfair to the target of the prejudice.

So regulation and deregulation are not opposing ideals. They are tools in this case to allow freedom of market and expression for the chef (deregulation), and allow opportunity to the consumer (civil rights regulation) to enjoy his labour.

ok. So we were saying essentially the same thing on that part. I agree that regulation designed to inform the consumer is absolutely necessary and frankly part of a truly free/fair market. Deception isn't what should decide success and failure.

[icarusfall]

So, if someone paid $1 in taxes you'd say they carry the same weight as you in whining?

That's awful socialist of you.

[Yoshi]

No, but they have skin in the game. I'm not sure there is a way to do something balanced like the Senate (2 per) and the House (based on population) based on taxation. It would be an interesting thesis for someone who through away their money on a poli sci doctorate.

[Drewbacca]

The company I work for does online accounting software and recently sent out a survey to our network of small businesses. They were general questions like which candidate is better for your business? which candidate do you prefer? which candidate is better for your family? And almost all of the response we got was overwhelmingly negative for Obama. Our target is the true small business - 9 to 20 members of staff or less. In America a "small" business can have over 1500 employees and 20 million in billings and still be considered small.

I thought that was interesting.

[Yoshi]

I'd consider 1,500 employees small, but there is definitely a difference between that and "mom and pop" businesses.

[Drewbacca]

There is a distinct divide, but in Canada when you say small business people picture the corner store, or freelance service-based business like marketing firms.