Der Trihs and silenus, take that sort of nonsense to The BBQ Pit. Even if you actually hold such nonsense to be true, posting in that manner does nothing to promote a civil discussion.
Magiver, responding in kind is also not productive.
Knock it off, EVERYONE.
[ /Moderating ]
Any and all wars should be real and declared, not killing millions of people over a decade without even calling it a war.
Maybe check out the meaning pf Universal health care. ACA doesn’t come close.
Like I said, for American purposes it does: all who want health care can get it. If we define universal as mandatory, then I think most Americans will say “no thanks”. It’s why even though health insurance is technically mandatory, in reality millions will be able to get an exemption, or even flout the law without consequence. It’s just not politically possible in the US to do a truly universal system.
On issues of expanding freedom, such as gay rights, American attitudes soften over time. But when it comes to issues of restricting freedom, American attitudes only harden over time. Forcing people into a system they want no part of isn’t going to get any easier, and it’s impossible now.
I would accept same-sex marriage if I could ban abortion.
I’d agree to end farm subsidies (and be open to discussing whatever other federal spending is considered “corporate welfare”) in exchange for ending federal welfare programs.
I could probably work out some deal on abortions for same-sex marriage.
I’d expand gun rights in exchange for … I don’t know. What other social issues does the left care about? Ending the War on Drugs?
I would happily give up things that will become progressive simply by the passage of time. Gay marriage and climate change and renewable energy, for one. Or things I don’t care about, like spending, put a cap, whatever, I’m confident money will still come from somewhere.
Stuff that I want are much harder and would in reality take a massive cultural change to affect, so I’d go for those concessions and I’d be willing to give up a lot. Stuff I want include repealing the 2nd Amendment, Universal Health Care, end of corporate personhood would probably not happen organically, or there would be so much opposition it would take decades.
Those are easy:
Want the 2nd amendment repealed? If the public has to disarm, so do the authorities. No guns for police or federal agents. Military only.
Want an end to corporate personhood? Sure, if this applies to political parties. Political parties are not persons, and thus are not entitled to the rights of persons.
Universal health care? Hey, I’ve given you a cap, do whatever you want under that cap. Just so long as private insurance and cash are allowed to compete with the public system. No outlawing paying cash for basic care like Canada does.
I disagree with the fiscal half of your statement. I would give the Democrats everything they want on their non fiscal platform if they would adopt this for their fiscal platform:
A) All segments of the US would have to tax in the same way. I don’t really care WHICH way at the end, but I would prefer using income taxes. To explain this, assume we ARE using income taxes: On your check stub, the Feds would get w%, the State would get x%, the county y% and the city z%. This would also eliminate all other taxes (no gasoline/tobacco/etc excise taxes, no sales tax, no property tax, no health tax, etc). If they decided that sales tax or property taxes where the way to go, then so be it.
B) No government entity is allowed to not pay taxes. I don’t care if the City of JimmyHicksVille has to pay 12% to itself for it’s employees, just do it. The feds also don’t get to say that they own property in JimmyHicksVille so they don’t have to pay the taxes at all to anyone - No. They have to.
C) All tax deductions, shelters, credits, etc are gone except for one: Your first $30,000 is tax free (no matter the method they use to collect, e.g. sales tax.) Additionally, this $30,000 has a non-revocable sunset provision. It MUST be voted for renewal every two years or the tax-free portion of income becomes “infinity.” Additionally, they can’t walk-back any after-term votes to the starting date. E.g. if they are supposed to vote By Jan 1 and it’s Jan 2nd when they pass the legislation, everyone gets an additional 1/365th of their income tax-free in addition to the amount mandated by the bill.
D) All “progressive” taxing is gone. One rate for each level of government.
E) All fines of enforcement and/or penalty will be disbursed back to the entire citizenry of the US based on who is registered to vote. Thus, if $100,000,000 in regulatory fees gets levied on some company for being retards or $100,000,000 of speeding fines are collected, that gets split up at the end of the year and sent to 191M people (roughly 61.8% of people were registered to vote for the 2012 Presidential Election).
Option F-1) In the case of “income taxes” being the method chosen, a person working in a location away from their home will get it’s corresponding percentages cut and distributed to both. E.G. If I live in JimmyHicksVille and work in JaneyHicksVille, each get 50% of the JaneyHicksVille rate (the location of the business being the determiner of the rate charged). This would be the same for splitting county and, in the rarer cases, state incomes.
Option F-2) In the case of “sales taxes” being the method chosen, anything shipped will have the shipping locations’ taxes split and half sent to the receiving party’s jurisdictions, city, county, and state. Additionally, there will be no exemptions from the sales tax for service.
Option F-3) In the case of “property taxes” being the method chosen, I feel terribad for people who own property. 
I think this is a good way because I think that the people to see how much government is costing them in a direct way. The current method of imposing as many taxes in as many ways as possible is harmful, overall, to clarity. How many know that they are charged a “luxury tax” for their phones? How many know that about 35cents goes to the feds for each gallon of gas (and an additional 15 to i think 40 goes to the states)? Why are these not tax-creditable if the feds are also pulling income taxes from you? Why am I paying a “license fee” at the DMV if I’m also paying City, County, and State taxes (Depending on how your locality funds it’s DMV)?
I think that just setting a maximum is bad because they will go over it every year and then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to hide the overage. If they can only tax in one way, then they have a direct and measurable impact on every average Joe’s life and can be monitored easily by everyone who has a bug up their butt that week.
It would also be easier when anyone is looking for a new program/expanded program. For instance, the carbon excise tax that’s being discussed: It will raise everyone’s energy bill by some nebulous rate (likely staged in over years so it’s not “painful”) when they should go “We wish to regulate carbon taxes. It will cost us 1% more per person.” and then the citizens can react to that hard number instead of trying to make sense of 14 points of view from two parties, six energy lobbies, and six environmental lobbies in terms of what the “Cost” will be.
It will also help, maybe (big maybe), to actually focus our elected officials on jobs creation. More jobs means more people to tax, means more money without having to increase that terrible, terrible percentage point and look terrible to your constituency.
That would be a good idea. If we had just one tax, the cost of government could not be hidden. Then fiscal caps would be unnecessary because the public would always be aware and could make educated choices.
I’d make that deal, sure. Most Democrats wouldn’t.
The question is, which part of each coalition gets its ox gored?
Deal, but in order to enforce laws, police and feds should be able to get guns if confronted with something they can’t resolve with batons. And repeal that law about the military enforcing domestic law
I don’t think any non-human should have human rights. We can craft a whole set of laws to apply to organizations, why not anything deemed a person in the eyes of the law? Corporations, therefore, shouldn’t have free speech. Apple doesn’t say anything, but its CEO can say whatever the hell it wants. In that same respect, corporations also cannot donate or support candidates. Only the people within that corporation who should be barred from using the corporate name.
When it comes to political parties, I’m fine with them not being people. Parties are made of humans, they can do what they want according to the law.
No. Universal health care means universal. There would be no private insurance systems in my version. If you want something off your coverage, hire a private doctor
You need the competition to keep the government honest. There’s no harm in people using their own money to buy private care. Their taxes are already paying for the system, so there’s no problem with money leaving the system. There’s just no reason to ban cash or private insurance for basic care other than to avoid people seeing the government fall short by comparison.
Interesting responses! I can’t decide what I would be willing to give up in a compromise politically. I’d love to see lots of things change (universal health care, a nationwide shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, etc.) but I can’t think of what specifically I’d be willing to give up to make it happen that would be a worthwhile trade for the other side. I’d be willing to make English our official language if we got rid of all firearms except for hunting rifles but I don’t know how many republicans would go for that.
adaher, why do you keep arguing every proposal? I thought you gave dems everything in exchange for an 18% GDP spending cap.
As for me, I don’t think I could operate in a “this-for-that” kind of way. That’s not compromise, that’s haggling/bartering, and against a true desire for anti-partisanship. I would slog through each individual issue that came before us and do my best to advance my position.
At the top of my priorities list (the stuff I’d never, ever cave on) would be two things:
Of course, I would also allow private universities, and non-government health care for anyone who wants to pay for it.
I’d be willing to barter with any other issue, including the REALLY distasteful ones like allowing schools to teach religion, banning abortions, constitutional amendment against gay marriage, etc.
The gay marriage example is a fundamentally flawed example. You don’t use human rights as a political bargaining chip. Just thought I’d point that out.
This is ridiculous. It seems straight-up designed to ensure that the problem of the commons cannot be addressed. It absolutely makes sense to have excise taxes on tobacco, gasoline, alcohol, and the like - these are things with very real, very substantial societal costs not reflected upon those who incur them.
Yes, given how functional our government is, this is totally realistic and feasible. :rolleyes: The government would collapse after two years.
I don’t understand why you would want this. At all. Progressive taxing is an entirely sensible response to the reality that the poor have a far higher need for each percentile of their money than the rich. Take half the money of someone who’s going month to month and they will starve on the street. Take half of the money of an upper-middle-class suburbanite and they’re in for some hard times. Take half the money from Donald Trump and he has to buy slightly cheaper caviar and maybe not expand his McMansion this year. Flat tax is morally and economically ludicrous. The more you have, the less of it by percent goes towards covering the basic needs of life. There is no reason for it beyond “we’re too lazy to make a better model” or “we’re too lazy to stop government from cocking it up”. Neither are acceptable cover for such a clear moral failure.
I would be willing to concede to the Republicans on most social issues (immigration, gun control) and some environmental issues (restrictions on offshore drilling and on wildlife preserves) in exchange for the following:
The reform of the Affordable Care Act into a full-scale universal health care program on the German model including full power by the government to negotiate for lower prices.
The removal of the payroll tax cap on Social Security
New infrastructure spending based on expanding mass transit and building nuclear power and natural gas plants
Repeal of Taft-Hartley
Raising the minimum wage and tying it to inflation
I disagree. If you must increase the tax rate, increase it for everyone. By hiding the costs of anything in a tax “over here” you make it certain that the true social cost will never be discussed.
For instance, tobacco: No one cares that it causes things like emphazema and lung cancer and all of that fun health issues because the cost of the treatment is not directly borne by anyone - not even the smokers with the excise tax on it. By saying “We have to increase the tax rate by 15% because of the treatment of people who’ve been smoking cigar/ettes” you give people an actual value against them that this is costing society.
You also make it impossible for that tax to ever see the light of day when the original purpose of the tax is gone. Take, for instance, the luxury tax on phones. It has jumped mediums over to cellular phones and the original reason was that it was because it was a luxury good enjoyed only by the elite. But these taxes still persist because multiple levels of government get revenue from them. But these revenues artificially lower the other taxes that government entity might be charging.
Additionally, “fines” are meant to punish, but are widely used by politicians as an additional income source. I’ve seen many police departments over the years exaggerate the safety implications of speeding to try and prevent voters from doing anything about their extortionist speed trap setups. Why? Certainly not because of safety - only because of the extra revenue they generate - I have even personally witnessed a city lowering half of it’s speed limits to accentuate traffic fines. I have no problem fining people for wrong-doing, but clearly the “fines” are distorting the social realities of government. (If you think the speeding link is tenuous, as some do, then look to the War on Drugs’ forfeiture laws for a more solid link between “fines/seizures” and “distorting the social realities of government”)
You’re right. We shouldn’t try to fix anything, ever, because something might fail. By this measure, congress is working perfectly. :rolleyes:
Except that with all of the tax dodges, loopholes, and the like, the rich pay less, percentage-wise, than us filthy scrubs making under $150,000 a year, anyway. That’s why progressive taxation is a joke. What was the percentage of taxes paid by Mitt Romney the year before his campaign? 14% on ~$20,000,000? Yeah. He’s certainly feeling the squeeze of that “progressive” tax system.
That’s actually ludicrous - equating government taxation with morality. It’s not morally anything. There is no reason, except for politicians greedy to get more money for their own pet projects/concerns, for them to ratchet up the tax rate as you make more money. And, basing it on income as I advocate would mean that Donald Trump, each and every year, pays whatever that percentage is in income, no matter what. Investing, buying property, pillaging and looting small villages in the country side - NOTHING is written off, except that bottom $30,000 of earnings. Same with Trumps’ businesses. Income into the businesses is taxed at the same rate with the same initial $30,000 exemption.
As for “economically” ludicrous - if you get rid of all of the tax loopholes, it wouldn’t be economically nonviable. Actually make the rich “pay their fair share” as most advocates of a progressive tax scheme conveniently forget when they make an impassioned plea to keep the current system intact.
For the poor, well they are taken care of: The first $30,000 is free - completely free (which is a number I’d waver on) - no matter the method they chose for taxing. That’s one of the biggest issues I have with our current tax structure. You make $25,000 a year and you get a rebate on your income taxes from the feds and state, but you get dick (if you spend the time to curate receipts, you can get a deduction - *if *you already have more than the standard deduction amount in other deductions which is all-but impossible for someone making less than $40,000) for all of the sales, or excise taxes that you pay on everything else. (Also, note: For your federal taxes, you can pick ONE other government body to get a credit on your taxes - Writing off your state income tax? Then no write offs for City, County, excise or other taxes.) You have a $25 a month phone service from a pre-paid phone? Well, there’s an additional 16% on average excise tax for that “luxury” that you never get back (plus the taxes you pay on the retail price of the phone pre-instant-rebate that makes the phone free…except for the taxes).
If you really want to pretend that taxes have some sort of morality, how about the current tax system that completely and totally fucks the poor while pretending to stick it to the rich? Stop concentrating on the rich, they really don’t need our attention or help. Look to the other end of society and see how they are being screwed and try to help them.
I would give Republicans carte blanche on economic issues in exchange for a free hand in social issues.