Preliminary Impeachment Hearings

[Maxxthepenguin]

Just one fact: A major reason that a lot of people still want to impeach Bush is actually to deny him presidential pardons.

[Nystul]

why is it that flat taxes are bad? I never heard a real counter argument, other than "change is scary!"

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What we have now started out as a flat tax. Other than that, it boils down to ideology as far as criticisms I think.

[archibaldcrane]

why is it that flat taxes are bad? I never heard a real counter argument, other than "change is scary!"

They push more of the tax burden onto people who can afford it the least. They are "more fair" but simultaneously "a terrible idea".

[Nystul]

how is that? And how hard would it be to institute a flat tax where the percentage is X% for people with a salary of 50k/year+ and Y% for those with less? Wouldn't having a more transparent and simple system allow for fewer people who are wealthy to hide behind tax loopholes? Add up your income, pay the percent you owe, done.

[Maxxthepenguin]

how is that? And how hard would it be to institute a flat tax where the percentage is X% for people with a salary of 50k/year+ and Y% for those with less? Wouldn't having a more transparent and simple system allow for fewer people who are wealthy to hide behind tax loopholes? Add up your income, pay the percent you owe, done.

That is essentially a graduated tax, flat would be the same % for everyone. Also, implemented like that, it would mean essentially earning less by going up from 49,999 to 50,000, which is why we have that "pay % on the first #" system.

I'm for streamlining the tax code, but I don't know the entirety of the current tax system so I don't know the details of what we'd be axing, thus I can't say exactly what to change. So while I think the tax code should be able to be understood, I have no idea how to change it.

[Beckwin]

Big difference between "flat tax" and simplifying tax code. If you want to know why the former is bad/dumb/terrible, search for FairTax here and read Aurik's posts (probably evilbau's as well... where has he been anyway?). Like archibald said, it's only "fair" when you just look at the % tax, but not fair when you consider the percentage disparity when it comes to subsiding and furthermore looking at how wealth affects privileges enjoyed in this country.

swampy: uh, I don't know how you say a biggest share than in the last 40 years when Bush lowered capital gains taxes from the clinton era.

[Churchill]

Are you retarded about the clinton impeachment? Clinton was a great president whatever the fuck he does on his own time is his own business. Fuck I could care less if our new president is a serial mass murderer rapist if hes a good president and knows what the fuck hes talking about.

You're an idiot, lol. And no, not about the blowjob.

[Churchill]

Borrowing money from Social Security to balance the budget and running inflationary bubbles via interest rates was hardly good policy, lol.

Transparency, progressive taxes, getting healthcare to more people, ending the war in Iraq, environmental initiatives, closing corporate loopholes, more opportunities for financial aid, etc etc.

Transparency...where?

Progressive taxes...spent on what? Taken from who?

Healthcare to more people...why does it cost so much in the first place?

Ending war in Iraq...not going to happen.

Environmental initiatives...which favor a minorities opinion and affects the majority?

Corporate loopholes...mmm like what exactly?

Financial aid...is wrong, but the only good thing is white kids can still get minority scholarships.


Also impeachment...I don't see why it matters. There's a plan to it I'm sure, but it's all kind of irrelevant. There's no real justice here.

[Khamsin]

Not even Obama would take the risk of assassinating a president. This will never get any legs, but if it did, he'd get pardoned.

Well, no, I'm sure he wouldn't assassinate Bush. He'd just let the court's ruling stand, and Bush would carry through with his sentence. No assassinations would be carried out, no murder, just execution as handed down by the judge, and carried out by whoever the executioner is over there. He can brag to his family at dinner one night how he got to execute a former president instead of the usual street thugs.

But if you assume Obama wouldn't even do that, would the judge be willing to give him a death sentence, when it comes to that part of the trial? Or is a death sentence mandatory? If so, and it's mandatory, then they should carry it out or change the law in that regard. Or carry it out, then change the law.

[guartz]

They should be creative with it. Like, for example, draft him into the army, and make him guard a bunker, in the middle of the iraqi deserts. Alone.

[BarthelloSylph]

Technically, clinton wasn't impeached. LoL

American history through media ftw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...f_Bill_Clinton

You are an idiot.

[guartz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach...f_Bill_Clinton

You are an idiot.

It was said to bring to light the definition of the word, but being such a genius you probably already knew that.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Big difference between "flat tax" and simplifying tax code. If you want to know why the former is bad/dumb/terrible, search for FairTax here and read Aurik's posts (probably evilbau's as well... where has he been anyway?). Like archibald said, it's only "fair" when you just look at the % tax, but not fair when you consider the percentage disparity when it comes to subsiding and furthermore looking at how wealth affects privileges enjoyed in this country.

swampy: uh, I don't know how you say a biggest share than in the last 40 years when Bush lowered capital gains taxes from the clinton era.

Flat Tax != Fairtax. We can have another discussion if you like since those threads are probably gone.

And the reason the rich's share went up is because of that old principle that the government collects more revenue when tax rates are lower. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216...googlenews_wsj

[sephir]

As Colbert once said:

Impeachment....President Cheney?

And Don't try to get into Fairtax with Swamp...he is an idiot and believes that a 23% sales tax is enough to run a government. The example of Iceland during 87/88 proved that even with no income tax, spending/productivity did not increase significantly.

[Beckwin]

Fair and Flat taxes aren't the exact same thing, but both are examples of how a supposedly equal flat % is actually regressive in practice.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Fair and Flat taxes aren't the exact same thing, but both are examples of how a supposedly equal flat % is actually regressive in practice if you don't consider the pre-bate and assume people don't spend their money in the future.

There we go. What's the Iceland thing?

[evilbau]

Big difference between "flat tax" and simplifying tax code. If you want to know why the former is bad/dumb/terrible, search for FairTax here and read Aurik's posts (probably evilbau's as well... where has he been anyway?). Like archibald said, it's only "fair" when you just look at the % tax, but not fair when you consider the percentage disparity when it comes to subsiding and furthermore looking at how wealth affects privileges enjoyed in this country.

swampy: uh, I don't know how you say a biggest share than in the last 40 years when Bush lowered capital gains taxes from the clinton era.

i'm still around but you'll forgive me for not getting mired in these quagmire topics

[aurik]

There we go. What's the Iceland thing?

Prebate doesn't fix regressivity, it changes where on the income curve the tax scheme hurts the most.

Oh, and the people that don't spend their money...they're known as wealthy people, and they make out like bandits in a consumption-based tax scheme.

[Khamsin]

Prebate doesn't fix regressivity, it changes where on the income curve the tax scheme hurts the most.

Oh, and the people that don't spend their money...they're known as wealthy people, and they make out like bandits in a consumption-based tax scheme.

Whether you spend as you earn, or accumulate and spend it all at once, it's all being spent eventually. What puts them ahead is that the people who don't spend earn more on their investments. And in extreme cases, if they hoard enough money that the amount in circulation drops low enough to cause deflation, their money is worth more.

So what about:
1) No corporate or income taxes.
2) Collect all taxes needed to run the country off sales tax.
3) Add sales tax to investment shares. For every share you buy, you pay sales tax. For every bond you buy, you pay sales tax.
4) Remove the fungibility of the dollar.
5) Timestamp money whenever it is paid out, and the value of a particular dollar when it was earned is the value it will always keep, regardless of inflation. So if you never spend, and hoard your money until there's so little of it in circulation, it becomes more valuable... well, your hoarded money is only as valuable as it was when you first earned it. So you gain nothing.

Based on #1, there would be more incentive to have your business in the US, hence more jobs, and people would get paid more since a huge chunk of their paycheck isn't being withheld.

Based on #2 and #3, people who save aren't doing much better than those who don't, because investments are taxed. And if they're not spending, they are the exact same as someone who earns less.. until that money is finally spent, at which point it has the same value and is taxed the same as if they had spent it all along, thanks to #4 and #5.

...and before you ask, no I'm not serious, but I would like to hear the counterarguments, anyway. A little education on how this all works never hurts.