The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But a good cigar, is a smoke

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I once smoked an authentic Cuban cigar.I threw up.The guy who gave it to me got mad.

[CaneBrain 95]

you are trying very hard to make me flip out. think about how often that is the case versus normal people having chunks of their accumulated lifetimes of savings stripped from their families.

then make the threshold higher. I grew up as an outsider Jew in richie rich land (Palm Beach) so I know 98 people who are Paris Hilton-like and 3 who are not. Seriously, if some guy accumulates 5 million and his kids only gets to keep 4 million, I will sleep fine and dandy at night without worrying about people being stripped and left destitute. Having no estate tax is stupid; so is having an onerous one with a low threshold.I would never make you flip out; you are from Texas chances are you are always within arm's reach of a gun.

[El Guapo 8]

ok. is your position that because Jr didn't earn it, he shouldn't have to pay taxes on it? because i don't think the argument that the act of receiving money incurs a tax burden is inherently worse than having to earn said money to trigger the taxing. i mean, i know a whole bunch of people who do as little earning of their salaries as possible and yet are still taxed on their income just as heavily as any hardworking immigrant out there.all joking aside, it sucks. there's some real sense of entitlement the full value of an estate/inheritance, and i don't blame anyone for feeling raw at being told to give some of it up (especially if the estate is not easily divisible, like a farm as stated). but there's a real sense of entitlement to the full value, pre-tax, of my paycheque too, and that doesn't make income tax any less necessary. you can argument the merits of the programs taxes go to paying, very effectively in some cases, but that doesn't make taxes any less necessary right now. the tax revenue has to come from somewhere - where else would you rather?

Well lets look at this way. The money that is being taxed as income, is earned, and considered "new money". If we continue to tax generations, they will continue to lose wealth. The not so secret reasoning behind the "excessive" estate tax (it's 55% federal, and differs on a state basis) is to redistribute the wealth of the rich in this country. And it's not only the uber rich, it now affects the middle class.My family has owned two homes in the bay area since the early 1900's, because of where they are located they are worth well over 2MM total. Because of taxes they will not be able to keep both. My family is only wealthy on paper, to access that wealth we would have to sell homes that have been in the family for almost 100 years. These are the issues the estate tax laws create. It does not only apply to the Hilton's of the world.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Um, edit: hold on...

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

My family has owned two homes in the bay area since the early 1900's, because of where they are located they are worth well over 2MM total. Because of taxes they will not be able to keep both. My family is only wealthy on paper, to access that wealth we would have to sell homes that have been in the family for almost 100 years. These are the issues the estate tax laws create. It does not only apply to the Hilton's of the world.

agreed

[strategy 4]

The ideal tax:-- should not allow loopholes for the politically favored.-- should be highly visible and easily understood-- should not allow social engineering for favored lifestyles-- should not harm economic growth-- should be paid in rough proportion to benefits received from legitimate functions of governmentI think it's clear the estate tax and income tax fail badly on all counts. A single level sales tax with exemptions for "necessities" is probably the only politically feasible tax that meets them all. A Land Tax probably meets them all, although the fourth item would definitely not be satisfied in the short term transitional period, and has no chance of being implemented in our lifetime.

as I have said before, I don't know about the land tax, but everything else here is pretty spot-on. the only people who could find fault are tax accountants and employees of the IRS, and seriously, fuck those people.

I don't like to hear partisan rhetoric from the president, but his main point re: transparency is very much on the money.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

-- should be paid in rough proportion to benefits received from legitimate functions of government

I just can't agree with this one. Government isn't a service, it's an unsigned social contract. Essentially everybody gets the same services, and society would not function if everyone payed the same amount in taxes. The economics just don't work out.Also, I'm not sure how a sales tax or a land tax pay in proportion to the benefits received by the government. The fire department will go to your house if it's big or small, and the army will protect you no matter how many cars you buy. And I'm not sure why you're so eager to dramatically raise the taxes of the poor and middle class.

[El Guapo 8]

And I'm not sure why you're so eager to dramatically raise the taxes of the poor and middle class.

It's already being done.

[strategy 4]

I just can't agree with this one. Government isn't a service, it's an unsigned social contract. Essentially everybody gets the same services, and society would not function if everyone payed the same amount in taxes. The economics just don't work out.

I think these services have vastly different value to different people. a person with close to zero assets (myself) doesn't derive a whole lot of benefit from property rights. it's a different story for someone like BG.but really, that's a justification for the underlying math problem.I really liked these and honestly didn't even pay attention to #5:-- should not allow loopholes for the politically favored.-- should be highly visible and easily understood-- should not allow social engineering for favored lifestyles-- should not harm economic growth

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I think these services have vastly different value to different people. a person with close to zero assets (myself) doesn't derive a whole lot of benefit from property rights. it's a different story for someone like BG.

Interesting. So, the "service" is the stability provided by government vs, say, the Road Warrior. And, to Strat, it wouldn't be as bad if Tina Turner took control as it would be for BG.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I really liked these and honestly didn't even pay attention to #5:-- should not allow loopholes for the politically favored.-- should be highly visible and easily understood-- should not allow social engineering for favored lifestyles-- should not harm economic growth

I agree, but let's not go overboard. The idea is to reduce complexity, but we can still have simple taxes that are a combination of income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. Each of these components would just be very simple. In other words, sales tax would be a fixed percentage, income tax would be a fixed function of income, and property taxes would be a fixed function of property value. And nothing else.That's almost equally simple, transparent, and doesn't have the unnecessary arbitrariness of an "only property tax" system or an "only sales tax" system.

[El Guapo 8]

I agree, but let's not go overboard. The idea is to reduce complexity, but we can still have simple taxes that are a combination of income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. Each of these components would just be very simple. In other words, sales tax would be a fixed percentage, income tax would be a fixed function of income, and property taxes would be a fixed function of property value. And nothing else.That's almost equally simple, transparent, and doesn't have the unnecessary arbitrariness of an "only property tax" system or an "only sales tax" system.

So you are a proponent or removing corporate taxes?

[strategy 4]

I agree, but let's not go overboard. The idea is to reduce complexity, but we can still have simple taxes that are a combination of income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. Each of these components would just be very simple. In other words, sales tax would be a fixed percentage, income tax would be a fixed function of income, and property taxes would be a fixed function of property value. And nothing else.That's almost equally simple, transparent, and doesn't have the unnecessary arbitrariness of an "only property tax" system or an "only sales tax" system.

I'm not gonna defend the land tax idea, but for solely sales tax, I like it because it will spur savings and thus investment. something henry didn't explicitly mention, but the solely sales tax idea is also far, far cheaper to collect. fewer people to collect from, fewer accountants to consult. I don't have the exact figures, but you gotta believe it's a large number considering the kind of shit we see from intuit.

[hblask 1]

I just can't agree with this one. Government isn't a service, it's an unsigned social contract. Essentially everybody gets the same services, and society would not function if everyone payed the same amount in taxes. The economics just don't work out.Also, I'm not sure how a sales tax or a land tax pay in proportion to the benefits received by the government. The fire department will go to your house if it's big or small, and the army will protect you no matter how many cars you buy. And I'm not sure why you're so eager to dramatically raise the taxes of the poor and middle class.

Ideally everyone would get the same services, but it doesn't quite work out that way. For example, big corporations derive more benefit from national defense and property rights than a homeless person. But overall, yeah, the part of the govt that serves people equally is quite affordable if everyone chips in their share. The rest of it, most of the benefits go to the rich, which is why I don't get your last sentence.I start with a premise that the poor have little to lose, and the rich have much to lose. Therefore, the stuff the govt does, such as protect us and provide rule of law, benefits the rich more than the poor. A sales tax with deductions for necessities means the poor, by definition, don't pay any taxes. If you feel that is unfair, we could eliminate the deduction for necessities, but it seems like a small concession. A similar case can be made for a land tax -- the poor don't own land, while the rich, who rely on our government keeping their titles secure, do.Fire departments are local, and I was discussing federal rules.So no, I don't want to raise taxes on anyone. A recent worldwide study showed that maximum economic growth occurs when govt total burden is around 17-25%. Our federal burden is currently that high, not to mention all the state and local burdens that means the typical US burden is more like 40%, and that's not counting the burden we are irresponsibly pushing onto the next generation(s). So no, I think taxes need to be cut by at least 50%, and the remaining taxes distributed fairly in a way free from political social engineering. I'm not sure how that could even be controversial, but this the age of Obama-nomics.

[hblask 1]

I agree, but let's not go overboard. The idea is to reduce complexity, but we can still have simple taxes that are a combination of income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. Each of these components would just be very simple. In other words, sales tax would be a fixed percentage, income tax would be a fixed function of income, and property taxes would be a fixed function of property value. And nothing else.That's almost equally simple, transparent, and doesn't have the unnecessary arbitrariness of an "only property tax" system or an "only sales tax" system.

The income tax can never be made simple, because one person's frivolous deduction is another's necessary expense. That's how it got so complex -- each person has their own notion of what should and should not be counted. This immediately leads to a huge special interest lobbying effort. The income tax is unworkable, and always will be.

[hblask 1]

I'm not gonna defend the land tax idea, but for solely sales tax, I like it because it will spur savings and thus investment. something henry didn't explicitly mention, but the solely sales tax idea is also far, far cheaper to collect. fewer people to collect from, fewer accountants to consult. I don't have the exact figures, but you gotta believe it's a large number considering the kind of shit we see from intuit.

Yeah, I'm not 100% sold on the land tax, I just wish we could get a national discussion and somebody at a couple of big think tanks to do an analysis of who would pay, etc. It has all the same benefits of a sales tax in being cheap to collect, etc, plus it doesn't require investigations into the books of business owners, which is a huge plus. I forgot to mention another key idea of the ideal tax system -- it does not require federal agents looking into the private behavior of citizens.So add that one to the list, and I would support any system that meets those requirements. I can really only think of two, although a traditional property tax is probably close enough, too.And to answer LLY's "combo of taxes" idea, that also leads to massive lobbying efforts and gaming of the system. A better system is one simple tax, so that legislators have to vote yes or no on any increase or decrease, instead of hiding behind all sorts of shady back door deals that obscure the real costs and benefits. Anyone who doesn't have the courage to stand up and say "I need to vote to raise this tax by x% in order to <whatever>" is a charlatan and should not be in office.

[CaneBrain 95]

So you are a proponent or removing corporate taxes?

Yes but then the corporation should lose its right to contribute to political campaigns. If a corporation wants to have first amendment rights like a person, it should have to pay taxes like a person. You can't have it both ways which is what big business always tries to demand.

[hblask 1]

Yes but then the corporation should lose its right to contribute to political campaigns. If a corporation wants to have first amendment rights like a person, it should have to pay taxes like a person. You can't have it both ways which is what big business always tries to demand.

This is such a ridiculous argument. If me and a friend stand on a street corner chanting "4 more years!" should we lose our first amendment rights because we are not "a person" -- technically, we are two people. And I don't pay taxes (at least the last couple of years).The first amendment says nothing about "shall pass no law, unless people pool their resources, then all bets are off."

[AmScray 355]

I just can't agree with this one. Government isn't a service, it's an unsigned social contract. Essentially everybody gets the same services, and society would not function if everyone payed the same amount in taxes. The economics just don't work out.Also, I'm not sure how a sales tax or a land tax pay in proportion to the benefits received by the government. The fire department will go to your house if it's big or small, and the army will protect you no matter how many cars you buy. And I'm not sure why you're so eager to dramatically raise the taxes of the poor and middle class.

"Pay In Proportion" is a flight of fancy. Impossible and would create an accounting bureaucracy that would make the IRS look like a San Francisco Two-Hippie non profit. Total non starter. Sales tax makes sense, since it would close the revenue gap created by eliminating taxes on productivity (income) by shifting them to consumption (buying). Of course, the whole 'eliminating taxes on productivity' part must occur, lest we wind up like Europe who simultaneously utilizes production and consumption taxes like a huge two-headed dildo to fuck their productive demographics on both ends. There is very little to 'understand' about why taxing consumption is better than taxing production and what there is to understand isn't even arguable. It's retarded we aren't here yet. It also incentivizes saving, which creates a lollapalooza of economic benefits not to mention it might have the social advantage of breaking our 'conspicuous consumer' culture and mindset, which is pretty much the basis for our being the scum of the 1st World. As far as proportional taxes, I don't know how the math bangs out. I'd guess that people below a certain income threshold would have to be exempt, since their share would have a disproportionately heavy impact on their already low (and presently subsidized by taxpayers anyway) standard of living. This basically means it's a 'white mans tax', which I don't care for, but that's what the present tax structure is anyway so at least by leveling the playing field, you get some of the parasites to pony up their fair share.

[SweetDee 0]

I will give him a plus 1 for jobs finally created, 9 to be exact:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/23...test=latestnewsWell done, Mr. President.

[CaneBrain 95]

This is such a ridiculous argument. If me and a friend stand on a street corner chanting "4 more years!" should we lose our first amendment rights because we are not "a person" -- technically, we are two people. And I don't pay taxes (at least the last couple of years).The first amendment says nothing about "shall pass no law, unless people pool their resources, then all bets are off."

No because you both pay taxes and you don't enjoy the benefits of being a corporation. A corporation is seperate from its individual members and has special privileges. I think it is a fair trade. Also, speaking of ridiculous, the notion that shouting on a street corner is the same as dumping millions into the coffers of politicians is ridiculous.

[akoff 0]

eliminate corporate tax, flat rate income tax, watch money flow...sales tax goes through the roof. Everyone happy. keep it simple folks.In March I found a property and business that was going under, in May I agreed to to purchase from the bank, by the time we made settlement at the end of june I had 50k in lawyers and accounting fees...now I don't claim to understand why i needed 5 different LLC's, LP's, real estate company, leasing company...etc. I am told i will be very happy i have them and i do trust my staff. I know the spreadsheet works quite well and it is the best investment i have ever made....but simple? there is nothing simple.I think we should be able to agree (except cain) that lawyers suck, cost all of us untold amounts money and are the majority of both political parties. I can't tell you how much i hate the legal system...but i do love when my guys protect me!!

[CaneBrain 95]

eliminate corporate tax, flat rate income tax, watch money flow to the rich...sales tax goes through the roof. Everyone who is rich is happy. keep it simple folks.In March I found a property and business that was going under, in May I agreed to to purchase from the bank, by the time we made settlement at the end of june I had 50k in lawyers and accounting fees...now I don't claim to understand why i needed 5 different LLC's, LP's, real estate company, leasing company...etc. I am told i will be very happy i have them and i do trust my staff. I know the spreadsheet works quite well and it is the best investment i have ever made....but simple? there is nothing simple.I think we should be able to agree (except cain) that lawyers suck, cost all of us untold amounts money and are the majority of both political parties. I can't tell you how much i hate the legal system...but i do love when my guys protect me!!

fypNext time, don't hire any lawyers and see what happens.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

(and I have a lot more of them than all of you combined possibly)

Not a chance.