Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

This sentences reeks (wreaks? SJ?) of very little knowledge of business. Not to mention the fact that you are arbitrarily dismissing the basis for every economic system on earth. You're saying that microeconomic systems don't matter because they only help 12 people? Really?Casinos go bankrupt all the time. Trump anyone? Car dealers aren't all mega-wealthy. In the economic downturn many went bankrupt. Just because someone owns a business doesn't mean they are an evil genius that needs to be destroyed.

Unless it's a Dairy Queen!

[brvheart 1,752]

Unless it's a Dairy Queen!

Agreed. **** Dairy Queen owners.

[phlegm 6]

Not sure how it could be done, but Id like to see the rich taxed in different catagories. When nephew Biff inherits 3 billion, then spends his life laying on the beach, then tax the shi t outta him.But when a rich guy is actively engaged in the economy, lay off.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Not sure how it could be done, but Id like to see the rich taxed in different catagories. When nephew Biff inherits 3 billion, then spends his life laying on the beach, then tax the shi t outta him.But when a rich guy is actively engaged in the economy, lay off.

Death / Estate tax

[brvheart 1,752]

Death / Estate tax

Exactly. We don't need family farms. If they inherit that shit, ****ing take it from them and give the land to a big corporation that can afford the tax.

[timwakefield 68]

Seriously, it only stimulates the economy if you give it to millionaire campaign contributors like politicians do. Voluntary private exchanges aren't good for anything.

Nice comeback I guess, but your counter-example is obviously not what I'm talking about, and you kind of ignored my main point, which was that letting the rich and super-rich keep more of their money doesn't usually mean it will "trickle down" to the people who need it. Particularly in BG's examples. Campaign contributions are a bit of a non sequitur. I'm pretty sure we're talking about closing tax loopholes for the super-wealthy, and whether or not letting them keep more of their money would have a "trickle down" effect. It's annoying when you respond to me and completely change the topic.

[timwakefield 68]

These sentences reek (wreak? SJ?) of very little knowledge of business. Not to mention the fact that you are arbitrarily dismissing the basis for every economic system on earth. You're saying that microeconomic systems don't matter because they only help 12 people? Really?Casinos go bankrupt all the time. Trump anyone? Car dealers aren't all mega-wealthy. In the economic downturn many went bankrupt. Just because someone owns a business doesn't mean they are an evil genius that needs to be destroyed.

Um, I wasn't saying it's bad to hire 12 people to build you a house, or that all casino owners are evil billionaires. I just don't think that "gambling" will stimulate the economy particularly. And car dealers that sell luxury cars to extremely wealthy individuals are all pretty wealthy themselves, and aren't really the ones who need "stimulating." I thought my point was pretty clear though. If a guy takes in $16m after taxes instead of $20m after taxes, he's still gonna buy cars and houses and tip waitresses. He's not, however, going to aid federal job programs or aid federal unemployment insurance or any of the other million positive things the federal government does with our tax dollars.Oh, and it's "reek." You had it right.

[El Guapo 8]

It doesn't take a hundred people to gut and refurbish a house. It takes about a dozen. Ok, so good for those guys. Then you have money going to (we can assume) already wealthy plastic surgeons, already wealthy car dealers (poor people don't sell luxury cars, because if they did they wouldn't be poor), already wealthy land owners and property lawyers, extremely wealthy casinos, and a few waitresses get a few hundred bucks. That's not stimulating shit. Let's at least hope he plays poker, so the guys around him benefit more than the casino. Either way though...

Plastic surgeons have a staff. They order supplies from a company that has employees, those supplies are constructed fronted materials purchased from another company, whom also has staff. That company has a CPA firm who has a staff of accountants. Those accountants have pay to go continuing education. They pay a compant to provide....do I need to keep going?

[brvheart 1,752]

Um, I wasn't saying it's bad to hire 12 people to build you a house, or that all casino owners are evil billionaires. I just don't think that "gambling" will stimulate the economy particularly. And car dealers that sell luxury cars to extremely wealthy individuals are all pretty wealthy themselves, and aren't really the ones who need "stimulating." I thought my point was pretty clear though. If a guy takes in $16m after taxes instead of $20m after taxes, he's still gonna buy cars and houses and tip waitresses. He's not, however, going to aid federal job programs or aid federal unemployment insurance or any of the other million positive things the federal government does with our tax dollars.Oh, and it's "reek." You had it right.

He's already doing that indirectly through his tax dollars. And if he is religious and a republican, then on average, he gives a shit-ton of money to charity, which provides poor people all of those things but way more efficiently than government.

[timwakefield 68]

He's already doing that indirectly through his tax dollars.

Right, and that's exactly what we're talking about: closing tax loopholes for the super-wealthy and making them pay a larger amount of taxes than they may currently. They're still gonna get their girlfriend implants, which is obviously the only thing Guapo was worried about . And they're still gonna buy fancy cars and houses.

[brvheart 1,752]

Right, and that's exactly what we're talking about: closing tax loopholes for the super-wealthy and making them pay a larger amount of taxes than they may currently. They're still gonna get their girlfriend implants, which is obviously the only thing Guapo was worried about . And they're still gonna buy fancy cars and houses.

But we all agree that the tax code should be revised. We've been agreeing on that the entire time. That isn't the issue. The issue is that as an economist you need to figure out if raising taxes will 100% for sure raise revenue, because often times it doesn't. Economic growth is stunted and revenue drops.

[El Guapo 8]

I think brv just hit on something I have never seen said. I don't think republicans would be opposed to tax Increase if it helped revenues and fir sure would not stifle growth

[FCP Bob 1,312]

He's already doing that indirectly through his tax dollars. And if he is religious and a republican, then on average, he gives a shit-ton of money to charity, which provides poor people all of those things but way more efficiently than government.

One of the first things that should be done in any tax reform is eliminate the charitable donation tax credit, especially for donations to religious groups.Rich people having a $1,000 a plate fund raiser for their pet charity or non profit shouldn't get them a tax write off.

But we all agree that the tax code should be revised. We've been agreeing on that the entire time. That isn't the issue. The issue is that as an economist you need to figure out if raising taxes will 100% for sure raise revenue, because often times it doesn't. Economic growth is stunted and revenue drops.

Raising taxes from current tax levels will for sure increase revenue. It will most likely also decrease growth but no way it will do so in a large enough way to decrease revenues.Go from 95% tax rate to 50% and you'll increase revenues. Go from 34% to 31% and your revenues will go down.

[akoff 0]

One of the first things that should be done in any tax reform is eliminate the charitable donation tax credit, especially for donations to religious groups.Rich people having a $1,000 a plate fund raiser for their pet charity or non profit shouldn't get them a tax write off.Raising taxes from current tax levels will for sure increase revenue. It will most likely also decrease growth but no way it will do so in a large enough way to decrease revenues.Go from 95% tax rate to 50% and you'll increase revenues. Go from 34% to 31% and your revenues will go down.

Not a big fan of liberal opinions for tax code / "revenue" collections from a guy who doesn't have a say in anything...i don't see people from the US spounting off over the CA tax bills or if Quebec should be able to leave (not that i have heard much arguement to keep it) or if the US should finally colonize our friends to the north....many folks (not just you) seem to feel the need to come here and want to change things. you are a guest my friend and you have no right to want to change anything....the door does swing both ways but for some reason damn few people feel the need to leave.

[mrdannyg 274]

I think brv just hit on something I have never seen said. I don't think republicans would be opposed to tax Increase if it helped revenues and fir sure would not stifle growth

While probably true as an academic statement, it is irrelevant because no research could ever show "fir sure" that growth would not be stifled and revenues would increase. No models could ever be that accurate.

[mrdannyg 274]

Not a big fan of liberal opinions for tax code / "revenue" collections from a guy who doesn't have a say in anything...i don't see people from the US spounting off over the CA tax bills or if Quebec should be able to leave (not that i have heard much arguement to keep it) or if the US should finally colonize our friends to the north....many folks (not just you) seem to feel the need to come here and want to change things. you are a guest my friend and you have no right to want to change anything....the door does swing both ways but for some reason damn few people feel the need to leave.

By "come there" .... do you mean your internet forums?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

One of the first things that should be done in any tax reform is eliminate the charitable donation tax credit, especially for donations to religious groups.

I don't think charitable organizations would like this.

Not a big fan of liberal opinions for tax code / "revenue" collections from a guy who doesn't have a say in anything...i don't see people from the US spounting off over the CA tax bills or if Quebec should be able to leave (not that i have heard much arguement to keep it) or if the US should finally colonize our friends to the north....many folks (not just you) seem to feel the need to come here and want to change things. you are a guest my friend and you have no right to want to change anything....the door does swing both ways but for some reason damn few people feel the need to leave.

Is this for real?

[akoff 0]

By "come there" .... do you mean your internet forums?

it could be either, if somebody is actually living here or just feels the need to offer opinions on a system they are not a part of...i can understand international matters that in theory can factor other nations but internals...those opinions are just not relevant.

[mrdannyg 274]

it could be either, if somebody is actually living here or just feels the need to offer opinions on a system they are not a part of...i can understand international matters that in theory can factor other nations but internals...those opinions are just not relevant.

Good points. I had not considered that internal political/economic actions of the United States do not affect anyone outside of the United States.

[CaneBrain 95]

Is this for real?

Is this the first time you read one of his posts? Good or bad, ideas only truly count if an American citizen thought of it in akoff world**a terrifying place

[Balloon guy 158]

One of the first things that should be done in any tax reform is eliminate the charitable donation tax credit, especially for donations to religious groups.

Because the last thing we want to have is charities that can show a consistent rate of >90% of the money donated to them going to the recipients when we can instead increase the current US welfare rate of 17% to recipient and 83% to the system....And when ever there is a disaster, we can all go to the post office, since the churches will be gone.

Rich people having a $1,000 a plate fund raiser for their pet charity or non profit shouldn't get them a tax write off

Because rich people caring about battered women's shelters or pet adoption services taint the gift because they are rich...

Raising taxes from current tax levels will for sure increase revenue. It will most likely also decrease growth but no way it will do so in a large enough way to decrease revenues.Go from 95% tax rate to 50% and you'll increase revenues. Go from 34% to 31% and your revenues will probably go down.

I agree with this with the changeHowever it doesn't make me want to change my view that the government should not be allowed to continue to be inefficient and wasteful to a degree of insanity and yet remain the most important thing to so many people's lives.You sir are tainted, tainted with the belief that government should have a heavy influence on all aspects of life. I get that your motive is compassionate, you want the needy to get need, you want the poor to get help, you want the sick to get healing.But you would never willingly donate to a charity that give 87% of the donated money to its own staff and their retired staff and their 'need' for private airplanes etc. Especially when there is another charity that is made up of much smaller groups that get 95% of the money to the people who need it.And when the first charity is given the right to take your money to continue their wasteful ways, you would go south, buy a gun, and prepare for the next time they came to take your money.Then you will be welcome to move to Idaho.But not until then.The long term result of your creating a higher dependence on government is not freedom, it is the willingness to trade freedoms for medical care, for government housing filled with government cheese.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The long term result of your creating a higher dependence on government is not freedom, it is the willingness to trade freedoms for medical care, for government housing filled with government cheese.

But I love processed cheese.

[Balloon guy 158]

But I love processed cheese.

Only with Tortilla chips.NACHOS!

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Because rich people caring about battered women's shelters or pet adoption services taint the gift because they are rich...

I don't think it even matters if they care or not.The charitable contribution deduction wasn't designed to give rich people a tax break, it was designed to promote charitable giving. If you're soliciting donations, the tax deduction is often part of the sell.

[brvheart 1,752]

One of the first things that should be done in any tax reform is eliminate the charitable donation tax credit, especially for donations to religious groups.Rich people having a $1,000 a plate fund raiser for their pet charity or non profit shouldn't get them a tax write off.

This is the most awful thing I've seen in a long time, and I don't care how many people disagree with me. Charitable donations are absolutely the most efficient way to get the money into the hands of the causes you care about. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but are you saying that:1) Religious organizations don't help people so they shouldn't get donations?2) Causes that you deeply care about (like environmental protection or animal safety) shouldn't matter enough to give you an artificial reduction in income?3) All help should be funneled through the bureaucracy of a bloated federal government, since they know best?I'm guessing that I'm wrong, but your comment here feels like this is what you're saying.

Raising taxes from current tax levels will for sure increase revenue. It will most likely also decrease growth but no way it will do so in a large enough way to decrease revenues.Go from 95% tax rate to 50% and you'll increase revenues. Go from 34% to 31% and your revenues will go down.

This post has a lot of opinion written like fact.You're wrong about the 34 to 31 dropping revenues for an absolute fact. You could easily see massive economic growth from such a drop.