Uhoh maybe I'll have to vote democrat :(

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Leo Hubbard, Aug 1, 2004.

  1. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #1
    Ok odds are this won't get passed because they won't have the votes, but if they did...
    http://drudgereport.com/rnc.htm

    Odds are more likely than not that Drudge jumped the gun on this story way too fast. This is a Libertarian agenda and I don't think it is something the Republicans will want to actually run on. This would cost them too many votes.

    The problem with this idea is first of all some people are independant self employed and need the tax write offs in order for their jobs to be worth doing in the first place. These people would need to receive at least 50 - 100% increase in gross profit or compensation to make up for the fact that they can no longer write off their expenses.

    Another problem with this idea is ------ rich people, and not so rich people who have time on their hands, don't buy retail. And don't give me the "well if they buy wholesale and don't resale then they are responsible to fill out a special sales tax form for payment of those taxes at the end of the year" crapola, because there is no way the powers that be will chase down every single person who doesn't do that. It would be too hard to keep track of every item purchased by every person and then compare it to their sales to insure they paid sales tax on every item. One thing to keep track of major stores, but every citizen in the US. It ain't going to happen.

    The third problem is that the majority of citizens in this country don't pay taxes because of the way the tax system is set up. Wouldn't take many commercials to get them all in the voting booths if they discovered suddenly, no more income redistribution. I mean, yes we need tax reform, there is too much taxes on those who earn it, and too many leaches. However, you don't go for it all in one jump, that is a guarantee of failing.

    All of these political parties have idiots in control who don't know the meaning of the word moderation. Maybe we need a new third party "the realists"?
     
  2. Bobcat37 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #2
    If done properly I still don't see how this would be that bad. Several non-IRS proposals still have tax writeoffs for various reasons (like low income).

    For instance, one plan that has always intrigued me is www.fairtax.org

    I can't see how the slight unconfirmed possibility of this happening would steer you away from Bush... we all know Kerry would raise taxes on the "rich", and you just said that they are already taxed enough. Also, voting on the basis of 1-issue (that again doesn't even seem to be confirmed as true) doesn't seem like the most sensible thing to do :-/
     
  3. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #3
    Actually I would still vote for Bush.
    I think that he can't get enough votes to pass this even if he wanted to. Most Republicans don't want this.
     
  4. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #4
    Then why the thread that says "I might have to vote democrat?"
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    So, let me get this straight: your voting policy is to support a candidate on the grounds that he won't be able to do what he proposes? Hmmm. :confused:
     
  6. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #6
    No, his policy is that the candidate won't be able to do what he proposes, which Leo doesn't even support in the first place. :rolleyes:
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Scary stuff. I wonder how many Leos there are out there...
    Kinda makes nonsense of the whole electoral system.
     
  8. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #8
    Actually Bush didn't propose this Hastert did. :p
     
  9. Waluigi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #9
    The fact is that no matter how the government collects revenue (be it by income tax or flat tax), it still needs to collect X amount to pay for it's expenditures. The government needs to take in the same amount of money via a flat tax as it does in the current system. If you really want to pay less in taxes, a new system will not cure that. What will cure that is government expenditures. Cut spending, and cut the deficit (we pay a LOT of interest on it), and taxes will be lower.

    However, the current tax policy sucks. There are way too many loop holes for corporations. The tax code is way to complicated even for the smartest of us, let alone for the less smart individuals. I'm not sure if a flat tax would solve all those problems (ie: what about cash exchanges?). What we need are experts to figure out the problem, not politicians.

    Bottom line is that eliminating the IRS is unconstitutional (the 16th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration" ) and pointless since we would still need a government agency to collect revenue be it from income tax or a flat tax. Taxes won't go down until spending goes down!! Don't let these neocon wet dreams fool you!

    --Waluigi
     
  10. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #10
    That's not the point. You implied that Bush supported it. OK, so he didn't propose it, but propose was not the operative word.

    Either way, you contradicted yourself with respect to voting for a democrat and then you expressed that you were glad to be able to vote to Bush since he doesn't have the wherewithal to see to fruition a plan you think is no good. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #11
    Glad isn't the word I would use.
    This is one single issue. This one issue I am against. If I wait for a party to be 100% for what I like before I vote, I would never vote for anyone.
     
  12. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #12
    No, you didn't use glad, but you implied it. The wonderful thing about the English language is that there are multiple words you can use and get just about the same meaning.

    OK, that's fine that you don't vote on a single issue. It's perfectly reasonable. My question is, if that's true, then why the title of the thread?!!!
     
  13. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #13
    What part of maybe do you have a problem with?
     
  14. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #14
    I don't have a problem with 'maybe' at all. My point is that you went back pretty quickly and said that despite any concerns you would vote for Bush.

    My point is just that you're partisan, I'm partisan, you'd almost always vote for Bush and I'd almost always vote for Kerry in the conditions of this election. There's no point in declaring that you might vote for the dems, cuz that's about as likely as me voting for the reps.
     

Share This Page