The 2016 Election Primaries Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Trump initially got into it as a troll...the longer he leads in the polls the more serious he gets.
 
Videodrome said:
Trump considered it last time, but probably sat it out to see if Romney could pull off a win.
Click to expand...

Trump also got a massive offer (I think I read $42m) from NBC to keep The Apprentice going back then which he would have had to give up due to election laws related to fair time for candidates on network TV. The Apprentice has fallen off ratings wise so I'm guessing he figured he'd be able to make more money from running this time than he'd give up. However, it seems its backfired and he's lost a lot more money due to his stances this time around (Estimate I saw was $80M+).
 
rankandfile said:
taft01.jpg
Click to expand...

Key word being often, not never....
 
I gotta say, the more I see of Trump, the more sane the rest of them look. Honestly, I'd be cool with Rand Paul to an extent if he wasn't trying to appeal to the religious right so much, particularly on the issue of gay marriage.
 
sharkboy1200 said:
I gotta say, the more I see of Trump, the more sane the rest of them look. Honestly, I'd be cool with Rand Paul to an extent if he wasn't trying to appeal to the religious right so much, particularly on the issue of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul finally made his opinion known about the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling, writing in a Time op-ed that the federal government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
“While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract,” the Kentucky senator wrote in the op-ed, published Sunday night.
Story Continued Below
The government should not prevent people from doing so, Paul said, adding that “does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.”
Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party, Paul said.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...gay-marriage-ruling-119533.html#ixzz3jjXpfkbr

he's for getting government completely out of marriage not just gay marriage...
 
If it is a contract, you will still need it to be filed in the courts, which is still government.....there is no getting government out of marriage.
 
MisterxboxNJ said:
If it is a contract, you will still need it to be filed in the courts, which is still government.....there is no getting government out of marriage.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got that idea from, the only time governments get5 involved with contracts (for the most part) is when there is a breach of one. Other than that a contract is between the parties, otherwise your assertions is that the government has a copy of all of our credit card "contracts" and our cell phone "contracts" which would just be silly ...

The the fact remains Paul is not pushing for anyones religious vote, besides it would be hard to do that while pushing to get weed legalized everywhere....
 
You're obviously misinformed. What about the marital tax deduction, filing taxes jointly, social security benefits, IRA benefits, legal making decisions, inheritance, health insurance, paternity rights, and leave benefits?

Paul's a coward who hides his biased views behind claims that it's a states rights issue. Just like his father.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JinCA, Lucid Rifter and sharkboy1200
morfeeis said:
Not sure where you got that idea from, the only time governments get5 involved with contracts (for the most part) is when there is a breach of one. Other than that a contract is between the parties, otherwise your assertions is that the government has a copy of all of our credit card "contracts" and our cell phone "contracts" which would just be silly ...

The the fact remains Paul is not pushing for anyones religious vote, besides it would be hard to do that while pushing to get weed legalized everywhere....
Click to expand...

I'm not anti-Paul. I actually like most of his foreign policy beliefs. I just think that in today's day and age, it won't be possible to get marriage out of government. As some one pointed out, with taxes, in order to claim deductions related to marriage you will need to provide proof of marriage in order to get those deductions.
 
MisterxboxNJ said:
I'm not anti-Paul. I actually like most of his foreign policy beliefs. I just think that in today's day and age, it won't be possible to get marriage out of government. As some one pointed out, with taxes, in order to claim deductions related to marriage you will need to provide proof of marriage in order to get those deductions.
Click to expand...

You can file jointly now without proof, nothing would need to be done to the tax code.
 
morfeeis said:
You can file jointly now without proof, nothing would need to be done to the tax code.
Click to expand...

What if we got rid of the income tax?

Doesn't Rand suggest some kind of Flat Tax? Others might suggest a Consumption Tax? I don't know if some of these other proposed plans include another big list of deductions or if they're going for something simpler.
 
Videodrome said:
What if we got rid of the income tax?

Doesn't Rand suggest some kind of Flat Tax? Others might suggest a Consumption Tax? I don't know if some of these other proposed plans include another big list of deductions or if they're going for something simpler.
Click to expand...

Some of my fellow Republican candidates for the presidency have proposed plans to fix the tax system. These proposals are a step in the right direction, but the tax code has grown so corrupt, complicated, intrusive and antigrowth that I’ve concluded the system isn’t fixable.

So I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.”

President Obama talks about “middle-class economics,” but his redistribution policies have led to rising income inequality and negative income gains for families. Here’s what I propose for the middle class: The Fair and Flat Tax eliminates payroll taxes, which are seized by the IRS from a worker’s paychecks before a family ever sees the money. This will boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax income by at least 15% over 10 years.

Here’s why we have to start over with the tax code. From 2001 until 2010, there were at least 4,430 changes to tax laws—an average of one “fix” a day—always promising more fairness, more simplicity or more growth stimulants. And every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys.

Polls show that “fairness” is a top goal for Americans in our tax system. I envision a traditionally All-American solution: Everyone plays by the same rules. This means no one of privilege, wealth or with an arsenal of lobbyists can game the system to pay a lower rate than working Americans.

Most important, a smart tax system must turbocharge the economy and pull America out of the slow-growth rut of the past decade. We are already at least $2 trillion behind where we should be with a normal recovery; the growth gap widens every month. Even Mr. Obama’s economic advisers tell him that the U.S. corporate tax code, which has the highest rates in the world (35%), is an economic drag. When an iconic American company like Burger King wants to renounce its citizenship for Canada because that country’s tax rates are so much lower, there’s a fundamental problem.

Another increasingly obvious danger of our current tax code is the empowerment of a rogue agency, the IRS, to examine the most private financial and lifestyle information of every American citizen. We now know that the IRS, through political hacks like former IRS official Lois Lerner, routinely abused its auditing power to build an enemies list and harass anyone who might be adversarial to President Obama’s policies. A convoluted tax code enables these corrupt tactics.

My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.

I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.

The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.

Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.

The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.

The challenge to this plan will be to overcome special-interest groups in Washington who will muster all of their political muscle to save corporate welfare. That’s what happened to my friend Steve Forbes when he ran for president in 1996 on the idea of the flat tax. Though the flat tax was surprisingly popular with voters for its simplicity and its capacity to boost the economy, crony capitalists and lobbyists exploded his noble crusade.

Today, the American people see the rot in the system that is degrading our economy day after day and want it to end. That is exactly what the Fair and Flat Tax will do through a plan that’s the boldest restoration of fairness to American taxpayers in over a century.
Click to expand...
https://www.randpaul.com/issue/taxes
 
Eliminating the gift tax? really? I wonder how many people will start "gifting" things instead of paying even the small tax rate they are supposed to pay. A flat tax will also mean that people who generally get all of the money back at the end of the year that they paid in will get nothing back. It favors the wealthy more than anyone else, and don't let anyone fool you into believing that the rich or any corporation actually pays the tax rate they are supposed to, they don't and when a politician says they do you know he's a liar. A flat tax isn't a new idea, it's been talked about for decades but there is a reason very few actually endorse it.
 
Last edited:
horns said:
You're obviously misinformed. What about the marital tax deduction, filing taxes jointly, social security benefits, IRA benefits, legal making decisions, inheritance, health insurance, paternity rights, and leave benefits?

Paul's a coward who hides his biased views behind claims that it's a states rights issue. Just like his father.
Click to expand...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Videodrome
JinCA said:
A flat tax will also mean that people who generally get all of the money back at the end of the year that they paid in will get nothing back.
Click to expand...

Not sure how big a deal this is to most people versus just getting to keep and spend more from their paycheck rather than wait to get it all back with their return.
 
Videodrome said:
Not sure how big a deal this is to most people versus just getting to keep and spend more from their paycheck rather than wait to get it all back with their return.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, they'll still be taxed they just won't get it back. With income inequality being what it is there is no way a flat tax will work, we need a progressive tax system based on peoples ability to pay and not trying to make everyone pay the same amount. His plan says a family of 4 making under $50k a year won't be taxed, the thing is people in that lower income level likely receive some type of benefits or are very close to needing them, with Paul's plan it adds $3 trillion dollars to the deficit over 10 years, he says he'll cut spending to help with that but where will he cut? he's already changed his mind on military spending and now wants to increase it so where will this money come from? The cuts are going to come from programs that help lower income Americans there is no doubt about that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back