Obama Climbs Ten in the RCP Map Average

[flraven]

Texas, Florida, etc prove the notion that lower taxes work, especially when it's in conjunction with a consumption based economic system.

We have no income tax, but have a higher sales tax (8.25%) compared to the national average. The only way the state makes their money is be insuring the people get theirs first and then spend that money.

This is especially true here in Florida, where the tax rate in this county is 7.5%, the state gets the much of their revenue from tourist spending and taxes on room rentals.

[Kevlar]

I agree that not having a state income tax would be nice. Delaware is the same way IIRC.

Being taxed twice (especially in a state like Maryland, where taxes are already high) is quite burdensome.

I'm not trying to defend MD, but states tax in different ways. Florida gets by nicely on a tourism tax which is higher for out of state visitors than it is for residents on a lot of different things, hotels restaurants, etc.

Virginia has a personal property tax where you have to pay so much money based on stuff you own. A lot of people I know from Virginia won't buy a new car because the tax rate on it is ridiculous.

MD taxes are high but don't think states with low or no income tax won't get you some other way.

[wickedsolo]

I'm not trying to defend MD, but states tax in different ways. Florida gets by nicely on a tourism tax which is higher for out of state visitors than it is for residents on a lot of different things, hotels restaurants, etc.

Virginia has a personal property tax where you have to pay so much money based on stuff you own. A lot of people I know from Virginia won't buy a new car because the tax rate on it is ridiculous.

MD taxes are high but don't think states with low or no income tax won't get you some other way.

Tell me about it. I live in Arlington, VA and they have a personal property tax for the county as well. If you live in the county and have a car that is worth over...I think $2500 bucks or something (which unless it's a hoopty is almost ANY car) then you have to pay a percentage of that and you get a window decal. If you don't have the window decal then you get fined for parking...even if you have paid for a parking sticker for your car...


Honestly, state taxes don't bother me so much because those taxes (generally) do go towards school systems, roads, police, teachers, etc. Federal income tax has been considered to be unconstitutional for quite some time...

[HoustonRaven]

Federal income tax has been considered to be unconstitutional for quite some time...

Huh?

It's expressly written IN the Constituition.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 ....

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[wickedsolo]

Huh?

It's expressly written IN the Constituition.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 ....

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You're right, it does...but it doesn't say anything about taxing someone's income.

However 1 section later...

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Basically, this section says that even though Congress can levy taxes, they can only do so in a uniformed fashion. The tax bracket system works so that those citizens who earn more money pay more money...that's not uniformed at all.

And that section also says that Congress can collect taxes for things like defense, etc, but because of all the social programs and things that continue to drive government spending up, taxes aren't really going towards the things that they're supposed to (or at least the Constitution laid out). The income tax has been a major contributor to the government becoming as expansive and regulating as it is.

Prior to 1913, the government still was able to make money and pay for things using excise taxes and tariffs. Taxing someone's income wasn't necessary and many still feel it is unnecessary. Congress even tried to pass an income tax law before 1913 and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional until the 16th Amendment was passed (and there is even some skepticism on that since the 16th amendment violated a lot of state constitutions, which would have made those state "yay" votes void).

That's why a lot of people feel that way.

Freakanomics Interview of Ron Paul

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”

[NCRAVEN]

You're right, it does...but it doesn't say anything about taxing someone's income.

However 1 section later...

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Basically, this section says that even though Congress can levy taxes, they can only do so in a uniformed fashion. The tax bracket system works so that those citizens who earn more money pay more money...that's not uniformed at all.

And that section also says that Congress can collect taxes for things like defense, etc, but because of all the social programs and things that continue to drive government spending up, taxes aren't really going towards the things that they're supposed to (or at least the Constitution laid out). The income tax has been a major contributor to the government becoming as expansive and regulating as it is.

Prior to 1913, the government still was able to make money and pay for things using excise taxes and tariffs. Taxing someone's income wasn't necessary and many still feel it is unnecessary. Congress even tried to pass an income tax law before 1913 and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional until the 16th Amendment was passed (and there is even some skepticism on that since the 16th amendment violated a lot of state constitutions, which would have made those state "yay" votes void).

That's why a lot of people feel that way.

Freakanomics Interview of Ron Paul

Another reason why the "tax penalty" for healthcare should have been thrown out.

[AirFlacco]

Lincoln introduced the first income tax to pay for the civil war debt but as stated above it was shot down and over many years.

High tarriffs finally led to the income tax in 1913 because the gov't needed more revenue (and that started a spending spree that has spiraled out of sight) as a result of high tariffs because when you stop goods from coming in, you stop yours from going out. As a result consumer prices here increase as quantity of imported goods like beer and
cars and clothes diminish here.


High tariff is protectionalism or isolationism such as the 1800ss. The high tariff taxes on tea in the 1700s led to the Boston Tea Party. Even after the 16th Amendment which was supposed to bring in more revenue, tariffs were increased again by Hoover in hopes of stimulating the economy. This was a traditional GOP move but it failed faster that OBYs TARP.

Then FDR issued the biggest reduction in tariffs.

During the 90s Clinton got NAFTA passed and Bush got CAFTA passed. This is the epitome of
free trade and pushed by conservatives as well as liberals like Clinton. The Rockefellers
wanted this more as thousands of their jobs went to Mexico for billions in profits. Even William F. Buckley pimped NAFTA.

The World Trade Organization was created to restrict the restrictions such as world wide tariffs now used by mostly 3rd world countries for revenue while the people suffer just like they did here in the 1800s but not nearly as bad. The average salary was $500 pr yr.


BTW, the WTO is part of the New World Order just like the World Bank and the International Criminal Court where many Americans will be tried in the future w/o any rights after losing their state soverignty.

[wickedsolo]

Whoever wrote the NAFTA bill was in the pocket(s) of big time corporations because while that bill (politically) made sense to allow easier trans-border trading between Canada, Latin America, and South America it REALLY opened the doors for corporations to push jobs down into Mexico. Cheap labor, no protection laws, no worker's benefit laws, very little regulation on facility upkeep and safe working environments...NAFTA reeks of corruption.

Not only did it impact American jobs, but once the US Government issued farm subsidies they started exporting American produce (corn, beans, etc) down to Mexico well below the cost of what Mexican farmers could produce the same products at. During the mid 90's the Mexican government had nearly 35% of subsidies going to farmers...now it's barely 10%. Over 1 million Mexican farm jobs were lost.

NAFTA. :bag:

[HoustonRaven]

I was just in Mexico and got quite an education on workers there.

They have protections up the ass down there. All of them have healthcare the second they get hired. If they get fired, their healthcare must continue for a full year free of charge to the worker. Fired workers are also entitled to their full salary for as many years as they were with their employer. So a fired ten year employee is entitled to ten years worth of their salary, no matter for the cause of their termination.

All labor disputes are handled by the government and are often times ruled in favor of the employee.

This supposed monolith called "corporations" have nothing to do with how much they get paid. That's controlled by the Mexican government as well, thanks to wage caps. For every job classification, there is a set wage scale that's monitored by the Mexican government.

But I guess if the truth ever got out, people like Alex Jones would be out of work.

[wickedsolo]

I was just in Mexico and got quite an education on workers there.

They have protections up the ass down there. All of them have healthcare the second they get hired. If they get fired, their healthcare must continue for a full year free of charge to the worker. Fired workers are also entitled to their full salary for as many years as they were with their employer. So a fired ten year employee is entitled to ten years worth of their salary, no matter for the cause of their termination.

All labor disputes are handled by the government and are often times ruled in favor of the employee.

This supposed monolith called "corporations" have nothing to do with how much they get paid. That's controlled by the Mexican government as well, thanks to wage caps. For every job classification, there is a set wage scale that's monitored by the Mexican government.

But I guess if the truth ever got out, people like Alex Jones would be out of work.

Interesting stuff. I forgot you were down in Mexico. How was it?

Those things must be fairly recent then because in 2003/2004 the State Dept did a bunch of case studies in Mexico and found that a lot of companies were doing things like having women provide urine samples and menstrual cycle information, which ended up essentially allowing companies to hire women who were not pregnant and/or monitor new hires.

[Kyle Cactus]

We've got two choices (like it or not):

•Possibly the worst President ever
•The other guy

For me, whether I like it or not, I gotta go with the other guy. Simply being half as bad as Obama is an improvement.

I'm sorry but this is a tired argument. There is always someone who thinks the "other guy" (read as the one they don't agree with) is the worst president or presidential candidate ever and we can't afford to get them elected. It's typical of the hyperbole that's constantly used by both sides, and it's just a way to prevent there from ever being a legitimate 3rd party challenger.

If we always bend to this kind of thinking we will only ever have the terrible candidates and terrible politics of the Democrats and Republicans. You may say we can't afford to vote for anyone but Romney. I say we can't afford to keep voting for Democrats and Republicans period. They're destroying this country.

[NCRAVEN]

I'm sorry but this is a tired argument. There is always someone who thinks the "other guy" (read as the one they don't agree with) is the worst president or presidential candidate ever and we can't afford to get them elected. It's typical of the hyperbole that's constantly used by both sides, and it's just a way to prevent there from ever being a legitimate 3rd party challenger.

It may be typical hyperbole used by both sides, but it's not something I've used before and I believe it 100% to be true.

If we always bend to this kind of thinking we will only ever have the terrible candidates and terrible politics of the Democrats and Republicans. You may say we can't afford to vote for anyone but Romney. I say we can't afford to keep voting for Democrats and Republicans period. They're destroying this country.

I agree to a point, I think it's the career politicians in those parties that are destroying the country.

If you noticed the 2010 mid-terms brought in a bunch of non-typical Republicans, down in Texas they just elected a real conservative to run for Senate in a runoff election.

If you're happy with anything that's happened over the past 4 years, then vote 3rd party or right in a candidate. I wish things were different but they're not, so we've got who we've got two guys, a radical leftist, a moderate republican. I know who I am picking.