Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 149: Open 24/7 365 Snowflakes or not!

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Why are you like this

what was wrong with my post?
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was- (space for long url) 32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html

Leigh Corfman was 14 at the time of the molestation, and her claims are extremely credible.

There is a reason Moore supporters are focusing on the 16 year old and not any of his other accusers. While they are both monsterous, Corfmans accusations to me were always the most disturbing.
---

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42043370

It's always a weird feeling when one of those "dictator-for-life" types step down, die or are forced out. I find it curious how this backlash will likely succeed after it became known he intended to make his wife Grace his successor instead of the constitutionally bound line of succession.

I don't expect Zimbabwe to prosper under Mnangagwa, of course. But he is the rightful successor.
---

I find it so weird how CNN and democrats keep saying this tax break is a tax break for the wealthy and hurts the poor while running articles like this...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/14/real_estate/house-senate-tax-reform-homeowners-buyers-seller/index.html

Not a single one of those things hurts the poor only the rich. Yet they are running articles like this over and over which touts how the poor are being hurt and the rich gaining.
---

The Senate's tax plan would eliminate deductions for state and local taxes -- including property taxes.

that sounds like something that hurts more than just the rich
---

Could be that you know... you can write off your private jet, but Teachers can't write off their school expenses.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

The Senate's tax plan would eliminate deductions for state and local taxes -- including property taxes.

that sounds like something that hurts more than just the rich

Except a poor person is never going to have local state and property taxes which exceed the standard deduction. The house plan also allows 10k towards the deduction while the Senate plan allows 0.

The only person deducting taxes that high and on property mortgage is going to be a high class person.

For example, I make like 80-100k a year. My mortgage interest is like 2k a year. My state and local taxes is like 3400-4k ish. My property tax is 1800. I am never going over the standard deduction with these. So the deductions are pointless to me.

I understand some states have higher taxes and such but in general a lower to middle class is never going over the standard deduction after it is doubled up unless they are not really low or middle class.
---

The people this tax plan hurts the most are your middle level professionals and highest tier skilled workers who dont own their own businesses or make enough to invest in businesses to the point where the lower corporate rate helps them.

Office drones and the lower middle class actually benefit. Unless they have kids. or buy their health insurance on the open markets.

The poorest actually see their taxes stay the same because they never paid income tax to start.

If you were really interested in providing a boost to the middle class you would cut regressive taxes like the gas tax or the payroll tax instead of the progressive taxes like income.

And you wouldnt remove the estate yax because that's really absurd.
---

Eddv posted...

The people this tax plan hurts the most are your middle level professionals and highest tier skilled workers who dont own their own businesses or make enough to invest in businesses to the point where the lower corporate rate helps them.

Office drones and the lower middle class actually benefit. Unless they have kids. or buy their health insurance on the open markets.

The poorest actually see their taxes stay the same because they never paid income tax to start.

If you were really interested in providing a boost to the middle class you would cut regressive taxes like the gas tax or the payroll tax instead of the progressive taxes like income.

And you wouldnt remove the estate yax because that's really absurd.

The ones with kids no longer are hurt due to the "single parent" filing status they added? My taxes go down approximately 1700 from my calculations due to adding the single parent. My taxes went up before that.
---

Eddv posted...

The people this tax plan hurts the most are your middle level professionals and highest tier skilled workers who dont own their own businesses or make enough to invest in businesses to the point where the lower corporate rate helps them.

Office drones and the lower middle class actually benefit. Unless they have kids. or buy their health insurance on the open markets.

The poorest actually see their taxes stay the same because they never paid income tax to start.

If you were really interested in providing a boost to the middle class you would cut regressive taxes like the gas tax or the payroll tax instead of the progressive taxes like income.

And you wouldnt remove the estate yax because that's really absurd.

Cutting the payroll tax helps the rich also. 2% cut across the board from every person is way more beneficial to the rich than the poor. Though it does help everyone.
---

Corrik, let us suppose that I make $50k a year, you make $250k a year, and the payroll tax rate is 10% with the cap at $100k. I am below the cutoff, so all my income is taxed at 10%, for $5,000 owed. You are above the cutoff, so only a portion of your income is taxed: you pay 10% on the $100k cap, for $10,000. I paid 10% of my income, you paid 4% of yours. It's a regressive tax, because it takes a bigger cut of a poor man's income than a rich man's.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

Corrik, let us suppose that I make $50k a year, you make $250k a year, and the payroll tax rate is 10% with the cap at $100k. I am below the cutoff, so all my income is taxed at 10%, for $5,000 owed. You are above the cutoff, so only a portion of your income is taxed: you pay 10% on the $100k cap, for $10,000. I paid 10% of my income, you paid 4% of yours. It's a regressive tax, because it takes a bigger cut of a poor man's income than a rich man's.

Wait. I need to re-read this a few times.to figure out what you are meaning. Hold up
---

For 2017, the Social Security tax rate is 6.2% on the first $127,200 of wages paid. The Medicare tax rate is 1.45% on the first $200,000 of wages (and 2.35% for wages above $200,000).

I did not realize there was a wage cap on that. That is pretty lame actually. Still benefits the rich more though in total numbers.

If I make 50k. I am taxed 7.65% for 3825.

If I make 250k I am taxed 6.2x127200 + 200000 x 1.45 + 50000 x 2.35. 7886.4 + 2900 + 1175 = 11961.4

If you reduce the payroll tax you are defunding Medicare, and it will be taxed somewhere else. If you move the burden to employers more, they just cut wages. Thus you can't really do more than what George Bush did with a tax holiday that cut payroll taxes by 2% for employees up to the base.

Thus if applied here.

50k x 5.65 = 2825 taxed.
127200 x 4.2 = 5342.4 + 2900 + 1175 = 9417.4

50k guy saved... 1000
250k guy saved... 1531

Yes the 50k guy saved more of his % but the 250k guy saved more in total.

50k guy saved 2%
250k guy saved .6124%.

Which is relatively fair but you are still putting more money in the pockets of the rich than the poor or middle class. Is there not a way to get this number balanced more on a tax CUT towards the not upper class?
---

There is a way.

They don't want to
---

I did not realize there was a wage cap on that. That is pretty lame actually.

In theory, the money you pay in to Social Security is the money you will receive, and there's a cap on what you get, so there's a cap on what you pay. In practice, I don't think our government even pretends to set the money aside nowadays.

Still benefits the rich more though in total numbers.

Granted. But consider a hypothetical: the payroll tax rate is jacked up to 100% of the first $100,000. The rich guy's taxes increase by $90,000, and the poor guy's taxes only go up by $45,000. But the rich guy still collects income, and the poor guy is _screwed_. This increase was clearly harsher on the poor guy. So, I don't think that total numbers are the metric we should be concerned with.

Is there not a way to get this number balanced more on a tax CUT towards the not upper class?

If we are not willing to reduce net income from payroll taxes, then any tax break must be accompanied by a tax hike elsewhere. The standard Republican strategy is to lower taxes and hope that the reduction will spur economic activity, enabling more opportunities to collect taxes and bringing in more total revenue. This is not inherently outrageous; at some levels of taxation it should be true. But I don't think that, say, cutting payroll tax rates by 50% and hoping that twice as many people will have jobs next year is a good plan.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

I did not realize there was a wage cap on that. That is pretty lame actually.

In theory, the money you pay in to Social Security is the money you will receive, and there's a cap on what you get, so there's a cap on what you pay. In practice, I don't think our government even pretends to set the money aside nowadays.

Still benefits the rich more though in total numbers.

Granted. But consider a hypothetical: the payroll tax rate is jacked up to 100% of the first $100,000. The rich guy's taxes increase by $90,000, and the poor guy's taxes only go up by $45,000. But the rich guy still collects income, and the poor guy is _screwed_. This increase was clearly harsher on the poor guy. So, I don't think that total numbers are the metric we should be concerned with.

Is there not a way to get this number balanced more on a tax CUT towards the not upper class?

If we are not willing to reduce net income from payroll taxes, then any tax break must be accompanied by a tax hike elsewhere. The standard Republican strategy is to lower taxes and hope that the reduction will spur economic activity, enabling more opportunities to collect taxes and bringing in more total revenue. This is not inherently outrageous; at some levels of taxation it should be true. But I don't think that, say, cutting payroll tax rates by 50% and hoping that twice as many people will have jobs next year is a good plan.

Flat sales tax is the best way and yes I know I know ppl can hoard and cause issues but how long can that even hold out.
---

argument about the flat sales tax strategy: a flat sales tax quite literally taxes poor people at a higher rate than rich people

poor people spend 100% of their income on the things they need

as people earn more and more, they are able to save and end up spending a smaller and smaller percentage of their income

So if the flat sales tax were 30% or something, poor people would have an effective tax rate of 30%, while people like me would have an effective tax rate of something like 15%, because I save half of the money I earn.
---

banananor posted...

argument about the flat sales tax strategy: a flat sales tax quite literally taxes poor people at a higher rate than rich people

poor people spend 100% of their income on the things they need

as people earn more and more, they are able to save and end up spending a smaller and smaller percentage of their income

So if the flat sales tax were 30% or something, poor people would have an effective tax rate of 30%, while people like me would have an effective tax rate of something like 15%, because I save half of the money I earn.

Not true. You wouldn't have sales tax on utilities, rent, most foods.
---

I've liked the concept of a flat income tax after taking into account a livable wage. The issue is how to calculate a livable wage. What rent do we use? What kind of food should be included? How much clothes, medicine, internet, phone should be included? Should savings for retirement be a factor?

And this doesn't even take into account that different areas would have different livable wages.
---

Corrik posted...

banananor posted...

argument about the flat sales tax strategy: a flat sales tax quite literally taxes poor people at a higher rate than rich people

poor people spend 100% of their income on the things they need

as people earn more and more, they are able to save and end up spending a smaller and smaller percentage of their income

So if the flat sales tax were 30% or something, poor people would have an effective tax rate of 30%, while people like me would have an effective tax rate of something like 15%, because I save half of the money I earn.

Not true. You wouldn't have sales tax on utilities, rent, most foods.

Income tax always seemed like the fairest way to me, but it is true that the very wealthy in this country get off paying very little taxes because they know the tricks of the tax code. If we are going to do a flat sales tax, I would want certain other essentials to be tax free as well. Things like clothes, specifically. I obviously would be fine with things like designer clothing being taxed, but there should be some amount families should be allowed to spend on clothing/necessary items.

Again, the idea would be to minimize the tax burden on poor/lower middle class families.

What would you do about corporate taxes? Remove them entirely and only tax them for materials they are buying?
---

Corrik posted...

Not true. You wouldn't have sales tax on utilities, rent, most foods.

i guess at that point it technically isn't flat anymore! and simplicity is part of the appeal, but if we have to re-introduce all of the regulations and exceptions it kind of loses that

if it doesn't have the simplicity, what is the reasoning?

i guess with a sales tax it might tax people that are just sitting on piles of cash and not earning anything a little more
---

Flat Sales Tax sounds good in theory, but not so much in practice. Even if you do exempt utilities, rent, and most foods. (And it'd have to be pretty high when we're exempting those things) the poor and middle class would still take on most of the burden.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

banananor posted...

argument about the flat sales tax strategy: a flat sales tax quite literally taxes poor people at a higher rate than rich people

poor people spend 100% of their income on the things they need

as people earn more and more, they are able to save and end up spending a smaller and smaller percentage of their income

So if the flat sales tax were 30% or something, poor people would have an effective tax rate of 30%, while people like me would have an effective tax rate of something like 15%, because I save half of the money I earn.

Not true. You wouldn't have sales tax on utilities, rent, most foods.

Income tax always seemed like the fairest way to me, but it is true that the very wealthy in this country get off paying very little taxes because they know the tricks of the tax code. If we are going to do a flat sales tax, I would want certain other essentials to be tax free as well. Things like clothes, specifically. I obviously would be fine with things like designer clothing being taxed, but there should be some amount families should be allowed to spend on clothing/necessary items.

Again, the idea would be to minimize the tax burden on poor/lower middle class families.

What would you do about corporate taxes? Remove them entirely and only tax them for materials they are buying?

Clothes are tax free already...
---

banananor posted...

Corrik posted...

Not true. You wouldn't have sales tax on utilities, rent, most foods.

i guess at that point it technically isn't flat anymore! and simplicity is part of the appeal, but if we have to re-introduce all of the regulations and exceptions it kind of loses that

if it doesn't have the simplicity, what is the reasoning?

i guess with a sales tax it might tax people that are just sitting on piles of cash and not earning anything a little more

You can't be taxed on things deemed necessary to live. Hence how most cold foods are not taxed, clothing is not taxed. Etc.

A flat sales tax wouldn't change that and is why it is more beneficial to the poor. They have more income to use. Their necessities are not taxed. Only luxuries they choose to have are taxed.
---

Not where I live! Not in most of the country, actually.

MN is tax free with clothing, but thats the only place anywhere around here.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Not where I live! Not in most of the country, actually.

MN is tax free with clothing, but thats the only place anywhere around here.

What?
---

I just checked and Pennsylvania is one of only four states in the country where clothing is not taxable (a handful of other states have no sales tax at all).
---

Map: State Sales Taxes and Clothing Exemptions. One example of the many sales tax exemptions offered by states is an exemption for clothing. Eight states fully or partially exempt clothing in general. Clothing is fully exempt in Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Vermont.

Wow I totally thought that was everywhere.
---

Uhh Virginia definitely has a food tax. It's lower than rest of the sales tax, but it's definitely there.

MN, PA, NJ, and VT have clothing as non taxable.

NY, MA, RI have clothing as non taxable, but only up to a certain limit.

NH, OR, MT, and AK have no sales tax all together.

All the other states tax clothing.
---

Jesus...

https://taxfoundation.org/monday-map-sales-tax-exemptions-groceries/
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

MN, PA, NJ, and VT have clothing as non taxable.

NY, MA, RI have clothing as non taxable, but only up to a certain limit.

NH, OR, MT, and AK have no sales tax all together.

All the other states tax clothing.

You sure New Jersey has sales tax??? Every time I am in Philadelphia there is signs to go across to New Jersey to buy rings and shit cuz they do not have sales tax. New Jersey you can't pump your own gas tho lolol
---

What does "single parent" do that claiming a dependent wouldn't already do? just make it so people don't have to swap dependents in their divorce agreements?
---

neonreaper posted...

What does "single parent" do that claiming a dependent wouldn't already do? just make it so people don't have to swap dependents in their divorce agreements?

Single parent is basically their new head of household. The standard deduction is higher at the mid point between single and married. The tax brackets are lower for more income at the midpoint between married and single.

Before single parent was added people with children were paying more. Now they are seeing a tax cut. I went from paying more to getting like 800 more back under the house plan.
---

Actually I ran the numbers the other day at work. Let me pull them up.

Current Tax Plan I owe 6500

House Tax Plan Single Parent
I owe 5240.

If I got married to my fiancee under House Tax Plan.

I owe 3220.

These are all estimates.

So not 500. 1300ish.

Now that includes the Ivanka $300 dependent credit in both the single parent and married tax plan. Those phase out.

So it would be 5840 without the Ivanka credit for single parent and 3520 under the Married plan.
---

So uh

http://verifiedpolitics.com/rest-photos-videos-franken-tweedens-uso-tour-just-emerged/

Y'all still want Franken to resign?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So uh

http://verifiedpolitics.com/rest-photos-videos-franken-tweedens-uso-tour-just-emerged/

Y'all still want Franken to resign?

Pretty consistently said you are all overblowing this, and he should not resign.

That said, if you thought he should resign before, then you should still feel that way. Her doing or not doing the same thing makes no difference really. Two wrongs do not make a right.
---

lmao i love how mick fucking foley is yucking it up in the background of one of the pictures
---

Also, your source is a bit lacking. For all the person knows, that was part of the skit with permission. Not much different than Timberlake's help of the wardrobe malfunction during the Superbowl.

That said, a lot of this shit is so stupid. Show me something from the current times. Allegations from 10+ years ago where the times were so much different and people were not so PC is so weird to me. Like, the video shows the guitarist grab her butt and her smack his butt in return.
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So uh

http://verifiedpolitics.com/rest-photos-videos-franken-tweedens-uso-tour-just-emerged/

Y'all still want Franken to resign?

Pretty consistently said you are all overblowing this, and he should not resign.

That said, if you thought he should resign before, then you should still feel that way. Her doing or not doing the same thing makes no difference really. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It certainly doesn't absolve him, no, but it does bring her account of events under serious question, since she was certainly not the innocent, unwilling participant to that type of behavior that she tried to paint herself to be.
---

That said, her USO tour antics aren't even the most damning thing.

It's the picture of her laughing with him at the gala. She claims she tried to avoid him/couldn't see him without "her hands balling into fists." So if that's the case, why did she go to a gala that was literally in his honor? And why wouldn't that have been a time to speak up, or atleast say "No, I'm not going, that guy's a dirtbag" since he was being honored?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So uh

http://verifiedpolitics.com/rest-photos-videos-franken-tweedens-uso-tour-just-emerged/

Y'all still want Franken to resign?

Pretty consistently said you are all overblowing this, and he should not resign.

That said, if you thought he should resign before, then you should still feel that way. Her doing or not doing the same thing makes no difference really. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It certainly doesn't absolve him, no, but it does bring her account of events under serious question, since she was certainly not the innocent, unwilling participant to that type of behavior that she tried to paint herself to be.

Again, you have no verifiable source as to the context. If that was agreeable to her and the participant in the skit, then it has no bearing.

You are trying to backhand handwave his behavior by saying she is not a reliable witness by creating your own context.

Like, first of all, she does not grope the guitarists butt. She smacks his butt. He actually gropes her butt. That is your first fallacy. That is seen clearly by the video. For all we know, that was scripted or not unwanted.

The kissing the soldier again we have no context as to whether he was asked if it was okay, was scripted, or otherwise.

You have inserted your own context in with an unreliable source.

That said, it still has no bearing, and your view should be exactly the same regarding Franken before and after.

I think he has no reason to resign, but if you did before, you should still.

You do not need an "excuse" to support your parties candidate. You can just outright say that hey he is a democrat so I support him. Don't need to fabricate reasoning.

If the girl accusing Moore of some impropriety with her when she was 14 ends up being a prostitute who slept with men from 30-100 regularly and molested a 6 year old boy, that does not lessen her claim against Moore. The claim remains the same and is just as wrong of him if true.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

It certainly doesn't absolve him, no, but it does bring her account of events under serious question, since she was certainly not the innocent, unwilling participant to that type of behavior that she tried to paint herself to be.

That's slut shaming/victim blaming. . I mean no matter how she acted around other people (even if it was inappropriate--assuming it was) it didn't give Franken the right to try to plant an unwanted kiss on her.

StealThisSheen posted...

It's the picture of her laughing with him at the gala. She claims she tried to avoid him/couldn't see him without "her hands balling into fists." So if that's the case, why did she go to a gala that was literally in his honor? And why wouldn't that have been a time to speak up, or atleast say "No, I'm not going, that guy's a dirtbag" since he was being honored?

I don't think she'd necessarily avoid him or an event held in his honor if he did act inappropriately toward her. Though her saying she DID avoid him, and couldn't see him without her hands balling into fists... that questions at the very least her reaction toward the whole thing (up until this point at least).
---

If the girl accusing Moore of some impropriety with her when she was 14 ends up being a prostitute who slept with men from 30-100 regularly and molested a 6 year old boy, that does not lessen her claim against Moore. The claim remains the same and is just as wrong of him if true.

This, 100%.

When I first saw the headline, I thought there were going to be photos from other angles proving he wasn't touching her, or maybe one right after showing she was feigning being asleep.

Her engaging in behavior with other men does not give Franken permission to do whatever he wants. That's dangerously close to "well, she was asking for it". Unless I'm missing the point the author was trying to make.

The only thing in any of those pictures remotely relevant was her going to a ball in his honor, like SEP said. I don't see how the rest has any bearing on the discussion.
---

What people are failing to realize that a lot of this metoo stuff is the person themselves account, tend to be filled with hyperbole, and may not actually even be true.

A witness in court is generally considered unreliable for the most part on their own. A person can tell you how something happened after being present once and then later describe the same event and have details changed.

This is just how the human mind is. If anything, being 100% exactly accurate on something over and over moreso points to being coached or having memorized the response.

That is why these accounts from people need to be taken with a grain of salt. Is it good for awareness to the subject? Sure. Should they all be believed without proof? Not really.

I keep saying this repeatedly with all these accusers and subjects. We have a legal process regarding this for a reason. Unless the person is literally dead to rights with evidence, you shouldn't assume one side is right or wrong.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

That's slut shaming/victim blaming. . I mean no matter how she acted around other people (even if it was inappropriate--assuming it was) it didn't give Franken the right to try to plant an unwanted kiss on her.

You're misunderstanding

I'm not saying "If it's true, she asked for it,"

I'm merely saying that if the pictures do anything (they don't, really), it'd draw into question how accurate her recollection is compared to his. There's no way the pictures should be taken as a "It's okay he did this because she did that." But between her own antics, the potential political motivation, and her apparently not telling the truth about the impact it had on her, doubt on the specifics of what happened isn't completely unreasonable.
---

Who?
---

http://deadline.com/2017/11/charlie-rose-unwanted-sexual-advances-report-1202212678/

Was going to use WaPo but apparently they don't post articles URLs less than 700 characters.
---