[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[Lexicus]

Yep, the tax code's pretty dumb, IMHO should be replaced with a system where every ~25 years we simply rise up and behead the rich and take all their money.

NO IT DOESN’T!

Trumps faults do not cancel out Clinton’s. Clinton’s faults will still be there absent Trump.

Do you really not understand that he's talking specifically about the sphere of having to cast a vote, in other words, choosing between them? In that context their faults absolutely do cancel out and to argue otherwise is just willfully stupid.

 

[Sommerswerd]

NO IT DOESN’T!

Trumps faults do not cancel out Clinton’s. Clinton’s faults will still be there absent Trump.

Yes it does. (!!) That's why they cancel out. Trump has faults in all the same areas that Clinton does, and being part of the "rich people tax deducting establishment" is one example. EDIT : x posted w/Lexicus... Thanks, exactly.

However, what she has going for her which he does not is she is actually competent to do the job they are vying for, whereas he is clearly incompetent. Even in "running a business" he is incompetent. He tried to "run a business" and lost 900 million dollars. So now we should put him in charge of the US economy so he can lose 900 trillion dollars?

 

[El_Machinae]

He boostrapped! It's what America needs! Default on all the people you owe, and then leave them in the dust. I'm so glad retirees are the main holders of American debt

 

[Timsup2nothin]

NO IT DOESN’T!

Trumps faults do not cancel out Clinton’s. Clinton’s faults will still be there absent Trump.

Give it a rest. No one here is trying to "cancel out" faults, we are merely saying that relatively speaking his are a boulder and hers are a pebble, which is a very relative point.

 

[BvBPL]

That Trump’s flaws out number Clinton’s makes her a candidate superior to Trump relatively.


It does not make her a good candidate objectively.

 

[zxcvbob]

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That Trump’s flaws out number Clinton’s makes her a candidate superior to Trump relatively.


It does not make her a good candidate objectively.

Great. Still leaves her as the best available. By far.

 

[Lexicus]

That Trump’s flaws out number Clinton’s makes her a candidate superior to Trump relatively.


It does not make her a good candidate objectively.

Well congratulations, you win the technically-correct-but-completely-meaningless-point award of the day. This award usually goes to me so be very proud.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a very important point to remember! There's really got to be a way to iteratively improve the acceptable politicians whilst aiding the dismissal of unacceptable ones.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's a very important point to remember! There's really got to be a way to iteratively improve the acceptable politicians whilst aiding the dismissal of unacceptable ones.

Replace the system where the candidate is selected by a majority of votes.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not just that. It's figuring out how to get the good ideas to percolate upwards. You all need Clinton to change Citizen's United, for example. It was big in the primaries. But golly, is it so important now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not just that. It's figuring out how to get the good ideas to percolate upwards. You all need Clinton to change Citizen's United, for example. It was big in the primaries. But golly, is it so important now.

It actually takes congress to change citizens's united, though Clinton has talked the good fight. Unless there's a miracle in November we are stuck with citizen's united through at least 2018.

 

[El_Machinae]

As far as I can tell, Citizen's United needs an actual Constitutional Amendment ... so utterly scary

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As far as I can tell, Citizen's United needs an actual Constitutional Amendment ... so utterly scary

Not really. Much like Roe v Wade it is a decision founded on a big stretch into a vacuum left by congress refusing to issue any laws at all on a subject. Just like the thumper states have filled the void with laws that encroach on the basic principle of legal abortion, congress could enact genuine campaign reform that allows "corporations are people" to stand while defining these new "corporate people" as being bound by specific laws in regards to campaign finance. But no deep in the pocket Republican is going to even consider such a proposition. Deep in the pocket Democrats will, because no amount of campaign financing can make up for directly offending their voter base. But there aren't going to be enough Democrats in the house to expect anything to be accomplished in the next couple years on anything.

 

[metalhead]

The problem is that they're saddled with precedent that clearly says that limiting the corrupting influence of money is not a government interest sufficient to warrant limiting spending on political speech. Any limitation you try to place on spending by outside groups is going to directly oppose binding Supreme Court precedent.

It wouldn't be particularly difficult to fast track a state case to SCOTUS for the purpose of overturning Citizens United, but you still have the issue that Congress would need to pass a new campaign finance laws in order to limit the impact of money in politics. I'm actually fairly optimistic that this would happen; I don't think members of Congress are happy having to spend most of their time courting donors, and then the rest of their time doing the donors' bidding.

 

[civvver]

Problem is that taxes are paid on the basis of wealth. The tax you pay on your income can be offset based on your wealth. That's the problem. The tax system is geared so that the more you already have the more you are allowed to make without impacting you with income taxes.

The current discussion of itemizing deductions provides numerous examples.

Why is property tax deductible? Sure, the 'average American' hates taxes, so when you say "hey, we should offset your income because of this nasty tax you are already paying, just to be fair" everyone goes along. But who benefits? The working man homeowner looks at his mortgage interest and his property taxes and scruffles around with every bit of paper he can retain for a year and maybe finds enough deductible stuff that skipping the standard deduction saves him a dollar. On the other hand, do you think the property tax deduction on Trumps five story condo in Manhattan with the gold plated front door offsets enough of his income to be worth taking?

Why is charitable giving deductible? Back in the day I gave to my church and never kept any record. I knew that I wasn't giving enough for the deduction to amount to enough to get past the threshold where I would not just use the standard deduction. Rich people set up charitable foundations to funnel their giving through, specifically because the foundation manages the paperwork so it is available at tax time. Some of them, like Trump, then use their foundation to game the system, but even the good ones demonstrate that this "charitable giving deduction" is strictly coded in to benefit people who have substantial wealth already not just income.

Why is "cost of tax preparation" deductible? Does the fifty dollar fee at H&R Block make a big difference in anyone's tax bill? What do you think Donald Trump pays to get his 1500 page tax return done? That single deduction probably has him past the standard deduction for the following year.

Ultimately, the entire tax code is written for the benefit of the wealthy, as in paragraph after paragraph, page after page, you could say "delete this and no one but the very wealthy would even notice."

That is very well said. I'm married filing jointly and my wife doesn't work, we own a nice house, but even still the difference between standard deduction and itemizing even with our hefty house payment is like 3-4,0000. In taxes it saves us maybe $800 tops.

Actually deducting interest and property taxes I feel is a scam invented by Reagan to get everyone to buy homes in the 80s when interest rates were sky high.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually deducting interest and property taxes I feel is a scam invented by Reagan to get everyone to buy homes in the 80s when interest rates were sky high.

More like a scam very similar to every other "republican tax reforms." Give the middle class a nickle to play with while the rich loot the treasury is their stock in trade. Has been for decades. Problem is that the middle class falls for it over and over and over and over.

 

[Lexicus]

Citizens United could very well end up destroying the Republic if it isn't reversed somehow.
Madison said at the very beginning of this whole thing that the two objects of government were the rights of persons and the rights of property. That distinction was collapsed in the shape of slavery, and look what happened. Now its collapsed in a different way, and I fear for the consequences.

 

[El_Machinae]

The tax deduction on home mortgages was intended to help get people into houses. But like all subsidies, it helped create a permanent bubble and also helped merely bring demand forward in time (which helps the economy, but only once). It's essentially a subsidy for those who don't have a mechanism by which they can invest in ways that create actual growth. It has its own problems, but it just means a different steady-state will be reached in the US than in other countries.

The real damage done when Trump generated all those losses is that (like I said), they were leveraged. For every dollar he lost, other people lost $9 for trusting him.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The tax deduction on home mortgages was intended to help get people into houses.

Except it was a fake. As already discussed, other than for people who already have a multitude of wealth based other sources of deductions it makes no difference anyway. So people who said "oh boy, home mortgage deduction" and ran out and bought a house mostly ended up saying "oh, hey, the standard deduction is still best for me...or like Civver said "okay, maybe it saves me a few hundred bucks." Meanwhile the rich leverage their designated home all the way to the jewel encrusted hilt so that they can claim the home mortgage deduction while investing the proceeds into less deductible areas.