2016 Election Thread

[Willihammer]

 

Almost no one outside of the upper 10% have any real money in the markets, outside their retirement accounts. This is not an accurate argument you are making.

 

Increasing the tax on investment income, to still lower than working for it income, seems fair to me. The idea of a lower tax rate on investment income was/is to increase the availability of capital. There is plenty of capital, that argument has lost credibility over the last couple decades.

 

There is no "fair" reason that income from investments, the huge, vast majority of which are either in retirement accounts or held by the wealthy, should be taxed at a lower rate than what the "average joe and jill" pay for their hard work 45 hours a week.

True, the vast majority of stocks are held by the wealthy (not that I care- and by the way is the line being drawn at the top 1%, 10%, or where now? Also, define "real money"). But the vast majority of stockholders are not wealthy. Half of all Americans own stocks.

[Mike Sixel]

 

True, the vast majority of stocks are held by the wealthy (not that I care- and by the way is the line being drawn at the top 1%, 10%, or where now? Also, define "real money"). But the vast majority of stockholders are not wealthy. Half of all Americans own stocks.

 

Mostly in retirement accounts, or in such small amounts that they won't fund home purchases with it, which is what you said.

 

Agreed, many do own stocks, but that's not the real issue here, right? The real issue is the fair allocation of how we collect taxes. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

My issue with SS is it's going to be completely gone in 20 years, which doesn't help my current generation in the least when they get old and sick..... The idea was/is fine, the implementation was a freaking disaster and ended up screwing us (Anyone currently under 40) in the long run.

 

Medicare is for the sick FYI.

 

SS doesn't have to "make money" as you say, but then again you should see at least a better than a $0 return on the investment one has paid into for all those years, as of now that money will be gone and a whole generation will have basically lit thousands of dollars a year on fire.

 

On this we agree, how we've implemented SS is a mess, and I would disagree with others here, and have that money in private, invested accounts (I assume we agree on that also). But, without this program, and our refusal to take care of our elderly any other way, our world would be a lesser place, imo.

[Willihammer]

 

 

Apologies for cropping, but I do so in deference to your technical expertise, which I can't even speak to.

 

For me, the essential question is what kind of investment do you want to reward with tax breaks? Hopefully it's the kind that creates jobs and puts money back into the economy, not wealth-creation for wealth-creation's sake.

 

We want Jack and Jill to grow that nest egg, but we can't keep rewarding wealth-creation for wealth-creation's sake.  The stock market creates this secondary market for wealth-creation, which sucks dollars out of the economy, not the other way around. 

 

I mean this is why we don't privatize social security, because suddenly the interests of a democratic majority are aligned with the interest in Wall St. (etc.), so we'd be biased in any assessment of a bailout/regulation/etc.. That a bunch of hard working people invested/(gambled?) on the stock-market should have no bearing on how much you tax it; they took a risk that really has minimal added benefit for the rest the economy.  

 

(If people want to create more wealth for themselves, why not encourage local investment?  We need more small businesses, not more corporate wealth.)

First of all my expertise is limited. There are a lot of complicated day trading techniques that require some technical knowledge. But I do know that you have to register as a "day trader" with the SEC if you engage in these trades, and there are already tax incentives that encourage buying and holding vs. quick turnarounds on small changes in prices. It is definitely something we need to keep a close eye on but I am not one to penalize someone who is smart enough to make money that way, as long as their behavior doesn't manipulate the market for the rest of us.

[Mike Sixel]

 

First of all my expertise is limited. There are a lot of complicated day trading techniques that require some technical knowledge. But I do know that you have to register as a "day trader" with the SEC if you engage in these trades, and there are already tax incentives that encourage buying and holding vs. quick turnarounds on small changes in prices. It is definitely something we need to keep a close eye on but I am not one to penalize someone who is smart enough to make money that way, as long as their behavior doesn't manipulate the market for the rest of us.

 

I'm not sure it is "penalizing"....the question is, why is their tax rate lower than the person who makes money by going to work in a different way......that's the question I don't like the answer to, personally.

[Willihammer]

 

I'm not sure it is "penalizing"....the question is, why is their tax rate lower than the person who makes money by going to work in a different way......that's the question I don't like the answer to, personally.

Because the guy/gal working for income is all but guaranteed his paycheck. The person putting his money in stocks can watch his investment drop to zero.

The difference is risk.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Because the guy/gal working for income is all but guaranteed his paycheck. The person putting his money in stocks can watch his investment drop to zero.

The difference is risk.

 

The money is in the risk, though, and they know that going in. As someone that dabbles a bit.....not day trading, but otherwise, and knowing 1 day trader, they all know the risk.

[biggentleben]

 

My issue with SS is it's going to be completely gone in 20 years, which doesn't help my current generation in the least when they get old and sick..... The idea was/is fine, the implementation was a freaking disaster and ended up screwing us (Anyone currently under 40) in the long run.

 

Medicare is for the sick FYI.

 

SS doesn't have to "make money" as you say, but then again you should see at least a better than a $0 return on the investment one has paid into for all those years, as of now that money will be gone and a whole generation will have basically lit thousands of dollars a year on fire.

 

I'm pretty sure by sick that he meant disabled, and they also draw their benefits from Social Security.

[DaveW]

Bernie "supporters"

 

https://imgur.com/rB3SOYg

[DaveW]

 

 

I'm pretty sure by sick that he meant disabled, and they also draw their benefits from Social Security.

Fair enough. Again, I'm not saying the poor/sick/elderly shouldn't be taken care of, I am saying that the way SS has been set up the govt and the people have literally known for DECADES that this whole thing would blow up/run out. Now it's my generation and my kids generation who have to pay for it. When this could have been at least somehow avoided oh, anytime in the last 25 years...

[Squirrel]

So, if Trump doesn't get enough delegates and goes to a brokered convention, Boehner has announced a plan. Paul Ryan. Committed delegates must vote for the candidate they pledged to support in the first round of balloting. If no one is victorious, then they can introduce other 'options' and delegates can 'jump ship.' Boehner is proposing Paul Ryan. Yuck.

[Squirrel]

 

Bernie "supporters"

 

https://imgur.com/rB3SOYg

I'm not sure what your purpose was in this post, but it doesn't seem very respectful.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So, if Trump doesn't get enough delegates and goes to a brokered convention, Boehner has announced a plan. Paul Ryan. Committed delegates must vote for the candidate they pledged to support in the first round of balloting. If no one is victorious, then they can introduce other 'options' and delegates can 'jump ship.' Boehner is proposing Paul Ryan. Yuck.

 

I may be inclined to vote Ryan over Clinton, just saying.

[DaveW]

 

I'm not sure what your purpose was in this post, but it doesn't seem very respectful.

It shows the immaturity of a lot of his "supporter" base that clearly don't understand basic politics, how things work etc.

 

And as I mentioned yesterday, you have people spending money they don't have helping him fund his campaign, after last nights 0 for 5 performance he has absolute no way to win the nomination, he should do the correct thing and either:

 

1. Stop accepting donations

2. Drop out and help bridge the gap between his supporters and the dest of the Dem. Get on the message that we need to beat Trump, him continuing this lost campaign on only hurts the Dems overall as he continues to paint an impossible utopia for many of his followers. ("Wait, you mean I have to PAY my student loans if Bernie doesn't win?)

[DaveW]

 

I may be inclined to vote Ryan over Clinton, just saying.

Yuck, why?

[DaveW]

 

 

So, if Trump doesn't get enough delegates and goes to a brokered convention, Boehner has announced a plan. Paul Ryan. Committed delegates must vote for the candidate they pledged to support in the first round of balloting. If no one is victorious, then they can introduce other 'options' and delegates can 'jump ship.' Boehner is proposing Paul Ryan. Yuck.

If Trump goes into the convention with the most delegates pledged and somehow gets screwed out of it (i.e. the Ryan proposition) then Trump is going to go scorched earth on the party and run as an independent. In that scenario I don't think the GOP wins more than a couple states as Trump will continue to eat into the GOP base.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yuck, why?

 

Because the thought of voting for Hillary and another dynasty name is plenty yuck too.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yuck, why?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbqk5arB5a1qznndco1_500.gif

[Craig Arko]

I'm sure when President and First Lady DeRosa are in the White House, everything will be copacetic again.

[Craig Arko]

I'm sure when President and First Lady DeRosa are in the White House, everything will be copacetic again.

With their vote-swaying platform.

 

 

[nicksaviking]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/donald-trump-hill-republicans-conservatives/index.html

 

"If that unity ticket is unable to get 1,237 delegates prior to the convention, we recognize that it took Abraham Lincoln three ballots at the Republican convention in 1860 to become the party's nominee and if it is good enough for Lincoln, that process should be good enough for all the candidates without threats of riots," Erickson wrote in a statement after conservatives gathered in Washington to discuss ways to thwart Trump's march to the nomination.

 

Geez, if skipping all the primaries and going straight to the convention is the way to go, seems really strange that it took 156 years for them to remember that this is the absolute best way to do things.

[mikecgrimes]

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/donald-trump-hill-republicans-conservatives/index.html

 

"If that unity ticket is unable to get 1,237 delegates prior to the convention, we recognize that it took Abraham Lincoln three ballots at the Republican convention in 1860 to become the party's nominee and if it is good enough for Lincoln, that process should be good enough for all the candidates without threats of riots," Erickson wrote in a statement after conservatives gathered in Washington to discuss ways to thwart Trump's march to the nomination.

 

Geez, if skipping all the primaries and going straight to the convention is the way to go, seems really strange that it took 156 years for them to remember that this is the absolute best way to do things.

 

Trump can start getting 50% of the vote or more, Trump can go ahead and win most of the states the rest of the way, but if he doesn't it will at that point be clear Republicans rejected him.  Maybe the nomination can go to Cruz or Kasich but I doubt either will prove to be better primary candidates then Trump.  This is how the process works and has always worked.  The difference is usually the leading candidate is at least tolerable by the majority and we end the process well before this point.

[Mike Sixel]

The middle of this article, quoting the "centrist Democratic think tank" that advises the Clintons explains perfectly why most of us don't like her:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

 

That list of ideas reads like an agenda for, and by, big corporations and wealthy people.

 

"PPI also wants less regulation, lower corporate tax rates and a shift away from taxing income and toward taxing spending."

[Badsmerf]

Is it fair to say this thing is over? I mean, there really isn't any way Clinton and trump get the nod is there? I think both should claim enough delegates to win out right?

 

If there was ever a year for a third party candidate, this is it.

[DaveW]

 

Is it fair to say this thing is over? I mean, there really isn't any way Clinton and trump get the nod is there? I think both should claim enough delegates to win out right?

If there was ever a year for a third party candidate, this is it.

Trump likely won't get the delegates at this stage and it will create the open/contested convention in all likelihood.

At the end of the day though he probably will get the nomination from the GOP though.

[USAFChief]

Side note: where is Bernie getting all the money? In the week leading up to Arizona's primary yesterday, I saw at least 40 Bernie ads on TV, probably more. Not one Trump ad, a couple each for Clinton and Cruz.

[Squirrel]

 

Side note: where is Bernie getting all the money? In the week leading up to Arizona's primary yesterday, I saw at least 40 Bernie ads on TV, probably more. Not one Trump ad, a couple each for Clinton and Cruz.

Grassroots fundraising.

[TheLeviathan]

He's wasting a ton of people's money on a campaign with no hope.  I get that having his voice out there makes some people feel better, but he's got no chance at this.

[nicksaviking]

 

Side note: where is Bernie getting all the money?

 

Who's asking? You wearing a wire?

[nicksaviking]

A Clinton-Sanders ticket is probably much too old.

 

But is it still a possibility? Sanders might be the best bet to keep some of the Independent voters from Trump as they do appear to have some, even if small, overlap in their draw. On the other hand, Sanders might not want the job.

 

Had Cruz or Rubio gotten the nominee, a Hispanic like Julian Castro probably would have been a favorite, but would he still be a guy near the top of the list?