The election

[justpassingthru]

Could you explain your recent comment that in two years you'll draw your social security benefit? How can a Randian disciple who believes government is unnecessary and people should rise or fall on their own justify participating in "socialism?"

I'm really curious. Perhaps some others are as well.

Howard Roarke

Galt spent his life as a businessman. Therefore he has all manner of stealing, moral inconsistancy, and wealth redistribution easily justified as long as it contributes to his bottom line.

 

[John Galt]

Hello Howard. Good question! Yep, I'm about as unbending as they come. Anyway, the easy answer to your question about
SS benefits is that my employer and I paid in all that money over 35 years and so the government is just giving my money back to me. Honestly though, it would
not matter to me as I believe you should take all you
can get from the government (all levels) and never look
back. Chances are good they will just waste it anyway.

John Galt

 

[unclemick]

Well John can speak for himself but to loosely paraphase some of the commercial fishermen around here - presumably Republican, although I don't ask.

About time the #$%^& govt. gave back some of the money they took all those years. (they are self employed and for many/most SS is their highest tax by far).

Me as a 'liberal Dem' am happy they protected me from squandering the money and will give back a little cushion in my old age.

I plan on aging into a grumpy Curmudgeon wherein I'll be against everything - but I will take the money. Happy in one year(age 62) and slowly, slowly, grumpy. Hey - if it takes long enough - may die a libertarian.

 

[Ol_Rancher]

I too object to this thread. Until now this is one of only a few forums where issues have been discussed with a minimum of politics.

Please delete this thread before name calling begins ...

We have many other sites on the net to argue this Kerry vs Bush.

The AARP forums were ruined by the invasion of young (20 somethings) leftists insulting members. It didn't take long before many quit the boards disgusted.

I will not read any more posts to this thread. If the election political discourse spills over to other threads I will leave this site for good.

 

[Rockpile03]

John Galt,
Thank you for a straight, honest answer. I, too, believe all governments, to varying degrees, are venal and self-serving.

However, where we part company is in my personal belief that the weak and oppressed, through no fault of their own, need help, if you're in a position to provide that help.

Without compassion, this world is not worth saving.

HR

 

[yelnad]

Hey Rancher (and others) - Now that you know what the thread is about, you can choose not to read it, as you stated. That's the beauty of the web. Besides, now that you have called for it to be shut down, there are bound to be some who will keep it going just to spite.

Signed,
A young 20something.

 

[Johnblake]

Kerry will win because Bush has too many failures to explain -- Iraq, Afganistan, prisoner abuse/torture, jobs, and most importantly, the failure of the republicans to control government spending (which has grown 2x as fast under Bush when compared w/ Clinton). Fiscal conservatives and libertarians will stay home on election day. Bush will emphasize 'values' and Kerry will hammer him on 'results'.

Bush's tax cuts provided a much needed stimulus, and helped GDP growth, but he hasn't shown any restraint when it comes to spending. This has caused the deficit to grow, weakening the dollar, and will put pressure on interest rates -- all bad for ER. Both Reagan and Bush41 raised taxes after their initial tax cuts. If Bush and the republican congress could control spending, they'd probably be better for ERs.

I was wrong. I underestimated Bush's support among social conservatives.

For all his faults, I think Kerry did a good job. Things he could have done better: toned down Vietnam at the convention, and responded more quickly and aggressively to the flip-flop and swift boat charges. I can't imagine any of the democratic candidates doing better.

The good thing is that Bush will remain responsible for the mess in Iraq, and personally, because I'm pretty well off, I'll be taken care of.

My hopes for his 2nd term are that he puts the brakes on government spending, and adheres to the old republican mantra 'get the government off your back'. My guess is that he may do a better job at controlling spending, but that big federal government is likely to become more and more intrusive in pushing his socially conservative agenda.

Kerry conceded today, which was absolutely the right thing to do. After all he lost the popular vote by a significant margin.

 

[George W Clinton]

Rockpile03

John Galt,
Thank you for a straight, honest answer. I, too, believe all governments, to varying degrees, are venal and self-serving.

As are the unelected Corporate Class who serve themselves sumptously via Government

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .The good thing is that Bush will remain responsible for the mess in Iraq, and personally, because I'm pretty well off, I'll be taken care of.

. . .

I wish I shared your confidence that this were true. I keep hearing Bush insiders talking about 1) elimination of income tax for a federal sales tax and 2) privatization of social security. Both of these moves would be devestating for current early retirees. The massive build up of federal deficit does not inspire much confidence either.

Let's hope the members of his party who decide things based on analysis and reasoning instead of self-riteous faith will keep these things from happening.

 

[retire@40]

I wish I shared your confidence that this were true.  I keep hearing Bush insiders talking about 1) elimination of income tax for a federal sales tax and 2) privatization of social security.  Both of these moves would be devestating for current early retirees.  The massive build up of federal deficit does not inspire much confidence either.

Let's hope the members of his party who decide things based on analysis and reasoning instead of self-riteous faith will keep these things from happening.

These were the 2 issues I didn't like either. I hope they were just political talk because I worked too hard to get taxed twice on my money. First at a high tax bracket to earn as much as I could to ER (about 50% overall), then get wacked with a national sales tax on the same money I was previously taxed. Could turn out to be a 15% to 20% national sales tax if it happens which would mean an overall tax to me of 70% to 75% on each dollar I earned and spent.

 

[charlie]

The devil is always in the details. If a national sales
tax were substituted for income taxes and no taxes
on dividends or capital gains or social security taxes,
then the double taxation on current retiree's after tax
savings might be a blessing.

First of all, the social security tax is a regressive
tax on low income earners. If items like food, drugs
and medical expenses were exempt, then a national
sales tax would likely benefit low income persons.

All savings would grow at a higher compound rate
if there were no dividend and capital gains taxes.
This would certainly benefit young savers just starting
out. It would also benefit older savers who are living
off of interest, dividends and capital gains. In any case,
a tax on consumption would be an incentive to save
more, which this country needs desperately.

Of course the problem with "double taxation" on
already taxed savings would be a big problem if
not resolved. Hopefully, some clever economist would
find a way to "grandfather" such savings.

 

[charlie]

The devil is always in the details.

If a national sales tax with exemptions for food, drugs
and medical expenses were substituted for income
taxes, social security taxes and taxes on interest,
dividends, social security income and capital gains then I think most persons would benefit.

1) The social security tax is highly regressive for low
income workers, many of whom pay no income tax.
If a national sales tax rate is less than the FICA
rate, then they would win. If the rate needs to
be higher, then perhaps a "rebate" method could
be found for them. This could get messy however.

2) Young savers would certainly benefit due to the
higher compound growth rate if there were no
taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains.

3) Old savers with already taxed savings would
benefit IF they spend less than the earnings
on their savings.

4) To avoid double taxation, a way to "grandfather"
existing already taxed savings would be needed.
Some bright economist could rise to this task, surely.

5) The country would benefit due to the increase
in savings rate and decrease in consumption.

I am no economist, but this looks like a no-brainer
to me. Feel free to shoot holes ....... I have my helmet
on.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[charlie]

Sorry about that ..... I thought my first post got lost.

Charlie

 

[wabmester]

I am no economist, but this looks like a no-brainer to me.  Feel free to shoot holes ....... I have my helmet on.

Charlie, the bottom line is that the rich make much more money than they spend, so any shift from an income tax to a VAT will screw the middle class and help the rich.

 

[charlie]

Wab, you may be right, but I would need to see the
numbers to make that judgement. It may be a case
of "win-win" for everbody. Personally, I don't care if
the rich get richer just so long as everybody benefits.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[brewer12345]

Ugh, I am just disgusted with the outcome of the election. I was headed in that direction anyway, but now I am really motivated to shift more of my portfolio to non-US investments. We are in for more wars, more deficit spending, creeping theocracy, and likely a draft. Any federal tax cuts are likely to be continued to be offset by increases in state and local taxes. What a f***ing disaster!

I really think that the Democrats should resort to the weapon that the Repugs used against Clinton in his second term: impeachment threats/hearings. Clinton lied about what he did with his Willy. Bush lied about WMD in order to drag us into a costly war with no way out. Surely we could drum up some charges and keep his monkey ass neutralized.

 

[newguy#9]

We are in for more wars, more deficit spending, creeping theocracy, and likely a draft.

Well,if it makes you (and anybodt else so inclined) feel better there was apiece written recently by a "libertarian" names Lew Rockwell who said a Bush win would be the best thing that could happen to the Left. (I read that Democrats)

Unfortunately that seems to be the historical way these things work out. Tipping points.... bubbles...crashes ( and I dont mean merely stock markets).... storming the castle.

I a milder way it's what has let much of the air out of the Liberal ball. They were very trnedy for 3 decades The Repub can only hallucinate about having the kind of majorities the Dems had in Congress in their heyday.But recently they have been perceived as the Hate Whitey, Blame America First, People. In short, the same kranky Throwbacks the GOP was perceived as for many many yrs.

However... my Spider Sense tells me that the "conservative drift" since 1994 (and less so since RR was elected) is more of a Last Gasp, Death Thrashings of "conservatisim" rather than a resurgence.

There will be an eventual "middle-izing" but of course ONLY after the requisite sturm und drang. Just after the last gasp of Old Style conservatisim in the 1920 that marked the passing of the rural/traditional power centers followed by the assertion of Urban/Liberal power centers.

 

[brewer12345]

Well,if it makes you (and anybodt else so inclined) feel better there was apiece written recently by a "libertarian" names Lew Rockwell who  said a Bush win would be the  best  thing that could happen to the Left. (I read that Democrats)

Unfortunately that seems to be the historical way  these things work out.  Tipping points.... bubbles...crashes ( and I dont mean merely  stock markets).... storming the castle.

I a milder way it's what has let much of the  air out of the Liberal ball. They were very trnedy for 3 decades The Repub can only hallucinate  about  having the kind of majorities the Dems had in  Congress  in their heyday.But recently  they have been  perceived  as  the   Hate Whitey, Blame America First, People. In short, the same kranky  Throwbacks the GOP was perceived as for many many  yrs.

However... my Spider Sense  tells me that the "conservative drift" since 1994 (and less so since RR  was elected) is more of a Last Gasp, Death Thrashings of "conservatisim" rather  than a resurgence.

There will be an eventual  "middle-izing" but of course ONLY after the requisite sturm und drang. Just after the last gasp of Old Style conservatisim in the 1920 that marked the passing of the rural/traditional  power centers followed by  the   assertion of Urban/Liberal power  centers.  

You misunderstand me. For me, this isn't democrat vs. repug. I don't agree with much of the democratic platform and I actually vote republican in all my local elections because they do a good job running the town, county, etc. However, I have less than zero confidence in the administration, and the thought of an obliging congress ready to hand the monkey everything he has promised to big oil and the residents of the trailer parks makes me want to retch.

If the Chimp were running a public company, I would short it heavily.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Conversions in the tax situation concern me slightly in that I sure as hell want the opportunity to use up my past capital losses before they're rendered moot!

I doubt the govt would get too far in changes that left stuff like that hanging though. But then again, i've been proved wrong before when applying common sense thinking to government policy...

A national sales tax with exemptions on food, clothes and other basic necessities wouldnt really trouble me as most of my expenses would fall into that exempt category. It troubles me though as to how this would affect the economy. While the average joe and josephine would have more money in their pockets (or would they? would companies stop giving large raises once people started seeing another 20-30% in their paychecks?), I can see a lot of people rethinking purchases that would trigger the sales tax if stuff cost an extra 15-20%.

I know that since internet commerce kicked in, I've actually decided to buy stuff where I otherwise wouldnt have because I could get it without paying an 8.5% sales tax and have it shipped to my door for free. You remove that sales tax savings and add another 20% to it...theres a bunch of stuff I'd have done without or made do with what I had a little longer.

Brewer - I understand the sentiment. I've never voted for anyone other than a republican myself. I've said it before, I'll say it again...I cant stomach the deceptions this administration has thrown off. That a majority of republican voters STILL think that Hussein was behind 9/11...that this administration now says they never claimed there was a link, even though they're on video tape saying it over and over...that as many as 100,000 people have died, 250,000 tons of munitions are unaccounted for and a whole region may be destabilized...I couldnt vote for that. The good news is that I live in one of those dark blue states that was declared a Kerry win 3.2 seconds after the polls closed without bothering to count any votes...so I didnt have to make that decision.

What we've got are a lot of people that arent too bright, along side a bunch of people who simply have too much going on in their lives to parse out anything past what they're fed in sound bites, and a bunch of people who would not only vote for a dead horse if it was a republican, they'd find a way to argue that the horse really isnt dead no matter how bad it smells.

Unfortunately the combination of good spin doctors, money, and our connection to the boob tube allows those who lead and govern in business and in politics to lead us a lot farther afield than we might imagine. The days when the media was our ally against such things is long ended.

As far as what hurts or helps various classes...come on...who cares. I dont believe we should drive the poor and working classes into the ground with taxes, but I cant imaging the thought process that comes up with laying the burden for stupid government spending practices on the rich and middle class either.

I didnt mind paying my fair share when I was scratching for a living, I dont see why I should pay MORE than my fair share now that I've achieved success.

 

[Hyperborea]

I know that since internet commerce kicked in, I've actually decided to buy stuff where I otherwise wouldnt have because I could get it without paying an 8.5% sales tax and have it shipped to my door for free.

It doesn't matter where you buy it since you owe California the 8.5% use tax. If the vendor doesn't collect it then you still owe it even if you pay some other state tax based on the location of the vendor. If you didn't pay it at the time of sale then you have to declare and pay those amounts with your state income tax return and sign the form on penalty of perjury. You're not suggesting that you didn't declare them are you?

If there is a national sales tax it would be even easier to ensure that it was paid since all vendors in the US would have to collect it. For goods coming in to the country they all have to pass through customs. Now, not everything is checked but there is a much greater chance of it being found out as opposed to single state collections where there is no postal/courier checkpoints.

 

[retire@40]

Hyperborea is absolutely right.  Most people think that just because they buy something over the Internet or in another state they don't owe sales or use tax.  Not so.  In fact, in Massachusetts just to make people sign under penalty of perjury, they have included a line for unpaid sales/use tax on the state individual income tax return.

Oh, you ask how would the state ever know?  Read this:
http://news.com.com/The+Massachusetts+Internet+tax+mystery/2010-1028_3-5104537.html

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

You're not suggesting that you didn't declare them are you?

Why of COURSE not!!!

I knew someone would bring that up, but it doesnt dilute the point. Most people who buy online dont ante up the state tax. You make that an automatic 15% and ask all businesses to collect state tax where shipped, and that $500 thing I was interested in becomes a $617.50 thing. And I probably dont buy it.

So the point is, does this suppress a lot of discretionary spending? Not that I think this wouldnt be bad for a lot of people individually to buy less crap, but how would it hit the economy.

In particular...which businesses and industries would suffer?

I would suspect that any company predominately doing business online would tank. Also, anyone relying on high end or high value purchasing to make their numbers might see a lot of people slacking off towards less expensive options.

Let me give you an example...hey Cut-Throat...would you still buy those big Lexi if you had to pay a $15,000-18,000 sales tax on top of the purchase price or would you look a little further downstream in the product mixes?

 

[BigMoneyJim]

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Thursday he earned 'political capital' from the 59 million people who voted for him and will use it to advance a broad agenda that includes protecting America and reforming the intelligence community, the tax code and Social Security."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20041104/pl_nm/bush_dc

Well, if it gets out of hand the Senate...er, the Congress...no, then the Supreme Court...

Uh-oh.

-----

Actually, I'm not as paranoid about Bush's win as I was before the election. That could change, of course.

 

[nfs]

Mencken still said it best.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

 

[Hyperborea]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20041104/pl_nm/bush_dc

Well, if it gets out of hand the Senate...er, the Congress...no, then the Supreme Court...

Uh-oh.

Hmmm, interesting item.

"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told a news conference
<snip>
Bush would alter the tax code's reliance on a progressive tax system to perhaps a flat tax system that would hurt the poor and middle class and favor the wealthy

I'm hoping but only just hoping that being in the upper 5% or so of income earners that I might come out neutral on these changes.  Those that these changes are intended for are those from whom he borrowed his "political capital" and they want it back with interest.  Any "average" folks are going to need some lube.

Bush said spreading freedom around the world will be a central part of his foreign policy.

Hmmm, unless holding citizens and legal residents incommunicado without charges for months to years is one of the tenets of "freedom" then he should start in the US first.