Freed Roger wrote:AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:planet pujolsian wrote:AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote: My preferred method would be a consumption tax, but that's neither here nor there.
I don't think the consumption tax is the answer. You'd have a great deal of people paying a much higher percentage of their income (the lower and middle classes) than the wealthy. I also take issue with single issue voters. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you're a relatively young man. Why would the death tax and capital gains tax be your deciding factor?
Not if there is a universal rebate. I've heard something like $500/month, either way, that problem would be simple to solve. It works out so the poor aren't paying taxes and the middle class is paying less than the upper class (assuming they keep purchasing goods).
In this election, that is why I'm not voting for Obama. I really like him and politically, socially I couldn't disagree with him more - but I try not to vote on social issues. But, I think having a democratic congress and a democratic president would be a recipe to raise capital gains taxes for sure and likely the estate or death tax. And, imo, that is just wrong.
I respect your opinion.
One of the principles of a free market society is that everybody protecting and advancing their own well-being produces the best result for all. Thus I do know several well-off people that want McCain as president because of the taxes. Their main concern -saving their own pocket book and thus, protecting their own wealth will produce societal goods for all.
But under this scenario - shouldn't we all be looking after ourselves first to produce the common good. I have a hard time understanding people that vote against their own financial well-being. Its hard to fathom that they are more worried about making it "fair" for the wealthy in terms of estate tax and investment taxation. Either that is mighty high-minded and benevolent regarding their concern for America's wealthy, or as Dent mentioned, many are just being victimized by market fraud and scared by terms like "death tax."
If you base your vote for McCain just because you feel so strongly about the unfairness of the principles of these forms of taxation then that is cool. But please consider that there are a lot of things much more unfair than these issues - IMO.
Would you make the country safe from higher capital gains and estate tax at the expense of a larger national debt?
Here's how I break it down:
McCain's POW experience simply can't be overlooked. True, it doesn't make him more or less qualified to be President. It does, however, show that the man is honorable (despite his current campaign actions) and when he chose to stay with his comrades instead of going home when given the chance, that, imo, speaks volumes for his character....more so than a campaign. His military experience is well documented and, despite how I feel about the war, I trust him more to run a military campaign than I do Obama.
That said, Obama's energy policy/plan >>>>>>>>> McCain's. And, again imo, the nation's energy policy is every bit as important as the war right now because if you can wean America off oil in 10-20 years, that will speak volumes for America's prosperity. Giving $700 billion a year to the middle east is just an abhorrent plan. And, I trust Obama to get America energy dependent more than I do McCain. In a related note, the best line from any campaign thus far was Huckabee's when he said "We can't negotiate on even grounds with the Middle East until we can tell them that we need their oil as badly as we need their sand. Until that point, they will always have the upper hand." And, that is about right on, imo.
If someone had taken both these issues, hands down it would be who I would be voting for, but they split it, so it's time to dig deeper.
And, so, I turn to the economy. In particular, I look at the national debt (before all this went down). And, I think both are idiots. Neither one is saying what needs to happen: cut spending. McCain's plan is to get rid of earmarks......okay, probably not going to happen without shutting down the entire legislation process, but whatever. Even if he does, it's not going to be enough. Obama, on the other hand, wants to increase spending and increase taxes. Which, on paper at least makes sense, but again I don't think it will be enough. After spending a little bit of time on this, I came to the conclusion that neither would balance the budget let alone start paying off the debt and therefore neither deserves credit for this issue. They both suck.
So, I asked my dad what he was going to do. He was the one - and he's pretty level headed and informed about this stuff - that told me he thought the cgt would rise significantly if Obama won and we went on to talk about his finances and where he was and what he wanted to do.....though that's all probably changed now. But, regardless, after hearing that, I just don't think it's right for the gov to take his money, any of it, really because he would take a hit in what he could do in retirement. Like I said, he's not wealthy, but an increase in the cgt would be the same as taking money from his pocket that he can't really afford. So, he'll have to work longer into his life before he can retire. And, I just don't think that's right. I understand if someone is wealthy and making a killing off the stock market how they would be expected to pay...kidn of....but there's still a risk. The gov on the other hand has the luxury of making money with no risk.
What needs to happen, imo, is to find a way to raise the GDP, lower taxes for the middle and lower classes. The increase in GDP will offset the lowering of taxes. The war needs to be won and won outright and soon. The gov needs to cut way back on spending and at the same time invest more into energy research and development....wind, nuclear, solar and ethanol would be a great start. Commit to getting those being developed. Have a plan to have x amount of solar and wind stations in the next 4 years. HAve x amount of ethanol stations open in 2 years and subsidize it if need be until it is lower than gas. Give an ultimatum to the oil companies saying they have to have a price set by a certain date and beyond that date, they can't sell gas any cheaper....they can go more expensive if need be, however. Counterintuitive, yes. But, practical at the same time. Oil companies have been [expletive] us for years now, so [expletive] them. They have the means to drive their prices way down to basically make ethanol impossible to buy and drive it out of business.... HAve x amount of nuclear plants built in 10 years. Use natural gas, hydrogen, increased fuel efficiency, ethanol, everything to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. Bring those hundreds of billions of dollars to America, and a ton of problems will be solved. And, the influx of money to companies will lead to more researchand more efficient ways to utilize these other sources of fuel.
Sorry for the long post.
