I believe I said what I meant. EQUAL.

I disagree with your benefiting from society comment. Are you saying the poor do not benefit from society? In a country where you can go to the ER and get free health care, free schooling, food stamps, free fire protection, police protection, roads for free, free education, free national security, and I can go on and on and on. What percentage of a poor person's income contains the benefits of society. Compare that to the rich person's income, and tell me who benefits the most.

I had to pay $4000 for an ambulance ride for my son to go to Spokane for a heart issue. When I questioned it, I was told that I met the criteria to be charged for the service. Not only do I have to pay for my service, I have to pay for someone who cannot.

If people have to see what the costs are, they will care more. People do need to care. Perhaps you would like to get rid of income tax, and just go with a tax on purchases? I am fine with that also.

JUST MAKE IT THE SAME FOR ALL CITIZENS. EITHER THE SAME PERCENTAGE, OR THE SAME BASE FEE. (Caps meant!)

rickyp wrote: Geo isn''t the creative use of capital losses a great way to avoid taxes?

Oh man, don't get me started.

To be fair, however, there has been at least a little improvement in this area. One great change that happened in 2011 is that brokers now have to report (to the IRS) what people actually paid for assets they've brokered. Prior to this rule change, everybody was on their honor, and you could back up your basis with a self-recorded notes, and that was good enough for an IRS audit. It was an open invitation to steal that was finally closed down this year.

Ok, Captain Simple strikes again.

Yeah, let's see how the poor like it when we insist they be poorer so that the middle classes can be a bit less poor! The rich are looking at your idea and laughing, Brad. Because divide-and-rule is the best tactic. They know that they can beat your simple system more easily than you or Mr $30K can, simply by hiding income.

Brad - I can understand your ire at paying for an ambulance ride. It's obscene, it really is.

geojanes wrote:(let me quote you exactly from another thread)

::::banging head against he wall:::;;

The point is that if you approach the issue of taxes like an H&R Block customer, you're going to be talking about the wrong things. Again, I didn't mean to offend, but my point is that even smart, educated people like yourself oversimplify to the point of making errors because you don't fully get what the really important issues are.

Sorry to be the cause of self-inflicted physical pain but this is a political thread about the Presidential race. I was just trying to explain how I thought the issue was going to be played and why I don't think running on a plank of raising taxes on the rich is a winning strategy for the D's.

geojanes wrote:Back on topic: If the political debate on taxes is stuck on the issue of the marginal rate, if its 33% or 35% or 40%, because that's the only thing the "people" understand, then we all lose, because that's not the important issue. Raise the top marginal tax rate to 40, hell 50%, the ultra rich will continue to pay a smaller rate than the average working man. Cut it to 30% and treat all income the same, and the uber rich will scream and holler, because they've gotten used to their exceptional treatment.

Personally, I agree with you totally. However, people don't think that way. My personal opinion is that all income should be taxed as ordinary income. The only posible exception I would possibly make would be to exempt any profit from the sale of a primary residential property

Trying to salvage this thread from the detour I took it on, I will say that I agree with the post that RJ made in the Palin thread: Romney does seem to have a great chance in the general election, IF the economy doesn't pick up a whole bunch between now and then. If we're still stuck in a economic "malaise" or, heavens, it gets worse, Romney could be the adult in the room, the guy on the white horse, who might even have the cred to deal with health care.

But does he survive the primary?

geojanes wrote:Trying to salvage this thread from the detour I took it on, I will say that I agree with the post that RJ made in the Palin thread: Romney does seem to have a great chance in the general election, IF the economy doesn't pick up a whole bunch between now and then. If we're still stuck in a economic "malaise" or, heavens, it gets worse, Romney could be the adult in the room, the guy on the white horse, who might even have the cred to deal with health care.

But does he survive the primary?

Good question. I think it will come down to him and the "Anyone but Romney" candidate. I'm not sure that candidate is in the race yet.

I'm pretty confident it won't be Huntsman.

And, as I posted in the Palin forum, what if things are worse than they are now? I don't think it matters who the Republicans run, if Obama has not made progress on a number of fronts, he won't win. It comes down to a state by state race and I think he's in worse shape than many believe. Can he hold typically Red States that went Blue for him?

I don't think so.

And, if the GOP runs anyone at all and picks Ryan or Rubio as VP, I think the Republicans win handily--unless things get much better than it appears they will.

Obama is writing the ads--speed bumps, not as shovel-ready as we thought, etc.

His record is not good.

Doctor Fate wrote:Good question. I think it will come down to him and the "Anyone but Romney" candidate. I'm not sure that candidate is in the race yet.

I'm pretty confident it won't be Huntsman.

And I am pretty sure it is going to be Huntsman. Pawlenty is the other option but I think his evangelicalism will be a negative with the non-social conservatives voting in the primaries.

Either way, the "Anybody but Romeny is going to be either Huntsman or Pawlenty.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Good question. I think it will come down to him and the "Anyone but Romney" candidate. I'm not sure that candidate is in the race yet.

I'm pretty confident it won't be Huntsman.

And I am pretty sure it is going to be Huntsman. Pawlenty is the other option but I think his evangelicalism will be a negative with the non-social conservatives voting in the primaries.

Either way, the "Anybody but Romeny is going to be either Huntsman or Pawlenty.

Well, speaking for the radical right-wing, I would crawl over broken glass from here to the poll (about 1 1/4 miles) to vote for Romney. I won't vote for Huntsman. He is the very definition of "RINO." He makes Romney look like Ron Paul (not in age, but politics). Huntsman was in favor of a carbon tax, and too many liberal ideas to list.

Pawlenty is just too boring. Sorry. He's going nowhere.

Maybe "Adolf Christie" will get in the race. It's so refreshing that the Left avoided the Hitler motif for about 3 months (used it on Walker too).

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Good question. I think it will come down to him and the "Anyone but Romney" candidate. I'm not sure that candidate is in the race yet.

I'm pretty confident it won't be Huntsman.

And I am pretty sure it is going to be Huntsman. Pawlenty is the other option but I think his evangelicalism will be a negative with the non-social conservatives voting in the primaries.

Either way, the "Anybody but Romeny is going to be either Huntsman or Pawlenty.

The other problem with this analysis is I think you are wrong to think that two "centrist" candidates will fight it out.

The only way to stop Romney, in my opinion, is for someone to enter who pushes him aside--the only ones out there who might be able to do it are: Christie, Ryan, Perry, and Jeb.

Doctor Fate wrote:Well, speaking for the radical right-wing, I would crawl over broken glass from here to the poll (about 1 1/4 miles) to vote for Romney. I won't vote for Huntsman. He is the very definition of "RINO." He makes Romney look like Ron Paul (not in age, but politics). Huntsman was in favor of a carbon tax, and too many liberal ideas to list.

Pawlenty is just too boring. Sorry. He's going nowhere.

Well speaking for the Moderate right I will vote for all three of them but Pawlenty would be holding my nose.

Doctor Fate wrote:The other problem with this analysis is I think you are wrong to think that two "centrist" candidates will fight it out.

You can think that but I disagree. I think the majority of voters in the Presidential primary will be moderate Fiscal conservatives.

Doctor Fate wrote:The only way to stop Romney, in my opinion, is for someone to enter who pushes him aside--the only ones out there who might be able to do it are: Christie, Ryan, Perry, and Jeb.

That is wishful thinking first on the fact that any of them are going to run (with the possible exception of Perry) or that any of them can beat Romney

Archduke Russell John wrote:[You can think that but I disagree. I think the majority of voters in the Presidential primary will be moderate Fiscal conservatives.

Huntsman is, in my opinion, the only potential candidate who could split the GOP. He would force a Tea Party or third party option.

Again, you may think I'm way right-wing, but I'm not so far right that I would not vote for Romney. There is no way Huntsman gets the nod--he is a younger, better-looking version of McCain, without the heroism. Why would voters choose him over Romney?

No way.

That is wishful thinking first on the fact that any of them are going to run (with the possible exception of Perry) or that any of them can beat Romney

It will not be Huntsman beating Romney. No chance.

Doctor Fate wrote:Huntsman is, in my opinion, the only potential candidate who could split the GOP. He would force a Tea Party or third party option.

Just for that reason alone, he sounds fantastic. I've got to start paying more attention.

I think Steve is right that the Romney challenge will come from the right. Where i disagree with Steve is that I don't think such a candidate can win the election, unless the economy dives and the candidate runs an incredibly strong campaign. Perhaps Perry can do it. I don't think any of the others can meet that challenge.

I would probably vote for Romney, but I can't envision voting for a Palin or Bachmann.

Ray Jay wrote:I think Steve is right that the Romney challenge will come from the right. Where i disagree with Steve is that I don't think such a candidate can win the election, unless the economy dives and the candidate runs an incredibly strong campaign. Perhaps Perry can do it. I don't think any of the others can meet that challenge.

I would probably vote for Romney, but I can't envision voting for a Palin or Bachmann.

I am not saying the more conservative candidates can/will win. I am dubious of Bachmann having the gravitas (to borrow a term) on stage. I think Perry could. I've no doubt Christie would.

However, I think Obama is on his way to losing the election. The only question is whether a Republican will actually have to win. If the vote were in 6 weeks, I think Obama would get smoked. The polls don't fully affirm that--but we've not had debates, ads, reminders of all of Obama's promises and how he didn't just break them, he fractured them--like handing out plum jobs to bundlers (80% of those who bundled $500K or more got jobs).

Is that "Change?"

What part of "Hope" was taking a bad economy and driving it into the dirt?

Two polls out today. One (NBC/WSJ) Obama 45, GOP (no-name) 39, and Gallup: Republican 45, Obama 39.

What is significant is that Obama is far under 50%. Without a third party, he's in trouble.