Jump to content

What should be done in the new term?


Recommended Posts

Your own link says " In healthy adults and children, even enormous doses of aspartame do not lead to plasma levels of metabolites that are a concern for safety."

And the conspiracy theory part is, of course, unprovable but still unsupported by any evidence from you.

If you want t o continue to ingest formaldehyde go right ahead. if you think that formaldehyde is good for you that's your opinion. It's not shared by everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Remove the deductions for home mortgage interest.

I agree completely, for all the reasons you state.

2) Get rid of the deduction for state income taxes

.

I agree, as well, but this would wind up being a substantial increase for most people, probably too much to bear all at once.

3) Kill the special tax rate for capital gains and dividends. Trading and investing is just another job. There is no reason it should be taxed differently than normal income. That's another almost $100 billion/year.

This I disagree with. Remember that many Americans don't have a pension (Canadians too). Their investment is what they hope to live on eventually. I would agree to progressively raising the rate as incomes and earnings increase, though.

4) Charitable donations. When people donate to charity, they should be donating their own money, not everyone else's

Makes sense. Remember Trump's offer to donate $5million to charity to see Obama's college transcripts? Anyone think he wasn't going to claim that against his taxes? So all he was really offering was to donate the taxpayer's money.

.

5) Continue the current tax rates as they are, across all tax brackets. With the deductions above eliminated, America's current progressive tax rate structure is fair and balanced.

I don't see the same tax rate for an individual who earns more than double another individual as being particularly progressive. They need a few more brackets. I also think the rate at the top needs to rise.

Since then, life expectancy has risen dramatically, but the age has only risen from 65 to 67. The social security retirement age should be indexed to life expectancy.

That won't save as much as you think. Life expectancy is 78 in the US. If you want to not pay them till 3 years before then people need to work until 75. How many do you think will be able to do that? I'm guessing most of those dropped from public pensions (again, remember most don't get a private pension) will wind up on welfare. Plus this is a double whammy for older people as you've already hit their investment savings with a big increase.

1) Immigration reform. This needs to be done

They need to build a bigger wall, and start putting employers in prison for hiring illegals.

2) Healthcare. Decouple healthcare from employment.

Again agreed. Throw out everything they have and bring in a German style health care system. For more efficient, and far cheaper.

3) Campaign finance reform. Superpacs and the like are stupid. Constitutional amendment should be looked at here if necessary.

Good luck with that one. I agree, but watch the big money fighting against that kind of amendment. To see what big money can do look at what 's going on in Michigan with the bridge proposition.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people are being poisoned by Aspartame and killed slowly by medicine. The vaccines are really designed to make people sterile. These methods are called soft kill, as opposed to hard kill which would be bullets and bombs. The aristocrats only want 500 million people to be living on the Earth in order to only allow them to use the worlds depleting resources.

Earthquakes are playing an important part as well. The government can and is creating earthquakes to kill people and control the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entitlements need to be reformed, in a similar way Harper reformed OAS. The retirement age should be increased for people under 45 by a year or 2, and eventually up to age 70 for younger people. Means testing these programs is essential was well.

Tax reform is also essential. Lowering the corporate tax rate, and closing tax deductions as well.

Most importantly, and I fear it won't be done under an Obama administration considering his track record, is allowing the energy industry to grow. It's on the verge of a boom. New oil, natural gas and clean coal can create an economic boom in several new states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That won't save as much as you think. Life expectancy is 78 in the US. If you want to not pay them till 3 years before then people need to work until 75. How many do you think will be able to do that? I'm guessing most of those dropped from public pensions (again, remember most don't get a private pension) will wind up on welfare. Plus this is a double whammy for older people as you've already hit their investment savings with a big increase.

I think many people are already working into their 70s, and many more could if it was economically necessary for them to do so. Health care is getting better and better. Life expectancy isn't 78 now instead of 62 because people are people are spending 16 additional years immobile and helpless, but because they are living with relatively good health into their 70s. Further, from what I recall of some article I read a year or two back, studies showed that people that keep working into their old age maintain a better social life, a better routine, and altogether stay healthier and saner longer than those who retire.

With advances coming in medicine in the next two decades that will essentially eradicate cancer, prevent heart failure, reduce the risk of strokes, and cure common old age illnesses like Alzheimer's, life expectancies are likely to continue to rise and are sure to pass 80, 90, even 100, with people living healthier into their older and older years. When half the population is over 67, can we really have people continue to retire at that age?

That's why I think retirement age HAS to be indexed to life expectancy. Even if you set it to 85% of life expectancy, so that it stays 67 right now (85% of 78 = 67), that will at least allow us to avoid disaster in the future.

And if I'm wrong and life expectancies don't keep going up, then having it indexed to life expectancy won't do any harm either, as it'll just stay the same, and would even go down in the future if life expectancies started to drop for some reason.

Raising the retirement age automatically by a formula will allow government to bypass the political difficulty of having to vote to change it every time. The system would just have to be passed once, like indexing retirement benefits to inflation, or welfare to inflation, indexing retirement age to life expectancy would just need to have enough support to be passed once and would work automatically thereafter, wherever future advances may or may not take us.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raising the retirement age automatically by a formula will allow government to bypass the political difficulty of having to vote to change it every time. The system would just have to be passed once, like indexing retirement benefits to inflation, or welfare to inflation, indexing retirement age to life expectancy would just need to have enough support to be passed once and would work automatically thereafter, wherever future advances may or may not take us.

Or people can provide for their retirement by saving. If the government is not taking half your income it should be more than a little bit easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

? Here's your quote again:

rich would obviously be paying more, if that would please the more liberal crowd.

Yeah? And......shouldn't it please the more liberal crowd? The law would be fair as it applies to all equally and we should be all equal under the law.

A graduated income tax is a law that violates the concept that all people are equal under the law.

I want them to pay all taxes ? You're telling me what will satisfy my concept of fairness ? The wealthy have done pretty well since 1980 or so, so why is questioning that attacked with such strawmen as this ?

The wealthy have always done pretty well for themselves no matter the tax level. In your favourite period when the tax rate for the rich was 90% Henry Hazlitt cites these figures in his book Man vs The Welfare State: "in 1965, taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes under$15,000 (who received more than three-quarters of the total personal income there was to be taxed) paid 61.5 per cent of the entire personal income tax. Taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes under $20,000 paid 70 per cent of the entire personal income tax."

Today, 49% of the lower income earners pay no income tax. The top 10% are paying 70% of the entire income tax.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Things were better back then right? So maybe we should be taxing the lower 49% again?

I think I should be a corn farmer with all the time I spend cleaning up after strawmen.

Sweeping things under the rug is not cleaning up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many people are already working into their 70s, and many more could if it was economically necessary for them to do so. Health care is getting better and better. Life expectancy isn't 78 now instead of 62 because people are people are spending 16 additional years immobile and helpless

No, life expectancy is 78 because many of the diseases which used to kill people when young have been eradicated or controlled. Thus extending the average life expectancy. But aging has not been controlled. Most age-related diseases still thrive, such as macular degenetion, deafness, slowing memory and learning processes, and a growing physical weakness. If you are one of those who does well into their seventies you're lucky. But even then while you can perhaps sit at a desk processing papers, you are unlikely to be able to continue your career as a miner, forester, fisherman or farmer. You probably can't stand up all day in a retail store, or do any lifting at a factory or warehouse. You might not be allowed to drive, and you certainly aren't going to be in the fire department, police, army, ambulances etc., unless you're at a desk. Do you want a 75 year old man driving a city bus full of commuters? Do you want a 75 year old surgeon operating on you? Do you think 75 year old nurses can run up and down the hall like the 35 year olds do?

Elderly people might not spend 16 hours a day immobile, but they're not out dancing and golfing all day either.

With advances coming in medicine in the next two decades that will essentially eradicate cancer, prevent heart failure, reduce the risk of strokes, and cure common old age illnesses like Alzheimer's

That's be real nice, but as far as I know you're simply fantasizing. None of that is going to happen. Not in the next 20 years anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1965, taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes under$15,000 (who received more than three-quarters of the total personal income there was to be taxed) paid 61.5 per cent of the entire personal income tax. Taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes under $20,000 paid 70 per cent of the entire personal income tax."

Today, 49% of the lower income earners pay no income tax. The top 10% are paying 70% of the entire income tax.

Things were better back then right? So maybe we should be taxing the lower 49% again?

Yes. I've long advocated that. I don't think you have a proper stake in things if you're not paying taxes. To my mind, if you don't pay tax you shouldn't get a vote. That being said, while I favor increasing taxes across the board, the real tax rate for wealthy individuals has plummeted since the 50s. The tax rate for corporations has, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah? And......shouldn't it please the more liberal crowd?

I'm not stupid, and neither are other people. A consumption tax would mean they pay less.

Today, 49% of the lower income earners pay no income tax. The top 10% are paying 70% of the entire income tax.

The eradication of the middle class, the relative gains of the wealthiest, and a generation of continuous tax cuts are the realities here.

Decrying the poor for paying less taxes is cynical, or maybe just assumes the reader is stupid.

Sweeping things under the rug is not cleaning up.

Agreed. That's why the tax hikes and closing of loopholes makes sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want t o continue to ingest formaldehyde go right ahead. if you think that formaldehyde is good for you that's your opinion. It's not shared by everyone.

There is the old saying that someone had gained just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

The human body produces formaldehyde non-stop. Almost every cell. The same goes for almost everything you eat. I just had two apples and therefore I consumed formaldehyde. How much? I would guess around 300 mg/kg. It is the dose that makes the poison. Too much water can kill you, yet water is essential and, of course, your body is mostly water. Formaldehyde can be toxic at a high enough concentration, yet your body produces it naturally and it is impossible to survive without consuming it.

This kind of thinking represents the failure of our education system to teach science properly, along with avoiding (in most cases) the teaching of critical thinking and scientific skepticism completely. Such skills were probably not essential 40 years ago, but in the modern world where the internet has allowed nonsense to be spread so broadly and quickly it is becoming more and more important to be able to assess the quality of information. Whether it is completely inaccurate views about aspartame or vaccines or whatever else, it is so sad to see some people spend so much time and effort convincing themself that nonsense is true, when they could spend that same time learning about the real world instead.

Edited by Wayward Son
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...