Elections Gary Johnson at 12% (3% away from debates), potential game changer

[DangDaGawd]

The mainstream ones certainly are. Notice that the Pauls ran in Republican primaries.

That's like calling Bernie Sanders a Dem reject though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's like calling Bernie Sanders a Dem reject though.

Bernie had a big influence on the platform. He hasn't been rejected. The Pauls were rejected.

 

[DangDaGawd]

Bernie had a big influence on the platform. He hasn't been rejected. The Pauls were rejected.

What I mean by Republican reject is that Gary Johnson spent his entire political career as a GOP member who fully supported their platform until he decided to run in the 2012 election as a Libertarian.

Both Bernie and Ron Paul were outsiders to their respective parties when they were trying to run in their primaries.

 

[ucunc156]

*I* think Johnson is better than other Republicans. Not as smart or well-educated as you expect a presidential candidate to be, and with a terrible set of policies, but certainly better than Trump. But what I'm saying (for example with the alcohol-free beer comparison) is that the racism is what makes an otherwise extremely unpopular set of policies sell.

I know you're a big proponent of republicans put up with the economic ideas because of white nationalism, but thats really not true (in a voting sense). Around here, there are tons of people that say they are "fiscally conservative, socially liberal".

Now the issue here is, that they boil down fiscally conservative to "pay less taxes" and thats all that really matters. The vast majority don't actually weigh the cost to benefit of social programs and the overall reach to society. They at that moment don't need welfare, so they believe nobody should need it, and believe that taxes are the holy grail. Now obviously I disagree with that ideology, but I think that is a huge part of the republican base. A lack of understanding how taxes and programs work and how it is applicable outside of their immediate circle. I wouldn't call that white nationalism, and I definitely think there is a big demand, especially around millennial republicans, who hold those ideologies.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Bingo. Considering taxes, and the subsequent government spending associated with them is my single biggest issue as its basically all encompassing, he's an absolute no go. As you say, its totally regressive.

But it's not "totally regressive", nor is our current system totally progressive. Comparing the two is far more complicated than one word labels. You may not like the plan, but simply writing it off as regressive is ignorant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden

Economist William G. Gale at the Brookings Institution writes: "Under the AFT proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution, while households in the top 1% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000." Gale continues, "If households are classified by consumption level, a somewhat different pattern emerges. Households in the bottom two-thirds of the distribution would pay less than currently, households in the top third would pay more."[26] While Gale's analysis differed from the FairTax legislation,[23] he is referring to absolute tax money—ranked by income, households at the lower end of the distribution will tend to pay more in absolute taxes, while households at the higher end will tend to pay less in absolute taxes. Ranked by spending or consumption, households that currently spend less on consumption would pay less total taxes, while households that currently spend more would pay more. For example, a family of four (a couple with two children) earning about $25,000 and spending this on taxable goods and services, would consume 100% of their income. A higher income family of four making about $100,000, spending $75,000, and saving $25,000, would consume only 75% of their income on taxable goods and services. When presented with an estimated effective tax rate, the low-income family above would pay a tax rate of 0% on the 100% of consumption and the higher income family would pay a tax rate of 15% on the 75% of consumption (with the other 25% taxed at a later point in time). A person spending at the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 0%, whereas someone spending at four times the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 17.2%.[27]

These conclusions are contradictory according to Gale. The FairTax proposal is regressive on income (using a cross-section time frame) and progressive on sales. Classical economic analysis indicates that the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) decreases as income increases. Households at the lower end of the income scale spend almost all their income, while households at the higher end are more likely to devote a portion of income to saving. However, MPC and income elasticity of demand tend to increase as wealth increases. These facts explain the apparent contradiction in the data; households at the extreme high end of consumption often finance their purchases out of savings, not income.[26] This savings would be taxed when it becomes a purchase. Income earned and saved would not be taxed immediately under the proposal. In other words, savings would be spent at some point in the future and taxed according to that consumption. FairTax advocates state that this would improve the taxing of wealth. Laurence Kotlikoff stated that the FairTax could make the tax system much more progressive and generationally equitable.[2] The payroll tax system is regressive on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions taxing only the first $97,500 ($94,200 for the year 2006) from gross wages, and none earned from capital investments or interest. Under the FairTax, payroll taxes would be eliminated. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University concluded in a 2007 study that "replacing income and payroll taxes with the FairTax would make the United States federal tax system more progressive than it is now".

 

[kpt018]

Bingo. Considering taxes, and the subsequent government spending associated with them is my single biggest issue as its basically all encompassing, he's an absolute no go. As you say, its totally regressive. That being said, he's still much more reasonable on several issues and I personally like the non intervention stuff, which is more a to each his own.

I'd say that I used to favor non intervention (and am still much less hawkish than guys on the right), but some smart folks have convinced me that I should be wary of that position. It's a topic for another thread, but the crux of it is we have ISIS who very clearly states their objective is to kill everyone who does not agree with their views. If they could get their hands on a nuclear bomb and kill thousands or worse millions of people they would. And they won't stop until they're wiped off the planet or we are.

It's analogous to an otherwise peaceful guy that confronts an asshole who is hellbent on picking a fight at a bar. You just want to have a beer and watch some MMA but if the guy clearly wants to hurt you it comes down to two options. You get hurt or you fight. I get that the people don't have the stomach for more war and want it to end but I tend to lean that the stuff GJ is suggesting could result in an expansion of ISIS' power and increased terror threats. I think that's why Obama is much more hesitant to just pull out of the middle east, he has good information that tells him it would be a bad idea.

Anyway, totally off topic and I suspect we probably aren't that far apart on the issue.

 

[kpt018]

But it's not "totally regressive", nor is our current system totally progressive. Comparing the two is far more complicated than one word labels. You may not like the plan, but simply writing it off as regressive is ignorant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden

Um, this was in the link too:

"According to the report, the percent of federal taxes paid by those earning from $15–$50,000 would rise from 3.6% to 6.7%, while the burden on those earning more than $200,000 would fall from 53.5% to 45.9%.[11] The report states, "Families with the top 10 percent of cash incomes would benefit substantially from the retail sales tax. Their tax burden would fall by 5.3 percentage points – from 70.8 percent to 65.5 percent. Middle-income Americans, however, would bear more of the federal tax burden. "

Besides, if you want a plan that is less regressive there is no need for this infeasible tax code overhaul. You can accomplish that goal with less, more realistic changes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I know you're a big proponent of republicans put up with the economic ideas because of white nationalism, but thats really not true (in a voting sense). Around here, there are tons of people that say they are "fiscally conservative, socially liberal".

"Around here" is not convincing to me. The polling data I've seen shows that pluralities of Republican voters reject important tenets of their economic policy (that Johnson agrees with). They vote Republican anyone for identity-based reasons.

Now the issue here is, that they boil down fiscally conservative to "pay less taxes" and thats all that really matters.

But that's not the real discussion. Most Republicans want *higher* taxes on the rich. Not on the middle class. But Democrats also don't support higher taxes on the middle class (a major obstacle to progress, IMO). Republican officials *don't* generally support tax cuts for the middle class, unless they're packaged with big tax cuts for the rich. That choice has come up many times. Remember the "fiscal cliff"? Democrats were pushing for tax cuts (relative to then-current law) for the middle class and tax hikes for the rich, and Republicans fought it.

Anyway, if you look at issue-based polls, you'll see that there's just no constituency for Johnson's program.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Um, this was in the link too:

"According to the report, the percent of federal taxes paid by those earning from $15–$50,000 would rise from 3.6% to 6.7%, while the burden on those earning more than $200,000 would fall from 53.5% to 45.9%.[11] The report states, "Families with the top 10 percent of cash incomes would benefit substantially from the retail sales tax. Their tax burden would fall by 5.3 percentage points – from 70.8 percent to 65.5 percent. Middle-income Americans, however, would bear more of the federal tax burden. "

Besides, if you want a plan that is less regressive there is no need for this infeasible tax code overhaul. You can accomplish that goal with less, more realistic changes.

Yeah, so? I said it was complicated.

Let me guess, you'll say how imperative it is for taxes to be progressive every step of the way while being unable to establish any history here of you taking issue with the current payroll tax system. What in the Fair Tax is more regressive than what we have currently in this regard?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, so? I said it was complicated.

Let me guess, you'll say how imperative it is for taxes to be progressive every step of the way while being unable to establish any history here of you taking issue with the current payroll tax system. What in the Fair Tax is more regressive than what we have currently in this regard?

You're better off just defending a regressive change in tax policy than practicing this kind of weaseling. You're just making yourself look ridiculous.

 

[Leroy Jenkins]

Welcome to the Gary Johnson era.

 

[kpt018]

Yeah, so? I said it was complicated.

Let me guess, you'll say how imperative it is for taxes to be progressive every step of the way while being unable to establish any history here of you taking issue with the current payroll tax system. What in the Fair Tax is more regressive than what we have currently in this regard?

There is a history of me taking issue with payroll taxes (I oppose the cap on social security tax and think there should be brackets just like income taxes). And I already answered your question in the post you quoted. It raises taxes on the poor and middle class while lowering them for top earners.

 

[sickc0d3r]

How is it that so many euro countries use a VAT and we can't come up with a decent consumption based tax plan? Do the euros like having a VAT or dislike it? I would think having some control over your tax rate by monitoring your own spending would appeal to some folks. Not to mention the death of tax season.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There is a history of me taking issue with payroll taxes (I oppose the cap on social security tax and think there should be brackets just like income taxes). And I already answered your question in the post you quoted. It raises taxes on the poor and middle class while lowering them for top earners.

Quote those posts of yours.

It doesn't raise tax on the poor and your quote lumped 15k in with 50k when those making less than poverty level pay zero tax. Seems dishonest to group those income levels. You don't like the plan, didn't from the start, even when you found out about the prebate you didn't miss a beat with your mantra of regressiveness. My post was to encourage someone who hadn't make up t heir mind to look into it without simply accepting a one word dismissal (regressive). You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yeah but Perot obviously had an affect on that election. If you can get 19% over the vote as a 3rd party candidate that can really change the game

What so many forget about Perot, is that a few weeks before the election, he was polling above 30%. He could have won that election.

 

[kpt018]

Quote those posts of yours.

No, find them your damn self.

It doesn't raise tax on the poor and your quote lumped 15k in with 50k when those making less than poverty level pay zero tax. Seems dishonest to group those income levels. You don't like the plan, didn't from the start, even when you found out about the prebate you didn't miss a beat with your mantra of regressiveness. My post was to encourage someone who hadn't make up t heir mind to look into it without simply accepting a one word dismissal (regressive). You're entitled to your opinion.

I didn't lump anything in, that was the criticism in the link you provided. And if you don't like including the lowest levels because those would actually pay less tax under the plan that would mean the increase for income earners up to $50k is even higher. How could you defend that?

And the part where you are pretending to know my intentions and can't actually counter my arguments is just fucking lame man (and a fallacy btw). I came into that argument because I've studied a flat tax and fair tax plans (I'm a fucking accountant) and am very aware of the provisions.

The prebate just means it is slightly less regressive than if there were no prebate, but it is still regressive overall and far worse than the current system (income taxes are fairly progressive with some exceptions like capital gains taxes). That is the part that you couldn't get your head around before and still can't.

"Regressive" as a description of GJ's plan isn't my opinion, it is a fact. His plan is regressive by definition when you run the numbers. You are entitled to your misguided opinion but you can't change the numbers.

 

[VivaRevolution]

But it's not "totally regressive", nor is our current system totally progressive. Comparing the two is far more complicated than one word labels. You may not like the plan, but simply writing it off as regressive is ignorant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden

Why is that no one ever seems to offer the idea of a progressive flat tax. In other words, we keep the progressive tax structure, adjust for the end of earned income tax credits, child tax credits, corporate welfare, and close all loopholes.

I think this is how tax reform can be sold to both sides. Keep the progressive tax system, but reform it with a flat tax structure. It is the kind of compromise both parties would have made 50 years ago.

 

[kpt018]

Why is that no one ever seems to offer the idea of a progressive flat tax. In other words, we keep the progressive tax structure, adjust for the end of earned income tax credits, child tax credits, corporate welfare, and close all loopholes.

I think this is how tax reform can be sold to both sides. Keep the progressive tax system, but reform it with a flat tax structure. It is the kind of compromise both parties would have made 50 years ago.

A flat tax is regressive by definition. If a tax is progressive that means it has brackets that increase with income.

And politicians have been arguing to end various credits and loopholes since the end of time but they can never agree on which ones to close.

 

[Greoric]

How is it that so many euro countries use a VAT and we can't come up with a decent consumption based tax plan? Do the euros like having a VAT or dislike it? I would think having some control over your tax rate by monitoring your own spending would appeal to some folks. Not to mention the death of tax season.

Because you can't really tax consumption, you're still taxing production. I'd be for it only to the extent that it would incentivize savings though.

 

[Thunderflash500]

I'll vote for Trump but Gary Johnson on the surface is a better choice. I think America might need a leader like Trump, though we surely don't deserve such a patriot. Johnson seems like a bit of a pushover and to willing to get steam rolled by others.