Elections Why does Huckabee have a following?

[LucasWithLidOff]

A guess a genuine imbecile is slightly better than a phony imbecile like Obama.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Um, apparently you totally missed the point. Texas has a lower average tax burden, but that's mostly because the rich pay so much less. The poor and middle class generally pay more. That was just illustrating the general point that the GOP isn't about low taxes generally; they just want lower taxes on the rich or near-rich. Please understand that I'm not talking about average tax burden for everyone or any particular subset of the data. That's all of the many taxes put together, and isolated by income.

My bad, but I thought the argument (based on the graph that was posted) was that the poor in CA paid a lower rate than the poor in TX as a % of income. At least that's what the graph posted claimed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My bad, but I thought the argument (based on the graph that was posted) was that the poor in CA paid a lower rate than the poor in TX as a % of income. At least that's what the graph posted claimed.

Yes, the poor in CA pay a lower rate than the poor in TX as a % of income if you're including all taxes. Middle-income earners also pay a lower rate in CA. Somewhat high-income earners pay slightly more in CA. And the rich pay a lot more. I'm really not sure how to communicate this in a way that you can understand.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yes, the poor in CA pay a lower rate than the poor in TX as a % of income if you're including all taxes. Middle-income earners also pay a lower rate in CA. Somewhat high-income earners pay slightly more in CA. And the rich pay a lot more. I'm really not sure how to communicate this in a way that you can understand.

The the poster you were arguing with was correct and I was right in stating that there are too many assumption in the graph you posted.

2 families with the same income level - 1 in TX the other CA. The one in Cali pays higher sales tax, plus they pay income tax. In TX they only pay the lower rate sales tax - anything else is assumed, so the family in TX are paying less in taxes as a % of income. There isn't any way to spin that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The the poster you were arguing with was correct and I was right in stating that there are too many assumption in the graph you posted.

2 families with the same income level - 1 in TX the other CA. The one in Cali pays higher sales tax, plus they pay income tax. In TX they only pay the lower rate sales tax - anything else is assumed, so the family in TX are paying less in taxes as a % of income. There isn't any way to spin that.

Holy moly. There's no "spinning" involved, genius. Why are you only focusing on income and sales taxes? How much do you know about the tax codes in the two states? What you're doing is reading a detailed study of the issue (with the results reported in the graph) conducted by a highly respected, nonprofit, non-partisan org and saying that they must be lying because you don't like the results. It's pathetic, really. You gotta work with the facts, you can't just reject data that doesn't fit your worldview.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Holy moly. There's no "spinning" involved, genius. Why are you only focusing on income and sales taxes? How much do you know about the tax codes in the two states? What you're doing is reading a detailed study of the issue (with the results reported in the graph) conducted by a highly respected, nonprofit, non-partisan org and saying that they must be lying because you don't like the results. It's pathetic, really. You gotta work with the facts, you can't just reject data that doesn't fit your worldview.

I know enough about the tax codes in both states to know that you don't simply get taxed for being. So, someone is assuming real and personal property taxes; they're also probably assuming meals taxes, they're probably also assuming cell phone, utility, vehicle registration taxes, etc.

If you want to blatantly pretend that they aren't making those assumption; when there is only 1 way to positively compare income taxed (against like charges), then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.


edit: feel free to post the last word; I can't handle the trolling without my nicotine.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I know enough about the tax codes in both states to know that you don't simply get taxed for being. So, someone is assuming real and personal property taxes; they're also probably assuming meals taxes, they're probably also assuming cell phone, utility, vehicle registration taxes, etc.

If you want to blatantly pretend that they aren't making those assumption; when there is absolutely only 1 way to compare income taxed, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

I'm not pretending anything. You can see the same study I see (I linked you to it). You're just covering your eyes and ears to the results.

edit: feel free to post the last word; I can't handle the trolling without my nicotine.

Posting facts that you don't like = trolling? Don't you have any integrity? Like, seriously, as a man, I cannot understand this lack of morals.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

do you think that in a capitalist system, that there will always have to be a poor class? If so, doesn't that stand to reason that anyone just barely above the poor will be hurt when the poor moves up to their level unless they are accordingly bumped up as well? If the answer to my first question is no, then you dont understand how capitalism works (or is abused, depending on your ideology).

I understand perfectly how capitalism works and what we have now is certainly not a capitalist system but rather a mixed system imo.

But you are not explaining how social mobility actually hurts others. How does it hurt them exactly? Financially? Physicially?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Thats because the percentage of people earning minimum wage has always been decently low -after all, 25 cents over the minimum is no longer the minimum.

You keep raising that, while closing the gap between people that have worked their way up through the system and earn a bit more (I'm talking a few dollars more at least here) you will continuously raise the amount of people now making the minimum.

At some point, those results you claim there is no proof of, will start showing proof (my opinion anyways). And it becomes very possible that quality of life (depending on how you define that) will dip for larger amounts of people, and so on.

If you took your example to the extreme and raised it to $100 an hour then I would be inclined to agree but no one is seriously advocating that.

I believe it should be pegged to inflation. By not indexing minimum wage to inflation then essentially those poorest people on MW are going backwards and their quality of life will suffer as a result.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

Huckabee will sadly be a top 3 candidate going into 2016.

 

[Beerandtacos]

How many people understand the term "regressive taxes"?

 

[AgentOrange24]

He plays a mean bass.

 

[Gametheory]

Because apparently they need someone more retarded than Sarah Palin.

 

[wandiswar]

Trickled Down Economics
A 2000 year old Carpenter is the son of god
the solution to gun violence is more guns
Raising the Minimum wage is bad for the economy
The government should not interfere in out lives unless it's sodomy, a woman's vagina or any drugs(unless our corporate masters say it's legal!)
the 1 percent are the victim's

Sorry Conservative's people aren't going to believe this stuff in 50-75 years, your way of life is dying and you're cognitive dissonance block's you from seeing this, adapt or die.

"today's liberal is tomorrow's conservative"

 

[Cro Cop Is Back]

Because he's a good ole southern boyh

 

[Rhood]

It's weird how Huckabee went from Libertarian to right wing nazi.
When Bush was in office he was against big government and the war in Iraq. Then he transformed himself into Rick Santorum 2.0 after Obama became president.

 

[Lead]

the solution to gun violence is more guns

I think your twisting the logic for that side. The argument is violence isn't something that can be completely stopped/regulated so self-defense become necessary in certain cases. A more accurate statement would be the solution to violence is empowering law abiding citizens with their own right to self defense.

I will wait for a Zimmerman photo to be posted following this comment.

 

[wandiswar]

I think your twisting the logic for that side. The argument is violence isn't something that can be completely stopped/regulated so self-defense become necessary in certain cases. A more accurate statement would be the solution to violence is empowering law abiding citizens with their own right to self defense.

I will wait for a Zimmerman photo to be posted following this comment.

I don't mind people having guns, But there solution to the matter is always seems to be born of paranoia as opposed to statistics, gun junkies were silent the week after sandy hook but 4-5 months after the event the gun porn fanboys went full retard.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I will wait for a Zimmerman photo to be posted following this comment.

Did someone say Zim Zam??

 

[ben236]

I don't mind people having guns, But there solution to the matter is always seems to be born of paranoia as opposed to statistics, gun junkies were silent the week after sandy hook but 4-5 months after the event the gun porn fanboys went full retard.

And the gun grabber's solution to the matter always seems to be born out of appeals to emotion as opposed to statistics. Such as your bringing up of Sandy Hook.