[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Omnis]

It's a 14.5% income tax for people, and a 14.5% VAT (more or less) for business. They call it a business transaction tax, but I'm not sure on the details of what that would constitute. That is, after all, for Congress to hash out.

But for individuals, your first $15k is untaxed and you don't get FICA taken out of your check. Each dependent also gives you a $5,000 credit. So if you are married with two kids the first $50,000 you make is tax exempt.

I think the best part is that under this tax plan, it would pay to anchor your business in America. All those trillions sitting overseas would be highly likely to be brought back to our shores.

Read here for more info: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/21/stephen-moore-rand-pauls-fair-and-flat-cuts-taxes-/

And more objectively: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/economic-effects-rand-paul-s-tax-reform-plan

 

[BobK]

But for individuals, your first $15k is untaxed and you don't get FICA taken out of your check. Each dependent also gives you a $5,000 credit. So if you are married with two kids the first $50,000 you make is tax exempt.

Wouldn't that be the first $30,000 not the first $50,000? 3 dependents x $5,000/dependent is $15,000 to add to the first untaxed $15,000 for a total of $30,000.

 

[Omnis]

Wouldn't that be the first $30,000 not the first $50,000? 3 dependents x $5,000/dependent is $15,000 to add to the first untaxed $15,000 for a total of $30,000.

You're assuming only 1 person works. What is this, 1950? Middle class folk both work. $15,000x2, each with 2 dependents, so $30k + $20k total.

 

[BobK]

You're assuming only 1 person works. What is this, 1950? Middle class folk both work. $15,000x2, each with 2 dependents, so $30k + $20k total.

So each of the kids is being claimed twice?

 

[GTsail]

So each of the kids is being claimed twice?

I think that there is a personal exemption of $5,000 for each of the two parents, so there would be four personal exemptions/dependent exemptions in @Omnis example, plus the two $15k base credits.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[BobK]

So let me see if I got this straight.
Family where one person works, makes $100,000/yr. $15K exemption plus three dependents at $5K each is $30,000 total exemption on an income of $100,000.

Now let's say each parent works, each one making $50,000. Each one gets a $15,000 exemption plus two dependents for a total of $25,000 in exemptions. So each parent has a taxable income of $25,000.

One parent working: $100,000 income, $30,000 in exemptions, $70,000 taxable income.
Both parents working: $100,000 total income, $50,000 total exemptions, $50,000 combined taxable income.

 

[GTsail]

Its my understanding from a quick read of the plan, that the $15k standard exemption is per taxpayer, so it would not matter whether both parents worked or if only one parent worked. The family would receive the same $30k standard exemption.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Swagger897]

No one ran for president last year.

well last election cycle.... I think it's pretty obvious now from over the weekend..

 

[Sanji Himura]

So let me see if I got this straight.
Family where one person works, makes $100,000/yr. $15K exemption plus three dependents at $5K each is $30,000 total exemption on an income of $100,000.

Now let's say each parent works, each one making $50,000. Each one gets a $15,000 exemption plus two dependents for a total of $25,000 in exemptions. So each parent has a taxable income of $25,000.

One parent working: $100,000 income, $30,000 in exemptions, $70,000 taxable income.
Both parents working: $100,000 total income, $50,000 total exemptions, $50,000 combined taxable income.

That's under the assumption that both parents file separately. Can anyone explain to the tardy person in the room how the Rand Tax Plan (is that even a thing?) handles couples who file jointly?

That is the whole issue that I have with the plan right now. It may be unintentional, but I think that it helps destroy, as a bit of a religious excursion here, the family. It really doesn't encourage married couples to file jointly, as it would be financially advantageous to do so, but only gives tax breaks to the individual. So while, yes, it is true that the tax code is so bloated with tax breaks to corporations and people who were handed political favors, it does grant tax breaks to families. Sorry, Rand, but I think that you missed the point here.

 

[Omnis]

That is the whole issue that I have with the plan right now. It may be unintentional, but I think that it helps destroy, as a bit of a religious excursion here, the family.

Wait, what? Where did you come up with that? If anything, it encourages families to file jointly so they get a double exemption.

It really doesn't encourage married couples to file jointly, as it would be financially advantageous to do so, but only gives tax breaks to the individual.

It doesn't take much imagination to conceive that married couples could file jointly. The pedantics aren't really the issue here. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and miss the greater point of this plan.

So let me see if I got this straight.
Family where one person works, makes $100,000/yr. $15K exemption plus three dependents at $5K each is $30,000 total exemption on an income of $100,000.

Now let's say each parent works, each one making $50,000. Each one gets a $15,000 exemption plus two dependents for a total of $25,000 in exemptions. So each parent has a taxable income of $25,000.

One parent working: $100,000 income, $30,000 in exemptions, $70,000 taxable income.
Both parents working: $100,000 total income, $50,000 total exemptions, $50,000 combined taxable income.

Yes, but as I said above it's probably not a big deal for married couples to file jointly.

And even if they couldn't, the sole breadwinner would be keeping an extra $22,000 for his family per year compared to what's in place now.

 

[FoolKiller]

well last election cycle.... I think it's pretty obvious now from over the weekend..

I was indisposed over the weekend. Could you explain?

 

[Swagger897]

I was indisposed over the weekend. Could you explain?

year/election cycle... self-explanatory...

 

[FoolKiller]

year/election cycle... self-explanatory...

I thought that you meant something happened over the weekend.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Donald Trump believes that Mexicans are rapists and, as such, has been dropped by NBC along with a couple of his programs.

His comments are bound to resonate with some voters but it's an in-auspicious start.

 

[Keef]

Donald Trump believes that Mexicans are rapists and, as such, has been dropped by NBC along with a couple of his programs.

His comments are bound to resonate with some voters but it's an in-auspicious start.

Hard to rape somebody when you're sitting drunk on a park bench.

 

[ryzno]

Don't forget Univision(A huge Mexican based network) dropped Donald also. After signing a 5 year contract a few months ago.
I believe his downward spiral has begun.


Just like America lol!

 

[FoolKiller]

Too bad he's not a mixed race woman. He could just cry and apologize for his insensitive remarks.

But NBC fires all white males that cross the line (Alec Baldwin).

 

[Liquid]

Boris Johnson was born in the United States. He's over 35.

Could he run for President, if he so decided? Assuming he took up an American passport, of course.

 

[Adamgp]

Boris Johnson was born in the United States. He's over 35.

Could he run for President, if he so decided? Assuming he took up an American passport, of course.

He would have to have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. (Rule is a bit vague on if the 14 years needs to be consecutive or not)

 

[TenEightyOne]

Rule is a bit vague on if the 14 years needs to be consecutive or not

No it isn't, the Article clearly states that they must have been resident for 14 years with the statue (Jce. Story) later noting that this can include a permanent domicile for a total of 14 years.

 

[Adamgp]

No it isn't, the Article clearly states that they must have been resident for 14 years with the statue (Jce. Story) later noting that this can include a permanent domicile for a total of 14 years.

It never states the 14 years have to be consecutive.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It never states the 14 years have to be consecutive.

Precisely, that's why I said "a total of". The clue was in what the the words meant.

 

[Adamgp]

Precisely, that's why I said "a total of". The clue was in what the the words meant.

OK...

Curious to why you tried to refute my original statement then...

 

[TenEightyOne]

OK...

Curious to why you tried to refute my original statement then...

You said that the rule was vague on whether or not the residency needed to be consecutive, I said it isn't. Because it isn't. There is no mention of it at all in the Article.

Story noted that

By "residence," in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States.

We also know that the interpretation where a President has to be resident within the United States for fourteen years directly prior to election is not observed... otherwise Hoover would not have been eligible.

 

[Liquid]

I was only wondering if we'd ever see Boris on a US ballot, that's all... but he won't be, because he hasn't spent 14 years in the country. Understood.

 

[Adamgp]

You said that the rule was vague on whether or not the residency needed to be consecutive, I said it isn't. Because it isn't. There is no mention of it at all in the Article.

Story noted that



We also know that the interpretation where a President has to be resident within the United States for fourteen years directly prior to election is not observed... otherwise Hoover would not have been eligible.

Here it is as written in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It does not state the 14 years have to be consecutive, as I posted before.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It does not state the 14 years have to be consecutive, as I posted before.

Precisely, so why would you say it was vague? Story's notes also entirely omit consecutive-dwelling. And as I pointed out to you Hoover became President. It isn't vague at all.

I was only wondering if we'd ever see Boris on a US ballot, that's all... but he won't be, because he hasn't spent 14 years in the country. Understood.

Shame, they'd be welcome to him

 

[Adamgp]

Precisely, so why would you say it was vague? Story's notes also entirely omit consecutive-dwelling. And as I pointed out to you Hoover became President. It isn't vague at all.

All the Constitution says is 14 years, does not mention consecutive or not. I said the rule in the Constitution was vague, as it does not state so.

 

[Dotini]

The following, from the pen of Andrew P Napolitano, former judge and senior judicial analyst for FOX news, was published yesterday.

"In the course of my work at Fox News, I am often asked by colleagues to review and explain documents and statutes. Recently, in conjunction with my colleagues Catherine Herridge, our chief intelligence correspondent, and Pamela Browne, our senior executive producer, I read the transcripts of an interview Browne did with a man named Marc Turi, and Herridge asked me to review emails to and from State Department and congressional officials during the years when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state.

What I saw has persuaded me beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Clinton provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful. Here is the backstory."

http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2015/07/01/hillarys-secret-war/

 

[BobK]

From @Dotini's article:

Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?

I'm pretty sure she does, and worse yet, I'm afraid she may be right.