Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,397,423 times
Reputation: 2394
Advertisements
Domestically, he has had some success. Internationally, very little success. Establishing diplomatic ties (again) with Cuba is a positive step despite what detractors may say. Syria/Iraq, Libya, and The Ukraine have been absolute disasters. But, to be honest - I don't think a Republican would have done Syria/Iraq, Libya or Yemen any differently as they are firmly ensconced in the same notion of "spreading democracy" (even though it doesn't work with these nations) and being bought-n-paid-for by the military industrial complex.
Fair, adjective, in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
Stick with the term "fair," as most of us understand the word, and you are pretty well stuck with what you call the "capitation tax," but you also do well to understand such is not possible given the other important considerations. You have more of the same problem from a practical standpoint with the flat tax, but you can't seem to understand this.
A significant part of the problem for many is the notion that "fairness" can be accomplished when it comes to tax policy, beyond the definition provided above.
There is no way to reconcile what we generally consider "fair" with what must be imposed in the way of tax policy from an economic and/or federal budget standpoint.
This is why critical thinking is required, far beyond simple averages or flat percentages...
Not that Gates has all the right answers either, but he too fully recognizes from where taxes should be more appropriately collected, all considered, or at least from where not...
Get past the "fairness" hang-ups and misconceptions, and there is simply no way to get around the need to tax progressively from a practical standpoint. Also, you must adhere to the true definition of fairness when it comes to adherence to the rules, in that if the net federal tax rate for a certain group is X%, those in that group should all be held to the same requirement and essentially pay the same net tax rate.
No Romney type exceptions among the most wealthy who can bring their net tax rates down to levels well below the average their income group is intended to pay.
Legitimate, adjective, conforming to the law or to rules.
Tax policy is only "legitimate" once it becomes law. Tax policy only becomes law/legitimate after lawmakers agree as to what will work best -- all considered.
What is key, all considered, is what method of taxation will satisfy the established goals and objectives.
Again, get past the emotion, the rhetoric, the "fairness" hang-ups, and you end up with our progressive tax system!
This is nothing new or even being debated in any serious way, except in silly forums like this one perhaps where wasting time is perfectly acceptable and doable.
The only point(s) of contention are really what changes to our existing tax code are most appropriate, in need of correction, improvement, and easy to do!
From a practical standpoint, what Obama, Trump, Sanders, Buffett and many others strongly advocate is just one of those realistic opportunities for improvement.
With a VAT tax, EVERYONE pays the same tax rate. And that's what needs to happen in the U.S. if you want national healthcare, etc., that the European countries have.
This is the number that charlatans use to misrepresent the facts. Your number not only includes the those looking for work, which is the true number, but also includes my 85 year old mother who is now retired; my sons in college, who aren't looking for work; the disabled, who can't work; playboys on yachts, etc.
It's been fact-checked before and found to be a misleading at best and gets a from Politifacts.
In the words of Edward R. Murrow, "have you no shame? Have you no decency?"
We can see that there are about 190 million of working age (your 85 year old grandmother is not included in that number).
Currently, we have 95 million adults of working age not working and 95 million of working age currently working.
These numbers, of course, are disasterous for any president and dismiss the liberal lie that the elderly and children are included in the numbers of unemployed citizens. The same metric, of course, was used for every other president since Reagan. Obama, in the minds of a liberal, can never be evaluated by the same measures as other presidents, because he is black.
Good job on the numbers break down, but equally important is to break down how many of these 95 million adults of working age are actually seeking employment, right?
My wife is of "working age," not seeking employment. I really don't think anyone should blame Obama for that.
Neighbor, also of working age, in a wheelchair on disability. Obama's fault? Should he be expected to "just get a job?"
My son is of "working age," still in school working to get his master's. Is he part of the "disaster" you blame on Obama?
Agreed, rubbish is rubbish no matter who decides to push it for the sake of propaganda, but let's get all the numbers out there and understood before we find ourselves victims of the same propaganda, shall we?
"Working age," is not all we need to consider by any means.
Surely we can do a little better than this as well!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
