I'm Rand Paul until he drops, but my support turns to Cruz I'd strongly consider Carson but he will probably fade before that time and I think I'd settle on Cruz anyway.

Flat tax 25% across the board. I think tax brackets are a joke, why should I pay a higher percentage of my income then some lazy ass who never bettered himself and decided to work at wal mart his whole life? Just do a flat tax and be done with it.

 

SS, Medicaid, Medicare, etc to be paid only by people making 500k+ a year (6-7% or so). The rich cover the poor.

 

To make up for any "missing money", just add in a 1% national sales tax on all non essential goods. (Food, clothing under $50, water, medicine)

 

Problem solved.

Why is everyone so sure that Trump is going to "get bored" and drop out?

The sad part about cutting spending is that what needs it the most (military) is basically only being advocated by one candidate: Rand Paul.  Everyone else still treats it like a sure fire way to sink their chances if they advocate it.

 

The sad part about cutting spending is that what needs it the most (military) is basically only being advocated by one candidate: Rand Paul.  Everyone else still treats it like a sure fire way to sink their chances if they advocate it.

Amen. Military spending is out of control and has been for a very, very long time.

 

Amen. Military spending is out of control and has been for a very, very long time.

 

It's why we need a more libertarian alternative to the Dems.  Not hardcore libertarian, but a party without the stupid social issues stances of the Republicans but with a functioning brainstem for solving problems unlike the Dems.  

Why is everyone so sure that Trump is going to "get bored" and drop out?

Fair question, and since I used the term I'll agree that it's a vast oversimplification of what eventually is going to happen, which in my view is going to be stagnant poll numbers, mediocre showings in early primaries and particularly delegate counts, thus no path to the nomination and no path to being selected to be VP. Trump is above all a practical man, and if in addition he sees no further benefit to the Trump Brand, he bows out and throws support to Cruz (maybe a handshake deal is his one path to VP).

 

Fair question, and since I used the term I'll agree that it's a vast oversimplification of what eventually is going to happen, which in my view is going to be no path to the nomination and no path to being selected to be VP. Trump is above all a practical man, and if in addition he sees no further benefit to the Trump Brand, he bows out and throws support to Cruz.

I mean, I agree, that thinking rationally it makes the most sense, but we also would have likely said this 4-5 months ago that he wouldn't have lasted this long.

 

But you can't argue with the support/exposure he has gotten, I could see him sticking in until the bitter end if he doesn't win the nom (And still running 3rd party/independent, he has done it before after all)

The thing about Trump is, I honestly don't think he cares one iota about the GOP, I don't even think he considers himself a Republican when it comes down to it. So I think he would be much happier helping "cost" the GOP the presidential election  by running 3rd party.

Edited September 29, 201511 yr by DaveW

Not to be Ashbury One Note, or anything...

 

This Yahoo news item today caught my eye.

Amazon and the gig economy
Uber and Postmates pay workers based on individual rides or deliveries. Now Amazon (AMZN) is joining the movement with a new program called Amazon Flex. The company will pay drivers $20 an hour to pick up packages at local "mini-warehouses" and deliver them to your door in as little as sixty minutes.

 

Anyone else thrilled with our future of driving cabs for one another and earning chump change (that $20 will cover your gas and depreciation too, right?) delivering where Amazon's drones can't fly? This item sums things up.

 

Changed my mind: guys at the top of the food chain can damn well pay 90% marginal tax on their second ten million earned in a year, just out of Enlightened Self Interest.

What some people fail to realize, and don't all agree with me on, history has shown for thousands of years that as wealth is concentrated, that the wealthy end up dead......

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-eat-the-rich-6.png

 

Not to be Ashbury One Note, or anything...

 

This Yahoo news item today caught my eye.

 

Anyone else thrilled with our future of driving cabs for one another and earning chump change (that $20 will cover your gas and depreciation too, right?) delivering where Amazon's drones can't fly? This item sums things up.

 

Changed my mind: guys at the top of the food chain can damn well pay 90% marginal tax on their second ten million earned in a year, just out of Enlightened Self Interest.

I actually think this and Uber are great for the economy and the everyday person. A lot of the people who drive uber do it as sort of a part time second job/side job.

Uber has some sketchy practices recruiting drivers but overall they deliver a terrific cheap product and the ability to clock in and out at will is hugely appealing for drivers. And yes $20/ride will cover gas & depreciation. If the Amazon jobs are anything like it, it will be another huge win both for consumers and drivers. If anything the CEO would deserve a raise IMO.

 

The owners of postmates aren't multi-billionares. Food delivery is a hugely competitive space right now (I drive for Bitesquad which is a direct competitor), there is not room for anyone's pockets to be getting lined.

And all of these services are made possible by one thing - google maps. Google, a 430 billion mega corporation.

And all of these services are made possible by one thing - google maps. Google, a 430 billion mega corporation.

Good point. As long as Google maintains a "Don't Be Evil" corporate purpose, I agree that a nuanced version of the bare outline I wrote would include tax credits (or whatever) for corporations providing the infrastructure I referred to when suggesting high marginal tax rates at the top. There's a lot to be said for encouraging free market solutions, where a stable equilibrium of informed decision making is possible. (Having gotten my first real taste of the health care industry earlier this year, I am prepared to go at length on giving examples of where in our economny informed decision making is not the norm.... )

 

I mean, I agree, that thinking rationally it makes the most sense, but we also would have likely said this 4-5 months ago that he wouldn't have lasted this long.

 

Disagree, "this long" in the context of what he is trying to accomplish is like a starting pitcher having a 1-1 count to the first batter.  Because he's self funding all we know is he as a stand alone candidate has decent poll #'s in a large field.  Replace Trump with Hillary in the Republican polls and the #'s wouldn't be that different.  These polls are imprerfect and do capture people who want to see the Republicans lose the general.

And all of these services are made possible by one thing - google maps. Google, a 430 billion mega corporation.

Not sure I get this post, is there an implication that someone said big companies are inherently evil?

I'm Rand Paul

I'm Michelle Obama but not all my friends are tolerant so please keep this information to yourself.

Not sure I get this post, is there an implication that someone said big companies are inherently evil?

Guess I'm restating myself, but to me the best interpretation is "gets complicated in a hurry, innit?"

 

Not sure I get this post, is there an implication that someone said big companies are inherently evil?

Its been suggested that the elite who own huge corporations like Google should be taxed more heavily because of assumptions about inequality. Google Maps, and the subsidiary industries that app has spawned, are examples of how a multi-billion dollar corporation that is allowed to keep its profits and reinvest them when it chooses, can produce sources of long term growth and wealth. Something most people in the 99% are not able to do and something the government is not able to do as efficiently.

I haven't posted about inequality at all, other than to say that history says that when it gets bad, societies and people die. Over and over and over, that's what history says.

 

I also haven't ready anywhere on this thread (but it may be there and I forgot) that anyone wants to return to the days of 70% tax rates for companies. Maybe, I don't know, google could pay the same rate I do, and still be big......

assumptions about inequality.

One can spell out the trends only so many times... this is not Adam Smith's economy, but almost all proposals still boil down to it, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump.

 

The sad part about cutting spending is that what needs it the most (military) is basically only being advocated by one candidate: Rand Paul.  Everyone else still treats it like a sure fire way to sink their chances if they advocate it.

WE NEED TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

 

(with bajillion dollar jets that barely work and tanks the Pentagon doesn't want)

 

Its been suggested that the elite who own huge corporations like Google should be taxed more heavily because of assumptions about inequality. Google Maps, and the subsidiary industries that app has spawned, are examples of how a multi-billion dollar corporation that is allowed to keep its profits and reinvest them when it chooses, can produce sources of long term growth and wealth. Something most people in the 99% are not able to do and something the government is not able to do as efficiently.

If you follow the tech industry, Google Maps is the rarity nowadays (and was built largely from outside tech acquired by Google). Most of the Google services you use did not actually *originate* within the walls of Mountain View.

 

You know how most new products are started today? Google looks at a small operating named "Android" and says "NEAT!"

 

Google buys that little operating system for a few million bucks. A pittance to Google, really.

 

Google profits massively by leveraging the rest of their assets into making Android a success. Not only does Android make a little bit of money but more importantly, it allows the rest of Google to make even more money through bundled services.

 

Google sees next new little project and says "NEAT!". Google buys that company, partially with the money they've made with their last acquisition, Android.

 

Continue snowball process ad infinitum.

 

The tech industry, like too many industries in the world, is based more on the "startup and sell" concept than they are branching out into a useful, independent service. Our overlords become fewer by the day.

 

That's not a good longterm solution for anyone. Like Ashbury said, that first million is really hard. The 100th million, not so much. That principle doesn't only work on the individual level, it is also employed extensively at the corporate level.

Funny how we keep spending on the military, but keep cutting back on care for all these troops once they retire. Kind of like being pro life, but not pro helping poor children (whose fault it is NOT that they were born poor).

 

I haven't posted about inequality at all, other than to say that history says that when it gets bad, societies and people die. Over and over and over, that's what history says.

I also haven't ready anywhere on this thread (but it may be there and I forgot) that anyone wants to return to the days of 70% tax rates for companies. Maybe, I don't know, google could pay the same rate I do, and still be big......

I wasn't responding to one of your posts. You asked for clarification on a post and that was my clarification.

 

Ashbury suggested a 90% tax on the 2nd ten million but that was in jest (I think). Also income for the CEO of google and some other companies is basically none of their compensation so that's sort of a null point. If you wanted to tax the elite of google you would have to do so through other means.

 

 

If you follow the tech industry, Google Maps is the rarity nowadays (and was built largely from outside tech acquired by Google). Most of the Google services you use did not actually *originate* within the walls of Mountain View.

 

You know how most new products are started today? Google looks at a small operating named "Android" and says "NEAT!"

 

Google buys that little operating system for a few million bucks. A pittance to Google, really.

 

Google profits massively by leveraging the rest of their assets into making Android a success. Not only does Android make a little bit of money but more importantly, it allows the rest of Google to make even more money through bundled services.

 

Google sees next new little project and says "NEAT!". Google buys that company, partially with the money they've made with their last acquisition, Android.

 

Continue snowball process ad infinitum.

 

The tech industry, like too many industries in the world, is based more on the "startup and sell" concept than they are branching out into a useful, independent service. Our overlords become fewer by the day.

 

That's not a good longterm solution for anyone. Like Ashbury said, that first million is really hard. The 100th million, not so much. That principle doesn't only work on the individual level, it is also employed extensively at the corporate level.

I think you are raising a point that is at best tangentially related to the issue of taxing the rich. Any merger or acquisition made by google has to be approved by the SEC, no?

 

One can spell out the trends only so many times... this is not Adam Smith's economy, but almost all proposals still boil down to it, from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump.

Can you be more clear please.
As someone who works a minimum wage job and probably falls into a lower income bracket than most on this board, I don't feel the need to revolt. I am honestly perplexed as to why so many others who are better off keep predicting it.

 

Funny how we keep spending on the military, but keep cutting back on care for all these troops once they retire. Kind of like being pro life, but not pro helping poor children (whose fault it is NOT that they were born poor).

 

I think this issue deserves its own thread. VA Benefits are despicable. If Republicans really wanted to beat a drum for the military they should really beat this one much harder than they do. 

 

Here is an old link from the NYT, but important because they ended with a quote from me!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/us/doctor-shortages-cited-in-va-hospital-waits.html?_r=0

Can you be more clear please.

As someone who works a minimum wage job and probably falls into a lower income bracket than most on this board, I don't feel the need to revolt. I am honestly perplexed as to why so many others who are better off keep predicting it.

I think I'm the only one "predicting" it here. I am merely pointing out that history shows it happens when inequality gets "too" big. I don't know I'm predicting it, but I am suggesting that some elites are thinking it could be a problem, and more should think about if it is or not.

Can you be more clear please.

As someone who works a minimum wage job and probably falls into a lower income bracket than most on this board, I don't feel the need to revolt. I am honestly perplexed as to why so many others who are better off keep predicting it.

Out of curiosity, how large a family do you need to support, though? Circumstances are not all equivalent.