No, you can't. You clearly don't understand how write-ins work.
It goes like this. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people around the country running for president. However, it is physically impossible to put them all on the ballot. Voting machines can't handle that many different candidates, and neither can voters. What we do is we require people to get signatures, or whatever, to see which candidates and parties are popular enough to deserve a spot on the ballot. Anyone else who wants to run has to register as a write-in candidate. The specifics of the red tape involved in this process varies depending on where you live.
You can't just go in and write my name on a ballot tomorrow. It won't count for anything. If I'm not registered as a write-in candidate, how will they know which Scott Rubin you are talking about? If I didn't formally do the paperwork required to accept those votes, how do they know who to allocate them to?
Write-ins don't mean you just write in whoever you want. It's just a way to vote for real candidates who aren't popular enough to get a ballot spot.
Alright then, here's the foundation of my support of the Republican party. I don't believe in "spreading the wealth." According tothe numbersthe wealthiest 1% pay nearly 40% of the taxes, the wealthiest 5% pay 60%.
I am tired of hearing conservatives quote the fact that the wealthiest one percent of Americans pay nearly 40 percent of the taxes. Here is where your "redistribution is bad" nonsense breaks down.
Edward Wolffis a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.
The top five percent of income earners in the country own more than half the wealth, according to Wolff. In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.
The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.
Do the math. The top one percent pay the most because they earn the most; this is not unfair taxation. In fact, they are undertaxed, thanks to the magic of capital gains, lobby connections, and copious tax breaks. If you believe they are being taxed unfairly under Obama's proposal, you simply cannot calculate ratios. You are a mathematical cripple.
I already responded to this.
Back up a moment, I didn't say I wanted to kill progressive income tax just yet. I'm just opposed to Obama's restructuring of the tax rates so it ramps up slower up to the $250,000 and then ramps up a lot faster.
Obama's "tax cuts" are cuts for 95% of people and an increase for the last 5% or so. McCain's tax cuts are just that, tax cuts. Everyone pays a little less under McCain's plan.
We'll already got progressive income tax, why does it need to be more extreme?
We'll already got progressive income tax, why does it need to be more extreme?
He is just returning the taxes to Clinton level, which was a horrible time for our economy for sure :-p
On top of that republicans are constantly destroying the taxes that prevent or hinder the permanent development of a Aristocratic class and protecting the middle class.
We'll already got progressive income tax, why does it need to be more extreme?
Do you have health insurance? Do you own a house? Do you have a child in school? Do you have cancer? Do you need to buy a new car? Have you been laid off? Did your 401(k) just tank? Do you want to retire? Do you want to start a small business? Do you need to replace your heater? Can you afford to attend college? Can you buy Christmas presents? Do you live paycheck-to-paycheck? Do you grocery shop on a budget? Are you facing foreclosure? Do you need a laptop? Are you facing a utility disconnection?
These are problems that the bottom 90 percent of Americans are facing. They are not problems that the top 1 percent of income earners are facing. The top 1 percent make more than $1.18 million per year. Do you make more than $1.18 million per year? Is a person making $1.18 million per year living a subsistence lifestyle?
As a voter, you have a responsibility to vote for what you think is right. In my case, that means voting for the candidate who will do the most good with the least negative impact on my ideals. Who do you think you are more beholden to -- the richest people in the country, or the vast majority? I think the only ethical way to vote this election is to stop the continued widening of the wealth gap.
We'll already got progressive income tax, why does it need to be more extreme?
Do you have health insurance? Do you own a house? Do you have a child in school? Do you have cancer? Do you need to buy a new car? Have you been laid off? Did your 401(k) just tank? Do you want to retire? Do you want to start a small business? Do you need to replace your heater? Can you afford to attend college? Can you buy Christmas presents? Do you live paycheck-to-paycheck? Do you grocery shop on a budget? Are you facing foreclosure? Do you need a laptop? Are you facing a utility disconnection?
Oh how could I have been so short sighted and not wanted to help my fellow man. The extra $1000 per household will make absolutely everything better.
These are problems that the bottom 90 percent of Americans are facing. They are not problems that the top 1 percent of income earners are facing. The top 1 percent make more than $1.18 million per year. Do you make more than $1.18 million per year? Is a person making $1.18 million per year living a subsistence lifestyle?
As a voter, you have a responsibility to vote for what you think is right. In my case, that means voting for the candidate who will do the most good with the least negative impact on my ideals. Who do you think you are more beholden to -- the richest people in the country, or the vast majority? I think the only ethical way to vote this election is to stop the continued widening of the wealth gap.
Don't you?
And this is called the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. Either I give to the poor or I'm a fucking asshole. Bull. I believe in the McCain tax cut, everyone gets some money back. That seems fair to 100% of Americans, not just 90-95%.
We'll already got progressive income tax, why does it need to be more extreme?
Let me break this down for you nice and easy like.
Right now the government is spending a lot more than it makes. That's why we have a huge debt. The debt is always growing, and we keep paying the interest on it. The entire country keeps making the minimum payment on a gigantic credit card. We don't have enough money to pay off the growing debt and pay for all the other things.
A real conservative would suggest cutting spending. I agree that a lot of spending needs to be cut. The problem is that neither candidate is going to cut spending. Republicans and Democrats both have done nothing but increase spending and increase pork for a very long time. There is no candidate who will actually cut spending. Even if we did cut spending, we would still need to increase tax revenues to pay for our existing stuff.
The reality of the situation is the government needs more money to avoid bankruptcy. You have a choice between McCain who says he will cut taxes for everyone, or Obama who will raise taxes to make rich people pay for it. Neither one of these is the kind of solution you or I would like ideally, but at least Obama's answer is fiscally responsible, if unfair. He wants to raise spending, but admits he'll need more money to do it. McCain seems to want to continue the current Bush's idea of raising spending and lowering taxes simultaneously. In the absence of lower spending as an option, how can you choose bankruptcy versus fiscal reality?
And the last part of the question is why the tax has to come in the form of increased progression on the income tax. It's really simple mathematics. Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer. The government needs more money to stay afloat. The rich people have all the money. The poor people have less. We have to raise taxes, lower is not an option. The rich people have all the money. The poor people have less. Someone has to be taxed. How do you propose we do it? Poorer people are already taxed as much, or even sometimes more, than they can already bear. They also have less money to tax than they used to. Rich people have more money to tax. Hmm, it just might make sense to tax those rich people more.
I'm no socialist. Any number of people can confirm that. The fact is that increased income tax progression is the most pragmatic way of creating the necessary increase in tax revenues. Of course, if done properly, in conjunction with decreased spending, we would be able to lower taxes big time after we pay off the debt. No candidate is offering that option, so you can't vote for that.
Your choice is McCain to lower taxes and increase spending, or Obama to raise taxes on rich people and increase spending. Welcome to voting! It's not a false dichotomy, it's a real dicthotomy of the two party system. On the one hand you have something that might be fair, but it fiscally irresponsible. On the other hand you have something that is completely unfair, but pragmatic. They both suck! USA! USA!
I agree that the option to vote for nobody is a good idea, but the specifics of how the election will actually work make a great difference. IRV is not so great.
But neither really have a plan to pay down the debt.
Nope. Neither one does. One of them will lower taxes and increase spending. The other will also increase spending, but also increase taxes, resulting in a lower increase of the debt.
These are problems that the bottom 90 percent of Americans are facing. They are not problems that the top 1 percent of income earners are facing. The top 1 percent make more than $1.18 million per year. Do you make more than $1.18 million per year? Is a person making $1.18 million per year living a subsistence lifestyle?
As a voter, you have a responsibility to vote for what you think is right. In my case, that means voting for the candidate who will do the most good with the least negative impact on my ideals. Who do you think you are more beholden to -- the richest people in the country, or the vast majority? I think the only ethical way to vote this election is to stop the continued widening of the wealth gap.
Don't you?
And this is called the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. Either I give to the poor or I'm a fucking asshole. Bull. I believe in the McCain tax cut, everyone gets some money back. That seems fair to 100% of Americans, not just 90-95%.
This is why people who don't understand logical fallacies shouldn't cite them. This is not a false dichotomy. It is the actual choice that you are presented with in this election. Do you vote to benefit the few people who are already rich, or do you vote to benefit the majority of people?
One of the things that is really hard for me to understand about you people is that, unless you are already in the super-wealthy class, it doesn't make any sense to like McCain's tax plan and be afraid of Obama's tax plan. Are you in that class right now? If you're not, do you somehow think that they'll share their money with you if you vote to help them? They won't.
But neither really have a plan to pay down the debt.
Nope. Neither one does. One of them will lower taxes and increase spending. The other will also increase spending, but also increase taxes, resulting in a lower increase of the debt.
That's it, I lose. I rescind my vote for McCain. It never mattered anyway. Obama is going to win my state no matter what.
But neither really have a plan to pay down the debt.
Nope. Neither one does. One of them will lower taxes and increase spending. The other will also increase spending, but also increase taxes, resulting in a lower increase of the debt.
Unless the raising of the taxes is enough to cancel out the additional spending. I forget right off the top of my head what spending increases Obama is going to have, but if we actually get out of Iraq (maybe some day), we should see a pretty big drop in spending.
Personally, my ideal solution would be a tax restructuring similar to Obama's, with perhaps a less dramatic tax increase at the high-income levels, and a massive overhaul of Social Security. Maybe raise the payout age to 70 or 72. Fuck old people.
This is why people who don't understand logical fallacies shouldn't cite them. This is not a false dichotomy. It is the actual choice that you are presented with in this election. Do you vote to benefit the few people who are already rich, or do you vote to benefit the majority of people?
One of the things that is really hard for me to understand about you people is that, unless you are already in the super-wealthy class, it doesn't make any sense to like McCain's tax plan and be afraid of Obama's tax plan. Are you in that class right now? If you're not, do you somehow think that they'll share their money with you if you vote to help them? They won't.
I'm not a member of the super wealthy, but I aspire to be.
And it was a logical fallacy the way it was phrased. Either I help the poor and middle class, or I eat babies. The third way is McCain's plan which helps everyone, a little.
This is why people who don't understand logical fallacies shouldn't cite them. This is not a false dichotomy. It is the actual choice that you are presented with in this election. Do you vote to benefit the few people who are already rich, or do you vote to benefit the majority of people?
One of the things that is really hard for me to understand about you people is that, unless you are already in the super-wealthy class, it doesn't make any sense to like McCain's tax plan and be afraid of Obama's tax plan. Are you in that class right now? If you're not, do you somehow think that they'll share their money with you if you vote to help them? They won't.
I'm not a member of the super wealthy, but I aspire to be.
That's what a lot of you types say. The problem is that you'll never get to be wealthy under the very type of system you espouse. The system you want will keep the burden more squarely on your shoulders, destroying any chances you have of moving up. Are you so smitten with the rich folks that you want them to have the benefit of low taxes, even if it comes out of your pocket and keeps you from your aspirations? Like I said, they aren't grateful. They won't share their money with you.
And it was a logical fallacy the way it was phrased. Either I help the poor and middle class, or I eat babies. The third way is McCain's plan which helps everyone, a little.
Read what he wrote again and try again. Tell me exactly why what he wrote was a false dichotomy.
That's what a lot of you types say. The problem is that you'll never get to be wealthy under the very type of system you espouse. The system you want will keep the burden more squarely on your shoulders, destroying any chances you have of moving up. Are you so smitten with the rich folks that you want them to have the benefit of low taxes, even if it comes out of your pocket and keeps you from your aspirations? Like I said, they aren't grateful. They won't share their money with you.
That's what a lot of you types say. The problem is that you'll never get to be wealthy under the very type of system you espouse. The system you want will keep the burden more squarely on your shoulders, destroying any chances you have of moving up. Are you so smitten with the rich folks that you want them to have the benefit of low taxes, even if it comes out of your pocket and keeps you from your aspirations? Like I said, they aren't grateful. They won't share their money with you.
How are they paying much lower taxes right now?
I think you should just read what I wrote. Aren't you supposed to be in college or something?
Just because you wrote it doesn't make it true. Last I read the tax code you payed a greater percentage the more you made.
Your thinking on the issue is too simple. The highest tax bracket is around $300,000. Remember, rich people are getting richer. Bill gates pays the same percentage as a fancy lawyer who isn't even a millionaire. The result is the graph posted by J. Sharp.
Just because you wrote it doesn't make it true. Last I read the tax code you payed a greater percentage the more you made.
Your thinking on the issue is too simple. The highest tax bracket is around $300,000. Remember, rich people are getting richer. Bill gates pays the same percentage as a fancy lawyer who isn't even a millionaire. The result is the graph posted by J. Sharp.
Actually Bill Gates pays less cause he makes his money through capitol gains which is only taxed at 15%. I'm just not giving Joe any play because he always asks me to prove and substantiate everything I say.
You realize that the chart doesn't show greater taxation; it shows a continuing widening of the income gap. It proves that the richest people have an easier tax burden that the less wealthy.
You realize that the chart doesn't show greater taxation; it shows a continuing widening of the income gap. It proves that the richest people have an easier tax burden that the less wealthy.
What I meant by "there we go" was data that backed up Joe's statement. And it shows a widening income gap or the rich getting better tax breaks over time...or both.
You realize that the chart doesn't show greater taxation; it shows a continuing widening of the income gap. It proves that the richest people have an easier tax burden that the less wealthy.
That chart is useless, it doesn't have nearly enough information.
People change income brackets over the course of their lives. You might enter your twenties in the bottom 10%, enter the top 50% before you retire and then drop back into the bottom 20% during retirement.
Over the last ten years my income has more than doubled and I make less than $100K. What percentage am I in? According to the chart I am doing better than the top fifth but not as good as the top 1%. In fact, over the course of that chart my salary has gone from $0 to over $50K!!! Damn, I'm doing way better than the top 1% after all!!!!
Without any context or internal data this chart is without meaning.
Comments
It goes like this. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people around the country running for president. However, it is physically impossible to put them all on the ballot. Voting machines can't handle that many different candidates, and neither can voters. What we do is we require people to get signatures, or whatever, to see which candidates and parties are popular enough to deserve a spot on the ballot. Anyone else who wants to run has to register as a write-in candidate. The specifics of the red tape involved in this process varies depending on where you live.
You can't just go in and write my name on a ballot tomorrow. It won't count for anything. If I'm not registered as a write-in candidate, how will they know which Scott Rubin you are talking about? If I didn't formally do the paperwork required to accept those votes, how do they know who to allocate them to?
Write-ins don't mean you just write in whoever you want. It's just a way to vote for real candidates who aren't popular enough to get a ballot spot.
We'll already got progressive income tax, why does it need to be more extreme?
On top of that republicans are constantly destroying the taxes that prevent or hinder the permanent development of a Aristocratic class and protecting the middle class.
These are problems that the bottom 90 percent of Americans are facing. They are not problems that the top 1 percent of income earners are facing. The top 1 percent make more than $1.18 million per year. Do you make more than $1.18 million per year? Is a person making $1.18 million per year living a subsistence lifestyle?
As a voter, you have a responsibility to vote for what you think is right. In my case, that means voting for the candidate who will do the most good with the least negative impact on my ideals. Who do you think you are more beholden to -- the richest people in the country, or the vast majority? I think the only ethical way to vote this election is to stop the continued widening of the wealth gap.
Don't you?
Right now the government is spending a lot more than it makes. That's why we have a huge debt. The debt is always growing, and we keep paying the interest on it. The entire country keeps making the minimum payment on a gigantic credit card. We don't have enough money to pay off the growing debt and pay for all the other things.
A real conservative would suggest cutting spending. I agree that a lot of spending needs to be cut. The problem is that neither candidate is going to cut spending. Republicans and Democrats both have done nothing but increase spending and increase pork for a very long time. There is no candidate who will actually cut spending. Even if we did cut spending, we would still need to increase tax revenues to pay for our existing stuff.
The reality of the situation is the government needs more money to avoid bankruptcy. You have a choice between McCain who says he will cut taxes for everyone, or Obama who will raise taxes to make rich people pay for it. Neither one of these is the kind of solution you or I would like ideally, but at least Obama's answer is fiscally responsible, if unfair. He wants to raise spending, but admits he'll need more money to do it. McCain seems to want to continue the current Bush's idea of raising spending and lowering taxes simultaneously. In the absence of lower spending as an option, how can you choose bankruptcy versus fiscal reality?
And the last part of the question is why the tax has to come in the form of increased progression on the income tax. It's really simple mathematics. Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer. The government needs more money to stay afloat. The rich people have all the money. The poor people have less. We have to raise taxes, lower is not an option. The rich people have all the money. The poor people have less. Someone has to be taxed. How do you propose we do it? Poorer people are already taxed as much, or even sometimes more, than they can already bear. They also have less money to tax than they used to. Rich people have more money to tax. Hmm, it just might make sense to tax those rich people more.
I'm no socialist. Any number of people can confirm that. The fact is that increased income tax progression is the most pragmatic way of creating the necessary increase in tax revenues. Of course, if done properly, in conjunction with decreased spending, we would be able to lower taxes big time after we pay off the debt. No candidate is offering that option, so you can't vote for that.
Your choice is McCain to lower taxes and increase spending, or Obama to raise taxes on rich people and increase spending. Welcome to voting! It's not a false dichotomy, it's a real dicthotomy of the two party system. On the one hand you have something that might be fair, but it fiscally irresponsible. On the other hand you have something that is completely unfair, but pragmatic. They both suck! USA! USA!
Ive been really worried about this debt for a long time.
Decide. Decide now.
One of the things that is really hard for me to understand about you people is that, unless you are already in the super-wealthy class, it doesn't make any sense to like McCain's tax plan and be afraid of Obama's tax plan. Are you in that class right now? If you're not, do you somehow think that they'll share their money with you if you vote to help them? They won't.
Personally, my ideal solution would be a tax restructuring similar to Obama's, with perhaps a less dramatic tax increase at the high-income levels, and a massive overhaul of Social Security. Maybe raise the payout age to 70 or 72. Fuck old people.
And it was a logical fallacy the way it was phrased. Either I help the poor and middle class, or I eat babies. The third way is McCain's plan which helps everyone, a little.
A more in-depth look by the tax policy center.
That said, I think we can all agree that the Republicans have handled spending pretty abysmally.
People change income brackets over the course of their lives. You might enter your twenties in the bottom 10%, enter the top 50% before you retire and then drop back into the bottom 20% during retirement.
Over the last ten years my income has more than doubled and I make less than $100K. What percentage am I in? According to the chart I am doing better than the top fifth but not as good as the top 1%. In fact, over the course of that chart my salary has gone from $0 to over $50K!!! Damn, I'm doing way better than the top 1% after all!!!!
Without any context or internal data this chart is without meaning.