Trump Voters.... why?

[nereo]

In an effort to nudge us back on topic...
I'm particularly puzzled by a new article that says Trump is done fundraising for the GOP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-lagging-polls-trump-stops-holding-high-dollar-fundraisers/2016/10/25/11ffeecc-9ac9-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

On one hand I can kind of agree with his campaign that his time might best be spent campaigning rather than fundraising.
OTOH, it also seems like he's giving the middle finger to down-ballot Republicans two weeks before the election when the get-out-the-vote machinery starts rolling (and needs lots of money).

which leaves me wondering... "why"?  Why does he seem so disinterested in helping fellow GOPers when (win or lose) they may be key in passing legislation he likes or opposing legislation he doesn't like.

Why? Because he doesn't care. He doesn't have any political philosophies. He just got in the race to get some publicity for his products, figured out he could dupe the republican primary electorate, and now that he's probably going to lose he's more worried about creating his own TV channel and saving the Trump brand than anything he "believed" in the primaries.

Sigh - I fear this may actually be true.  Still, the logic side of my brain remains baffled... he says he's so concerned about issues, but even the most novice politician understands that your best chance is to have lots of friendly votes in congress.  But his actions say he just doesnt' care.  He'll start and prolong almost meaningless fights with people in his own party - speaker Ryan, Sen. McCain etc.

[Glenstache]

In an effort to nudge us back on topic...
I'm particularly puzzled by a new article that says Trump is done fundraising for the GOP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-lagging-polls-trump-stops-holding-high-dollar-fundraisers/2016/10/25/11ffeecc-9ac9-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

On one hand I can kind of agree with his campaign that his time might best be spent campaigning rather than fundraising.
OTOH, it also seems like he's giving the middle finger to down-ballot Republicans two weeks before the election when the get-out-the-vote machinery starts rolling (and needs lots of money).

which leaves me wondering... "why"?  Why does he seem so disinterested in helping fellow GOPers when (win or lose) they may be key in passing legislation he likes or opposing legislation he doesn't like.

Why? Because he doesn't care. He doesn't have any political philosophies. He just got in the race to get some publicity for his products, figured out he could dupe the republican primary electorate, and now that he's probably going to lose he's more worried about creating his own TV channel and saving the Trump brand than anything he "believed" in the primaries.

Sigh - I fear this may actually be true.  Still, the logic side of my brain remains baffled... he says he's so concerned about issues, but even the most novice politician understands that your best chance is to have lots of friendly votes in congress.  But his actions say he just doesnt' care.  He'll start and prolong almost meaningless fights with people in his own party - speaker Ryan, Sen. McCain etc.

It could also simply be because he is deeply narcissistic and does not care. It does not help him win, so why bother? He prefers the fight to demeaning himself to acting to help others, even in his own party.

This article in today's NYT is pretty interesting stuff:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/donald-trump-interviews.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Schrodengerscat]

Now, you might say "Oh I don't trust the government, they are incompetent".  And I'd say that "at least they aren't evil".  Believe me, I've worked at large companies and the leadership at all of them trends strongly sociopathic.  I'd MUCH rather have a less efficient govt in charge of healthcare than a bunch of sociopaths trying to figure out how they can make the most profit out of my family's health problems.

For the record, Medicare has lower overhead than private insurance, and they get better prices than anyone else in the market. On the whole, the people on Medicare receive pretty good care, too. Sure, there are exceptions, but broadly speaking, it works.

Something that is majorly missed in this example is the fact that many places don't take medicare. Also, medicare sets the prices they will pay, and then the rest is passed along to the rest of us in the form of higher prices for other servcies. (or in our case, higher premiums for private insurance). I'm not saying that our healthcare industry isn't extremely wasteful, just that the medicare example is a terrible one.

[Schrodengerscat]

This statement is both sad and scary. Whether or not "we will be fine", which is 100% subjective given the climate of the global economy now and how easy it is for companies to shift their assets and jobs from one location to another, from a moral perspective it is not, nor will it ever be OK to steal from one person for the good of everyone else. Non-voluntary taxes are just that. If you have to use the threat, or action, of coercion, to collect taxes, that is not ethical.

I don't care how the economy will or won't be, it's not your place to decide how one uses their earned property. It's funny how easy it is to say to "tax the heck out of them" when it doesn't affect you.


How would you feel if I decided I don't think it's right for anyone to own a home? Then forced you to turn over your house to me to be torn down to make room for a duplex that you will now have to split rent free with someone because it is for the good of society? Would you be OK with this scenario? If not, then you are the hypocrite that should really focus in self reflection.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

By your logic, all taxes are immoral since any tax above zero is theft of hard-earned property and is therefore immoral.  Is that correct?

Income tax, yes. Absolutely. Being taxed on my labor is not moral or ethical. Consumption taxes, on the other hand, are fine. I have the *choice* to not buy things. I don't really have the choice to go without work. Anywhere there is a loss in choice, there is a loss in freedom. And as I understand it, a loss in the original intent behind why this country was founded.

Hopefully that answers your question.

[Schrodengerscat]

Taxation is not immoral, nor is this on topic.
Please, let's stick to the topic of this thread (Trump) - if you'd like to say why you think taxation is theft you can revive any of the previous threads on the topic.

In your opinion. What makes your opinion any more, or less, valid than mine? I'm certain this issue of taxation isn't the only off topic issue in this tread. However, it is technically a part of the election. (Note: Don't vote; don't care who wins)

[NoStacheOhio]

Now, you might say "Oh I don't trust the government, they are incompetent".  And I'd say that "at least they aren't evil".  Believe me, I've worked at large companies and the leadership at all of them trends strongly sociopathic.  I'd MUCH rather have a less efficient govt in charge of healthcare than a bunch of sociopaths trying to figure out how they can make the most profit out of my family's health problems.

For the record, Medicare has lower overhead than private insurance, and they get better prices than anyone else in the market. On the whole, the people on Medicare receive pretty good care, too. Sure, there are exceptions, but broadly speaking, it works.

Something that is majorly missed in this example is the fact that many places don't take medicare. Also, medicare sets the prices they will pay, and then the rest is passed along to the rest of us in the form of higher prices for other servcies. (or in our case, higher premiums for private insurance). I'm not saying that our healthcare industry isn't extremely wasteful, just that the medicare example is a terrible one.

Except that it ignores the provider side. A well-run, high quality health system doesn't lose money on Medicare patients. A poorly-run system with bad outcomes does.

[Scandium]

Income tax, yes. Absolutely. Being taxed on my labor is not moral or ethical. Consumption taxes, on the other hand, are fine. I have the *choice* to not buy things. I don't really have the choice to go without work. Anywhere there is a loss in choice, there is a loss in freedom. And as I understand it, a loss in the original intent behind why this country was founded.

Hopefully that answers your question.

But you will always consume government resources and services no matter what. Since almost nobody would pay a voluntary tax (and society would collapse) we made it mandatory. Simply by living in a country you're taking advantage of a military that protect you from occupation and enslavement, police protection, roads (even if you don't drive they bring goods and food to you), enforcement of contracts and business laws that provide stability, etc etc.

So you are suggesting all this, and tax payments, should be voluntary? If I pay for police and you don't can I murder you? What prevents you from driving on the road I paid for? Would you be able to shop at stores that exist because of my taxes if you didn't pay?

You can certainly campaign for this fever-dream, but I'd bet 99% of people have decided this anarchistic hellscape is not a society we would want to live in.

[Glenstache]

Taxation is not immoral, nor is this on topic.
Please, let's stick to the topic of this thread (Trump) - if you'd like to say why you think taxation is theft you can revive any of the previous threads on the topic.

In your opinion. What makes your opinion any more, or less, valid than mine? I'm certain this issue of taxation isn't the only off topic issue in this tread. However, it is technically a part of the election. (Note: Don't vote; don't care who wins)

Saying you don't like paying taxes is a legitimately ridiculous waste of time because there is nothing you or I can do about it, unless you are willing to go live on a desert island without any government services called Schrodengers Island.

Are there any taxes on Schrodengers Island? The only way to know is to go there, but by going there we disturb the system. Thus, as far as we know, there are simultaneously taxes and no taxes on the island.

[Tyson]

Saying you don't like paying taxes is a legitimately ridiculous waste of time because there is nothing you or I can do about it, unless you are willing to go live on a desert island without any government services called Schrodengers Island.

Are there any taxes on Schrodengers Island? The only way to know is to go there, but by going there we disturb the system. Thus, as far as we know, there are simultaneously taxes and no taxes on the island.

Quantum humor, love it :)

[acroy]

Being taxed on my labor is not moral or ethical. Consumption taxes, on the other hand, are fine. I have the *choice* to not buy things. I don't really have the choice to go without work. Anywhere there is a loss in choice, there is a loss in freedom. And as I understand it, a loss in the original intent behind why this country was founded.

There are a few of us here who agree with your logic, but it is an unpopular opinion, generally met with scorn and derision. Let's go find that island.

[nereo]

In your opinion. What makes your opinion any more, or less, valid than mine? I'm certain this issue of taxation isn't the only off topic issue in this tread. However, it is technically a part of the election. (Note: Don't vote; don't care who wins)

It doesn't pertain to the topic of this thread, which focuses on reasons people support DJT (and reasons they don't).
Neither candidate is proposing to do away with taxation, nor are they arguing that all taxation is theft.

Why is my opinion more valid than yours?  Well for starters because I do vote and I do care.

[former player]

This statement is both sad and scary. Whether or not "we will be fine", which is 100% subjective given the climate of the global economy now and how easy it is for companies to shift their assets and jobs from one location to another, from a moral perspective it is not, nor will it ever be OK to steal from one person for the good of everyone else. Non-voluntary taxes are just that. If you have to use the threat, or action, of coercion, to collect taxes, that is not ethical.

I don't care how the economy will or won't be, it's not your place to decide how one uses their earned property. It's funny how easy it is to say to "tax the heck out of them" when it doesn't affect you.


How would you feel if I decided I don't think it's right for anyone to own a home? Then forced you to turn over your house to me to be torn down to make room for a duplex that you will now have to split rent free with someone because it is for the good of society? Would you be OK with this scenario? If not, then you are the hypocrite that should really focus in self reflection.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

By your logic, all taxes are immoral since any tax above zero is theft of hard-earned property and is therefore immoral.  Is that correct?

Income tax, yes. Absolutely. Being taxed on my labor is not moral or ethical. Consumption taxes, on the other hand, are fine. I have the *choice* to not buy things. I don't really have the choice to go without work. Anywhere there is a loss in choice, there is a loss in freedom. And as I understand it, a loss in the original intent behind why this country was founded.

Hopefully that answers your question.

  Being taxed on your labour is entirely moral and ethical, because without government providing the context in which you are paid for that labour (it provides the money, it provides the contractual right to be paid for the labour, it provides the security which means you can leave your house while you work and expect it to be safe and accessible to you when you return after work, it provides the security which means that there will be food for you to buy at the end of your day's work) your labour is worthless.  The whole of your life depends on a system of government and the rule of law which gives you all those things in return for taxes.  Taxation cannot be theft when it is taxation which is the basis of everything you own.

[Schrodengerscat]

You pay taxes on what you own.  But what you own is entirely an artifact of government, and government laws.  In effect, the government is using the threat, or action, of coercion, to stop other people from taking your property.  They are stopping your employer from making you work for a month and then not give you your wages.  They are stopping someone with a gun, or someone with a lot of "friends", coming and demanding your house, or your watch, or taking your week's shopping off you when you leave the supermarket.  They are stopping the bank from saying "you put money in but we are never letting you take it out".  In return for you being given the right to own and keep property by the government in safety and security, you give up a very small proportion of that property to the government, which it can use for any purpose which is legal under the constitution.  Describing taxes as theft is both intellectually dishonest and monumentally stupid.

Which is all I have to say on that subject.  Apologies for the derail.

The government does not determine what I own, or don't own. I, nor you, derive property rights from the government. If you and I lived in Somalia, for example, and we made a transaction for a widget, what rights to that property were given to me from the Somali government? (trick question)

Now, to you use your own words, to claim the government is "stopping your employer from making you work for a month and then not give you your wages" is itself "both intellectually dishonest and monumentally stupid." Property rights are a human right. If property rights weren't a human right, and were derived from governmental powers, then why was the 4th amendment even necessary? Afterall, according to you, those rights were only granted out of the goodness of the governments heart.


Next, the government is not a union. They don't prevent my "employer" from making me work for a month without pay, or even prevent me from working long hours. Nor should they. Pay for work is a contractual agreement between you and your employer in which they give you goods (cash) for services (labor). Before labor laws, people still worked and were paid as they should have been. Even after labor laws, companies regularly hire employees they can't pay and then withhold pay after services are rendered. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090406110415AAkzaLy

I have personally had this happen to me, but I quit and moved on with my life. (not me above, just an example of how the government doesn't prevent the magical things you claim)

Now you go to another incident that happens quite regularly and the government has no ability to stop. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Couple-was-on-Facetime-when-during-an-armed-10414434.php

So tell me how the government prevents armed robbery as you described above? They also don't prevent banks from going out of business, or investment firms. Did you miss Lehman Bro.s? None of these things are prevented by the government, so please tell me how in the world they are justification of income theft? But as you stated, I'm just monumentally stupid. It's funny that you talk about "safety and security" and the constitution when Ben Franklin stated this much "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The quote may not be 100% correct, but I feel the point is still fairly well represented.

[Schrodengerscat]

Taxation is not immoral, nor is this on topic.
Please, let's stick to the topic of this thread (Trump) - if you'd like to say why you think taxation is theft you can revive any of the previous threads on the topic.

In your opinion. What makes your opinion any more, or less, valid than mine? I'm certain this issue of taxation isn't the only off topic issue in this tread. However, it is technically a part of the election. (Note: Don't vote; don't care who wins)

Saying you don't like paying taxes is a legitimately ridiculous waste of time because there is nothing you or I can do about it, unless you are willing to go live on a desert island without any government services called Schrodengers Island.

Maybe you are correct that it is a ridiculous waste of time. That is why power was originally concentrated within the states and not the federal government. The shift to a strong federal government took away our power to actually have a say in the process in which we are forced to participate. Also, FWIW, I am saving for that end goal, leaving the tyranny that is this place and hopefully start anew. Will I ever get there, who knows. probably not if the government has anything to say about it. Afterall, they have floated yet another new tax... http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-punitive-exit-tax-1471818426 <- which is directly related to the thread topic.

[Schrodengerscat]

But you will always consume government resources and services no matter what. Since almost nobody would pay a voluntary tax (and society would collapse) we made it mandatory. Simply by living in a country you're taking advantage of a military that protect you from occupation and enslavement, police protection, roads (even if you don't drive they bring goods and food to you), enforcement of contracts and business laws that provide stability, etc etc.

So you are suggesting all this, and tax payments, should be voluntary? If I pay for police and you don't can I murder you? What prevents you from driving on the road I paid for? Would you be able to shop at stores that exist because of my taxes if you didn't pay?

You can certainly campaign for this fever-dream, but I'd bet 99% of people have decided this anarchistic hellscape is not a society we would want to live in.

So you are saying we couldn't defend ourselves as a nation prior to 1913? Afterall, income taxes were not legal prior to then? I do love that people forget that it was the 16th amendment that granted the government the ability to take part of your labor. So why were we able to survive as a country, through even a civil war, without income taxes since they were so necessary to our essentials in life? Also, I would love to know how 3.0 trillion dollars are essential to life in this country? Are you really saying the federal government couldn't exist without it? The federal government still makes 300 billion in taxes from other methods outside of income. Corporate income taxes make up the another 11%, so 600 billion without ever actually coercing any particular group. I'm pretty sure we could provide for an adequate defense on 100 billion and still have more than enough for roads and other items necessary for the general "welfare". But hey, I just want an "anarchistic hellscape". It's nice to know that I'm talking with rational people who can actually view an argument objectively.

[Schrodengerscat]

Being taxed on my labor is not moral or ethical. Consumption taxes, on the other hand, are fine. I have the *choice* to not buy things. I don't really have the choice to go without work. Anywhere there is a loss in choice, there is a loss in freedom. And as I understand it, a loss in the original intent behind why this country was founded.

There are a few of us here who agree with your logic, but it is an unpopular opinion, generally met with scorn and derision. Let's go find that island.

I'm just happy to know I'm not alone. I'm ready for that island when you are.

[sol]

I'm just happy to know I'm not alone. I'm ready for that island when you are.

Be sure to build a big beautiful wall around it after you get there.

Please don't use any American roads, gasoline, or electricity on your way out.  Those things are paid for by our taxes, so you would be stealing from America if you used them while refusing to pay.

Also, consider saying thank you to the brave Americans who fought and died to protect your right to spit on America like that.  You are free to go find that island thanks to their sacrifice, which was enabled by our taxes.

[Schrodengerscat]

In your opinion. What makes your opinion any more, or less, valid than mine? I'm certain this issue of taxation isn't the only off topic issue in this tread. However, it is technically a part of the election. (Note: Don't vote; don't care who wins)

It doesn't pertain to the topic of this thread, which focuses on reasons people support DJT (and reasons they don't).
Neither candidate is proposing to do away with taxation, nor are they arguing that all taxation is theft.

Why is my opinion more valid than yours?  Well for starters because I do vote and I do care.

False equivalency. My not "voting" is not a lack of caring. The two are not mutually exclusive. I care deeply, and am truly disturbed by the fact that some feel it is ok to force their will over another human being. I think I have been fairly transparent with my views, so based on what you have read, whom exactly should I vote for to represent me? When 80% of society (maybe more) will vote for tyranny, be it taxation, gay marriage, abortion, etc, then what is my purpose in showing up to vote? I can't convince the half on the slow side of the bell curve that government exists primarily to remove rights from x group of individuals. You just like to pick the side that only takes rights away from those you oppose. (Or so it seems.) Why can't we all agree with the founding purpose of the country that was to protect the rights of all individuals. I feel it is safe to say at this point that the "United States of America" is a failed experiment. Great in theory, terrible in execution. Hopefully one day version 2.0 will correct the errors of the first attempt. Right now, I see no hope. 

[scottish]

Be sure to build a big beautiful wall around it after you get there.

Please don't use any American roads, gasoline, or electricity on your way out.

Maybe Mexico will pay for the wall if you take Donald with you.   :-)

[Glenstache]

Sealand is probably the answer... though American tax dollars still likely indirectly supported it due to the support for Britain during WWII.

[Schrodengerscat]

I'm just happy to know I'm not alone. I'm ready for that island when you are.

Be sure to build a big beautiful wall around it after you get there.

Please don't use any American roads, gasoline, or electricity on your way out.  Those things are paid for by our taxes, so you would be stealing from America if you used them while refusing to pay.

Also, consider saying thank you to the brave Americans who fought and died to protect your right to spit on America like that.  You are free to go find that island thanks to their sacrifice, which was enabled by our taxes.

So your claim is now that I don't pay taxes? Would you like to see my W2 from last year? I guess I don't pay gas taxes everytime I fill up my car? Also, electricity? Last time I checked, that was provided by a private company with a government granted monopoly. So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove there. Were those brave soldiers the one that fought for me in Iraq? Or the ones that fought in 1776? Because last time I checked, I don't recall getting many freedoms from us sending citizens over to be murdered in foreign lands. Just as a result of the Iraq war we have lost 4500 lives and had 32000 wounded. 9/11 only cost 3000. So what's your point again? Oh, I guess I should thank them for the Patriot act? Or how about the war on drugs? Should I thank them for that too?

[dividendman]

Being taxed on my labor is not moral or ethical. Consumption taxes, on the other hand, are fine. I have the *choice* to not buy things. I don't really have the choice to go without work. Anywhere there is a loss in choice, there is a loss in freedom. And as I understand it, a loss in the original intent behind why this country was founded.

There are a few of us here who agree with your logic, but it is an unpopular opinion, generally met with scorn and derision. Let's go find that island.

I'm just happy to know I'm not alone. I'm ready for that island when you are.

Interesting. According to the Brookings institute to replace all taxes with a sales tax the rate would need to be 60%. Are you ok with that?

What's your position on having a sales tax of 60% on everything but then giving rebates to those of lower income brackets with the rebates eventually phasing out at higher incomes?

[scottish]

That sounds more promising than lowering tax rates for high income earners.

Would we still have all the loopholes to reduce our income?

[Schrodengerscat]

Interesting. According to the Brookings institute to replace all taxes with a sales tax the rate would need to be 60%. Are you ok with that?

What's your position on having a sales tax of 60% on everything but then giving rebates to those of lower income brackets with the rebates eventually phasing out at higher incomes?

No, because we don't need a 3.5 trillion dollar budget. I would be ok with a 25% sales tax that gives a 100% rebate to only those below the FPL. I'm certain we can/could cut 60% of the federal budget. 

[dividendman]

Interesting. According to the Brookings institute to replace all taxes with a sales tax the rate would need to be 60%. Are you ok with that?

What's your position on having a sales tax of 60% on everything but then giving rebates to those of lower income brackets with the rebates eventually phasing out at higher incomes?

No, because we don't need a 3.5 trillion dollar budget. I would be ok with a 25% sales tax that gives a 100% rebate to only those below the FPL. I'm certain we can/could cut 60% of the federal budget.

Please itemize the programs you would cut to get 60% or less. There are lots of fun simulators. I find that after I get done with about 20% (which is still a huge cut) I don't really want to cut the other things.

Even if you cut all of the defense spending, half of the social security spending and half of the medicare spending you'd only reduce spending by 57%.

You'd also have riots in the street, by, ironically, the same age group and education levels that largely support lower government spending (that is, the elderly and uneducated poor).

It is the funniest thing to see the people and states that cry so hard about government spending are the ones receiving the disproportionate share of it.

[Tyson]

My experience is that once people start talking about "tyrany" and "states rights" it is best to just disengage - those people are simply not open to reason or logic.

[former player]

The government does not determine what I own, or don't own. I, nor you, derive property rights from the government. If you and I lived in Somalia, for example, and we made a transaction for a widget, what rights to that property were given to me from the Somali government? (trick question)

The government determines everything you own, including your house (who recognises your deeds?  The courts, paid for by the government with taxes.  You could always ask the Native Americans where your property rights derive from.)  Your widget is your property because it was made using something that came from the ground which was deeded by the government and traded between people in contractual transactions enforced by the courts.  Good luck keeping your Somali widget when someone with a bigger gun wants it.

Now, to you use your own words, to claim the government is "stopping your employer from making you work for a month and then not give you your wages" is itself "both intellectually dishonest and monumentally stupid." Property rights are a human right. If property rights weren't a human right, and were derived from governmental powers, then why was the 4th amendment even necessary? Afterall, according to you, those rights were only granted out of the goodness of the governments heart.

The only human rights you have that amount to a hill of beans are the ones the law gives you.  Again, you need government courts paid for by taxes for your human rights to mean anything.  4th Amendment?  Voted for by government as a limitation it imposed on its own powers.  (And yes, the USA is a creature of its constitution which can be amended in any way which passes the procedural tests.  Me, I'm happier in a common law country.)

Next, the government is not a union. They don't prevent my "employer" from making me work for a month without pay, or even prevent me from working long hours. Nor should they. Pay for work is a contractual agreement between you and your employer in which they give you goods (cash) for services (labor). Before labor laws, people still worked and were paid as they should have been. Even after labor laws, companies regularly hire employees they can't pay and then withhold pay after services are rendered. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090406110415AAkzaLy

Contractual rights (employment contracts are just a form of contract, labour laws just a statutory restriction on the terms that can be agreed in a contract)?  Meaningless without a way to enforce them.  Back to the courts, created by the government and paid for by taxes.

Now you go to another incident that happens quite regularly and the government has no ability to stop. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Couple-was-on-Facetime-when-during-an-armed-10414434.php So tell me how the government prevents armed robbery as you described above?

It's still not exactly Somalia, is it?  Armed robbery in the USA makes the news because it's rare.

The problem with all your arguments is that you are arguing that government is unnecessary by stating that the things that government defines and secures for you, such as property rights and contractual rights, exist independently of the legal system, created and run by government, which creates and enforces those rights.  It's a basic failure on your part to apply logic or to understand the fundamental nature of the rule of law, which underpins everything you are talking about.

[nereo]

In your opinion. What makes your opinion any more, or less, valid than mine? I'm certain this issue of taxation isn't the only off topic issue in this tread. However, it is technically a part of the election. (Note: Don't vote; don't care who wins)

It doesn't pertain to the topic of this thread, which focuses on reasons people support DJT (and reasons they don't).
Neither candidate is proposing to do away with taxation, nor are they arguing that all taxation is theft.
...

False equivalency. My not "voting" is not a lack of caring. The two are not mutually exclusive. I care deeply, and am truly disturbed by the fact that some feel it is ok to force their will over another human being. I think I have been fairly transparent with my views, so based on what you have read, whom exactly should I vote for to represent me? When 80% of society (maybe more) will vote for tyranny, be it taxation, gay marriage, abortion, etc, then what is my purpose in showing up to vote? I can't convince the half on the slow side of the bell curve that government exists primarily to remove rights from x group of individuals. You just like to pick the side that only takes rights away from those you oppose. (Or so it seems.) Why can't we all agree with the founding purpose of the country that was to protect the rights of all individuals. I feel it is safe to say at this point that the "United States of America" is a failed experiment. Great in theory, terrible in execution. Hopefully one day version 2.0 will correct the errors of the first attempt. Right now, I see no hope.

Apparently my response was too abstract.  I will try again.
Read and post your thoughts on taxation in this thread: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-casual-attitude-towards-income-taxation/ (but please, read it first)
Post comments about voting or not voting for Trump here in this thread.
~n~

[nereo]

Please itemize the programs you would cut to get 60% or less. There are lots of fun simulators. I find that after I get done with about 20% (which is still a huge cut) I don't really want to cut the other things.
...

Dividendman - can you send the link to the simulator(s) that you've used?  I'd be curious to input DJT and HRC's various tax plans for myself.  Although there have been several economic analyses of Trump's taxation plan which I find to be absolutely wretched.
Here is one such analysis.

[nereo]

Schrodinger was banned, btw. I won't be posting anymore in this or other threads.. I just wanted to pass that along.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm probably talking to an empty room, but who are you then?

[arebelspy]

Schrodinger was banned, btw. I won't be posting anymore in this or other threads.. I just wanted to pass that along.

I'm probably talking to an empty room, but who are you then?

The box was opened.  Schrodinger's cat is dead. That was the ghost, making a final gasp.

[nereo]

Schrodinger was banned, btw. I won't be posting anymore in this or other threads.. I just wanted to pass that along.

I'm probably talking to an empty room, but who are you then?

The box was opened.  Schrodinger's cat is dead. That was the ghost, making a final gasp.

Thanks 'rebs.  BTW - seen any good postcards lately?
:-)

[arebelspy]

Haven't looked yet, but we head to Chiang Mai on Saturday, and will be there the whole month of Nov., so I will begin my search there! :)

[hoping2retire35]

In an effort to nudge us back on topic...
I'm particularly puzzled by a new article that says Trump is done fundraising for the GOP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-lagging-polls-trump-stops-holding-high-dollar-fundraisers/2016/10/25/11ffeecc-9ac9-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

On one hand I can kind of agree with his campaign that his time might best be spent campaigning rather than fundraising.
OTOH, it also seems like he's giving the middle finger to down-ballot Republicans two weeks before the election when the get-out-the-vote machinery starts rolling (and needs lots of money).

which leaves me wondering... "why"?  Why does he seem so disinterested in helping fellow GOPers when (win or lose) they may be key in passing legislation he likes or opposing legislation he doesn't like.

Why? Because he doesn't care. He doesn't have any political philosophies. He just got in the race to get some publicity for his products, figured out he could dupe the republican primary electorate, and now that he's probably going to lose he's more worried about creating his own TV channel and saving the Trump brand than anything he "believed" in the primaries.

Sigh - I fear this may actually be true.  Still, the logic side of my brain remains baffled... he says he's so concerned about issues, but even the most novice politician understands that your best chance is to have lots of friendly votes in congress.  But his actions say he just doesnt' care.  He'll start and prolong almost meaningless fights with people in his own party - speaker Ryan, Sen. McCain etc.

It could also simply be because he is deeply narcissistic and does not care. It does not help him win, so why bother? He prefers the fight to demeaning himself to acting to help others, even in his own party.

This article in today's NYT is pretty interesting stuff:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/donald-trump-interviews.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Or because he knows how to negotiate.maybe you see it as narcissism. I see it as him reframing the debate around his priorities. Pre-primary all anyone could talk about was a real conservative in office, a republican...maybe some frail talk about the aca, whatever. He reframed it to talk about trade. How long has it been since we talked about our trade deals in a presidential conversation?

He says "outlandish" things so when he is office everyone will reframe to his agenda, "of course we won't pass that bill...it will have stuff we like too." See how that works?

[hoping2retire35]

Schrodinger was banned, btw. I won't be posting anymore in this or other threads.. I just wanted to pass that along.

I'm probably talking to an empty room, but who are you then?

The box was opened.  Schrodinger's cat is dead. That was the ghost, making a final gasp.

Speaking of people being banned or missing what happened to moon shadow? He posted all the time, took me a while to find his profile ( can't search for it for some reason) last post wasjuly 16. No mod edits or anything just stopped. I have thought about this before what if someone got in a wreck? Just weird, you post and talk with someone then nothing.

[arebelspy]

Speaking of people being banned or missing what happened to moon shadow? He posted all the time, took me a while to find his profile ( can't search for it for some reason) last post wasjuly 16. No mod edits or anything just stopped. I have thought about this before what if someone got in a wreck? Just weird, you post and talk with someone then nothing.

Banned, after multiple, multiple warnings.

Sometimes people drift away though.  Sometimes I message them, because I'm hoping they're okay.  Sometimes they respond, sometimes not.  Life happens.  :)

Occasionally the death idea crosses my mind, but it's unlikely.

[Telecaster]

[It's nice to know that I'm talking with rational people who can actually view an argument objectively.

Charity begins at home. 

The dreaded 16th Amendment you mentioned that gave the "government" power to enslave you was passed by the nearly every state in the union at the time, about a 7/8th majority.   In other words, that government came from very broad support of the people.  It might be easy to dismiss those people as being on the "slow half of the bell curve" (as you put it), but there were way more than half in favor.  Maybe your explanation that people who disagree with are stupid isn't quite the full answer. 

Those same people got to see both sides of the personal income tax, both before and after.  And a few years after the smoke cleared, they got to see the results of being enslaved by the government at the point of a gun, and of course decided they made a big mistake and immediately banded together to repeal the whole thing.

Except they didn't.  Because in reality income tax actually solved a whole set of problems, and most people were satisfied with the results.  And even today, citizens could band together and repeal the whole thing.   All it would take it convening people it is in their best interests to do so.  But, speaking for myself, while I don't particularly like paying taxes, I really like many of things I get with my tax dollars.  Roads, schools, the Internet, GPS, vaccines, robust social institutions like courts, food that is safe to eat, fair elections, weather prediction, clean drinking water, etc.  That's certainly worth something to most people.   

So maybe everyone else is stupid and you're smart.  Or maybe lots of people just see the world differently than you do.  And maybe, just maybe, your ideas aren't gaining much traction because you aren't framing them very well.  Or it could be that everyone is just dumber than you. 

[Metric Mouse]

[It's nice to know that I'm talking with rational people who can actually view an argument objectively.

Charity begins at home. 

The dreaded 16th Amendment you mentioned that gave the "government" power to enslave you was passed by the nearly every state in the union at the time, about a 7/8th majority.   In other words, that government came from very broad support of the people.  It might be easy to dismiss those people as being on the "slow half of the bell curve" (as you put it), but there were way more than half in favor.  Maybe your explanation that people who disagree with are stupid isn't quite the full answer. 

Those same people got to see both sides of the personal income tax, both before and after.  And a few years after the smoke cleared, they got to see the results of being enslaved by the government at the point of a gun, and of course decided they made a big mistake and immediately banded together to repeal the whole thing.

Except they didn't.  Because in reality income tax actually solved a whole set of problems, and most people were satisfied with the results.  And even today, citizens could band together and repeal the whole thing.   All it would take it convening people it is in their best interests to do so.  But, speaking for myself, while I don't particularly like paying taxes, I really like many of things I get with my tax dollars.  Roads, schools, the Internet, GPS, vaccines, robust social institutions like courts, food that is safe to eat, fair elections, weather prediction, clean drinking water, etc.  That's certainly worth something to most people.   

So maybe everyone else is stupid and you're smart.  Or maybe lots of people just see the world differently than you do.  And maybe, just maybe, your ideas aren't gaining much traction because you aren't framing them very well.  Or it could be that everyone is just dumber than you.

I've said a few times on this site when taxes come up - being able to pay taxes are by the far the biggest benefit of living in the USA. I get so much more out of them than I put in... the difference is mind blowing.

[Tyson]

Paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society.  I, for one, am happy to pay them and agree that the ROI for them is enormous.

[dividendman]

Please itemize the programs you would cut to get 60% or less. There are lots of fun simulators. I find that after I get done with about 20% (which is still a huge cut) I don't really want to cut the other things.
...

Dividendman - can you send the link to the simulator(s) that you've used?  I'd be curious to input DJT and HRC's various tax plans for myself.  Although there have been several economic analyses of Trump's taxation plan which I find to be absolutely wretched.
Here is one such analysis.

Here is a simulator where you can mess around with all sorts of policies: http://usa.abalancingact.com/ and see some of the impacts.

Here's one that's easy to use: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail. It doesn't actually simulate but it lets you drill down into each of the budget areas, you can download a csv and make changes.

[Metric Mouse]

Paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society.  I, for one, am happy to pay them and agree that the ROI for them is enormous.

Well, to be fully correct, not all people pay all taxes.

[arebelspy]

Paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society.  I, for one, am happy to pay them and agree that the ROI for them is enormous.

Well, to be fully correct, not all people pay all taxes.

Really?  I don't know how someone gets by with never paying sales tax, for example.

[Metric Mouse]

Paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society.  I, for one, am happy to pay them and agree that the ROI for them is enormous.

Well, to be fully correct, not all people pay all taxes.

Really?  I don't know how someone gets by with never paying sales tax, for example.

Perhaps they live in Montana. Or Alaska. Or New Hampshire. Or Delaware. Or Oregon....

[marty998]

Paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society.  I, for one, am happy to pay them and agree that the ROI for them is enormous.

Well, to be fully correct, not all people pay all taxes.

Really?  I don't know how someone gets by with never paying sales tax, for example.

Perhaps they live in Montana. Or Alaska. Or New Hampshire. Or Delaware. Or Oregon....

Tolls? Levies? Fuel excise? Taxes on beer, cigars and gambling?

Parking fines? Garbage collection fees?

Land and Property taxes?

One way or another the state will squeeze something out of you.

[arebelspy]

Paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society.  I, for one, am happy to pay them and agree that the ROI for them is enormous.

Well, to be fully correct, not all people pay all taxes.

Really?  I don't know how someone gets by with never paying sales tax, for example.

Perhaps they live in Montana. Or Alaska. Or New Hampshire. Or Delaware. Or Oregon....

Touche.

I can imagine someone born in a no sales tax state who never earns a dollar, or owns property, or has someone do one of these things on their behalf.

I think there are approximately none of these people, but it's possible.

[Metric Mouse]

Paying taxes is the price we pay to live in a civilized society.  I, for one, am happy to pay them and agree that the ROI for them is enormous.

Well, to be fully correct, not all people pay all taxes.

Really?  I don't know how someone gets by with never paying sales tax, for example.

Perhaps they live in Montana. Or Alaska. Or New Hampshire. Or Delaware. Or Oregon....

Touche.

I can imagine someone born in a no sales tax state who never earns a dollar, or owns property, or has someone do one of these things on their behalf.

I think there are approximately none of these people, but it's possible.

Well it's a good thing that my statement would be true regardless of the number of these people.

[arebelspy]

Well it's a good thing that my statement would be true regardless of the number of these people.

Rather than getting into a semantics argument, why don't you just clarify what people you mean that never pay any taxes?  :)

[Metric Mouse]

Well it's a good thing that my statement would be true regardless of the number of these people.

Rather than getting into a semantics argument, why don't you just clarify what people you mean that never pay any taxes?  :)

Or I could not, because that's not what I said.

[arebelspy]

Oh.  It's my reading comprehension fail.

I saw "not all people pay taxes."

I missed a crucial word in there.

Sorry.  :)

Your statement is, of course, true. I'd argue there's approximately zero people who do pay all taxes.

[Metric Mouse]

Oh.  It's my reading comprehension fail.

I saw "not all people pay taxes."

I missed a crucial word in there.

Sorry.  :)

Your statement is, of course, true. I'd argue there's approximately zero people who do pay all taxes.

No worries. I figured with a little prodding you'd get it sorted. Apology accepted.