President Trump

[acbytesla]

Yes, if we're to keep it democratic, skipping the EC entirely and determining it mathematically sounds like a good idea, and multiplying the EV means you can make proper assignations.



I agree.

It would still mean that smaller population states would be over represented since each state would have 200 extra votes to divide regardless of whether it is a State of 600,000 like Vermont or 39 million like California. But this advantage would be significantly diluted since the overall State votes would be divided proportionally. In theory you could still win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, but in practice I think it would be extremely difficult.

 

[Belz...]

It would still mean that smaller population states would be over represented since each state would have 200 extra votes to divide regardless of whether it is a State of 600,000 like Vermont or 39 million like California. But this advantage would be significantly diluted since they would be diluted since the overall State votes would be divided proportionally. In theory you could still win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, but in practice I think it would be extremely difficult.

Woah! Recursive reasons!

 

[acbytesla]

Woah! Recursive reasons!

Whoops...corrected it, thanks.

 

[Marcus]

I would still prefer a popular vote. Yes, more populous states like California and Texas would get more attention, but how is that any worse then it is now? Only the swing states seem to count.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But none of that changes for only a slight percentage of tax increase (say, 3%). It'd take, as I said, a steep increase to make it _more_ marginal than otherwise.

Not necessarily though. This is purely illustrative, but let's say that the marginal value of a dollar for you is actually $0.30, and that your threshold is $0.29. You're just above that threshold as it is. A 3% decrease in the nominal value of a pre-tax dollar would feasibly push you over that edge. It really depends on where you are relative to that tread-off threshold.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For everyone or for only those who really matter like we have seen for the past 30 years?

I find your implication offensive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Huh?

The point is to find out if there are conflicts of interest before a candidate takes office.

How do you figure? I mean, how exactly is the public at large supposed to determine whether there are conflicts? Are you a well-informed tax accountant?

I wonder why the Cheetos fuhrer didn't comply with this simple bit of transparency.

Because no president prior to Obama has done this thing, and there is no valid reason to expect him to do so. No more reason for this than there was for Obama to release his birth certificate.

 

[Belz...]

Not necessarily though. This is purely illustrative, but let's say that the marginal value of a dollar for you is actually $0.30, and that your threshold is $0.29. You're just above that threshold as it is. A 3% decrease in the nominal value of a pre-tax dollar would feasibly push you over that edge. It really depends on where you are relative to that tread-off threshold.

Who calculates like that anyway?

If you're paid 25 dollars an hour and are taxed 20%, you still make 20 dollars an hour. If this goes down to 17, you're still penalised by working even a few hours less.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Who calculates like that anyway?

If you're paid 25 dollars an hour and are taxed 20%, you still make 20 dollars an hour. If this goes down to 17, you're still penalised by working even a few hours less.

You're talking about nominal value, nor marginal value. It's not about the "on paper" value of the item, it's about it's relative value to you.

If you have no water, a cup of water is worth very much. If you're drowning in a lake, water is worth nothing at all.

 

[acbytesla]

I would still prefer a popular vote. Yes, more populous states like California and Texas would get more attention, but how is that any worse then it is now? Only the swing states seem to count.

In effect, it's almost a popular vote but it does make small state votes a bit more valuable. Trump becoming President In light of losing the popular vote by almost 3 million votes is insane. And the first thing the minority administration is going to do is eliminate health care from 20 million people and lower taxes on the wealthy. Again and again the poor get screwed.

 

[acbytesla]

You're talking about nominal value, nor marginal value. It's not about the "on paper" value of the item, it's about it's relative value to you.

If you have no water, a cup of water is worth very much. If you're drowning in a lake, water is worth nothing at all.

Thanks for highlighting the insanity of giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. Our system brutalizes the poor and middle class in so many ways and is extra easy on the wealthy. All the rules and tax breaks are slanted in favor of corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the rest of society.

Trump had promised to hit Carrier with steep tariffs if they moved their factory, instead he handed them special tax breaks which will have to be offset by other companies and taxpayers or reduce services.

The man was and is a fraud. He appealed to the masses and now is screwing the masses.

 

[NoahFence]

Thanks for highlighting the insanity of giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. Our system brutalizes the poor and middle class in so many ways and is extra easy on the wealthy. All the rules and tax breaks are slanted in favor of corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the rest of society.

Trump had promised to hit Carrier with steep tariffs if they moved their factory, instead he handed them special tax breaks which will have to be offset by other companies and taxpayers or reduce services.

The man was and is a fraud. He appealed to the masses and now is screwing the masses.

Careful. You know how some folks don't do reality.

 

[newyorkguy]

I took the 'Estimate Your Federal Income Tax" survey on a neutral taxpayers website -- I posted the link at the time -- and it estimated the federal income tax you would pay under Clinton or Trump. Under Clinton my federal tax would remain the same; under Trump it would go up by one-third, about $300 a year. (None of the Trumpers responded to that, by the way.)

Three hundred dollars a year is what, six bucks a week? Okay not a real big deal and mind you I wouldn't object to paying it if I was going to get more services or a new program that would help me out. Or if I believed it would pay for programs that would stabilize the U.S. or help people live better lives. And I'm not naive, I know costs go up so I wouldn't even object to paying more just to maintain current levels of service.

Only it sounds like Trump's tax plan means we (the working/middle class) will be getting less and paying more in order that the wealthy can get tax breaks. Once again I recognize the wisdom in the words of a former Republican governor named Lowell Weiker. Trump, he said? He's "a dirtbag."

 

[acbytesla]

Careful. You know how some folks don't do reality.

I wish they would make fines for speeding tickets and maybe some fees progressive. You're a multi-millionaire and you get a speeding ticket your fine instead of a say $200 it is $2000 like the Swiss do.


This guy was fined $290,000 for speeding in Switzerland.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/01/08/the-290000-speeding-ticket/

 

[Garrison]

Thanks for highlighting the insanity of giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. Our system brutalizes the poor and middle class in so many ways and is extra easy on the wealthy. All the rules and tax breaks are slanted in favor of corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the rest of society.

Trump had promised to hit Carrier with steep tariffs if they moved their factory, instead he handed them special tax breaks which will have to be offset by other companies and taxpayers or reduce services.

The man was and is a fraud. He appealed to the masses and now is screwing the masses.

Well that is the one route to actually bringing some of those jobs that went overseas, give the companies massive tax breaks and reduce the working population to accepting pay and conditions just a couple of rungs above slavery.

 

[Belz...]

You're talking about nominal value, nor marginal value. It's not about the "on paper" value of the item, it's about it's relative value to you.

If you have no water, a cup of water is worth very much. If you're drowning in a lake, water is worth nothing at all.

That's nice poetry, but it doesn't change the fact that working one fewer hour removes 17 dollars from your wallet.

 

[acbytesla]

Well that is the one route to actually bringing some of those jobs that went overseas, give the companies massive tax breaks and reduce the working population to accepting pay and conditions just a couple of rungs above slavery.

That's the way you do it. You get your money for nuthin and your chicks for free.

 

[sunmaster14]

That's nice poetry, but it doesn't change the fact that working one fewer hour removes 17 dollars from your wallet.

Would you work an hour for $17 pre-tax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

[acbytesla]

Would you work an hour for $17 pre-tax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

There are LOTS of people who would. In fact there are millions.

 

[Spindrift]

Would you work an hour for $17 pre-tax? I sure as hell wouldn't.

And that's why we have lots of illegal immigrants. They will happily work for that amount.