Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[hippie_hunter]

Enjoy this article BTW

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808

 

[SV Fan]

While he has manipulated his income to reduce his 39.6% rate to 13%, he would have manipulated his 91% tax rate to the 20% rate that everyone paid in the 1950's.

I am not denying that people manipulated the system to work to their advantage in the 50s and practically nobody actually paid the top tax rates, but 20% to me sounds like more then 13%

 

[SV Fan]

Enjoy this article BTW

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

Bolded is the adjusted Gross income. Between 1958 and 2010 the top 3% got 1.85 times more of that piece of the pie, so in theory there share of taxes should have went up 1.85 times.

29.2 X 1.85 = 54.03%

Currently they are only paying 51% of the taxes which means that the 3% extra is being paid for by the 97%

Thanks for proving my point

Maybe if they could find ways to get the gross income back to 15% for the top 3% we would be better off.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I am not denying that people manipulated the system to work to their advantage in the 50s and practically nobody actually paid the top tax rates, but 20% to me sounds like more then 13%

It was a rate that everyone paid regardless of income class, thus furthering my point of how the poor and middle class had the larger tax burden back then. But reducing your rates by 26.6% is playing the system far less than reducing your rates by up to 70%.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Bolded is the adjusted Gross income. Between 1958 and 2010 the top 3% got 1.85 times more of that piece of the pie, so in theory there share of taxes should have went up 1.85 times.

29.2 X 1.85 = 54.03%

Currently they are only paying 51% of the taxes which means that the 3% extra is being paid for by the 97%

Thanks for proving my point

Maybe if they could find ways to get the adjusted gross income back to 15% for the top 3% we would be better off.

Ummm...no I didn't prove your point. While you can certainly argue about the issue of income inequality, that's a completely separate issue. The issue here is the tax burden and what you're calling for is a return where the poor paid 20% as opposed to almost nothing today (again, making your point ignorant because many do not pay taxes today with the current system, not the everyone else that you're making it out to be) and where the rich scammed the system far more easily than they do today. Your point is also ignorant of how dramatically different the economies of 2015 and 1950 are and ignorant of the history as to why the American middle class was far more prosperous in the 1950's than they are today.

 

[SV Fan]

Ummm...no I didn't prove your point. While you can certainly argue about the issue of income inequality, that's a completely separate issue. The issue here is the tax burden and what you're calling for is a return where the poor paid 20% as opposed to almost nothing today (again, making your point ignorant because many do not pay taxes today with the current system, not the everyone else that you're making it out to be) and where the rich scammed the system far more easily than they do today. Your point is also ignorant of how dramatically different the economies of 2015 and 1950 are and ignorant of the history as to why the American middle class was far more prosperous in the 1950's than they are today.

I hardly consider it a case that the top 3%(as the article stated) are eating a bigger burdon of the Federal taxes when at the same time they are making way more in gross income.

Simple fact is is I make 1 Million dollars one year, then 10M the next, I should be paying 10 times the taxes in that second year. in the case of the top 3% as I pointed out they seemed to make 1.85 times the amount of cash in 2010 that they did in 1958 in terms of gross nation income, so you would think there share of taxes would go up accordingly(in which case it didn't, they are now paying 3% less).

 

[hippie_hunter]

Simple fact is is I make 1 Million dollars one year, then 10M the next, I should be paying 10 times the taxes in that second year.

Except the system has NEVER worked that way. It has always been based on a series of brackets that pays a certain percentage.

 

[SV Fan]

Except the system has NEVER worked that way. It has always been based on a series of brackets that pays a certain percentage.

Which is why I picked hypothetical values that are in the highest bracket, but you make a good point, I should be paying MORE then 10 times what I paid in the first year because the first 400k will be taxed differently in both years

Going back to my case about the top 3%, you would think if their share of the wealth increased by 1.85 times, there share of the taxes should increase accordingly.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Now that is a completely different, and dare I say more interesting, discussion to have on how to reform the tax system that has essentially been in place since the inception of the progressive income tax.

 

[SV Fan]

Now that is a completely different, and dare I say more interesting, discussion to have on how to reform the tax system that has essentially been in place since the inception of the progressive income tax.

You are probably right that I am arguing income inequality more then actual taxes but I do think when you view it at a national gross income level, the people at the very top are getting away with paying pennies on the dollar when it comes to taxes(it's not even those 2 and 3 percenters I am looking at since those are your "average millionaires" who probably pay their fair share)

 

[Asteroid-Man]

So I have a question, if all of those Senators are arrested for breaching the Logan Act, what happens? Re-election or do other Republicans take their places?

 

[SV Fan]

So I have a question, if all of those Senators are arrested for breaching the Logan Act, what happens? Re-election or do other Republicans take their places?

The Logan Act gets thrown around way to much, it's supposed to be used in rare times if our country is at war with somebody and you have somebody who isn't the president in direct communication with that countries leader.

Nobody is going to be tried for treason.

Now hypothetical it does happen I believe each state has their own rules what to do, but most would probably have the governor replace the Senator, then have a re-election within a year

 

[Asteroid-Man]

The Logan Act gets thrown around way to much, it's supposed to be used in rare times if our country is at war with somebody and you have somebody who isn't the president in direct communication with that countries leader.

Nobody is going to be tried for treason.

I've only ever seen two examples of this in the past, one of them (Nixon) received a complete pardon, and the other (Reagan) was tried and acquitted (until more evidence was brought forth after his death).

Now hypothetical it does happen I believe each state has their own rules what to do, but most would probably have the governor replace the Senator, then have a re-election within a year

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

 

[SV Fan]

I've only ever seen two examples of this in the past, one of them (Nixon) received a complete pardon, and the other (Reagan) was tried and acquitted (until more evidence was brought forth after his death)

When I said nobody will be tried for treason I mean in regards to the letter that 47 Senators sent

To me bringing up the Logan Act is one of those things like making a nazi reference that just drag down the debate quickly and make whoever brings it up lose instantly.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

When I said nobody will be tried for treason I mean in regards to the letter that 47 Senators sent

To me bringing up the Logan Act is one of those things like making a nazi reference that just drag down the debate quickly and make whoever brings it up lose instantly.

What I mean to say is that I've never seen it be brought up in a situation where it happened, as it happened. Also, in my understanding of legal precedence, you're supposed to follow the law, and once it's proven to be a stupid law, you make amendments.

 

[Thundercrack85]

There is some precedent to this, but not to this scale. It's incredible that 47 Republicans signed this letter, and I think it really shows how extreme the party has come.

 

[summerteeth]

There is some precedent to this, but not to this scale. It's incredible that 47 Republicans signed this letter, and I think it really shows how extreme the party has come.

I don't see how informing a negotiating party of our laws is extreme or a betrayal.

 

[SV Fan]

I don't see how informing a negotiating party of our laws is extreme or a betrayal.

It's a basic case of going out of there way to try undermine the office of the President in a public forum. They could have got one or 2 representative and talked behind closed doors with some representatives from Iran about any concerns they may have but they just wanted to flash this in public potentially hurting any negotiations the President has.

It's nice though to see our right wing extreme candidates and Iran right wing extremists are united in trying to make sure this doesn't happen.

I could only imagine how the right would react if the Democrats decided to send Iraq a public letter before the US went to war with them basically going against anything President Bush was for

 

[Thundercrack85]

At this point, the Ayatollah is easier to deal with.

Even Iran's propaganda machine is baffled by this.

If the Ayatollah's rubber stamp parliament did this, they'd all be tried for treason.

 

[Anubis]

After they had been dragged out into the street and shot of course.

 

[SV Fan]

Here is an interesting story on the guy who "authored" the letter that 47 senators signed.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/...tter-to-meet-with-defense-industry-lobbyists/

A freshman Republican senator who organized a controversial open letter to Iranian leaders will meet Tuesday with lobbyists for defense contractors.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) initiated the letter, signed by 47 Republican senators, that warned officials from the Islamic Republic that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire when he leaves office in 2017.

Cotton is scheduled to appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying group for defense contractors, less than 24 hours after the letter was sent, reported The Intercept.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I don't see how informing a negotiating party of our laws is extreme or a betrayal.

Because their words were meant to thwart negotiations that were underway. They essentially said they were already going to shoot down any treaties that Obama signed (a product of negotiations they know NOTHING about yet). So regardless of what the product of the talks are, they said they'll shoot it down.

They also essentially made a threat that would weigh in on Iran's position. They are communicating a negotiating party and specifically telling them that the President does NOT represent the United States - that's treason.

The irony behind their whole "wow wow wow - treason? Noooo! We're just educating the Iranian officials of how our political system works" platform is that it spits in the face of how INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS works, and that bipartisanship has NO place on the international platform. Keep in mind, these are negotiations that include China and UK and France. Could you imagine if the French opposition all of a sudden threw **** in the deal? Everyone would be like "woah, wtf is this ****? How can we trust your position on this to carry any weight?"

 

[childeroland]

Will this hurt the Republican Party going forward?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

We can only hope

 

[Kelly]

They should have just let it run its course, it would not have been binding, who cares if Iran understands that or not?

Now Obama is running to the UN, and that won't be binding either...

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares,

"This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...


"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).


"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."
​

The Republicans should have just let this go through, chilled, gave their opinion, passed something that showed an up or down vote for or against it, simply as a symbolic vote to put on record where each congressman stands and leave it at that...move on to other things.