Trump To Speak Monday Det Economic Club Monday

[Honky Tonk]

Republicans have nothing to offer to women, minorities, young people.

Unlike DEMS that offer up taxpayer dollars.

[Scottathew]

I'm a millennial that voted for Bernie. I'm voting for Hillary because stopping Trump is paramount. Trump cannot be allowed to happen.

[dtowncitylover]

Unlike DEMS that offer up taxpayer dollars.

Hell yeah! Tax and spend! Tax and spend!

Decades of building up a military and our infrastructure, schools, and the social safety net SUCK! YAY!

And yeah, Jill Stein is a loon. She's not qualified at all, Gary Johnson of the Libertarians is more qualified, but he's just as crazy.

[Bham1982]

Unlike DEMS that offer up taxpayer dollars.

In the U.S., we pay some of the lowest taxes in the developed world.

And, in any case, both mainstream Dems and Republicans are pro-tax and spend, they just have differences in where to put the money.

[Honky Tonk]

In the U.S., we pay some of the lowest taxes in the developed world.

Moot point. The difference is between the two teams is one gave the people the idiot they asked for, the other rigged the election and gave the people the idiot THEY thought was best for "them". They also have a bad habit of buying their way to the top.

[Zacha341]

How does taxing at an increasing higher level impact motivation? Productivity? Self sustainability? Considering that that the narrative of support is usually about access of someone elses money! Personally, I'd like to keep what little I am making. The struggling middle class are hurt the most by more taxing.

Beyond partisan politics: is it selfish to want to keep more of what you earn? Or should we just allow the government maw further access after which to regurgitate more of the services and relief we would otherwise self provide?

Is the 'happy' conclusion is that one ends up needing more government subsidies as a result of increased taxing, specifically income tax? So glad to have the government so near and dear.

Then the government [[ever efficient in how it uses our tax dollars) requires more revenue to provide such, so more tax funding needed. Your left with even less of your hard earned, already deflated dollar, sooo you need more things form the government to offset your smaller check?

Not to mention the number of those paying taxes over those not paying has a tipping point. Once the percentage of those taxed [[under the current law) drops too low? Then what? Greece?

In the U.S., we pay some of the lowest taxes in the developed world.

And, in any case, both mainstream Dems and Republicans are pro-tax and spend, they just have differences in where to put the money.

[Bham1982]

Moot point.

Why is it a "moot point"? If you're paying very low taxes relative to everywhere else, the whole "tax and spend" accusation is kind of a joke. Neither party supports any broad-based tax increases anyways.

The difference is between the two teams is one gave the people the idiot they asked for, the other rigged the election and gave the people the idiot THEY thought was best for "them". They also have a bad habit of buying their way to the top.

I see you follow wacky conspiracy websites. There is no "rigged election". That would be completely impossible, given the highly decentralized nature of primary voting. You would need to have thousands of officials in all 50 states + territories in some incredibly complicated conspiracy.

Back in the real world, we have two candidates, only one of which is sane. That's why this election will likely be a landslide.

[Zacha341]

Who's paying very low taxes in the USA? Not the rank and file and ever struggling middle class! And we're starting to question the use of our taxes, period - repub/ dem be darned! Perhaps it may seem less globally-minded, but when you see your check shrinking more and more and your ability to buy groceries impacted you're not thinking alot about taxing in France.

Why is it a "moot point"? If you're paying very low taxes relative to everywhere else, the whole "tax and spend" accusation is kind of a joke. Neither party supports any broad-based tax increases anyways.

[Honky Tonk]

is it selfish to want to keep more of what you earn?

Is the 'happy' conclusion is that one ends up needing more government subsidies as a result of increased taxing, specifically income tax? So glad to have the government so near and dear.

Absolutely, Zacha341. Where's your "team" spirit?

The government knows what's best for you and what you REALLY need, Zacha341. That's why they gave you Shillary for your next president. [[brought to you by Monsanto, a million dead bees can't be wrong)

[dtowncitylover]

How does taxing at an increasing higher level impact motivation? Productivity? Self sustainability? Considering that that the narrative of support is usually about access of someone elses money! Personally, I'd like to keep what little I am making. The struggling middle class are hurt the most by more taxing.

Beyond partisan politics: is it selfish to want to keep more of what you earn? Or should we just allow the government maw further access after which to regurgitate more of the services and relief we would otherwise self provide?

Is the 'happy' conclusion is that one ends up needing more government subsidies as a result of increased taxing, specifically income tax? So glad to have the government so near and dear.

Then the government [[ever efficient in how it uses our tax dollars) requires more revenue to provide such, so more tax funding needed. Your left with even less of your hard earned, already deflated dollar, sooo you need more things form the government to offset your smaller check?

Not to mention the number of those paying taxes over those not paying has a tipping point. Once the percentage of those taxed [[under the current law) drops too low? Then what? Greece?

As I heard once recently, "I can't afford the Republicans 'saving' me more money."

[Honky Tonk]

Why is it a "moot point"? If you're paying very low taxes relative to everywhere else, the whole "tax and spend" accusation is kind of a joke. Neither party supports any broad-based tax increases anyways.



I see you follow wacky conspiracy websites. There is no "rigged election". That would be completely impossible, given the highly decentralized nature of primary voting. You would need to have thousands of officials in all 50 states + territories in some incredibly complicated conspiracy.

Back in the real world, we have two candidates, only one of which is sane. That's why this election will likely be a landslide.

Shillary already spent $30 bil right out of the gate propping up the coal industry whom she chastised a year before. That's Ok, a slight tax increase, a little money laundering, and no one will notice.

Nope, I learned to read a long time ago, so I try to read more unbiased reporting then the bought-and-paid-for mass-media working for their masters. But since Obama told you it's absurd, well, then it must be true. You remember Obama, don't you? He ran against Shillary in 2008, then suddenly she backed out. Don't know why, that never gets you anywhere.

[Jimaz]

Who's paying very low taxes in the USA? Not the rank and file and ever struggling middle class!...

Good question!

[bust]

I try to read more unbiased reporting then the bought-and-paid-for mass-media working for their masters.

What unbiased sources do you turn to and what ones do you consider bought-and-paid-for?

[Bham1982]

It isn't just corporations that pay low taxes.

In Europe, most middle class people pay a majority of their earnings in taxes. There are no filers paying >50% in the U.S., or really anywhere close to that percentage.

I'm a high earner, with significant assets, and don't have crazy high taxes. I have no problem with tax increases for higher earners. I don't want a Denmark-style system, but I don't think it's unreasonable for wealthy people to pay a bit more.

In the U.S., capital gains taxes are 15%, before deductions. Not an unreasonable share.

[Wesley Mouch]

Good question!
--chart snipped--

Individual firms getting large tax rebates has little to do with whether the corporate tax rate itself is at a good level. Exceptions are usually useless for setting general policy.

That auto and airlines are near the top of the list, I would assume there is tax policy to help these industries compete. But who knows.

I think the general take on American corporate taxes is that the rate is too high, and the offsetting credits are also too high and only benefit big corporations over small ones.

[Zacha341]

Oh I get you on companies that don't pay their fair share [[I wonder how facebook and google are doing in that area? - LOL). I was specifically talking about individuals and families.

Good question!

[Wesley Mouch]

Oh I get you on companies that don't pay their fair share [[I wonder how facebook and google are doing in that area? - LOL). I was specifically talking about individuals and families.

Many want to say that Corporations are not People - see Citizens United. So in that case why should they pay taxes at all?

But more seriously, folks... shouldn't we really be taxing when real individuals receive the money?

Wonder where Trump really is on tax reform. He's making some good noises. And as someone who has seen the ugly side of tax law a lot, he probably has some strong opinions that are informed by real life experience -- not just dreaming about what making a profit is really like, as in say Obama or Bush.

[Pam]

Jill Stein is a nut. I hope the vast majority of Sanders supporters choose Hillary, esp. in the battleground states.

If the Green party wants to be taken seriously, as in Europe, they need to stop nominating wacky, fringe candidates.

I don't know if Stein is a nut or not but she is gaining support among progressives. Hillary is seen as a corrupt, pro-fracking, war monger, DINO who is just as bad as Trump.

[G-DDT]

Many of the millenials [[and others) who supported Sanders will be voting Green party in Nov.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/demexit

https://twitter.com/hashtag/JillNotHill?src=hash

Confession-wise, that's all I voted the last three elections.

[G-DDT]

As I heard once recently, "I can't afford the Republicans 'saving' me more money."

Because trickle-down economics never worked any of the times it was promised to have worked.-but I'm sorry, that's not about saving, per se, but that is more about the promise about how they were going to "flood us with more money" Thus, we should trust the cut-throat businessman [[who trampled on many and feels he never has to give an account of his failures, gaffes, or taxes even) to save us wee folk.