SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-pay-your-money-and-you-take-your-chances dept.
Self-styled political outsiders Donald Trump (a billionaire businessman) and Ben Carson (a former neurosurgeon) are the frontrunners for the 2016 GOP nomination for the US Presidency, according to the Real Clear Politics average of five major polls conducted between October 10-18, 2015: Trump's 27 pct and Carson's 21 pct are far ahead of the next tier, which consists of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (9 percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (8 pct) and former Florida Gov Jeb Bush (7 pct).
The betting markets view the race differently. Rubio has recently taken over as front-runner in most of the political books and prediction markets, replacing Bush, who is now in second place. This duo is followed by Trump, and then (in varying order) Carson, Cruz, and former businesswoman Carly Fiorina. The remaining nine candidates who have participated in at least one televised GOP debate, and who have not dropped out, are given long odds, typically between 15-1 and 100-1.
Here is the current betting line from Ladbrokes, a London-based bookmaker. For those who enjoy staring at spreadsheets, here is the rollup of online bookmakers and prediction markets.
A few books admit the possibility that a presently-undeclared candidate such as Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg could win the GOP nomination, perhaps to break a voting deadlock at the convention; they are given long odds.
Betting on political elections is prohibited in the USA, but overseas bettors aren't subject to such puritanical restrictions. A UK journalist, commenting on the betting action over who would be the country's prime minister after the upcoming general election, explained why the betting markets are often a more reliable guide than the pollsters. Incidentally, they turned out to be right in the case discussed in the article; incumbent David Cameron retained the office after the Conservatives won enough seats in Parliament to assemble a working majority.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @02:44PM
There are good counterarguments to your proposed flat tax:
1. Almost all proposals for a flat tax have a lower marginal tax rate. That means that revenue will go down regardless of any other plan. Since these proposals rarely are accompanied by budget cuts or increases on other taxes, it looks an awful lot like yet another plan to "starve the beast". Also, and this is important, the idea that if you cut current tax rates you increase revenue is complete hokum according to current economic forecasts - the reason it remains popular is that everybody wants to pay less in taxes without cutting spending, but wishing doesn't make it so.
2. When poor people have more money, they spend it immediately to buy the stuff they need and have been doing without. When rich people have more money, they just keep it, because they already have everything they need and most everything they want. Since sales drive the economy, that means that poor people having a little bit extra is more useful to everybody else than rich people having a bit extra.
3. There's no particular reason to link the closing of the loopholes that make rich people's effective tax rate lower than middle-class people's effective tax rate to a "flat tax". For example, we could keep exactly the same marginal tax rates but treat all income as income regardless of how it's earned (interest, dividends, capital gains, sole proprietorship / self-employment, and wages are currently all treated differently).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:58PM
1. I said nothing about lowering tax rates. I don't care what the tax rate is, a flat tax is more "fair" than saddling the middle class with a tax burden that the rich and the poor all avoid.
2. I don't care about "driving" the economy. Again, I expect everyone to carry their fair share of the load.
3. We sorta agree on the goals, but I'd like to introduce some "fairness" to the system, and at the same time, simplify it all. Closing loopholes is great. But the tax code is so screwy, a twelfth grade education is necessary to prepare your tax returns. Since today's high school graduates have an effective education of about sixth grade*, a complicated tax structure is unreasonable.
*Do you have ANY IDEA how long it's been since I heard high schoolers talking about algebra, or trig, sines or cosines? Hell, few people under the age of thirty can even make change properly these days, let alone figure their taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:39PM
1. I said nothing about lowering tax rates. I don't care what the tax rate is, a flat tax is more "fair" than saddling the middle class with a tax burden that the rich and the poor all avoid.
I like to think of the alleged middle class as paying the "stupid" tax. They are not smart (or crooked) enough to be rich, nor moral (smart) enough to be poor and use the power of the vast majority to change the system, since they are stupid enough to think they might someday be one of the rich. So I say, tax 'em till they are poor, and maybe they can rethink that whole "equal opportunity" thing.
(And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay. Carson cares about people? Really?)
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @06:53PM
"And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay."
Are you hitting on me, you deviant?
"Carson cares about people? Really?"
Probably not. He just advanced the state of the art in neurosurgery because he couldn't think of any bettter way of getting rich. Think about it - he worked on people young and old, black and white, rich and poor. He wasn't just a neurosurgeon, he wasn't even the best neurosurgeon. He advanced the state of the art. He CARED enough to pull answers out of his ass, when no one in the world had any answers. Why would anyone do that, if they didn't care about people?
People who don't genuinely care just put in enough effort to get by.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:27AM
"And, I am starting to think Runaway is gay."
Are you hitting on me, you deviant?
Why do I suddenly hear banjo music? You sure got a purty mouth, Runaway! Of course, I could be confusing Arkansas with South Carolina. Wouldn't be the first time. But in general, the more anyone makes a big deal out of "the gays", the more likely they are to be in the closet. There is a Godwin in here somewhere, a raging Himmler gay Nazi Godwin. Not to mention Karl Rove's go to guy, Jeff Gannon. He was a "top". Actually, I have no idea what the means. But it is not as bad as the "Teabaggers" not knowing what teabagging was. Suddenly, I feel deviant. I know too much!!! It is time to Runaway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:16AM
"Actually, I have no idea what the means."
'nuff said - run along.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:22AM
There are no banjos playing or at least none that I can hear over the loud fascist marching songs coming from whoever troll-bombs opposing viewpoints.
It is misuse of the moderation system to mod people as trolling just because one doesn't like whatever opinon is espoused, please stop doing it whoever it is, over time it destroys debate as well as conversation and participation: in my opinion such misuse killed /. just as much as what Dice did.
It is also the traditional dictionary definition of being bigoted.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:17PM
Since these proposals rarely are accompanied by budget cuts or increases on other taxes
That's a peculiar definition of the word "rarely", where it means "most of the time".
Tax collection is expensive. Cheapening that alone helps a bit.
My "favorite" scheme of the bazzilion possibilities merges a flat tax with basic income. The equation looks something like Income times ten percent minus ten thousand per dependent is what you owe, and negative means you get a check for one twelveth of it every month next year. This has the interesting implication of eliminating fed tax withholding for all income earners under $100K/yr which is about 95% of the population, which is very expensive to administer. That basic income scheme usually comes with gutting numerous (all?) other entitlement programs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @10:37PM
I have never, in my entire life, not even once, ever heard somebody propose a basic income along with a flat tax. All I've ever heard are multi-millionaires and richer proposing a flax tax to lower their own tax rates even further, and nothing else.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:17PM
Some do. Some just waste it. Some people are poor due to unfortunate circumstances. Some are poor because of habitual bad decision making and wastefulness. I know a guy who is poor. He is a single father and gets assistance from the state. He works irregularly. Recently, he had steady work for a few weeks (maybe a few months) straight, so he decided to treat himself by buying a motorcycle. His third motorcycle. How many poor people smoke cigarettes? How many drink alcohol or gamble? How much is that spending really helping them and the economy?
You make it sound like they are stashing the money under their mattresses. They aren't. They are investing it. Those investments go into creating new companies that spend money on office space, office furniture, computers, research, and salaries. They create new products (including new cures for diseases) and new jobs.
Is the overall economy and society better or worse off over the long term (not to be confused with the short term, which is what the politicians care about) when money is in the hands of the wealthy vs. the poor? I don't know. What I do know is that it's not nearly as simple as you make it sound.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @03:56PM
What you are describing is money movement. "wasting it" is just an opinion (well sorta).
If you buy an asset with money it is not really wasted is it? But if you buy something that gets you nothing long term then yeah you wasted *YOUR* money. But now that money is someone elses money. What will they do with it? Money only disappears in 3 cases. Me buying a cola is not one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:07PM
It doesn't matter what other people do with the money. What matters is that you, as an individual, just wasted your own money on nonsense you can't afford. When I see people constantly buying garbage they can't afford (expensive houses that really aren't a good investment, brand new computers every few years, giant televisions, expensive TV service, expensive Internet service, not taking advantages of methods to keep your food prices under $2 a meal), I think about where that money could be going instead. It could be saved so that they can retire early, or even have a retirement at all. I'm the 'cheapest' person I know, which doesn't mean you can have nothing. The entire point is sustainability, and if you're making bad choices that simply aren't sustainable on your income, you're being a fool.
No advice applies to every situation, but that doesn't mean there is nothing you can do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:20AM
some are poor because of habitual bad decision making and wastefulness.
Ah, the shades of Herbert Spencer! Social Darwinism! Yes! Survival of the richest, because the poor are not wise enough to invest their grocery money in the stock market, and so rise themselves out of poverty! Oh, if only they would stop wasting their money on rent, and health care, and food, and childcare, and cable television! The poor of today are so much better off than those of Dicken's time, because they have microsoft ovens to heat their meals that they pick up between their two or three jobs. If only they would manage time better! You see, the poor are slackers, losers, the anti-Trumps, the anti-Ayn_Rands, of our world. They are poor because of their moral failings, and so the sooner we can send them off to camps, to be, um, "re-educated" to be "entrepreneuers", the better off we would all be. The poor are just holding us all back. We need a Final Solution to the Poorish Question! Seig Heil!!! (Oops, did I say that out-loud? Oh, no, Mom is gunna ground me for this one!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:38AM
The part of that comment you replied to was rather mundane, but that didn't stop you from concocting a giant fantasy wherein that person said tons of things they didn't actually say or imply in the comment. It is absolutely true that a lot of people (rich people and poor people alike) make terrible purchasing decisions. Cable television is expensive and not very useful, so yes, it would be better if people got rid of it; especially poorer people, because they can't afford to waste too much money. I haven't had cable television or television service at all for years and I've been fine; it's all just trash anyway. Furthermore, in a lot of cases, people could spend their money more wisely on food. Rich people waste tons of money, but the difference is they have much more of it to waste because they scammed and/or leeched off of many people to get where they are.
Don't jump to conclusions over the mere suggestion that some people could spend their money more wisely. It's just a fact.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 27 2015, @10:26AM
Some do. Some just waste it.
There is no difference, from an economic perspective. If they are using it to buy goods or services, then this stimulates the economy, irrespective of the moral judgements that you make about their purchasing decisions.
You make it sound like they are stashing the money under their mattresses. They aren't. They are investing it. Those investments go into creating new companies
The difference is that they often invest it overseas. Various 'free trade' agreements have really been about making it easy to move capital. If a poor person has a bit of spare money to save, then it goes in a bank, where various regulations ensure that, even if some of it is invested overseas, most of the grows returns to your economy. If a rich person has spare money, then they can easily invest it overseas and keep the growth in tax havens. You may get some of it back if they're buying expensive toys in your country, but most of it is gone.
sudo mod me up