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, 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.