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: 2) by bradley13 on Monday October 26 2015, @03:51PM
Yes, but a flat tax would be a lot fairer than what many countries have today. Today, the guy earning the $100 may only pay $20, but the millionaire can exploit all sorts of loopholes and winds up paying only a few thousand. Meanwhile, governments make up the difference by creating all sorts of other taxes (sales/VAT), licenses and fees. All of those hit low incomes a lot harder than the high incomes.
The flat tax has another benefit. There is an entire army of tax advisors, accountants, lawyers - and on the governmental side, another entire army of tax bureaucrats - that feed off of the arcane tax laws. They add nothing useful to society, but do cost us huge amounts of money. Better if the entire parasitic industry were to simply disappear. They need real jobs, doing something that actually contributes positively to society. Failing that, it would be cheaper to pay them welfare than to pay them inflated salaries for dealing with convoluted tax laws.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Tuesday October 27 2015, @12:32AM
Agreed. Can we admit then, though, that we shouldn't really even be taxing income at all, but only consumption. This "flat" tax should be a sales tax, not an income tax.