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, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:19PM
I already paid taxes on my income when I bought that stock, then the company paid corporate taxes on the profit they earned, then I paid taxes on the dividends, and now I have to pay taxes a fourth time on the profit from sale? Geeze, how many more times can I pay tax on that same dollar of original income?
And I pay taxes on my income when I make money and I pay sales taxes on that same money when I spend it and if I resell the thing it's counted as new income and taxed again. Why should double dipping on cap gains be special from double dipping on income from working?
I might be fine with reducing the number of times taxes are paid once we eliminate the legal illusion that the corporation and the share holder are separate legal entities with separate rights. As long as each can file separate deeds, sign separate contracts, etc. they are separate drains on government resources and should pay for them.