• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Somerset Ravens said:
I am sure there are plenty of plans being talked about but what are the details of these plans? What are these new plans you are talking about and again what are the details?

Where did you see the details of Hillary's plan? Where can I see these independent estimates that project a surplus?
That sounds too good to be true.
Click to expand...
The student loan system I mentioned is essentially how it works over here, but a lot of other countries do similar stuff (inb4 talk of illegals, to get a loan you have to have an Inland Revenue number and be a demonstrated citizen) so you can look at the fiscal reports for basically any developed economy in the world to get an idea of what I'm taking about and whether/how they work. They're not usually an outrageous part of the budget and once the individual finishes their studies they go on the books as a state asset (since they're about to start paying more in tax).

I embedded links in my last paragraph, which I've been doing throughout this thread so I should probably start underlining them or something.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/clintons-college-affordability-proposal-explained

The CRFB is a non-partisan think-tank with a petty good mix of Ds, Rs and Is on the board with experience in both the public and private sectors. And the research it cites is from the Tax Policy Center's (another non-partisan think-tank that tends to lean fiscally conservative imo) analysis of Hillary's proposal to close Wall Street loopholes. That article also has plenty of links to what Obama proposed if you're interested in delving deeper than what the mainstream media usually covers.
 
Inqui said:
The student loan system I mentioned is essentially how it works over here, but a lot of other countries do similar stuff (inb4 talk of illegals, to get a loan you have to have an Inland Revenue number and be a demonstrated citizen) so you can look at the fiscal reports for basically any developed economy in the world to get an idea of what I'm taking about and whether/how they work. They're not usually an outrageous part of the budget and once the individual finishes their studies they go on the books as a state asset (since they're about to start paying more in tax).

I embedded links in my last paragraph, which I've been doing throughout this thread so I should probably start underlining them or something.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/clintons-college-affordability-proposal-explained

The CRFB is a non-partisan think-tank with a petty good mix of Ds, Rs and Is on the board with experience in both the public and private sectors. And the research it cites is from the Tax Policy Center's (another non-partisan think-tank that tends to lean fiscally conservative imo) analysis of Hillary's proposal to close Wall Street loopholes. That article also has plenty of links to what Obama proposed if you're interested in delving deeper than what the mainstream media usually covers.
Click to expand...

You made mention how it works over here, may I ask where you are located?

Thank for the links. I read both but those are not what I consider detailed. For example, Clinton's plan claims to generate a surplus by limiting tax deductions on the wealthy to 28%. What is the definition of wealthy? What deductions are limited ( itemized, all) ? There is not much detail offered. More importantly unless the assumptions made in projections are given the projections are not meaningful in my mind. It is easy to make the numbers dance and sing.
 
Somerset Ravens said:
You made mention how it works over here, may I ask where you are located?

Thank for the links. I read both but those are not what I consider detailed. For example, Clinton's plan claims to generate a surplus by limiting tax deductions on the wealthy to 28%. What is the definition of wealthy? What deductions are limited ( itemized, all) ? There is not much detail offered. More importantly unless the assumptions made in projections are given the projections are not meaningful in my mind. It is easy to make the numbers dance and sing.
Click to expand...
:australia: New Zealand, and here's the cliff notes of the latest budget. That $9.2bn in student loans goes back more than a decade. But even if they were all paid for this year (instead of over the decade) it wouldn't crack the top five expenditures for the year. That model just works off what the UK and Australia do, and it's not difficult to find similar policies in Europe.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2017/at-a-glance/b17-at-a-glance.pdf

I'm guessing you didn't follow the links within that CFRB analysis (it targets deductions in the 33%, 36% and 39.6% brackets, so those earning more than $200,000 a year), and I'm genuinely not sure what level of detail counts as meaningful short of an entire budget (in which case you can look at Obama's FY16 budget as a reference point, which would have spelled out every impact on every deduction within every bracket - these think-tanks do exactly that but they have a huge amount more expertise than you or I because they use sophisticated economic modelling to see how many people each tax policy change affects and how many dollars that brings the Treasury). The analyses are just that - they comb over every detail themselves and sum everything up. Said Obama budget, for example, was 150 pages (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2016-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2016-BUD.pdf) and not really usable without going over previous budgets or knowing how many people fit within each income bracket, while the CFRB went over the impact of its proposals and summarised it in 9 pages (http://www.crfb.org/document/report-analysis-president’s-fy-2016-budget).

Think-tanks like the TPC or CFRB don't do campaign advertising or PR or anything - they're detached groups that take copious amounts of raw data and turn it into something meaningful. A budget proposal might say (just to make up a provision for argument's sake) it will forgive all student debt for all law degrees provided the person has been in the US for the past 10 years. These guys then pick out that provision and calculate how many people with law degrees have been in the US for the past 10 years and say that such a proposal will bring in $533.6 million during the next fiscal year.
 
Inqui said:
:australia: New Zealand, and here's the cliff notes of the latest budget. That $9.2bn in student loans goes back more than a decade. But even if they were all paid for this year (instead of over the decade) it wouldn't crack the top five expenditures for the year. That model just works off what the UK and Australia do, and it's not difficult to find similar policies in Europe.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2017/at-a-glance/b17-at-a-glance.pdf
Click to expand...
I'm thinking about a law suit because of that little flag (just hover mouse over it). Should we cash in on hurt feelings by suing Purple Flock forum or the software makers?
View attachment 356
 
allblackraven said:
I'm thinking about a law suit because of that little flag (just hover mouse over it). Should we cash in on hurt feelings by suing Purple Flock forum or the software makers?
Click to expand...
It was that or the ISIS flag. :p
isis.jpg.hashed.700353b0.desktop.story.inline.jpg
 
Somerset Ravens said:
What were the details of Obama's plan?
Click to expand...

Here's a WH report on the topic. Here are details on cost. It would cost $61 billion over a decade, or about $6 billion a year. Nine million would benefit.

Worth noting is that the report says one third of jobs by 2030 will require an associate's or college experience and another third will require a bachelor's. That's TWO THIRDS of the economy that has college experience as a prerequisite. That last third? Probably retail, food service, and grass cutting. No disrespect meant but those aren't exactly high wages, and they're only going lower as automation kills the working class.

Somerset Ravens said:
I am sure there are plenty of plans being talked about but what are the details of these plans? What are these new plans you are talking about and again what are the details?

Where did you see the details of Hillary's plan? Where can I see these independent estimates that project a surplus?
That sounds too good to be true.
Click to expand...

Eh, it sounds too good to be true but it's actually just sound economics. Per that WH report, community college grads make an average of $10,000 more a year than those who didn't attend college. University grads earn $27,000 more than HS grads. That's more money pumped into the economy and tax coffers. In essence, it pays for itself over time.

K-Dog said:
Its not in there. It is not in the "job description " of the federal government.
Seriously, are you asking me these questions because you want to learn about how our country is *supposed * to be run or do you just want to argue or debate any conservative point of view?
Click to expand...

I guess it's not in the literal job description but when two thirds of the American economy will require an associate's or more by 2030, it's probably the intelligent, responsible, and prudent thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Inqui said:
:australia: New Zealand, and here's the cliff notes of the latest budget. That $9.2bn in student loans goes back more than a decade. But even if they were all paid for this year (instead of over the decade) it wouldn't crack the top five expenditures for the year. That model just works off what the UK and Australia do, and it's not difficult to find similar policies in Europe.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2017/at-a-glance/b17-at-a-glance.pdf

I'm guessing you didn't follow the links within that CFRB analysis (it targets deductions in the 33%, 36% and 39.6% brackets, so those earning more than $200,000 a year), and I'm genuinely not sure what level of detail counts as meaningful short of an entire budget (in which case you can look at Obama's FY16 budget as a reference point, which would have spelled out every impact on every deduction within every bracket - these think-tanks do exactly that but they have a huge amount more expertise than you or I because they use sophisticated economic modelling to see how many people each tax policy change affects and how many dollars that brings the Treasury). The analyses are just that - they comb over every detail themselves and sum everything up. Said Obama budget, for example, was 150 pages (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2016-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2016-BUD.pdf) and not really usable without going over previous budgets or knowing how many people fit within each income bracket, while the CFRB went over the impact of its proposals and summarised it in 9 pages (http://www.crfb.org/document/report-analysis-president’s-fy-2016-budget).

Think-tanks like the TPC or CFRB don't do campaign advertising or PR or anything - they're detached groups that take copious amounts of raw data and turn it into something meaningful. A budget proposal might say (just to make up a provision for argument's sake) it will forgive all student debt for all law degrees provided the person has been in the US for the past 10 years. These guys then pick out that provision and calculate how many people with law degrees have been in the US for the past 10 years and say that such a proposal will bring in $533.6 million during the next fiscal year.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for responding. I did read where they targeted the 33%, 36% and39.6% brackets. What I would want to see is applying that methodology to returns filed for 2014 and 2015. I want to see how the raw data in manipulated and how it compares to historical data.

I understand that think tanks work with copious amousts of data, but how they work with that data is my concern.
 
RavensMania said:
Two Words: Flat Tax
Click to expand...

Three more words: skyrocketing national debt

Even a lot of conservatives oppose a flat tax, maybe even most. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's only the libertarian crowd that seriously wants a flat tax. A flat tax is fiscally irresponsible for many reasons, including but not limited to lowered tax revenue leading to deficits and disproportionate taxation of lower class leading to worsened income inequality and poor economic growth.

This country hasn't had a flat tax since the 1910s. Maybe there's a reason for that.
 
Last edited:
The Raven said:
Three more words: skyrocketing national debt

Even a lot of conservatives oppose a flat tax, maybe even most. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's only the libertarian crowd that seriously wants a flat tax. A flat tax is fiscally irresponsible for many reasons, including but not limited to lowered tax revenue leading to deficits and disproportionate taxation of lower class leading to worsened income inequality and poor economic growth.

This country hasn't had a flat tax since the 1910s. Maybe there's a reason for that.
Click to expand...
Believe what you want, but this is the only fair way to have everyone pay the same amount. The reason we won’t have a flat tax is because professionals, ie cpas would lose jobs. I feel we could have something similar to a flat tax but still have some amendments to it allowing for the mortgage deductions. That lobby group is huge.

Say what you want, but there are a lot of conservatives who would love a flat tax, besides the rich would end up paying more tax because they wouldn’t have the write offs. That’s another reason why we will never have a flat tax.

Btw, that is not why we got rid of the flat tax. Income tax came into play in 1913. Sure we had taxes prior to then, but I’m talking about the passage of the 16th amendment.
 
Last edited:
as you all well know by now, i am not american and yet there is something about US politics that makes me so angry (which is such a rare thing for me) - the fact that the alabama senate race is even close let alone the fact that moore will probably win means that Alabama has failed on a moral level and that pisses me off no end

2015 UK General Election deflated me
Brexit made me sad and helpless
2016 US election made me angry and helpless all at once
2017 UK General Election gave me a glimmer of hope
Alabama Senate Race is tearing at any faith i had left in humanity
 
rossihunter2 said:
as you all well know by now, i am not american and yet there is something about US politics that makes me so angry (which is such a rare thing for me) - the fact that the alabama senate race is even close let alone the fact that moore will probably win means that Alabama has failed on a moral level and that pisses me off no end
Click to expand...
Yeah, tell me about it. I don’t care if your conservative or democrat, morality should be far above party lines.
 
RavensMania said:
Yeah, tell me about it. I don’t care if your conservative or democrat, morality should be far above party lines.
Click to expand...

i just dont get it - everyone who's voting for moore is essentially saying they'd rather a pedophile than a democrat - how can anyone with a child (or without) in good conscience vote for moore?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top