Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 18:41:48 GMT -5
I have a bone to pick with you, Christine. I think Trump is every bit as orange as he ever was. Maybe you're just getting used to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 2, 2017 18:50:27 GMT -5
Oh my god, am I normalizing orange?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 18:54:29 GMT -5
I'm afraid so. I suggest you periodically prop a cut-out of Trump in front of an electric blue background, just to heighten the contrast and remind yourself of his undiminished orangeness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 2, 2017 18:58:59 GMT -5
Good idea. It appears the Trump cardboard cutout next to the Bush cardboard cutout is not adequately addressing the orange factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 2, 2017 19:02:32 GMT -5
The tax proposal I like is the one that will double our standard deduction, probably leading to fewer people itemizing deductions, hence simplifying the process and giving us more off the top. And the one that cuts the number of tax brackets from 7 to 3, another simplification of an overly complex process. And the one which eliminates the death or estate tax, which since the wealthy know ways around this, really serves to punish small business such as farms. And the one which eliminates some of the itemized deductions, again simplifying an overly complex system. And the one which has mentioned a tax break for child care, details to be worked out. And if the decrease in corporate tax, which is very high in the U.S., allows business to bring jobs back to the U.S., then I'm all for that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 2, 2017 19:39:38 GMT -5
The tax proposal I like is the one that will double our standard deduction, probably leading to fewer people itemizing deductions, hence simplifying the process and giving us more off the top. And the one that cuts the number of tax brackets from 7 to 3, another simplification of an overly complex process. And the one which eliminates the death or estate tax, which since the wealthy know ways around this, really serves to punish small business such as farms. And the one which eliminates some of the itemized deductions, again simplifying an overly complex system. And the one which has mentioned a tax break for child care, details to be worked out. And if the decrease in corporate tax, which is very high in the U.S., allows business to bring jobs back to the U.S., then I'm all for that too. I listened to Cohn claiming that doubling the standard deduction would "simplify taxes" and laughed my ass off. He mentioned the awfulness of a shoebox full of receipts for itemized deductions and what a wonderful thing it would be if people didn't have to keep track of all that. Schedule A (itemized deductions) is a ONE PAGE attachment. It lists medical expenses, state/property taxes, mortgage interest and other types of interest like investment interest, charitable contributions, and certain other itemized deductions, most of which most people don't have. Eliminating one page and a "shoebox full of receipts" (please) is simplifying taxes? People who file a 1040 and a Schedule A use Turbo tax, pay a $30 filing fee, and are done filing in 20 minutes. Schedule A is not the problem, and eliminating Schedule A is not a solution to the complexity of tax returns. There are so many other schedules --e.g. Schedules, B, C, D, E, SE, 8949, etc., etc., etc., which many nonwealthy people have to file. Absurd bullshit talking point. As far as "more off the top," I guess we'll see. I'm not opposed to the higher standard deduction in general, as I have always been annoyed at the fact that people who rent get shafted while they're effectively paying the landlord's mortgage interest. Then again, most people who rent do so because they can't afford to buy, so their income is already low and they probably don't pay much tax to begin with. There may be some tax benefit, but it will be minimal, compared to the tax benefit of the wealthy under the new "plan."* I'm also not confident that the additional standard deduction for middle class taxpayers won't be offset by the elimination of graduated tax rates. By condensing them to three rates, the "plan"* eliminates brackets of income taxed at old rates in the middle of the new rates. So, instead of having some of your income taxed at the old 10%, 28%, and 33%... you've got the new rates. Where's the cutoff? The ultimate benefit (or lack thereof) depends upon where they demarcate the new rates, which they haven't said. Also, making 3 brackets instead of 7 is not simplifying anything. It's not complex, and anyway, people don't have to do this simple math. Computers do. TurboTax costs $30 bucks and they'll do it for you. If you can't afford TurboTax, you probably don't need to file a tax return. I prepare tax returns for a living, and I don't even calculate the graduated tax rates. Claiming that 3 instead of 7 is a simplification is another bullshit talking point. I'm rending my clothes over here. Elimination of estate tax: No. Just no. Farms? Farms that are worth in excess of $5.4 million? Okay fine, give insolvent farmers' kids a exception. Trump's kids and everyone else who inherits billions of solvent dollars can pay the tax. Child care tax break: we have this already. It's good. This is another bullshit talking point. (See also: Fuck you, Ivanka. Fire your nanny and get back to me.) *There's no plan. It's like, four bullet points. Which is why I haven't started a thread. Because I totally would start a thread if it wasn't all speculation at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angie on May 3, 2017 1:19:48 GMT -5
From the Snopes link, a direct quote of then-Mr. and not yet VP Pence: You're right - it's way better that he was just suggesting we limit funding for HIV treatment to organizations that didn't support those icky gays and their icky ways. I'll concede that his comments got overblown, and that the "gay conversion therapy" people were envisioning might not be the same as what he suggested. But "institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior" don't have to use electroshock therapy to be extremely destructive. (Those are two separate links, in case the way I've added them makes it look like one.) |
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 3, 2017 10:20:01 GMT -5
I don't think he's talking about converting gays. I think he's talking about unsafe sex. And we can safely presume he's against that for heterosexuals, too. He's on the record as saying abstinence is the best choice for teens. The phrase "changing sexual behavior" (the words on his 2000 campaign website) is different from "changing sexual orientation", and can certainly refer to monogamous relations with protection and known to be healthy partners. IMO, his words addressed the former.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 10:28:11 GMT -5
What organizations "celebrate and encourage" unsafe sex? I define "unsafe sex" as promiscuous sex without protection. I cannot think of a single organization that "celebrates and encourages" that.
ETA:
I suspect Pence is defining "celebrating and encouraging" "unsafe sex" as equivalent to acknowledging the existence of any sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
To which I say "pffft."
ETA:
For that matter, I cannot think of a single organization that "celebrates and encourages" the existence of nonpromiscuous sex without protection, unless you want to count the Catholic church, which encourages it for procreation and actively discourages birth control.
LGBTQ organizations tend to actively encourage safe sex, as does Planned Parenthood, as does every organization I can think of.
So where are these organizations "celebrating and encouraging" unsafe sex that Pence was condemning?
|
|
|
|
Post by Angie on May 3, 2017 10:47:19 GMT -5
Okay, fine. Let's put that paragraph in context. Because it comes directly after anti-LGBTQ language in Pence's 2002 campaign platform: In context, I think it's pretty tone-deaf to say he's not talking about defunding organizations that support LGBTQ people and provide HIV treatment to them. |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on May 4, 2017 11:27:07 GMT -5
Only time for a quick response right now, but ohio, this conversion therapy claim is not proven, and both Snopes and Politifact have pointed out that Pence may very well have been referring to safer sexual practices, and that Pence has never mentioned conversion therapy specifically. The Politifact link rates accusations levied at Pence's support of gay conversion therapy as "half-true." Whether that means Pence does or does not support gay conversion therapy is subject to the biases of the beholder. I'm biased against Pence and you're biased in support of Pence. The difference is I freely admit to mine. I don't think he's talking about converting gays. I think he's talking about unsafe sex. And we can safely presume he's against that for heterosexuals, too. He's on the record as saying abstinence is the best choice for teens. The phrase "changing sexual behavior" (the words on his 2000 campaign website) is different from "changing sexual orientation", and can certainly refer to monogamous relations with protection and known to be healthy partners. IMO, his words addressed the former. I call bullshit. You are spinning like a top. It's guys like Pence in need of a conversion, the religious kind. The sanctimonious turd. |
|
