Trump v Clinton: Comparing their economic plans

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: seeker1963

:p

Thanks!

It's why I put it here. We can disagree and still remain civil.

I just want to keep what I earn. Why is that so bad?

Keeping what you earn is the goal of every person, but some of us are willing to pay for the things we enjoy everyday, but the short-sighted seem to forget about.

We have to pay for roads, the military, law enforcement, etc...etc.

That sort of ideology of "keep what I kill" fits a 3rd world mindset, but you have to pay to live in a civilized world.

I don't mind paying for that. In fact, I don't mind paying my share and a bit more. And I do.

You're welcome.

I agree which is why i think everyone should have to pay federal income taxes including the bottom 50 percent who dont currently. I dont care if it is just 10 bucks, everyone should have some skin in the game.

Like the OP im voting for who is cutting my taxes. Im in thay sweet spot politicians like to tax and im fed up. The peope who get screwed are those making about 250 to 500k a year. You make good money but you aint really rich. Upper middleclass in most major metro areas. Two working professionals.

I dont feel im getting much value for my tax dollars.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: whyamIhere

To drill a simple hole in wall you need a Contractor's license.

You mean if you're going to be paid by someone to do so?
You mean that just randomly drilling a hole in a wall is a good idea?

Thanks Phage,

Yes I mean if you want to install a simple phone line, satellite system,

Or even mount a TV on the wall. Your start-up costs are ridiculous.

But, I was referring to starting an installation business of something similar.

When your business is struggling financially, do you cut your revenues ?

No.

You cut your expenditures, while at the same time looking for ways to increase your revenues.



Apparently that "rocket science" flies over the head of both candidates.

I would "think" that a government eager to collect taxes, would want more tax payers to collect from.

Instead, the government appears to encourage getting as many as they can on the government rolls in order to justify further increases in taxes.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Apparently that "rocket science" flies over the head of both candidates.

Are you talking about government revenues? One wants to reduce those revenues (in particular those revenues from a certain group, of which one is a member).

One wants to increase revenues and "invest" in the source of those revenues and the infrastructure which supports it.

So, while it may be over their heads, their heads would seem to be in quite different places.

It is true that neither will do much to reduce the amount of money we owe ourselves.

a reply to: DBCowboy

More money can be printed. Books can be cooked.

The more in the pocket of the government means more votes. Freedom is being erased.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I would "think" that a government eager to collect taxes, would want more tax payers to collect from.

Instead, the government appears to encourage getting as many as they can on the government rolls in order to justify further increases in taxes.

Cloward and Piven my friend.......

Every western nation will soon be banana republics due to those who follow the doctrine of those they so publicly hate......

a reply to: whyamIhere

But, I was referring to starting an installation business of something similar.

I would think a contractors license, along with worker's comp and liability insurance would be a good idea in that situation.
To protect the person paying to have the work done.

a reply to: Phage

One wants to reduce those revenues (in particular those revenues from a certain group, of which one is a member).

One wants to increase revenues and "invest" in the source of those revenues and the infrastructure which supports it.

Yes.

Trump seems to think that cutting corporate taxes (how convenient for him, eh?) will be the answer to the country's financial woes.

While Clinton seems to think that upping taxes on those same people would be the answer to the country's financial woes.

Neither one is talking about cutting out needless expenditures, neither one is talking about giving taxpayers a better bang for their buck.



So at the end of the day in either one of those scenarios, the taxpayer will end up with less money in their pockets... whether they see that difference on their paycheques or at the cash register, they'll end up with less mad money to play with.

Although I have to give Clinton credit for at least trying to look at the long game, whereas Trump is only looking at the short game.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Truth be told...being perfectly honest.

I'd rather see Trump paying more "more" than me. And I don't mind paying for some stuff, even if it includes other stuff.

But I still can't vote for her.

a reply to: Phage

Well see, that's the thing... most people don't mind paying a little extra if it means they'll actually end up getting a better bang for their buck.

But Trump's version of Reaganomics 2.0 (cutting corporate taxes, and even more deregulation) ??

Hoo boy.... talk about a Titanic in the making.

a reply to: DBCowboy

THIS!!!!!! Should be enough to show anyone wanting our government to be on the up and up something!
Listen to Michelle Obama talk about Hillary! What changed since then people?



Never mind, which alter you kneel to when worshipping those who control you, but pay attention! WAKE UP!!!!

a reply to: CranialSponge

I disagree.

I don't mind paying for things to help others, because it is my decision.

But forcing people to pay more for other people takes the personal decision out of the picture.

Charity should be a choice, not a mandate.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How about infrastructure? Do you donate to your local Interstate Highway charity?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

How about infrastructure? Do you donate to your local Interstate Highway charity?

Are you going to run down the entire list of infrastructures I use and pay for?

That could get tedious.

I don't "donate" anything to government. It is taken from me. Taxes are necessary. Excessive taxes aren't.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Taxes are necessary. Excessive taxes aren't.

I agree.
Do you think Trump's tax reductions make any sense?
Do you think his taxes should go down more than 10 times as much as yours?
(Assuming he's been paying any.)

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CranialSponge

I disagree.

I don't mind paying for things to help others, because it is my decision.

But forcing people to pay more for other people takes the personal decision out of the picture.

Charity should be a choice, not a mandate.

Paying a little more to get a better bang for your buck does not simply just equate to "paying more for other people".

You're not looking at the bigger picture, there's a hell of a lot more involved with tax allocation than just social safety nets.

a reply to: Phage

I always will want to keep more of what I earn.

Personally? I'm for a flat tax. As another poster stated, everyone ponies up.

a reply to: CranialSponge

I am looking at the bigger picture. Our government is horribly corrupt.

Any opportunity to keep as much as I can from them, I will.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CranialSponge

I am looking at the bigger picture. Our government is horribly corrupt.

Any opportunity to keep as much as I can from them, I will.

Within the law, of course.