One who can win in a 50-50 purple district. Hint: It has not been Republicans of the current type. They need to figure out how to nominate moderate candidates who can survive in the post gerrymandering world which is this state. They keep nominating tea party idiots or raving take away women's right to choice idiots and then wonder why they lose in this state. That worked when the two parties could conspire to create pure red and blue districts (or near enough) but it is a death sentence in purple swing districts. Most districts are now purple here. They are going to have to learn to appeal to the big middle instead of just pandering to their extremist wing if they want to get off the endangered species list in this state.
Reading comprehension: you don't got it. Let me quote myself with emphasis: The other stops in "red state" California? They're not on that route and they're not even opening until the second phase. Here's the route.
I am counting seven stops in conservative leaning areas. The fact remains the central valley is a complete waste of time just like making the San Diego section for Noth into the Inland empire and make two 90 degree turns. Just retarded. The I5 is what was needed.
If you don't understand that basic fact then you simply have not been paying attention. It is just reality and it is why Republicans cannot compete in competitive districts.
Dinner, modern Republicans aren't extremists, they're pretty much 1970's era Democrats without the unions. Some oppose same sex marriage, just as Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton did. Hillary now claims that she and Bill supported DOMA as a way to stop the push for a Constitutional amendment that would be impossible to undo, but even left-wing news sites are now saying that's a lie, having gone through every note and memo in the Clinton library.
Ronald Reagan was a former Democrat and union president. He attracted so many Democrat votes that the electoral vote total for his two runs were 1,014 to 62. A Democrat who ran on Bill Clinton's platform today would be considered a right-wing extremist by the left. The only one who's remotely close is Jim Webb. Jimmy Carter would be considered a war monger.
During the Eisenhower administration, the highest marginal tax rate was 91 percent. Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and created the EPA. All of which would have the modern Republican party shrieking "SOSHULIZM!!!" until they were blue in the face.
The 91% was a tax cut. FDR and Truman had it at 94 or 95%. And of course nobody actually paid that much, which is why Kennedy dropped the rate, and Reagan dropped it still further. And Nixon created the EPA to clean up extremely bad pollution. The Democrats use the EPA to try to drive the country into poverty so we can return to being subsistence farmers - except farming will be banned as environmentally destructive.
^Good point. Wasn't the EPA created not long after that heavily polluted river in the northern U.S. actually CAUGHT FIRE?
Yep. The Coyahoga river burned for eight days in 1969, and then we created the EPA. But nowadays the EPA dumps toxic waste into rivers. We've come full circle.
I once asked my dad (b. 1925) about the high marginal rates back in the day and he said it wasn't nearly as bad as it seems because everything was deductible. But even so, it was a bookkeeping headache to keep all those records.
No, 91% (for the top marginal, the effective was still only about 30% in total end of year) and it was highest under Eisenhower. Incidentally, Eisenhower was correct that higher income taxes on the top 1% did improve the economy. The reason is no taxes were owed if they reinvested in the business, only if they took money out as personal income above a certain amount, and thus waaaaayyyyyyy more money got reinvested. That means folks would expand even into marginal businesses or areas or even give workers raises because at least that was better than letting the government get it. That meant not only was hiring strong and companies were aggressively investing in new product lines but workers were also getting raises instead of the top 1% just taking everything.
Could be. It's easier just to have a lower marginal rate with fewer deductions. Simplicity and transparency are tremendous virtues in a tax code. I don't believe for a second that a 74,000 page tax code accomplishes any kind of coherent goal beyond keeping tax preparers and accountants gainfully employed. I'd prefer a single rate flat tax with NO deductions that kicks in above a certain income level (say, $25,000/year). Then there'd be no arguing about who's paying what.
General simplification is a good idea but marginal rates still need to be progressive. Every other tax (with the exception of the estate tax which no one pays) is regressive so a progressive income tax helps to balance things out.
Of course, Congressmen love making the tax code bigger by sticking in little carve outs and give aways to donors. That is how it got so large. There strategy is to take them away every decade or two and then make the donors give them more money to put it back in.
Income taxes should fund the government; they should not be used as a political weapon. If everyone pays the same flat rate, there's no more "so and so isn't paying his fair share" business. Everyone knows EXACTLY how much everyone else pays and it's the same proportion for everybody. And, if there's no tax at all on lower incomes (say, the bottom 10-15% of income earners), then it's not regressive at all.
No one knows who pays what and thst is a massive problem. All tax records should be public domain so everyone can see who paid what.
Well, no, it's not really your business what I make. But you should be able to expect that whatever I make, I'm paying a fixed portion of it in taxes. If I make, say, a million dollars, I could be paying anywhere from the Alternative Minimum Tax down to $0, depending on what deductions I take.
You think some state legislature would put in a simplified flat tax calculated after everyone handles their federal taxes. A. List your gross income _______ B. Multiply A by the percentage in table 1 to calculate what you should have paid in a fair and sane world. ______ C. List how much you paid in federal taxes _______ D. Subtract C from B to calculate the amount you still owe to the state _______\ If the amount D is negative, you get it as a refund. If state income taxes are calculated after federal income taxes, a state could trivially cancel out everything in the federal tax code. Now matter how many deductions someone claimed, in the end it wouldn't matter. But for some reason, even though tons of governors push the idea of a federal flat tax, none have bothered to implement it at the state/federal level.
Sweden makes tax records a matter of the public record and nothing bad seems to have happened. When in doubt make information public is my motto plus it would likely help out a bunch of tax cheats and liars so it would serve the public good. Not to mention provide useful information to base public policy on.
Swedish tax records being public doesn't matter because there are only about four names in Sweden, not counting Muhammed.
Our tax dollars efficiently at work. And what happens when the first derailment occurs? Who gets sued then?
