Winfield/Jbrase for Atlasia........WINFIELD CONCESSION

[Napoleon]

Do you support a path to citizenship for those already here illegaly who haven't committed a crime?

[Lincoln Republican]

Do you support a path to citizenship for those already here illegaly who haven't committed a crime?

That is a very good question, and thank you for asking it.   

Although we have to protect our borders, we also have to be practical about those already here illegally.  We also have to take into consideration that many of these people have their families here, and have children here, some born in the country.  I am not a proponent of separating families.  Let's face facts.  It would be impractical and virtually impossible to expell every illegal in the nation.  However, public safety and national security must be paramount in deciding which illegals could be granted citizenship.

For those already here illegally who have not committed any crime, I would propose proceeding with any decision on citizenship on a case by case basis, in order that a determination could be made which would warrant citizenship and which would not.  For those who warrant it, the normal citizenship proceedings could then begin. 

[Junkie]

Good answer.  It makes sense from a fiscal, legal, and national security perspective.

[Lincoln Republican]

Good answer.  It makes sense from a fiscal, legal, and national security perspective.

Thank you Junkie.

It was a good question which deserved a good answer.

[Lincoln Republican]

Presidential candidate Winfield addresses the crowds at Occupy Wall Street.

The crowds cheer enthusiastically as Winfield takes the stage.

Let me applaud your noble undertaking.  For far too long the robber barons of Wall Street have rapaciously plundered the economy, ripping off honest, hard working people, with their monetary manipulation and libertine lending practices.

$700 billion dollars my friends, $700 billion dollars of your money was spent to bail out those fat cats sitting over there (points to the sky scraper office towers), wearing their $5,000 suits, sitting in their $10,000 leather office chairs behind their $50,000 oak and walnut desks, so they could pay themselves multi million dollar bonuses with your money, after they had driven those financial institutions into the ground.

And what is their response to justify a taxpayer funded bailout with taxpayer funded bonuses?

Their line goes something like this.....Well, if you don't compensate executives adequately, we will not get the best, most qualified executives to run these institutions.....to which I reply.....If you had the best, most qualified executives, then why did they not manage these institutions in such a way as to save the taxpayers hundreds of billions dollars of their money to bail out your greed and arrogance?

I can tell you, had I been Preident when this bonus rip off took place, I would have taxed these bonuses back at a rate of 99.999999%!  I'll have to rethink my proposal for a flat tax.

My friends, we must restore balance between the everyday, honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens of this nation, and the rip off artists occupying those multi billion dollar structures of glass and steel over there.  (Points to the office towers)

If you want a President who speaks for and acts for the everyday, hard working, law abiding, tax paying citizens of this nation, and a President who will bring the corporate fat cats and white collar criminals into line, and to justice, then I'm your man.

Raucous and sustained applause and cheering.      

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This speech only confirmed my intentions to give you highest preference outside of my party.

[Lincoln Republican]

This speech only confirmed my intentions to give you highest preference outside of my party.

How about highest preference regardless of party? 

[Lincoln Republican]

Although the flat tax does have some very positive aspects, I have decided, at this time, to introduce what I believe would be a more effective tax policy, which ensures as well that high income earners pay their fair share of taxation.

This tax policy is based on income, and I will propose that all Atlasians should and will participate in the payment of taxes in order to provide the revenue necessary to move the nation forward, as well as I believe that all who benefit from citizenship in Atlasia should participate in the responsibility to provide necessary revenues for the nations programs.  

Income up to 35,000 taxed at 10%
Income over 35,000 up to 50,000 taxed at 15%
Income over 50,000 up to 100,000 taxed at 20%
Income over 100,000 up to 300,000  taxed at 25%
Income over 300,000 up to 500,000 taxed at 30%
Income over 500,000 up to 1,000,000 taxed at 35%
Income over 1,000,000 up to 3,000,000 taxed at 40%
Income over 3,000,000 up to 5,000,000 taxed at 45%
Income over 5,000,000 taxed at 50%

No deductions or loopholes are allowed, however, since it is clear that families with children have greater expenses, families with an income not above 100,000 will receive a rebate per child based on the following table.

Income up to 35,000 rebate of 1,000 per child
Income over 35,000 up to 50,000 rebate of 750 per child
Income over 50,000 up to 100,000 rebate of 500 per child

Tweaked a bit to ensure no one pays more than 50% tax.    

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This speech only confirmed my intentions to give you highest preference outside of my party.

How about highest preference regardless of party? 

Well, there are some major difference between us, like flat tax

[Napoleon]

This speech only confirmed my intentions to give you highest preference outside of my party.

How about highest preference regardless of party? 

Well, there are some major difference between us, like flat tax

See above post.

[Mechaman]

This speech only confirmed my intentions to give you highest preference outside of my party.

How about highest preference regardless of party? 

Well, there are some major difference between us, like flat tax

What are you talking about?

Winfield just proved that the monkier of "Me-Too" Republicanism by accepting progressive income taxation of people who make more than $5 million at 60% of their income!  WITHOUT LOOPHOLES!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This speech only confirmed my intentions to give you highest preference outside of my party.

How about highest preference regardless of party? 

Well, there are some major difference between us, like flat tax

What are you talking about?

Winfield just proved that the monkier of "Me-Too" Republicanism by accepting progressive income taxation of people who make more than $5 million at 60% of their income!  WITHOUT LOOPHOLES!

Ups, I admitt, I haven't read this before.

[Cincinnatus]

Yay!  You dropped the Flat tax.  Also, your sentiments regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement are exactly correct.  Corporate [among other] interests sway far to much influence over our politicians.  The current plutocracy we find ourselves in is destructive, and abusive to the majority of our citizens.  While we should encourage business and economic growth, and entrepreneurship/profits, we must simultaneously discourage abuse and corruption that burdens the market.  I feel your speech echos this opinion, and I commend you on your courage to defy the Rep-norm

[Modernity has failed us]

Tax policy = Dislike.

[Cincinnatus]

Tax policy = Dislike.

It's an improvement from the Flat tax.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You now re-enter into consideration - thank God you got rid of the flat tax

[Modernity has failed us]

Tax policy = Dislike.

It's an improvement from the Flat tax.

How in the name of all things beautiful and sexy can you possibly say that?

[Cincinnatus]

Tax policy = Dislike.

It's an improvement from the Flat tax.

How in the name of all things beautiful and sexy can you possibly say that?

Besides the extremely problematic fact that no expert can seem to agree on the necessary percentage (22-33%?), underground economy, how does this affect consumption?.  There's lots of unanswered problems that exist with such a system.  Not to mention, the entire system burdens the lower-middle classes over the wealthy.

[Modernity has failed us]

Tax policy = Dislike.

It's an improvement from the Flat tax.

How in the name of all things beautiful and sexy can you possibly say that?

Besides the extremely problematic fact that no expert can seem to agree on the necessary percentage (22-33%?), underground economy, how does this affect consumption?.  There's lots of unanswered problems that exist with such a system.  Not to mention, the entire system burdens the lower-middle classes over the wealthy.

So basically because someone worked harder to earn their money means they deserve to pay more. Bill Gates did not become a multi-billionaire because he was lazy, he worked hard to build Microsoft. So for all that work, you're suggesting that he pay more money to the Government? That the Government is somehow more deserving of his money than he is? That Government spending on useless programs is going to somehow stimulate the economy better than citizen spending in small and large businesses alike? The simplest concept of Capitalism is trust in the consumer rather than the Government.

[Cincinnatus]

Tax policy = Dislike.

It's an improvement from the Flat tax.

How in the name of all things beautiful and sexy can you possibly say that?

Besides the extremely problematic fact that no expert can seem to agree on the necessary percentage (22-33%?), underground economy, how does this affect consumption?.  There's lots of unanswered problems that exist with such a system.  Not to mention, the entire system burdens the lower-middle classes over the wealthy.

So basically because someone worked harder to earn their money means they deserve to pay more. Bill Gates did not become a multi-billionaire because he was lazy, he worked hard to build Microsoft. So for all that work, you're suggesting that he pay more money to the Government? That the Government is somehow more deserving of his money than he is? That Government spending on useless programs is going to somehow stimulate the economy better than citizen spending in small and large businesses alike? The simplest concept of Capitalism is trust in the consumer rather than the Government.

So you're saying we should shift the burden from those that [certainly] can afford it, to those who [really] can't?  You won't hear me argue about government waste, and the fact that entitlement reform is necessary.  Taxes need to be reduced on small businesses, and manufacturing.  This is where unemployment will be reduced.  It's just basic fiscal policy.  Also, while I'd prefer my taxes cut, anyone can argue that Government spending is more effective then a tax cut.  Considering tax cuts involve Saving, and direct spending is well, direct..  

Capitalism in its purest form is a flawed system.  The best system IMO, but flawed.  Obviously oversight is needed, roads and infrastructure need to be built (among other things), thus revenue is required.  So, the great debate is how to obtain revenue..  Do we tax the poor who can barely live off no federal income tax now..  Do we further expand the wealth inequality in this country by laying the burden on the Middle class?  No, we create a progressive tax system, that can provide revenue for necessities in government, while simultaneously encouraging profit.  If I'm making 20mill+ a year, and I'm being taxed say 50%, am I really inclined to stop trying to make profit?  No, I still want to expand, I still want to increase my profit.  There's a difference between punishing reward (England had 90% tax on upper wealth at one point if I'm correct?  Anyone more familiar let me know..)  and obtaining revenue from the same people that have so greatly benefited through the system.  Of course, as I mentioned earlier, entitlements is an entirely different debate.  There's no doubt in my mind we have a spending problem.  As well as there's no doubt in my mind the Government is often terrible ineffective.  

However, and I hope this sums up my point;  One flat tax will lose the government revenue.  Loss of revenue during an economic recession is very bad, combined with the current spending, even worse.  The uncertainty and in my opinion the "unfairness" of the Fair Tax, make it an undesirable policy [at least to myself].

[Mechaman]

I admit to finding the Flat Tax insanity.

However, I find the idea of taxing anybody half or more of their income to be equally insane.

So where do I stand?

[Cincinnatus]

I admit to finding the Flat Tax insanity.

However, I find the idea of taxing anybody half or more of their income to be equally insane.

So where do I stand?

50% was just a random sample, but yeah, you're standing high on the pedestal where you belong Mecha

[Modernity has failed us]

So how about everyone pay less taxes all together? Why does the flat tax have to be 20-30%? Why can't it be say...5%? That way, if someone makes, say $10,000 a year, they only pay $500 in taxes, but if someone makes $250,000 a year, they're paying $12,500 in taxes. Ultimately, the flat tax benefits the poor more, because they pay very little in taxes, whereas the rich pay more. It's x% of your income. The less money you make, the less taxes you pay. But instead, a progressive system wants people making $10k to pay 5% in taxes ($500 a year) and people making $250k to pay 40% in taxes ($100,000 a year), leaving the people who make $10k with $9.5k and the people with $250k with $150k. That's a big difference. If that person making $250k spends a lot of money, that'll stimulate the economy better because the money goes through the stores they spend it at, meaning the stores have more money. Stores with more money = stores with more job opportunities. Those stores can now hire the people making $10k and bring their income up to $35k. Why not let the free market run it's course and allow the poor to get richer so everyone has more money? Government intervention (which include tax increases) have always proven ineffective and wasteful. Of course Capitalism is flawed, all economic philosophies are, but you're correct in saying that it's the best one, the least flawed. Yes, roads and infrastructure need to be built, but that money will come to the Government as people get richer. Instead of criminalizing the rich because they are rich, why not let them pay 5% of the income and let them use the other 95% as they please?

[Cincinnatus]

So how about everyone pay less taxes all together? Why does the flat tax have to be 20-30%? Why can't it be say...5%? That way, if someone makes, say $10,000 a year, they only pay $500 in taxes, but if someone makes $250,000 a year, they're paying $12,500 in taxes. Ultimately, the flat tax benefits the poor more, because they pay very little in taxes, whereas the rich pay more. It's x% of your income. The less money you make, the less taxes you pay. But instead, a progressive system wants people making $10k to pay 5% in taxes ($500 a year) and people making $250k to pay 40% in taxes ($100,000 a year), leaving the people who make $10k with $9.5k and the people with $250k with $150k. That's a big difference. If that person making $250k spends a lot of money, that'll stimulate the economy better because the money goes through the stores they spend it at, meaning the stores have more money. Stores with more money = stores with more job opportunities. Those stores can now hire the people making $10k and bring their income up to $35k. Why not let the free market run it's course and allow the poor to get richer so everyone has more money? Government intervention (which include tax increases) have always proven ineffective and wasteful. Of course Capitalism is flawed, all economic philosophies are, but you're correct in saying that it's the best one, the least flawed. Yes, roads and infrastructure need to be built, but that money will come to the Government as people get richer. Instead of criminalizing the rich because they are rich, why not let them pay 5% of the income and let them use the other 95% as they please?

You seem to forget much of that 95% won't find its way back into the marketplace, whereas the money the lower-class has to consume will.  Those who are rich will still consumer what they need (Necessities), and what they desire (wants).  This is the beauty of progressive taxing, it slides along the scale with income.  Those with higher wealth will still have plenty of disposable income, which they will use to A) Consume, B) Invest, and C)Save.  5% is nowhere near realistic, as the majority agrees on either 22%, or 33% as far as I'm aware.  Also, your assumption that lower classes won't be taxed as much is a fallacy.  These lower-classes I'm talking about generally don't pay Federal income tax now, which wouldn't exist.  So, the requirement of paying 33% on sales would cost them more.  Of course, if we have a rebate system, this will cost the Government more for these lower classes

It's clear though that we won't agree on this point, so I'm going to stop bumping my opponents campaign thread    

[Modernity has failed us]

Agree to disagree