POLL: GOP Leadership in the US

Remove all ads!

Simple Poll here ... What issue would you like the new GOP-led Congress to take up first?

That will be the first question. The second question is, what are your political leanings. I'm not too savey on International Politics, so if I miss you, just post below.

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 19 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: GOP Leadership in the US (19 votes.)

What issue would you like the new GOP-led Congress to take up first? (Choose 1)
* Partial-birth Abortion - 11% (2)
* Ban on Human Cloning - 11% (2)
* Confirming Bush's Judges - 32% (6)
* Pro-Marriage Welfare Reform - 0% (0)
* Permanent Tax relief for families - 16% (3)
* Repeal of the Death Tax - 32% (6)

What is your Political Leaning? (Choose 1)
* Republican / Conservative / Right Wing - 32% (6)
* Democratic / Liberal / Left Wing - 26% (5)
* Independant - 42% (8)

 

Is this poll only for Americans? Or are you assessing political leanings from all SP'ers? I didn't vote on the poll because I wasn't sure I wouldn't disrupt your sample group but I'm always glad to give my opinion.

My own political leanings: I'm a secular humanist libertarian, which I'm shocked- SHOCKED to see wasn't a category in your poll (just kidding! ). This usually translates to left wing on social issues (bring on the gay marriages and legalised drugs!) and right-wing on economic issues (you want to regulate WHAT?!).

I thought the poll was heavily slanted toward Moral Majority issues- socially right-wing ones- which surprised me. Conservative parties are usually about smaller government, which didn't really seem to be on the poll at all. That's what I'd like to see the US, and every country, move towards. The only real exceptions were the tax ones, which would get my vote, because I froth at the mouth at the idea of tax, but I do want to point out one thing about the death tax. Americans are the most generous people in the world in terms of donations to charity. Maybe this is just intrinsic to the American character, but many analysts believe it's because Americans would rather give to charity before they die than have millions go to death taxes afterward. If you get rid of the death tax, you will very probably eliminate the incentive to give large sums to charity. Isn't this a bad thing- a very bad thing? Aren't the massive sums of dollars that go to charity so important that it's worth having one excessive tax?

 

Sprite and all other non-USA type folk ... go ahead and vote. I'm curious about the general community.

Its no secret that I'm a little to the right of Gengis Kahn ... just wondering what the rest of humanity thinks (so I can rule them better!!!) j/k

 

Gee, Sprite, are you my long-lost cross-border twin or something?!

The only reason I registered with one of the two major US political parties is so I could vote in the primary elections, and even then my vote is usually cast AGAINST the candidate I see as more dangerous to the life I want my son to have, rather than FOR anyone in particular.

 

No offence but what kind of silly meaningless and unimportant options did we get? First off none that isnt a republican rightwinger can have any view on those things as they all seemed pretty wacky to me. Nothing about poverty, nothing about human rights, nothing important at all.
Who cares about cloning or not? What is a death tax? Abortion? I mean sheesh, again no offence but I am offended by some peoples priorities. All it was about was which far-right wing thing you like the most.

 

While the options were limited they weren't as trivial as you make them out to be joacqin.

The taxation questions are some of the most important questions any government can address. Since the U.S. has in place some non-permanent and gradual reductions the question of whether to make them permanent is crucial. It will affect everyone -- it is going to impact directly on the financial well being of Americans both rich and poor.

In case you really didn't know what the death tax is, that is the politicized name right wingers have dubbed the inheritance tax because they found out from polling data that Americans didn't like the sound of "death tax." The accuracy of such a name is debatable.

Abortion is a key issue as well in my opinion since Roe v Wade, contrary to popular opinion, isn't the relevant law anymore and abortion rights may well be rolled back. Particularly if......

the judicial appointments of Bush are taken care of in a manner he would like. The appointment of candidates to the bench is one of the most important thing any President can do.

Welfare reform directly impacts on poverty.

So, I think you underestimate the importance or breadth of some of the items mentioned. IT is a skewed list of course but then it is skewed to the right and since it is a question about what you would like to see the right do now that it has power it isn't that far off base. All my opinion of course.

 

It was a pro-marriage wellfare reform, not a welfare reform. I take that means that if you are a good christian and marry you get extra perks as opposite to the heathens that live in sin. The tax relief question seem to be a reform that opposes any wellfare. I atleast take abortion for granted and dont even see that there is something to discuss. You didnt bring up cloning and that quite understandable as that atleast is a very minor question. I have no real view on the death tax or the judicial appointments except that I think thats a thing that already gives a president more power than what is needed and colours the justice system so it compares to a single presidents point of view.

 

I'm praying that they implement a flat tax. Right now some people (probably Bel & BTA ) pay over 30% in taxes, while most others pay less than 10%. That means that the richest 1% of the country ends up paying 90% of the tax-bill.

I don't disagree that the rich should give more (since they have more) but why have a tiered tax-table. If everyone pays a flat 12-15% the federal budget won't be impacted too greatly, plus it will allow alot more money to saturate the economy and improve things on Wall Street.

This is what the Russians did post-communism, and its working great.

 

Actually, the graduated tax table doesn't work quite that way. It's a common misconception. In actuality, BTA only has to pay 30% of the portion of his income that falls in that bracket. Say that the brackets are 10% for over $10,000 -- 20% for over $25,000 -- and 30% for over $50,000. No matter how much you make, the portion of your income that falls between $10,000 and $25,000 is taxed at 10%; if you make over $50,000 then only the portion over $50,000 is taxed at 30%. It's another common misconception that giving to charities can save you money. That's untrue, since falling to a lower tax bracket doesn't mean you pay lower percentage over the whole amount.

I'm getting less comprehensible as I go, so I'll shut up.

 

10% is going to impact a person that makes $10,000 far more than it will impact a person making $100,000. My income has been poverty level for years, and yet I pay 30% of my income in taxes. Needless to say, a flat rate tax sounds like a bad plan to me so far.

 

God Bless you BTA ... always a voice of reason

 

BTA, under the conditions you set forth the flat tax sounds good, but I seriously doubt that the merican political reality will ever allow those conditions to be met.

 

Actually BTA, Capstone is spot on in trying to describe how a graduated income tax works.

Hypothetically, let's say a tax strucure is such that:

0-10,000 0%
10k - 20k 10%
20k - 30k 20%
30k - 40k 30%

Now, suppose you make $32,000. What Capstone was getting at is that you don't pay 30% of $32,000. Instead, you pay 0% on the first 10k, then 10% on the next 10k, then 20% on the next 10k, and then 30% on the next 2,000.

So, what this means then is that the idea that the incentive to donate to charity under the current tax structure doesn't operate like many think. Take the person making 32,000. If she donates 2,001 some people think this drops her to a lower tax bracket and she will only pay 20% on her total gross income. In reality though, the savings aren't that great because she would have been paying a lower amount on the income that falls within the lower tax brackets anyways. She is in short giving away 2,001 instead of paying 30% tax on 2,000.

That is what Cap is driving at.

Also, I am certain that a number of the proposed flat tax schemes would not result in the rich paying more. Now, it turns on how you define "rich" of course but most of America's "rich" are small business owners or professionals and they do not shelter their income in the way described. I'm talking about people with incomes from 1 mil. to a few million. I'm not sure but I seem to recall prior to the most recent cuts the highest bracket was something like 38% but under a falt tax of 15% they would be much better off.

I also think people vastly overstate the way the rich "shelter" or use "tax loopholes" to pay less taxes.

Stef, if your income is at poverty levels you don't pay 30% of your income in federal income taxes. If you do, something ADR (ain't doing right) and you are entitled to a return from the Federal gov and should seek a free tax clinic at a local law school to seek help. Maybe you mean 30% taking into account all of your taxes, state and federal?

 

Oh, I should've said earlier, that I felt certain under the major proposed flat taxes like Forbes' the rich would be better off. Can't say that about all proposals obviously since I haven't seen them or seen analysis of them.

Edited to also say I'm not necessarily saying a flat tax would be a bad thing, just that I think it would likely reduce the tax burden on the rich. The benefit to them would be greater than the benefit to middle and lower classes imo.

[ December 06, 2002, 00:43: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

How come the western country, other than tax-havens, which pay the least tax are more obsessed with it than most others? I suppose it all depends what you get back from the system but still.

It is incomrehensible that partial abortion has ever been allowed, so sure go ahead legislate against something that would never have been allowed in most other countries.

Death tax? Used to be "death duty" here, and it's inherently (no pun intended) unfair in itself. Why should you tax again on monies which have already been fully taxed? Very much against that one for those reasons.

Human cloning? Uncomfortable, but could have uses if regulated. Copying humans, no, but research yes.

The others are not my priorities since I can only imagine a Bush lead tax reform to benefit those who don't need it at the expense of those who cannot afford it. Pro marriage incentives? WHY? What makes a married couple more worthy of tax reliefs than two individuals cohabiting? Frankly, nothing.

Finally the judges. Life time appointments are a good idea. Life time political appointments are not. Judges should be in place to interpret the law and make judgements based on justice as defined by the law, not based on political pursuation.

 

The inheritance tax/death tax was born in the U.S. for some fairly reasonable concerns. The idea was that allowing the concentration of wealth into one family might result in too much power becoming distributed in one family thereby allowing that family to assume a role as royalty in a nation which rejected that concept. Now, the inheritance tax was born at a time in the U.S. where that was a real possibility but I think it is safe to say that possibility no longer really exists because of the size the U.S. has grown to.

The other justification for the inheritance tax is that we are a nation of individualism and that meritocracy should be encouraged.

I'd personally reduce it certainly and I'm up in the air about whether it should be ended.

 

Um, this will probably sound dumb, but whats GOP?

 

Americans, ever so proud of being the middle class nation, had to do something to keep it that way. Somehow I don't think dragging the rich down to the middle class level was meant to be part of the American dream. But I suppose rags-to-riches is easier if "rich" means ten million rather than a billion.