Democrat or Republican

[VictorCharlie]

You left off Libertarian and Green Party. But to answer the question I vote Libertarian.

Ha I was a card carrying libertarian from 18 - 26, preaching the same things as you are now. The older I get the more liberal I get.

Thats not usually how it works in my experience. Most people I know became more conservative as they got older. I voted Republican early in my life, became an independent and then became a registered Libertarian about three years ago when I became fully disgusted with the main two parties.

[killersheep]

Master,

Libertarian ideals are to maximize personal liberties and minimize gov't, specifically by a strict interpretation of the Constitution in regards to the federal govt. Yes those who follow a strict libertarian code would be safely described in Killer's post, but its not necessarily a lock step party. While I have met Libertarians that champion all private road ways most live in the real world and understand where to pick and choose their battles. The Libertarian and Green Party are the only two viable (I use the phrase loosely) parties with any real principles, integrity and intellectual honesty.

Yeah social issues in general: gay rights, abortion, stuff like that has historically been under heavy debate in the libertarian party, nothing close to a consensus.

[VictorCharlie]

hmmm I find that most Libertarians are in a consensus on social issues but start to differ on foreign policy, immigration and how much is too much privatization. It is usually easier to define personal liberty in social issues than disect the abstract of "too much govt". A good example of libertarian principles is the gay marriage issue. Instead of "civil unions" being an exception for homosexuals they should be the rule for all. Marriage is a religious ceremony and the gov't has no place in recognizing it but it can approve legal binding agreements between two consenting adults. Abortion gets a little trickier depending on when you believe "life" has happened in regards to the fetus, but for the most part libertarians would be pro-choice of some variety.

[killersheep]

You left off Libertarian and Green Party. But to answer the question I vote Libertarian.

Ha I was a card carrying libertarian from 18 - 26, preaching the same things as you are now. The older I get the more liberal I get.

Thats not usually how it works in my experience. Most people I know became more conservative as they got older. I voted Republican early in my life, became an independent and then became a registered Libertarian about three years ago when I became fully disgusted with the main two parties.

Yeah, it's a bit against the grain, I can see it clearly in most of my friends and relatives over the course of time we have vrtually switched positions for one reason or another.

[killersheep]

hmmm I find that most Libertarians are in a consensus on social issues but start to differ on foreign policy, immigration and how much is too much privatization. It is usually easier to define personal liberty in social issues than disect the abstract of "too much govt". A good example of libertarian principles is the gay marriage issue. Instead of "civil unions" being an exception for homosexuals they should be the rule for all. Marriage is a religious ceremony and the gov't has no place in recognizing it but it can approve legal binding agreements between two consenting adults. Abortion gets a little trickier depending on when you believe "life" has happened in regards to the fetus, but for the most part libertarians would be pro-choice of some variety.

How do you feel about the tax credit for having children?

[VictorCharlie]

Killer I concede the current necessity for a federal income tax as a necessary evil but I would get rid of all credits, deductions, loopholes etc and have a simple progressive system based on gross earnings in the year.

1. No income tax paid
2. 0.5%
3. 1%
4. 2.5%
5. 5%
6. 10%
7. 15%
8. 20%
9. 25%

That being said my fantasy federal gov't would not require a federal income tax to fund it.

[killersheep]

Killer I concede the current necessity for a federal income tax as a necessary evil but I would get rid of all credits, deductions, loopholes etc and have a simple progressive system based on gross earnings in the year.

1. No income tax paid
2. 0.5%
3. 1%
4. 2.5%
5. 5%
6. 10%
7. 15%
8. 20%
9. 25%

That being said my fantasy federal gov't would not require a federal income tax to fund it.

What about capital flight? Should it be allowed?

[VictorCharlie]

You are going to have to be more specific on that one. I wouldn't tax interest earned on accounts whether they were CONUS or overseas. That income in theory has already been taxed once.

[killersheep]

You are going to have to be more specific on that one. I wouldn't tax interest earned on accounts whether they were CONUS or overseas. That income in theory has already been taxed once.

Specifically overseas as undocumented income. Furthermore, captial gains: taxed as income?

[VictorCharlie]

Capital gains would fall into gross income but I would not tax inheritance or interest earned on investments/savings. Ok back to foreign investment. You have to differentiate investments and tax shelters. I'm no tax lawyer but basically if you are trying to hide income earned from U.S. investments, sales, salary etc in offshore accounts then I'd find a way to tax it. If you have legit foreign investments that earn income but are taxed by a foreign govt then I would not attempt to double tap that income source. This can get pretty thick in the weeds and fixing all the loopholes would take time and discipline. Ultimately make the tax code simple and the most equitable way to create revenue for the nation then adjust to catch the tax cheats.

[El Kabong]

I'm a registered Independent but I would consider myself somewhere between Republican and Libertarian and I will tell you what I don't like about both of those parties.

Republicans - Too tied to religion...its a free country leave that stuff to individuals, you can't legislate morality.

Libertarians - If you think the USA with its economy and military can just become invisible and not get involved in global events you're crazy. I mean it would be lovely to be isolationist but as Spiderman always said "With great power comes great responsibility"

As for the Democrats and more liberal parties....they are a waste of time, just a bunch of commies.

[marbleheadmaui]

Grew up Irish-Catholic outside of Boston so I was, like everyone, a Kennedy Democrat. When I went to college in 1981 I saw what "progressives" were really all about and decided, well THAT is something to stridently oppose!

I guess I'd call myself now a Libertarian Hawk. Gov'ts are, almost always, corrupt, untrustworthy, inept entities governed by non-rational decision-making. I think Jefferson was right. The government which governs least governs best. I more or less now subscribe to the thoughts of Frederic Bastiat on domestic issues. Taking at the point of a gun the labor of one person and handing it to another is simply immoral and unjust.

I have also had the misfortune of spending time with perhaps a dozen Senators and 30-40 Congresscritters who came to raise money during my career in finance. With only a very few exceptions, you wouldn't hire these jokers to run a McDonalds.

In terms of foreign policy I think the notion that there can be such a thing as International Law agreed to among nations as diverse as Liberal Democracies, Islamic Theocracies, Communist Dictatorships, Tyrannical Dictators of various stripes, Military Dictatorships etc is a laughably naive concept. When it comes to international politics it is simply look out for number one. Now when we can act in accordance with both our values and our interests? Great! But if they conflict? Interests must come first.

[marbleheadmaui]

I was too strong in my last statement, some academics obviously do have influence, but name me one from the left that has influenced government policy. They are few and far between.

You're kidding, right? Robert Reich, Lester Thurow and John Maynard Keynes in Economics off the top of my head. If I get into social policies the names will go on and on and on.

[marbleheadmaui]

Miles there is a quote that I don't remember verbatim but the gist is you'd rather have control over a school board than a legistlation. Basically if you control the education system then ultimately you will control the politics. My college experience was that many of my professors had never worked in the private sector and were woefully disconnected from reality. Whether they consciously lectured a certain way I can't say but considering their job it was of course in their best interest to promote and foster big gov't ideals.

I don't see the connection really. Sure a school board can influence viewpoints, but ultimately big corporations are funding elections and the parties are setting the agenda. I don't think the views of ordinary people are reflected in US party politics.

As for academics, I would be surprised if Bilbo's figure was accurate. How can you measure such a stat? I think academia is a more open avenue than politics, but having said that these people would be foolish for going against the grain too strongly. Chomsky has lectured on this, most people are just looking for their niche and they stay within it. You don't defy the system and try to break it. I look at my own degree in politics to see how much I have rebelled from the prescribed course. You will get liberal professors, but those who have influence are more likely to be from the conservative areas.

Doubt it all you want. It is true. How do you measure it? Easy, political contributions. You simply could not be more wrong when it comes to the Academy in the US. Here are some examples. Boston College, a Jesuit School. 94% of faculty contributions went to Dems in 2008. At Brown University Faculty contributions went 10-1 for Obama. Gustavus Adolphus since 2006? 100% Democrat. University of Texas? 71% in 2008. University of Houston? 81% Dem in 2008. California Universities in total? 86% Dem. Harvard? 77% Dem. Stanford? 75% Dem. Columbia? 72% Dem. Princeton? 100% Dem.

[marbleheadmaui]

Killer I concede the current necessity for a federal income tax as a necessary evil but I would get rid of all credits, deductions, loopholes etc and have a simple progressive system based on gross earnings in the year.

1. No income tax paid
2. 0.5%
3. 1%
4. 2.5%
5. 5%
6. 10%
7. 15%
8. 20%
9. 25%

That being said my fantasy federal gov't would not require a federal income tax to fund it.

I sure don't. The income tax is immoral and economically and culturally destructive. It ought to be outlawed permanently. The much better answer is some kind of national sales tax. Why? Several reasons. First it is moral because it is voluntary. Want that $60,000 car? OK, pay the tax on it. Don't want to pay the tax? Don't buy the car. Secondly it punishes consumption not investment, the reverse of what we have today. An economy based on investment is likely to be far more dynamic and reliable than one based on consumption. Third it would really stick a pin in the "keeping up with the Jones" if we had to write a big check to the feds each time we bought a flat screen we didn't need.

Now it's not quite that easy. We must either exclude store-bought food and utilities or we must take the "fair tax" approach and everyone starts the year with a $30k check from the feds to cover the basics.