Ask NorthSideSox72 - candidate forum

[southsider2k5]

I have to agree with Balta on this one, there is not a tax that is more regressive than a Sales tax. Even with deductions for basic nessesities, it neglects the fact that poor people have the lowest savings rate (out of necessity) and spend all of their incomes to buy things that they need. The marginal rate on the upper quintiles will be less because they don't spend all of their money.

[sox4lifeinPA]

and spend all of their incomes to buy things that they need

 

I take issue with this statement. As a member of the financial service community, I have witnessed first hand the gross misappropriation of funds towards items of "desire or want" rather than "need" by individuals of lower incomes.

 

Maybe it's because the people who talk about this issue the most have the least to worry about finances, but it would a misstatement to imply that poor people out of necessity are good stewards of their money. That's exactly what you're saying, or at least implying with your comments.

 

Ok, sorry, I just wanted to throw that out there.

[Balta1701]

I take issue with this statement. As a member of the financial service community, I have witnessed first hand the gross misappropriation of funds towards items of "desire or want" rather than "need" by individuals of lower incomes.

 

Maybe it's because the people who talk about this issue the most have the least to worry about finances, but it would a misstatement to imply that poor people out of necessity are good stewards of their money. That's exactly what you're saying, or at least implying with your comments.

 

Ok, sorry, I just wanted to throw that out there.

In fact, in general, poor people are actually the worst stewards of their money. Not necessarily (though sometimes) through their own fault, but oftentimes because being poor is basically a cyclic process. If you are in poverty in this country, many things which make life cheaper for the middle and upper classes simply aren't available to you. First and foremost, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a person in poverty to maintain a solid credit rating, because lenders take into account income when deciding on whether or not to offer a person credit.

 

Beyond that though, it is much, much easier for a low-income person to wind up with spoiled credit, since they have much less of a safety net in terms of savings/extra income to be used if a person does lose a job or come down with an illness. And then if a single payment on a credit card is missed, the law allows credit companies to charge massive late fees and hugely increase the interest payments on cards as a punishment, no matter the reason.

 

Beyond that, then there's always the question of health insurance, and the fact that not having health coverage through most low-income jobs can increase the possibiliyt of losing a job through being unable to work or can inicrease the chances of a bankruptcy through again making the person unable to pay a single bill and starting the cycle up.

[Texsox]

The poor also face the challenge of attending schools with the lowest expenditures per student. By the time they get to college, and the financial aid windfall, they are behind their wealthier classmates.

[NorthSideSox72]

Northside, in your tax policy post, you suggest switching to a national sales tax instead of using the income tax that we see today.

 

I have several issues to bring up with this concept. First and foremost is the size of the tax. Many different groups have done estimates of what sort of rate the country would wind up paying using some sort of sales tax proposal. The general numbers wind up being rates that would be calculated somewhere in the 30-40% range. This poses 2 potential problems, first, and its' something you do allude to, you're basically inflating the price of most goods by something like 40% (the more progressive you try to make the system, the higher the rate has to be). Do you believe this rate would be acceptable, or would it risk doing damage to the economy beyond what you're discussing?

 

You also say that some of the costs will be made up by reductions in the size of the IRS and Welfare, but first of all, even if welfare costs are cut, they will be made up for in lower tax amounts taken in because people still will be in poverty (perhaps moreso), and second, the cost of the IRS is virtually negligible when compared with the size of the government itself.

 

Secondly, with a true national sales tax, there is a high possibility of fraud, given that the goods sold are only taxed at one step, and there is a 40% cost benefit associated with skipping out on taxes through illegal activity. How would your plan deal with this potential problem?

 

Third, the 2005 President's advisory panel on tax reform looked into various sales tax options, and found that in virtually all cases, adding in a national sales tax had the net effect of reducing the tax burden for the very highest income earners, while increasing the burden on the middle class and the upper wage-earning classes. This happens because the super-rich simply do not buy enough to make up for the huge amounts they earn. Do you consider it a problem that a sales tax would give a gigantic tax cut to people with multi-million dollar incomes and a huge tax increase to people earning between about $50k-$1 million a year? If not, why do you feel the middle class should pay more taxes, and if so, can you offer a solution?

 

Balta-

 

You make some excellent points. But as I will illustrate, I still believe the sales tax model to be superior to personal income tax...

 

First, just to clarify, I am not talking about a complete replacement. I am discussing income tax only. Taxes on capital gains and interest income, for example, would not be effected by that proposal (though I believe they too can be better handled). Same goes for various other taxes on businesses, for example. So the tax burden increase towards sales tax would not be as large as you illustrate.

 

I also want to address the claim that the tax is regressive. I simply do not agree. You point out that for lower income people, more of their money is "spent". This is obviously true. But let's break that down. As of right now, lower income families pay tax on their entire income (though at reduced effective rates). By switching to sales tax, the tax is shifted to only certain items. They do not pay taxes on rent/mortgage, utilities, and some other essential costs. And as I noted, you can further mitigate this effect by charging a lower rate against "essentials". And then the behavioral effect - lower income people being guided towards smarter spending - will also have a long term positive effect.

 

Now, let's look at the rich folks you talked about. They may spend a lower precentage of their income, but they still invest - and now, might invest more. This results in not only stronger businesses, but also more tax income from capital gains and interest income. Meanwhile, luxury and non-essential items are more expensive, but can be more easily absorbed by the more fortunate.

 

As for fraud, that is an important point. Enforcement mechanisms must be in place, as they are now, but probably more so. But if you have removed income tax from the equation, the relief in overhead would more than make up for that.

 

In stating that the relative size of the IRS is small, I think you have missed some important parts of the mathematical puzzle. Certainly, the $10B per year the IRS costs is not enormous when compared to, say the military. And we wouldn't be getting rid of the whole thing either. But that is still a large chunk of money. And even more important, what is saved is the cost of doing taxes for the individual, for companies handling deductions, and all the material and overhead costs associated with doing this taxes. I do not know that number, but it is large. We must look at the whole picture.

 

Sales tax has disadvantages. No question. But I believe the sales tax model is far superior for both rich and poor to income taxes.

[NorthSideSox72]

For all of you out there who are supporting our long term thinking, responsible government approach... here is our lawn sign...

 

 

You can proudly add this to your Sig, and show everyone what we stand for. Thank you for your support!

[SoxFan1]

I have a question for you Mr. NorthSideSox72...

 

What are your views on hunting and gun rights?

Edited December 2, 2006 by SoxFan1

[Gregory Pratt]

I have a question for you Mr. NorthSideSox72...

 

What are your views on hunting and gun rights?

 

You know MY views.

I decry the pansyfication of society and am a stern believer in hunting and the second amendment.

[SoxFan1]

You know MY views.

I decry the pansyfication of society and am a stern believer in hunting and the second amendment.

Then I guess my follow-up question can be directed to the both of you...

 

What would you do to help preserve the sport of hunting and reduce the Anti-2nd amendment/anti-hunting groups such as PETA?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Then I guess my follow-up question can be directed to the both of you...

 

What would you do to help preserve the sport of hunting and reduce the Anti-2nd amendment/anti-hunting groups such as PETA?

 

Hunt them?

[Balta1701]

Then I guess my follow-up question can be directed to the both of you...

 

What would you do to help preserve the sport of hunting and reduce the Anti-2nd amendment/anti-hunting groups such as PETA?

Doesn't PETA do enough already to reduce their influence?

[Gregory Pratt]

Then I guess my follow-up question can be directed to the both of you...

 

What would you do to help preserve the sport of hunting and reduce the Anti-2nd amendment/anti-hunting groups such as PETA?

 

I would allow PETA to be itself.

 

I would push for looser restrictions and get rid of the stupid ones.

[SoxFan1]

Hunt them?

You, my friend, have got my vote!

[FlaSoxxJim]

I would allow PETA to be itself.

 

I would push for looser restrictions and get rid of the stupid ones.

 

Push for looser restrictions on what? Gun control? Hunter licensing? Bag limits? What specific current restrictions are now so stringent that they need loosening?

 

Just thrown out there like that it seems an ill-defined position on the issue.

[Gregory Pratt]

Push for looser restrictions on what? Gun control? Hunter licensing? Bag limits? What specific current restrictions are now so stringent that they need loosening?

 

Just thrown out there like that it seems an ill-defined position on the issue.

 

Easier hunter licenses. Less bag limits. More hunting grounds.

 

I'm not going to go deeper because I already have his vote.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, nice to see that GP answered for me. GP, are you even old enough to own a gun yet?

 

SoxFan1 - I'll lay it out for you. Here are my views on these subjects:

 

--Restrictions on types of guns, magazine sizes, pistols specifically, etc. are worthless. They've been proven again and again to do zero to reduce crime (who expects criminals to follow such restrictions?), and they violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Its akin to telling someone they can buy a Ford Taurus, but not a Mustang. They are both deadly weapons.

--The way certain licenses, like acquisition of concealed carry permits, are acquired, is piecemeal and non-sensical. Various counties and their sheriffs get to choose how strict or loose they are, so you have no uniformity. It should be really easy - if you aren't a violent felon, aren't on any sort of probation or restriction, and you pass a safety course... you should get the same access to the same guns as anyone else.

--Registration of weapons is a mistake - it takes away the originally intended teeth of the 2nd amendment.

--I DO agree with brief waiting periods, and background checks should be done always. Those restrictions are common sense, and don't violate the base principles of the freedom.

 

On hunting...

 

--I am no expert on hunting laws. Let's just lay that out there.

--I have shot many different types of weapons, in both a professional and personal capacity - but I have never shot at anyone or anything that was alive. And, as a matter of personal choice, I hope it stays that way.

--That said, I happen to own some open/wooded land in Wisconsin, and I more than happily allow hunters to use it in the fall for deer. I just ask that they clean up their trash, watch their backgrounds, and follow existing laws.

--I think that hunting laws should match the needs of people, and also healthy populations of animals. Unless a species is endangered, then hunting it should generally be allowed. Bag limits should be dictated by the population levels and ecological health.

 

I hope that make sense for you. You won't hear me fill your ears with a load of crap. You may not agree with all the above, but I think you'll find my stances to be pretty close to what you'd consider logical.

Edited December 2, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[SoxFan1]

Well, nice to see that GP answered for me. GP, are you even old enough to own a gun yet?

 

SoxFan1 - I'll lay it out for you. Here are my views on these subjects:

 

--Restrictions on types of guns, magazine sizes, pistols specifically, etc. are worthless. They've been proven again and again to do zero to reduce crime (who expects criminals to follow such restrictions?), and they violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Its akin to telling someone they can buy a Ford Taurus, but not a Mustang. They are both deadly weapons.

--The way certain licenses, like acquisition of concealed carry permits, are acquired, is piecemeal and non-sensical. Various counties and their sheriffs get to choose how strict or loose they are, so you have no uniformity. It should be really easy - if you aren't a violent felon, aren't on any sort of probation or restriction, and you pass a safety course... you should get the same access to the same guns as anyone else.

--Registration of weapons is a mistake - it takes away the originally intended teeth of the 2nd amendment.

--I DO agree with brief waiting periods, and background checks should be done always. Those restrictions are common sense, and don't violate the base principles of the freedom.

 

On hunting...

 

--I am no expert on hunting laws. Let's just lay that out there.

--I have shot many different types of weapons, in both a professional and personal capacity - but I have never shot at anyone or anything that was alive. And, as a matter of personal choice, I hope it stays that way.

--That said, I happen to own some open/wooded land in Wisconsin, and I more than happily allow hunters to use it in the fall for deer. I just ask that they clean up their trash, watch their backgrounds, and follow existing laws.

--I think that hunting laws should match the needs of people, and also healthy populations of animals. Unless a species is endangered, then hunting it should generally be allowed. Bag limits should be dictated by the population levels and ecological health.

 

I hope that make sense for you. You won't hear me fill your ears with a load of crap. You may not agree with all the above, but I think you'll find my stances to be pretty close to what you'd consider logical.

Thank you for your detailed response. I will take it into consideration come voting time.

[Balta1701]

Well, nice to see that GP answered for me. Seeing as he isn't yet old enough to own a gun, I think maybe my opinions might be different...

 

SoxFan1 - I'll lay it out for you. Here are my views on these subjects:

 

--Restrictions on types of guns, magazine sizes, pistols specifically, etc. are worthless. They've been proven again and again to do zero to reduce crime (who expects criminals to follow such restrictions?), and they violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Its akin to telling someone they can buy a Ford Taurus, but not a Mustang. They are both deadly weapons.

 

--Registration of weapons is a mistake - it takes away the originally intended teeth of the 2nd amendment.

--I DO agree with brief waiting periods, and background checks should be done always. Those restrictions are common sense, and don't violate the base principles of the freedom.

So, on these 2 points, I feel I am going to be the one who disagrees with you. Specifically, on part 1, the assualt weapons ban, for example, despite all of the holes in in for gun shows, alternate varieties, and so on, led to a significant reduction in the number and lethality of assault weapons used to commit crimes while it was enforced. In other words, we banned the manufacture of specific types of guns, and those guns wound up being used in fewer crimes. If we ban the most lethal and most dangerous guns, therefore, it has been shown that it may be possible to reduce the lethality of crime, by making criminals use less lethal weaponry. I consider this to be a good thing.

 

In 1999, the National Institute of Justice published a study of the short-term impact of the ban on gun markets and gun-related violence. To estimate the first-year effect of the ban on gun murders, researchers compared actual 1995 state gun murder rates with projected rates, based on data from 42 states between the years 1980 and 1994. The analysis determined that, "Overall, 1995 gun murder rates were 9 percent lower than the projection," and that the assault weapons ban "may have contributed to a reduction in the gun murder rate and murders of police officers by criminals armed with assault weapons."

 

One way in which law enforcement determines overall weapons usage is by assessing the number of requests for traces on weapons used in crimes. Between 1993 and 1995 -- the first calendar year of the ban -- requests for traces on assault weapons through the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms declined by 20 percent. The National Institute of Justice report stated "ome of this decrease my reflect an overall decrease in gun crimes," but continued: "Nevertheless, these trends suggest a 9- to 10-percent additional decrease... due to substitution of other guns for the banned assault weapons in 1995 gun crimes."

 

The report acknowledged that evidence about the effectiveness of previous gun bans was generally "mixed," but also asserted that the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- which banned fully automatic weapons -- appears to have been "quite successful based on the rarity with which such guns are used in crime." And continued: "Washington, D.C.'s restrictive handgun licensing system, which went into effect in 1976, produced a drop in gun fatalities that lasted for several years after its enactment. These national findings were supported by analyses of trends in assault weapons recovered in crimes in St. Louis and Boston... Although assault weapons recoveries were rare in those cities both before and after the ban, they declined 29 and 24 percent, respectively... during late 1995 and into 1996."

Similarly, registration of guns has one important potential benefit...being able to trace a gun used in a crime to a source. Especially if some sort of true ballistic fingerprinting technology is developed in the near future, which it may very well be, this could be an invaluable tool to law enforcement, such that a crime using a gun could be rapidly traced back to the owner/purchaser of the gun, or at least to a narrow group of owners of a specific type of gun, thus keeping the trail warm.

 

When I purchased my car and licensed it, the government learned rapidly that I had purchased a blue Honda Civic. If a Blue 06 Honda Civic runs over a person tomorrow, and no one identifies a license plate, I would expect that my name would come up within the group of potential suspects. Given the purely lethal of guns and the likelihood that the information can be protected except in the event of a criminal investigation (i.e. there is a warrant), that is one type of information I am happily willing to pass to the government and law enforcement agencies, whether we are talking about a gun or an automobile. If someone shoots a person with either a gun I own or a gun similar to the one I own (if I were to purchase a gun), then I would feel the police would be fully justified in asking about the whereabouts of that gun and whether or not it had been fired recently.

[Gregory Pratt]

Thank you for your detailed response. I will take it into consideration come voting time.

 

You will not.

 

Well, nice to see that GP answered for me. GP, are you even old enough to own a gun yet?

 

I like it when moderators take potshots. So classy. And then, if you reply, they sit on their thrones and shoot at you.

Is it called for to insult me because of my age? No. It's not, but whatever, man, you can call me out all you want. It's not like I have any authority to do anything about it.

 

Not like I did anything to provoke such a rude response. All I did was answer a question asked you with MY thoughts on the matter. PA does it all the time, too in these political threads -- reply to questions posed to others. I imagine that you don't give him such a snarky response.

 

Hell, SF1 is a Senior in HS, too, and I'm sure there're plenty of other posters. I hope this causes you the youthful demographic.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[NorthSideSox72]

Similarly, registration of guns has one important potential benefit...being able to trace a gun used in a crime to a source. Especially if some sort of true ballistic fingerprinting technology is developed in the near future, which it may very well be, this could be an invaluable tool to law enforcement, such that a crime using a gun could be rapidly traced back to the owner/purchaser of the gun, or at least to a narrow group of owners of a specific type of gun, thus keeping the trail warm.

 

When I purchased my car and licensed it, the government learned rapidly that I had purchased a blue Honda Civic. If a Blue 06 Honda Civic runs over a person tomorrow, and no one identifies a license plate, I would expect that my name would come up within the group of potential suspects. Given the purely lethal of guns and the likelihood that the information can be protected except in the event of a criminal investigation (i.e. there is a warrant), that is one type of information I am happily willing to pass to the government and law enforcement agencies, whether we are talking about a gun or an automobile. If someone shoots a person with either a gun I own or a gun similar to the one I own (if I were to purchase a gun), then I would feel the police would be fully justified in asking about the whereabouts of that gun and whether or not it had been fired recently.

 

Let me say this. As a former law enforcement officer, I would love to be able to support registration for the very reasons you mention. It would make cops' lives that much easier, and probably even get more criminals off the street.

 

The only problem is, registering specific weapons is almost exactly what the framer's sought to prevent (short of an outright ban). The main purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or self-defense, but about keeping power out of the hands of government. This may seem an archaic concept in the modern world, but I think Mao's quote still works even today. Its an important check to protect our freedoms. I just can't abide it, despite the obiovus advantages you rightly cite.

[SoxFan1]

I like it when moderators take potshots. So classy. And then, if you reply, they sit on their thrones and shoot at you.

Is it called for to insult me because of my age? No. It's not, but whatever, man, you can call me out all you want. It's not like I have any authority to do anything about it.

 

Not like I did anything to provoke such a rude response. All I did was answer a question asked you with MY thoughts on the matter. PA does it all the time, too in these political threads -- reply to questions posed to others. I imagine that you don't give him such a snarky response.

 

Hell, SF1 is a Senior in HS, too, and I'm sure there're plenty of other posters. I hope this causes you the youthful demographic.

It's not that big of a deal. Candidates are supposed to take shots at eachother.

[NorthSideSox72]

I like it when moderators take potshots. So classy. And then, if you reply, they sit on their thrones and shoot at you.

Is it called for to insult me because of my age? No. It's not, but whatever, man, you can call me out all you want. It's not like I have any authority to do anything about it.

 

Not like I did anything to provoke such a rude response. All I did was answer a question asked you with MY thoughts on the matter. PA does it all the time, too in these political threads -- reply to questions posed to others. I imagine that you don't give him such a snarky response.

 

Hell, SF1 is a Senior in HS, too, and I'm sure there're plenty of other posters. I hope this causes you the youthful demographic.

Well, you're right. I shouldn't have made the snide comment. I was a little off-put by you answering a question directed towards me. But indeed, I should not have allowed my response to be dictated by said frustration.

 

I apologize.

 

I'm probably too old and crusty to get that youthful demographic anyway.

 

 

 

It's not that big of a deal. Candidates are supposed to take shots at eachother.

That is certainly the way things work nowadays. But GP is right, I shouldn't have brought his youth into the discussion.

[Gregory Pratt]

Well the thing that bothers me is that there are rules against snark and stuff like that and I know that if I made a mild comment to NorthSide I'd have a couple of PMs from Staffers at the site yelling at me and he'd tell me that it's wrong to "call someone else out" and besides that, it isn't as if he's being rude to PA for doing the same thing I did.

 

Guess it's just my problem with authority and abuses of it -- not that I'm accusing anyone here of abusing their authority but all the same I suspect that I'd be in some sort of trouble with The Law at SoxTalk if I were to, I don't know, make a similar crack to him.

 

EDIT: I accept your apology, then, I suppose.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[NorthSideSox72]

Well the thing that bothers me is that there are rules against snark and stuff like that and I know that if I made a mild comment to NorthSide I'd have a couple of PMs from Staffers at the site yelling at me and he'd tell me that it's wrong to "call someone else out" and besides that, it isn't as if he's being rude to PA for doing the same thing I did.

 

Guess it's just my problem with authority and abuses of it -- not that I'm accusing anyone here of abusing their authority but all the same I suspect that I'd be in some sort of trouble with The Law at SoxTalk if I were to, I don't know, make a similar crack to him.

You just did.

 

But that aside, I apoligized, and the comment was what it was: a wee bit snarky.

 

You could ask me if I was too old to know what high school is like nowadays, and I'd have to say I am.

 

Can we move on now? Or do we need a "staffer" to come clean this up?

[Gregory Pratt]

Well, no, I suppose I'm just irked by the fact that you've made cracks about my age in the past and I've told you how much it bothers me and others have, too, and it's such a pain in the ass. Frankly, I think I'm just as bright as any old guy on this board was when they were my age.

 

Just posted about it on the Catch-All thread but I've got two old guys who are lying about me and smearing me and insulting me all around and have stripped me of the one thing I enjoy and benefit from in CPS and I'm just tired from it. With authority and insults and am a little on edge. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't have reacted with umbrage at your comments a month ago, as I certainly would've because I'm sick of people insulting me because I'm young. It's just that, I'm particularly...vulnerable, if that's the word. Beat down, and then it bugs the s*** out of me to have a person who moderates at a forum I enjoy -- the only forum I habit -- insult me and to feel like I can't say a damn thing in response because if I'm not extra-careful someone'll suspend me.

Edited December 2, 2006 by Gregory Pratt