• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump sets 5-year and lifetime lobbying ban...

zimmer said:
If said tax is fair... it should be the same for everyone, regardless of income above "$X".
Click to expand...

That will only work if there is a generous basic income in place.

The cost of just living, eating, heating and the like are similar for the rich and the poor. The ability of the rich to avoid tax is a lot better than the poor. The rich are also a lot better at getting money out of the public purse than the poor.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
This is probably unconstitutional. All lobbying is at its heart is petitioning the government. Political activism is our right as citizens.

However, I don't disagree with the spirit of the move as a means to curb corruption. If this is an indication that Trump is going to take on Citizens United and the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, then I might actually find a cause I can support Trump on.
Click to expand...
Im not sure there will be a Constitutional question as there is already 'bans' in place on employment for servicemembers joining the government (aimed at preventing fraud). Although come to think of it, that IS a good point. I dont know what authority the US government would have to force or compel others to NOT seek or take employment. Hmmmm...logistics now come into play as to how the government would ensure a lobbyist be denied governmental access.
 
MaggieD said:
...for officials.

The bastard.

Access Denied
Click to expand...

Sounds great on the surface and I think it should apply to Congress and the Senate. BUT, after reading it:
Under an executive order that Trump signed in the presence of the news media, every political appointee joining the executive branch on or after Jan. 20 — the day Trump took office — must agree to the lobbying bans. That includes avoiding, for five years after leaving, lobbying the agency they worked for.

Another provision sets a two-year period during which appointees must avoid working on issues involving former employers or clients.

Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions.
 
Tim the plumber said:
That will only work if there is a generous basic income in place.

The cost of just living, eating, heating and the like are similar for the rich and the poor. The ability of the rich to avoid tax is a lot better than the poor. The rich are also a lot better at getting money out of the public purse than the poor.
Click to expand...

If the tax code is simplified, then everyone pays "X" beyond a basic minimum income.

I agree, the more complex the code, the easier it is for wealthy to avoid paying.

The answer... simplify the code, so even Joe Biden can do his taxes in 15-minutes.
 
Carjosse said:
They will just wait five years, it will only delay it. It does nothing to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

In 5 years President Trump's current term will be up. The prospective appointee will have lost much of his clout. The position will be filled, and yet the person in question may still be available if needed in President Trump's second term, or even past that. That's the point of these delays.
 
Porkuloss said:
Sounds great on the surface and I think it should apply to Congress and the Senate. BUT, after reading it:
Under an executive order that Trump signed in the presence of the news media, every political appointee joining the executive branch on or after Jan. 20 — the day Trump took office — must agree to the lobbying bans. That includes avoiding, for five years after leaving, lobbying the agency they worked for.

Another provision sets a two-year period during which appointees must avoid working on issues involving former employers or clients.

Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions.
Click to expand...

The President, whoever it might be, can always rescind his own or any other President's EO's. Nothing can be done about that.
 
Sherman123 said:
Can this legally be done by executive order?
Click to expand...

My first thought is this would be much like a non-compete clause in a hiring agreement. If this is a condition of employment, I would think it is legally binding. I would expect for his appointees, this would be enforceable. For those grandfathered into his administration, if there might be some wiggle room.
 
dorsai said:
My first thought is this would be much like a non-compete clause in a hiring agreement. If this is a condition of employment, I would think it is legally binding. I would expect for his appointees, this would be enforceable. For those grandfathered into his administration, if there might be some wiggle room.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, thanks.
 
zimmer said:
If the tax code is simplified, then everyone pays "X" beyond a basic minimum income.

I agree, the more complex the code, the easier it is for wealthy to avoid paying.

The answer... simplify the code, so even Joe Biden can do his taxes in 15-minutes.
Click to expand...

Easy to say but how do you account for investments that take many years to pay out?

How do you classify loans?

Where do property taxes fit in?

Is a pension taxable? If not then how about income from a rental property that functions as a pension?

What about gambling wins?

Where does inheritance fit in?

Just some basics that will be tricky.
 
Tim the plumber said:
That will only work if there is a generous basic income in place.

The cost of just living, eating, heating and the like are similar for the rich and the poor. The ability of the rich to avoid tax is a lot better than the poor. The rich are also a lot better at getting money out of the public purse than the poor.
Click to expand...

Virtually none of what you say is factual. I'm far from rich but my heat/electric/cooling bill is far from that of someone living in a 600 sq ft apartment. The ability of the rich to avoid taxes is not better than that of the poor. If that were true, then the bottom 50% would pay 50% of the taxes and the top 10% would pay less than nothing. So too government benefits. Very few millionaires live in government payed housing or converse on Obamaphones.
 
jimbo said:
Virtually none of what you say is factual. I'm far from rich but my heat/electric/cooling bill is far from that of someone living in a 600 sq ft apartment. The ability of the rich to avoid taxes is not better than that of the poor. If that were true, then the bottom 50% would pay 50% of the taxes and the top 10% would pay less than nothing. So too government benefits. Very few millionaires live in government payed housing or converse on Obamaphones.
Click to expand...

The millionair who pays 5 times as much in heating/AC cost earns 100 times as much as the plumber's mate.

When I do my taxes I can avoid most of the tax. A plumber's mate cannot, depending on how he is employed.

The rich who pay those taxes are also on the recieving end of using the roads, the legal system and everthing else much more than the poor. They also get all the argibusiness subsidies and the ecco subsidies etc. They are always good at getting the public to pay.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Easy to say but how do you account for investments that take many years to pay out?

How do you classify loans?

Where do property taxes fit in?

Is a pension taxable? If not then how about income from a rental property that functions as a pension?

What about gambling wins?

Where does inheritance fit in?

Just some basics that will be tricky.
Click to expand...

But that's the point. A universal one size fits all eliminates the items you mention. Taxes in the US currently serve two functions.

Pay some of the bills. The rest we borrow.

Redistribute the wealth to where the politicians feel it belongs, or where it will buy the most votes, which is often the same thing.

If you want a fair and equitable tax structure, it's not that difficult.

Estimate the funds needed to fund government.

Divide by the number of citizens in the US.

Send bills.

It's not gonna happen, but we should recognize what taxes are mostly about.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The millionair who pays 5 times as much in heating/AC cost earns 100 times as much as the plumber's mate.

When I do my taxes I can avoid most of the tax. A plumber's mate cannot, depending on how he is employed.

The rich who pay those taxes are also on the recieving end of using the roads, the legal system and everthing else much more than the poor. They also get all the argibusiness subsidies and the ecco subsidies etc. They are always good at getting the public to pay.
Click to expand...

Your post made me smile since I was thinking that, in my area, Tim the Plumber probably wouldn't be paying any tax at all. Gotta watch those Social Security credits though! ;)
 
Tim the plumber said:
The millionair who pays 5 times as much in heating/AC cost earns 100 times as much as the plumber's mate.

When I do my taxes I can avoid most of the tax. A plumber's mate cannot, depending on how he is employed.

The rich who pay those taxes are also on the recieving end of using the roads, the legal system and everthing else much more than the poor. They also get all the argibusiness subsidies and the ecco subsidies etc. They are always good at getting the public to pay.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. I recognize that.

The last paragraph is simply not true to any great degree. The poor consume a far greater amount of the government wealth than the poor. Where that differs, the difference is minimal. It costs no more in terms of resources to ship a custom suit of clothes or a pair of high dollar shoes than the Wallyworld special. Education costs per student in the poorer areas are higher than those in the richer areas, leaving aside that many upper income types utilize private schools while still paying school taxes.

The agribusiness, etc. you mention benefit both the poor and rich equally in general as they contribute to lower prices at all levels.

In the end, though, the subsidies exist to control behavior. Whether it be planting corn instead of wheat, or where you send your kids to school.
 
jimbo said:
That's not the point. I recognize that.

The last paragraph is simply not true to any great degree. The poor consume a far greater amount of the government wealth than the poor. Where that differs, the difference is minimal. It costs no more in terms of resources to ship a custom suit of clothes or a pair of high dollar shoes than the Wallyworld special. Education costs per student in the poorer areas are higher than those in the richer areas, leaving aside that many upper income types utilize private schools while still paying school taxes.

The agribusiness, etc. you mention benefit both the poor and rich equally in general as they contribute to lower prices at all levels.

In the end, though, the subsidies exist to control behavior. Whether it be planting corn instead of wheat, or where you send your kids to school.
Click to expand...

Basic food prices are 30% to 70% higher than they should be due to the use of food as fuel alone.

Whilst the comparitive poor in rich nations are slightly hampered by this the serriously poor of the world are being killed at a rate of at least 20 million per year (my minimum guess). All other subsidies do not, generllay, reduce the price for the consumer they just slide money into the pockets of big business and the already rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom