What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

JNE wrote: It is worth noting that the top tax rate in 1963 was 91%...

Also worth noting that Sanders said that 90% was "not obviously too high" in a recent interview.

Quinn Baker wrote: If, in your eyes, the problem is mainly to blame on the national government controlling everything (in contrast to state power, I'm assuming?), how would you feel about a system similar to the European Union, but for the States? Each state effectively becomes its own country, governed by itself. But for the purposes of international relations (and to prevent conflicts between the states), we are treated as one country. This is just a thought experiment, and not something I think is truly viable or possible. That said, do you think a system like that would be preferable to what we have now?

That thought experiment of yours sounds a whole lot like the constitution prior to the passage of the general welfare clause and the many-times-over extension of it via interpretation...
So really, it is not so abstract, and yes, BTW, as a strict constructionist (where words mean what words say) I'm all in favor of that.
The EU has some currency problems that could have been (and were) predicted, but yes, that would be a federation of states...

Quinn Baker wrote: Depends on what you mean by "fair." I guess. I see where you're coming from, and what you're saying makes sense in theory. But the fact is that people in lower tax brackets spend a much larger percentage of their total income than people in higher ones. Spending doesn't correlate linearly with earning, its closer to a logarithmic relationship. Spending does increase as earning does, but at lower and lower rates as earning increases. I make around $50k/year before taxes. 17% is a much larger burden on someone like me, who has to spend almost all of what they earn just to live than it is on someone who only spends around 40%, like someone who makes $150K or something would. And to me, that isn't "fair." But i guess "fair" is subjective. I think citizens owe a lot to their fellow citizens, and it doesn't seem like you share that view as you strike me as more of an "every man for himself" type of guy (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, I guess). Yes, 17% is technically lower than my effective tax rate now, but I wouldn't support that because even though it may benefit me personally, I don't think its "fair."

I think your fuzzy math there is failing to account for a large standard deduction. IE if I understoof the example used, $50 is not taxed at all, someone earning %100k pays ~ 50% of 17%, and someone making a million pays 95% of 17%.
I would have suggested a much smaller standard deduction, of course, maybe #30k...
But regardless, a flat tax with a large deduction is really very very progressive on the bottom end. Low earners pay nothing or close to it.
Just check that box and mail it in.

Tony B wrote: Also worth noting that Sanders said that 90% was "not obviously too high" in a recent interview.

To generally quote Sanders himself: "Do you want a whole loaf, or do you want crumbs?"

Apparently, crumbs work for you.

JNE wrote: To generally quote Sanders himself: "Do you want a whole loaf, or do you want crumbs?" Apparently, crumbs work for you.

You mean when going for highway robbery, do I only take what I think I needor do I take the wheels off the car too?
I'm not sure what you are after here, but I can't see any parallel to anything I've said other that you imply that 50+% taxes are inadequate.
You know what people who don't get to keep their money do?
They stop working.

Tony B wrote: You mean when going for highway robbery, do I only take what I think I needor do I take the wheels off the car too? I'm not sure what you are after here, but I can't see any parallel to anything I've said other that you imply that 50+% taxes are inadequate. You know what people who don't get to keep their money do? They stop working.

Bernie would presumably be working with people in both the House and Senate for whom even suggesting a change to the tax code that didn't give more of a break to the ultra-wealthy and corporations would be treasonous treachery worthy of a government shutdown, or worse. Hence the potential 90% starting point.

If they were semi-reasonable people Bernie had to work with, asking for just a bit more than he intended to get would be a good negotiating strategy. I feel confident Bernie would be the kind of President that would conduct himself in that way in this situation.

If they were truly reasonable people, just arguing effectively for what you want, and requesting it directly, would be sufficient. It is worthy to note that this is Hillary's, and the democratic party in generals approach, and it is ill suited to the present circumstances.

Again ... it is outright immoral to tax people at different rates depending on their their income. I wouldn't tax anyone below the poverty threshold ... but to say to someone who earns 250k "You must be punished for working hard and having more success" ... again ... outrageous. The Progressive income tax system gives policians a manipulable mechanism to reward friends and screw enemies. No wonder they don't want to get rid of it. Again ... the biggest enemies of simplicity and efficiency are the pols and bureaucrats themselves.

JNE wrote: If they were truly reasonable people, just arguing effectively for what you want, and requesting it directly, would be sufficient. It is worthy to note that this is Hillary's, and the democratic party in generals approach, and it is ill suited to the present circumstances.

Reminds me of a rolling stone's song, "You can't always get what you want"

"This is what democracy looks like." No. This is what fascism looks like.

"Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump canceled one of his signature rallies on Friday, calling off the event in Chicago due to safety concerns after protesters packed into the arena where it was to take place.

The announcement that the billionaire businessman would postpone the rally until another day led a large portion of the crowd inside the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavilion to break out into raucous cheers. Meanwhile, supporters of the candidate started chanting “We want Trump! We want Trump!”

There were isolated physical confrontations between some members of the crowd after the event was canceled.

There was no sign of Trump inside the arena on the college campus, where dozens of UIC faculty and staff had petitioned university administrators to cancel the rally. They cited concerns it would create a “hostile and physically dangerous environment” for students. . . .

Chicago community activist Quo Vadis said hundreds of protesters had positioned themselves in groups around the arena, and that they intend to demonstrate right after Trump takes the stage. Their goal, he said, is “for Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.”

Comment...This is beyond bad dudeism. The left is attempting to “shut all the way down” the leading contender for the presidential nomination of one of our two major political parties. If the left has its way, Trump will not be able to speak in public. He will have to run the modern equivalent of a front-porch campaign.

With no sense of irony, the protesters, having successfully shut Trump down, chanted “this is what democracy looks like.” Many of them also chanted “Bernie,” suggesting that they really mean “this is what Democratic Socialism looks like.” In so, they probably aren’t wrong.

Powerline.

The fact they had to actually have a vote on this ... on a college campus ... sad.

"Yesterday, by a 7-2 vote, the University of Minnesota’s top faculty committee voted to “provisionally support” a strong statement backing the freedom of speech on campus as the University’s “paramount value”–more important than even the university’s commitment to creating a “climate” conducive to equity and diversity. . . .The move comes after several recent campus controversies over free speech–including two incidents where protestors attempted to shout down guest speakers (see here and here) and the investigation and recommended public censure of faculty members by the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action for using an image of Mohammed from the cover of Charlie Hebdo magazine. Ironically, the image was used to promote a panel discussion on free speech and censorship after the terrorist massacre of the magazine’s writers and editors."

Your right to freedom of speech ... never take it granted. It is the first thing to be crushed in totalitarian systems.

What you have in Chicago and elsewhere is a clash of 2 different Authoritarian cults. They both operate under the premise that the initiation of force (violence) is a justifiable act. Initiating force is always an immoral act. That is why Statism -AKA the Duopoloy in this country- is an immoral paradigm.
Libertarianism has at its heart the Non Aggression Principle. I would urge everyone who is honestly curious and also sees a very dire future rolling at us to Google it.
We aren't libertarians because we hate roads and old people. We are libertarians because the current system is immoral.

The threat of violence

All good except #6 which is utterly moronic.

Some taxation is fine. OVER taxation is certainly theft.

Tax everyone the same rate. To do otherwise is immoral.

Todd Graham wrote:Tax everyone the same rate. To do otherwise is immoral.

Not really. I'm in a high bracket and I'm completely fine with folks making under $50k paying no income taxes and equally fine with paying more if I make more. What I'm not fine with is large corporations gaming the system and no longer paying their share.

How is it not theft? If you don't pay it they send men with guns after you. If you resist them you get killed.

Mike Lane wrote:How is it not theft? If you don't pay it they send men with guns after you. If you resist them you get killed.

Do you flush your toilet? Or do you use a hole in the backyard?

Bernie attempts to save Oak Flat/ Queen Creek

eastcountymagazine.org/bern…

Healyje wrote: Not really. I'm in a high bracket and I'm completely fine with folks making under $50k paying no income taxes and equally fine with paying more if I make more. What I'm not fine with is large corporations gaming the system and no longer paying their share.

I think the only semantic crux is what is "fair."
And of course, then the logical crux is if corporations ACTUALLY pay taxes... or simply collect them on consumer prices for the government. On second thought, the difference there is semantic as well.

Healyje wrote: Do you flush your toilet? Or do you use a hole in the backyard?

I flush my toilet.
That's why I paid $30k in tap/sewer fees to the city/county to get a building permit, and pay my monthly water and waste-water (AKA sewer) bill.
While I don't mind paying taxes for legitimate federal government functions (law enforcement, courts, fire, post office, legislature, national defense etc), I don't see what this particular enterprise has to do with that?
First of all it is local, and second of all it isn't funded by taxes, in fact, it is used to subsidize the general fund...

I suppose you might find it surprising that many Libertarian types don't really have much beef with local government, (though we'd like to keep it small and not make felonies out of jaywalking or smoking a joint...) our main beef is with the nationalization of power and rule.

Healy ..Why not tax everyone the same rate? Why not treat people the same? I know why ... because politicians and the IRS and the tax lawyers and the bureaucrats would be out of a job ... jobs that feed off the current complicated system.

Just another reason showingthat the more government you have ... the less freedom and wealth you have.