Gary Johnson

[gotbeer]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

In case you want to know what his stance on various issues are.

 

[Lhalo]

2 things I don't agree with him on are the border wall and tariffs. I want that border secure and tariffs are a great way to revive manufacturing in this country.

[gotbeer]

Yeah, that tariffs/Free Trade Agreement was the one that stuck out on me about not agreeing with also. 

I don't think I agree with anyone on how to handle immigration, or at least how I think it should be handled, so while I don't agree with him.  His at least is semi sane.

[Angelsjunky]

I'd vote for him over Hillary Clinton, mainly because less brown people would die under a Johnson presidency.

[Lhalo]

Don't feed him Vladdy. Just leave him under the bridge and pass on by.

[Jason]

4 hours ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

Except Johnson would lower taxes for poor people and the middle class so he has his cons too.

How do you lower taxes on the poor from how it currently is? They won't have to pay sales tax or something?

[Jason]

18 minutes ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

It depends on your definition of poor. I think making $40,000 a year with kids is poor but the government takes a few thousand off the top.

Yeah I hear you. I had a much smaller number in my head. People that are on cash aid and other assistance programs are not paying taxes at all.

[Stradling]

If you work you should pay income tax just like everyone else.  I don't care if you make $20k or $20 million.  No one should get back as much or more than they pay in.  

[Lhalo]

In a perfect world the income tax would be abolished. 

[Stradling]

Replace it will a federal sales tax?

[Lhalo]

Yes. people should be taxed on consumption, not savings. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Having worked in corrections for more than two decades, I disagree with him on the private prison issue. Their cost of incarceration per day is less because they cut corners that states won't, and the states are still legally liable for their mistakes. They underpay, understaff and undertrain. They are beholden to stockholders, so they have to make a profit. If states ever become reliant upon them, the companies can ask whatever the traffic will bear. The states who use them relinquish direct control over a legally sensitive area, and all they can do is complain to a corporate office that is usually in another state.

[gotbeer]

9 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Having worked in corrections for more than two decades, I disagree with him on the private prison issue. Their cost of incarceration per day is less because they cut corners that states won't, and the states are still legally liable for their mistakes. They underpay, understaff and undertrain. They are beholden to stockholders, so they have to make a profit. If states ever become reliant upon them, the companies can ask whatever the traffic will bear. The states who use them relinquish direct control over a legally sensitive area, and all they can do is complain to a corporate office that is usually in another state.

 

Reasonable rebuttal.  I wonder though.  If there is a way to say get rid of the liability of the states?  Say you have a 6 year term.  Say if you waive the states liability the term becomes 5 years. 

And just curious if this is even legal.  Can you contract another state/country to house your inmates?  I know federal being federal, they can move around their inmates around the country.  In California's case.  Housing your state inmates in say Arkansas or some state like that could cut costs by half. 

[Stradling]

11 hours ago, Vladdylonglegs said:

Income tax isn't the only tax though, there are multiple other taxes on top of it. Income tax is the very tip of the iceberg.

I already pay $1,200 of my $16,000 income in payroll taxes alone. You think I should pay $1,500+ more in income tax?

Yes.  I believe everyone should be taxed the same percentage.  This isn't an attack on you or anything I just believe that it's ridiculous that there are people who work and get all the income tax they pay in, while others pay 10's of thousands of dollars a year because they're successful and at the end of the year they didn't pay enough.  I also would venture to say the low income earner that pays no income tax uses more government aid.  Also Vlad in your scenario you'd be paying about 16% in taxes WITH the extra $1500.  I'm sure you know that's an incredibly low percentage compared to most.  

[gotbeer]

34 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yes.  I believe everyone should be taxed the same percentage.  This isn't an attack on you or anything I just believe that it's ridiculous that there are people who work and get all the income tax they pay in, while others pay 10's of thousands of dollars a year because they're successful and at the end of the year they didn't pay enough.  I also would venture to say the low income earner that pays no income tax uses more government aid.  Also Vlad in your scenario you'd be paying about 16% in taxes WITH the extra $1500.  I'm sure you know that's an incredibly low percentage compared to most.  

I think in a consumption based tax scenario, everyone from rich and poor should be taxed the same.  For the government, it'll be easier to tax and find cheaters, among the millions of companies than it will be among the hundreds of millions of individuals. 

But, in regards to the poor.  Some things should not be taxed for everyone.  And those are the basic food staples.  Milk, eggs, water, fresh produce among them. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

7 hours ago, gotbeer said:

 

Reasonable rebuttal.  I wonder though.  If there is a way to say get rid of the liability of the states?  Say you have a 6 year term.  Say if you waive the states liability the term becomes 5 years. 

And just curious if this is even legal.  Can you contract another state/country to house your inmates?  I know federal being federal, they can move around their inmates around the country.  In California's case.  Housing your state inmates in say Arkansas or some state like that could cut costs by half. 

We housed inmates from Washington and Wyoming for several years because our biggest facility had empty housing units. That is no longer the case, but the state made some money off of it at the time. There is also corrections compact, which allows for individual inmates to be housed in states other than where they were convicted. Sometimes this is due to an inmate having family in another state, and sometimes it is another issue.

If the state contracts with a private company, the state is always going to be at least partially liable due to the contractual agreement. Many people are under the mistaken impression that once the states hand inmates over to a private company, their responsibility is done. The primary difference is that when employees are hired by, and answerable to, the state, changes can be made directly and more quickly. When things have to pass through a corporate office and the state cannot compel the company to do anything, that can be a problem.

The facility where I worked until last October was built and originally run by one of the largest private prison companies. It is pretty clear that it was built for economical construction rather than safety. Blind spots are all over the place, especially in housing units. Before the state threw the towel in and took it over, there were multiple incidents between correctional officers and staff, including several cases of sexual contact. One of my first tasks when I took over as Director of Nursing there was to oversee pregnancy testing of every inmate under 50. This company was taking people who couldn't get jobs with the state, paying them about 25 percent less, giving them two weeks of training (our officers get six weeks), and then handing them a badge and a uniform. There was so much turnover in the medical department (due to low pay and working conditions that were a risk to nurses' licenses) that they were almost never fully staffed. One employee who worked for the private company briefly said that an agency nurse conducted her orientation, because none of their permanent people had been there long enough to train anyone. At the time that the state took over, their narcotics count was hopelessly inaccurate, and their documentation was so poor that there was no way to accurately resolve it.

We had a second facility in which only the medical department was privately run. This was a disaster. The private company wanted any inmates who were likely to cost them money moved out, so that they could stay within budget. This saved the state nothing. The lax attitude with which the medical department was run spawned a multitude of lawsuits, some of which are still going on - and the contract ended more than ten years ago. The federal courts got involved, and it was a colossal mess.

[Tank]

11 hours ago, gotbeer said:

But, in regards to the poor.  Some things should not be taxed for everyone.  And those are the basic food staples.  Milk, eggs, water, fresh produce among them. 

i like this idea, GB. tax the crap out of them on potato chips and soda while you're at it.

[nate]

Forgive me but I thought that most of those aren't taxed?  My wife does the shopping.

[Jason]

They aren't taxed

[Blarg]

On Thursday, June 02, 2016 at 0:58 PM, Angelsjunky said:

I'd vote for him over Hillary Clinton, mainly because less brown people would die under a Johnson presidency.

You're right but the yellow ones would sure catch hell.

[AngelsLakersFan]

On June 5, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Stradling said:

Yes.  I believe everyone should be taxed the same percentage.  This isn't an attack on you or anything I just believe that it's ridiculous that there are people who work and get all the income tax they pay in, while others pay 10's of thousands of dollars a year because they're successful and at the end of the year they didn't pay enough.  I also would venture to say the low income earner that pays no income tax uses more government aid.  Also Vlad in your scenario you'd be paying about 16% in taxes WITH the extra $1500.  I'm sure you know that's an incredibly low percentage compared to most.  

While fair, the government would have to take a huuuuuge cut in revenue, while the poorest would see their taxes skyrocket.

[Lhalo]

12 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

While fair, the government would have to take a huuuuuge cut in revenue, while the poorest would see their taxes skyrocket.

It would have to implemented over a period of time. There's no way you could just have a flat tax across the board tomorrow. Grandma would be eating cat food.

[AngelsLakersFan]

6 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

It would have to implemented over a period of time. There's no way you could just have a flat tax across the board tomorrow. Grandma would be eating cat food.

They would need to find a new source of income. 

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, Lawrence said:

It would have to implemented over a period of time. There's no way you could just have a flat tax across the board tomorrow. Grandma would be eating cat food.

Cat food would be taxed.  If grandma just bought milk and eggs and veggies she would be just fine. 

Grandma also wouldn't be buying cars and houses and new tvs and phones and such.  So the amount she pays in taxes probably wouldn't be as high.  Medicine on the other hand.  That might need to be a concession topic.

[arch stanton]

Our country is owned and operated by big business. Fat friggin chance they would allow for a consumption-based tax that might discourage spending in any way.