<p>Also, Dr., did you actually read Obama's plan?</p>
<p>Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama will also support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.</p>
<p>Im an anarcho capitalist or as much a Libertarian conservative as possible.</p>
<p>Govt has 2 jobs. </p>
<ol>
<li> Protect it citizens from foreign danger</li>
<li>Enforce the absolute minimal regulation as possible with giving its citizens the absolute maximal allowed freedoms and liberties possible, and they are only bound by the minimal regulation/Law to allow such.</li>
</ol>
<p>Dr.Horse, I find it humorous that you keep referencing the National Taxpayer's Union (with a noted conservative bias [for chrissakes, they promote abolishment of income tax in favor of a flat tax]) while rejecting the Tax Policy Center as centrist when it is considered to be either centrist or center-left.</p>
<p>That's all that the Tax Policy Center did, too... they just took the numbers that were given to them. And I think that I already did prove they were conservative by stating that they support a flat tax... only the very most right-wing people support that. How can you prove that the Tax Policy Center is liberal?</p>
<p>just because many conservatives support a flat tax doesn't mean its conservative. Its a old idea made by market economists.</p>
<p>I believe in poll taxing personally. </p>
<p>I cant see how a flat or fair tax could be considered a bad idea. To me it seems pretty good, even to help the poor.</p>
<p>Lets say you have a single mother and the country has a higher flat or fair tax, but like the majority of fair and flat tax plans, citizens no matter what the economic level don't pay tax on necessities. Such as food, clothing, baby supplies and so on. As long as that single mother is not buying PlayStation 3's and designer hand bags, she pays no tax on things she needs for her and her family to survive. I don't see how this can be bad.</p>
<p>If you don't want to read the whole thing il sum it up, but you should read it.</p>
<p>The more intelligent a person is, the more libertarian their views become and the more they think like a economist, we can consider Libertarian "Hands-off", and along with that the more left or "Hands-On" a persons views are the less likely they are to think like a economist and intelligence goes down.</p>
<p>Dr.Horse: There's a problem with that. They don't control for things like salary. When you control for salary, you get a very different picture. With increasing education, you tend to get more liberal in your beliefs in general. However, with increasing salary, you tend to get more conservative. And the increased salary tends to show itself more strongly than the increased education. As an example, a man with a PhD who makes $50,000 is more likely to be liberal than a man with a high school education who makes $50,000 per year. On the other hand, a man with a PhD who makes $500,000 per year is more likely to be conservative than a man with a PhD who makes $50,000 per year. Now, education and affluence are positively correlated. Because of this, if you don't control for wealth, you're likely to get a false picture. In this case, the wealth is what's called a confounding variable. A confounding variable is a variable that correlates with both of the statistics you're studying and positively must be controlled for or you will get biased results. The study you have even mentions how economists thing that academia is more liberal than they are and then goes on to say that it's because academia self-selects for liberals, but this is incorrect. It is because academia has education and lacks high salaries. So it has the variable that correlates positively with liberalism and lacks the variable that correlates positively with conservatism.</p>
<p>As nbachris said, self-interest is coming into play here.</p>
<p>I come from a family that was very poor and Dr. Horse's "sink or swim" mentality disgusts me. Not all poor people are too lazy and stupid to get more money.</p>
<p>Say what you guys want, the proof and the numbers are right there. read about the part about HS dropouts and liberal college grads. </p>
<p>fiN01</p>
<p>I come from a poor family of a single mother, my father a junkie. I live in the 3rd poorest country in America and the 1st poorest urban area. I also live in the poorest Congressional district in America. I dare you try and live in Morris Heights NY or other poor sections of America. </p>
<p>I got a **** education and almost everything I know is self taught and still managed to get into a decent college. Where the majority of my friends didn't. Now I'm a graduate student who in his undergrad got a CS degree.</p>
<p>I grew up poor, **** I still am. I know the mentality of poor people, a lot better than any academic who views from the outside. Want to Know what. I will remain here in the Bronx for my Life. Its me.</p>
<p>You are right I believe strongly in swim or sink. I believe this because not allowing somebody to sink has more consequences than letting them struggle. There were times my mother couldn't put food on the table, we didn't have a TV or a computer. Not once did we take a handout and we are proud of it. Now look how I turned out compared to my neighbors & friends.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Say what you guys want, the proof and the numbers are right there. read about the part about HS dropouts and liberal college grads.
[/quote]
But that was my point... there are numbers there, but not the numbers. If you can find a study that says the same thing controlling for salary, I will admit that I am wrong. But I don't think you can because every single study that I have seen that controls for salary says the opposite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah! That welfare mom who is 23 with 5 kids by 5 dads has kept many gov't employees in a job making sure she gets all her benefits!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, the Reaganist boogey(wo)man: the welfare queen. Can you actually provide any proof that such people constitute a large tax-drain on the American public?</p>