WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » Professional Wrestling & General Discussion '99-June '07 » Jesse Ventura on Real Time with Bill Maher...

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Jesse Ventura on Real Time with Bill Maher...
Playboy Dain
Member
Member # 2860

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Playboy Dain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm watching it right now, and I know it's a political show, but bear with me...Jesse Ventura had a hilarious line...

Jesse Ventura: "I'd like to see all those people talking about getting rid of SUVs come to Minnesota for two winters."

Bill Maher: "So what'd you do before the SUV?"

Jesse Ventura: "We got stuck in the snow."

Ha! Got ME laughing, at least...maybe it was the delivery...had me thinking, "man, he still has it"...

IP: Logged
The Blue Meanie
Member
Member # 3403

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Blue Meanie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Road Warrior Dissdain:
I'm watching it right now, and I know it's a political show, but bear with me...Jesse Ventura had a hilarious line...

Jesse Ventura: "I'd like to see all those people talking about getting rid of SUVs come to Minnesota for two winters."

Bill Maher: "So what'd you do before the SUV?"

Jesse Ventura: "We got stuck in the snow."

Ha! Got ME laughing, at least...maybe it was the delivery...had me thinking, "man, he still has it"...

I popped for that one too.

--------------------
http://www.FaceBook.com/Brian.Heffron
http://Twitter.com/theebluemeanie
Cliff Lee: �Philly fans don�t need a teleprompter to tell them to cheer�

IP: Logged
HoboBrazil
Member
Member # 2997

Icon 1 posted      Profile for HoboBrazil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do like his idea for a national sales tax and doing away with income tax. That would be great.
IP: Logged
Capital City Kyle
Member
Member # 962

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Capital City Kyle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
this is political, but there will never be a national sales taxes because poor people end up paying a disporportionate amount of their income in taxes with a sales tax, and people will never go for that.

That is a great line, of course global warming has helped us here in minnesota too. It has been years since I've actually had my car stuck in the snow.

--------------------
Capital City Kyle
Dragon King Press Newsletter
The world's #1 newsletter dedicated to the history of wrestling
www.dragonkingpwrestling.com

IP: Logged
Crimson Mask I
unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*a-HEM*
IP: Logged
Mark Nulty from WA
Administrator
Member # 1

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mark Nulty from WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As long as this doesn't turn into "Republicans are evil robber barons" and "Democrats are irresponsible communists", I'll give the discussion of the viability of a national sales tax a little leeway. I'll give discussion of the show and Jesse's appearance a little leeway.

If it turns into party bashing either way, it stops.

As far as the show itself, I enjoy it even though it drives me nuts sometimes. I don't agree with a lot of Bill Maher's politics, but I do think he's pretty funny. Even when I disagree with him, at least I find him, more often than not, insightful. At least there's substance behind the opinion I'm disagreeing with. And I do give him credit for usually trying to be fair to both sides.

Some of his guests drive me nuts though. I don't like extremists on either side of the fence.

I think democrats should be embarrassed how poorly the Democratic National Chairman came across. He never anwered any of the questions asked him and basically did a poor imitation of a wrestling manager promo. There are intelligent, articulate democrats out there... why don't they put one of them in charge? Or at least have one of them be the person that appears on talk shows.

Any episode without Janeane Garafolo is a plus.

New Rules just about always entertains me.

As far as Jesse, he has an amazing charisma. I didn't hear a lot of depth in his opinions but he definitely knows how to be on camera. I thought the best part was when he chided the videoconference guest in Santa Monica for not coming to the studio in Los Angeles. When Maher started laughing, Ventura deadpanned, "Well, you told me not to be a (sissy)."

[ 09-13-2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Mark Nulty ]

IP: Logged
Mark Nulty from WA
Administrator
Member # 1

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mark Nulty from WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Capital City Kyle:
this is political, but there will never be a national sales taxes because poor people end up paying a disporportionate amount of their income in taxes with a sales tax, and people will never go for that.

Respectfully disagree.

That's the argument about the current system. That the upper income people get enough tax write offs that they pay less tax than the middle income.

I do think that would be a problem with a flat tax, because a dispoportiante amount of the lower income goes into their jobs such as buying supplies and tools for work, traveling to and from work, etc. For example, a lot of teachers spend hundreds of dollars of their already low salaries on classroom supplies that the school system doesn't provide. A flat tax wouldn't take that into account.

A consumption tax is the fairest way, though admittedly not perfect either. If you want to buy a Mercedes, you're going to pay a lot more in taxes than somebody that buys an Ford Taurus. And most people that consume are going to consume regardless of the increased taxes. Remember, no income tax gives them a lot more money at their disposal.

I can find flaws with any system, but I think the consumption tax (or as Jesse referred to it, a national sales tax) is the fairest and best system.

I'd also like to see a national lottery, too. State lotteries are a voluntary tax. People are voluntarily giving their money to the government. Shoot, I get a dollar's worth of entertainment out my quick pick. I think it would work well at the national level.

IP: Logged
oblongo
Member
Member # 2502

Icon 1 posted      Profile for oblongo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A guest in Santa Monica couldn't make it to L.A.?
IP: Logged
Scott E. Williams
Member
Member # 2238

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Scott E. Williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by oblongo:
A guest in Santa Monica couldn't make it to L.A.?

She was backstage, minutes before a concert.

--------------------
"There are some pleasures in life you just can't put a price on. Nailing a two-bit hood like McGee good and proper with a bus is one of 'em." -- Franky

IP: Logged
Mark D
Member
Member # 3101

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mark D   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree w/ Marks analysis of the lottery being a voluntary tax. Does anyone know off hand if states that have a lottery system are doing better financially during these times than states w/o a lottery system? (Except CA. of course). I think it all has to do with where the monies go and if they are used properly. Lotteries generate an enormous amount of cash that could be put to good use.
Another idea to assist states is the gambling industry I think. I mean Neveda, never seems to be in the forefront of the news concerning financially struggling states. In fact, Neveda has been one of the fastest growing states over the past decade.
I could be wrong as I have no facts. Can anyone that lives in states w/ a lottery system or gambling of some form enlighten us?

Mark

--------------------
www.ericsardinas.com

www.favorednations.com

IP: Logged
Baez from MB
Member
Member # 2317

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Baez from MB   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two things from a Canadian.

1) National sales tax proportions become much more appealing to lower income classes if you exempt food, kids clothing, and such items. It also becomes political with lobby groups saying stuff like books should be exempt.

2) Lottery tickets may be voluntary but they are HIDDEN taxes. You have no idea, nor does the clerk selling you one, exactly how much tax you are paying. I did a paper back in my University days in Economics on this. I did a survey and found most people thought they were paying about 30-50% in taxes. The actual number was something like 60-70% of the ticket money was a tax.
Also, often governments use lotteries to fund certain arts projects and social causes out of hidden revenue money, so it does not appear in the formal budgets. They also do this by paying for advertising and sponsorships of events and shows they wish to support.

--------------------
Just happy to be here.

Umm, the truth is I don't really think about anything. I play hockey and I fornicate 'cause those are the two most fun things in cold weather.

IP: Logged
SMN from CA
Member
Member # 3253

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SMN from CA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nulty:


I do think that would be a problem with a flat tax, because a dispoportiante amount of the lower income goes into their jobs such as buying supplies and tools for work, traveling to and from work, etc. For example, a lot of teachers spend hundreds of dollars of their already low salaries on classroom supplies that the school system doesn't provide. A flat tax wouldn't take that into account.

A consumption tax is the fairest way, though admittedly not perfect either. If you want to buy a Mercedes, you're going to pay a lot more in taxes than somebody that buys an Ford Taurus. And most people that consume are going to consume regardless of the increased taxes. Remember, no income tax gives them a lot more money at their disposal.

Doesn't this kind of send the wrong message, though?

We live in a country that prides itself on the ability of anyone to become successful through hard work and dedication.

Doesn't a tax system like a consumption tax sort of punish people for their success?

IP: Logged
D.Boon
Member
Member # 664

Icon 1 posted      Profile for D.Boon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The national sales tax should be enacted along with the removal of the IRS. All withholding from paychecks should come to an end. Thats where most wage earners loose most of their income, not in income tax but state and federal withholdings. The payroll tax is regressive as it is capped at around 70k$. that means someone who makes 70k$ pay the same withholding and someone who makes more than they do.

The only thing exempt should be food sold in a market. The oatmeal at the market should not be taxed, but the same oatmeal in a restaurant should be. Another option is have some thing taxed at a different rate (alcohol & tobacco taxed higher than milk and bread).


The broader the base (the more things taxed) means a lower tax rate. But only goods and services should be taxed, this keeps the home mortgage interest deduction. To do this and keep the government income the same the sales tax would need to be around 21%. If we allow the payroll deductions to remain the sales tax needs to be around 13% but as the GNP increases the tax decreases.

Remember people not currently paying tax, but using services would now be paying into the system. Meaning people who dont file, foreign tourist, and illegal immigrants.

--------------------
this is the information-laden dark ages

IP: Logged
D.Boon
Member
Member # 664

Icon 1 posted      Profile for D.Boon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sam Nord:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nulty:


I do think that would be a problem with a flat tax, because a dispoportiante amount of the lower income goes into their jobs such as buying supplies and tools for work, traveling to and from work, etc. For example, a lot of teachers spend hundreds of dollars of their already low salaries on classroom supplies that the school system doesn't provide. A flat tax wouldn't take that into account.

A consumption tax is the fairest way, though admittedly not perfect either. If you want to buy a Mercedes, you're going to pay a lot more in taxes than somebody that buys an Ford Taurus. And most people that consume are going to consume regardless of the increased taxes. Remember, no income tax gives them a lot more money at their disposal.

Doesn't this kind of send the wrong message, though?

We live in a country that prides itself on the ability of anyone to become successful through hard work and dedication.

Doesn't a tax system like a consumption tax sort of punish people for their success?

only if you define success as the accumulation of expensive goods and the use of expensive services.

you are not taxed on what you earn, but on what you consume.

--------------------
this is the information-laden dark ages

IP: Logged
Mark Nulty from WA
Administrator
Member # 1

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mark Nulty from WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sam Nord:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nulty:


I do think that would be a problem with a flat tax, because a dispoportiante amount of the lower income goes into their jobs such as buying supplies and tools for work, traveling to and from work, etc. For example, a lot of teachers spend hundreds of dollars of their already low salaries on classroom supplies that the school system doesn't provide. A flat tax wouldn't take that into account.

A consumption tax is the fairest way, though admittedly not perfect either. If you want to buy a Mercedes, you're going to pay a lot more in taxes than somebody that buys an Ford Taurus. And most people that consume are going to consume regardless of the increased taxes. Remember, no income tax gives them a lot more money at their disposal.

Doesn't this kind of send the wrong message, though?

We live in a country that prides itself on the ability of anyone to become successful through hard work and dedication.

Doesn't a tax system like a consumption tax sort of punish people for their success?

Not if people are paying the same rate, regardless of the purchase.

If Joe buys a $100,000 Mercedes and pays 10 percent and John buys a $10,000 used Buick and pays 10 percent, then both are paying the same rate.

IP: Logged
SMN from CA
Member
Member # 3253

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SMN from CA     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nulty:
quote:
Originally posted by Sam Nord:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nulty:


I do think that would be a problem with a flat tax, because a dispoportiante amount of the lower income goes into their jobs such as buying supplies and tools for work, traveling to and from work, etc. For example, a lot of teachers spend hundreds of dollars of their already low salaries on classroom supplies that the school system doesn't provide. A flat tax wouldn't take that into account.

A consumption tax is the fairest way, though admittedly not perfect either. If you want to buy a Mercedes, you're going to pay a lot more in taxes than somebody that buys an Ford Taurus. And most people that consume are going to consume regardless of the increased taxes. Remember, no income tax gives them a lot more money at their disposal.

Doesn't this kind of send the wrong message, though?

We live in a country that prides itself on the ability of anyone to become successful through hard work and dedication.

Doesn't a tax system like a consumption tax sort of punish people for their success?

Not if people are paying the same rate, regardless of the purchase.

If Joe buys a $100,000 Mercedes and pays 10 percent and John buys a $10,000 used Buick and pays 10 percent, then both are paying the same rate.

Gotcha. I like this system
IP: Logged
Stephen Dame
Member
Member # 208

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Stephen Dame   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Happy to see a tax discussion going on without the inevitable "Tea Party" diatribes. A constant knock I hear from a friend in Florida is that, "We American's are so anti-tax that the government is terrified to implement or significantly raise taxes, so social services will never improve"

I've always felt that if a policy is properly explained and the benefits clear to all, taxation can, and should, be seen as a cause for the greater good.

And while I disagree with a flat tax, because 10% may be great for the folks who are able to afford Ford's and Mercedes, but the fact still remains that a system of this nature is largely impractical for the 40% of Americans who are in the lowest income bracket and don't any kind of health insurance, let alone buying power. Unless of course, they're exempt.

But of course, regardless of which system you prefer, it all comes down to the accountability of your elected officials. Here in Canada, where most Provinces have 7-8% sales tax, and a Federal 7% Goods and Services sales tax, the reserves, CPP (Canada Pension Plan) and Provinical Health Plans all have adequate funding, however, massive mis-spending and dissapearing lumps of cash have cast dispersions on the folks holding the purse strings. So, taxation for the benefit of the people is a great thing, as long as the money is being properly spent.

Every nation, no matter what it's tax policy, needs to first restore accountability to the folks spending our dollars. And the only way we in Democratic nations can start influencing our elected officials, curbing fat-cat patronage, unfair perks, and kick-backs, is by going to the polls again and taking back the power the system has invested in us.

So, new tax policies or ideas: Hey the more the better from all points of the spectrum, but nothing changes unless they hear our voice out.

--------------------
It'd be better for me if you don't understand.
-The Hip

IP: Logged
Playboy Dain
Member
Member # 2860

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Playboy Dain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nulty:
quote:
Originally posted by Sam Nord:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Nulty:


I do think that would be a problem with a flat tax, because a dispoportiante amount of the lower income goes into their jobs such as buying supplies and tools for work, traveling to and from work, etc. For example, a lot of teachers spend hundreds of dollars of their already low salaries on classroom supplies that the school system doesn't provide. A flat tax wouldn't take that into account.

A consumption tax is the fairest way, though admittedly not perfect either. If you want to buy a Mercedes, you're going to pay a lot more in taxes than somebody that buys an Ford Taurus. And most people that consume are going to consume regardless of the increased taxes. Remember, no income tax gives them a lot more money at their disposal.

Doesn't this kind of send the wrong message, though?

We live in a country that prides itself on the ability of anyone to become successful through hard work and dedication.

Doesn't a tax system like a consumption tax sort of punish people for their success?

Not if people are paying the same rate, regardless of the purchase.

If Joe buys a $100,000 Mercedes and pays 10 percent and John buys a $10,000 used Buick and pays 10 percent, then both are paying the same rate.

It seems so simple, doesn't it?

I've actually never watched a full episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. I liked it, but maybe the reason I liked it was because of Jesse, who I'm a huge fan of. I'll have to watch it a couple more times, to get the full gist of Maher.

IP: Logged
Tartman
Member
Member # 3876

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tartman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.Boon:
The national sales tax should be enacted along with the removal of the IRS. All withholding from paychecks should come to an end. Thats where most wage earners loose most of their income, not in income tax but state and federal withholdings. The payroll tax is regressive as it is capped at around 70k$. that means someone who makes 70k$ pay the same withholding and someone who makes more than they do.

The only thing exempt should be food sold in a market. The oatmeal at the market should not be taxed, but the same oatmeal in a restaurant should be. Another option is have some thing taxed at a different rate (alcohol & tobacco taxed higher than milk and bread).


The broader the base (the more things taxed) means a lower tax rate. But only goods and services should be taxed, this keeps the home mortgage interest deduction. To do this and keep the government income the same the sales tax would need to be around 21%. If we allow the payroll deductions to remain the sales tax needs to be around 13% but as the GNP increases the tax decreases.

Remember people not currently paying tax, but using services would now be paying into the system. Meaning people who dont file, foreign tourist, and illegal immigrants.

1)- The IRS, like it or not, is here to stay..

2)- Payroll WH( Social Security and Medicare) for 2003 is capped @ 86K, not 70K

3)- In 1965,it was capped at $4800...

Now $4800 then is not $4800 now; it's @ 32-33 K

Cap it @ 32-33 K...you won't NEED a National Sales Tax !!!!

AND...unlike the NST...jobs will not be lost...

IP: Logged
Baez from MB
Member
Member # 2317

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Baez from MB   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, one major advantage of the national sales tax is getting revenue from those who currently do not file. Although many nations that rely on sales taxes (e.g. Barbados) have much smaller tax rates for tourists. Think about the effect on tourism in the U.S. if everything suddenly became 20% more expensive.

As far as tax cheats is concerned you would be losing revenue from those who pay their income tax now but then spend their money on things that are not taxed. This national sales tax would be an excellent way to increase the spending power of those American citizens who pay their income taxes and then go out and pay for drugs, prostitutes, or other under the table and stolen goods and services. It also creates quite a temptation for marginal or struggling small businesses to deal under the table if they can blow their competitors out of the water by 15-20%.

Hey I still like the idea, but it isn't anywhere near utopia.

--------------------
Just happy to be here.

Umm, the truth is I don't really think about anything. I play hockey and I fornicate 'cause those are the two most fun things in cold weather.

IP: Logged
D.Boon
Member
Member # 664

Icon 1 posted      Profile for D.Boon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tartman:
1)- The IRS, like it or not, is here to stay..

2)- Payroll WH( Social Security and Medicare) for 2003 is capped @ 86K, not 70K

3)- In 1965,it was capped at $4800...

Now $4800 then is not $4800 now; it's @ 32-33 K

Cap it @ 32-33 K...you won't NEED a National Sales Tax !!!!

AND...unlike the NST...jobs will not be lost...

People always say things are here to stay, and they are wrong. Everything changes.

Thank you for the correct numbers, it changes every few years. I remember the 70K cause I made over the cap that year and noticed a jump in my pay. The Medicare tax cap was removed in 1993.

Capping it at a low wage will not pay for the greater number of people drawing off of it and inflation. Unless you change the way SSA is funded.

The only jobs lost would be those in tax preparation and enforcement, those people should have the skills to find new work.

Take home earning increases, spending increases, job are created to meet consumer demand.

[ 09-13-2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: D.Boon ]

--------------------
this is the information-laden dark ages

IP: Logged
Capital City Kyle
Member
Member # 962

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Capital City Kyle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes people with more money will pay more taxes, but poor people will end up paying taxes on a higher percentage of their income with a sales tax. If I make $100,000 and spend $75,000, I pay a lot more in taxes, but I don't pay any tax on that $25,000 I save. So I only pay taxes on 75% of my income. If I make $30,000 and spend every dime, then I pay tax on 100% of my income. Most people will never be able to get past that fact to understand all the benefits of a national sales tax.

I'm pro-sale tax or flat tax, but in every economics class there is someone who hates the national sales tax because it is unfair to poor people.

I seriously doubt we will ever change our system. People are happy with rich people paying a disporportionate amount in taxes, and most see no reason to change things.

--------------------
Capital City Kyle
Dragon King Press Newsletter
The world's #1 newsletter dedicated to the history of wrestling
www.dragonkingpwrestling.com

IP: Logged
Jake McClain
Member
Member # 1837

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jake McClain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a reason people don't have a problem with rich people paying out the motherload in taxes.

You have your normal, everyday worker making $40,000 a year........the flat tax is 17%.

$40,000 x .17 = $6800

That's $33,200 they make after taxes.

Now you have someone making $40,000,000 a year.

$40,000,000 x .17 = $6,800,000

$33,200,000 left after taxes

What lasts longer?

I am not saying any of this is right or wrong......I am just saying that the common worker will probably not feel sorry for the person that lost 6.8 million in taxes, because they can still afford anything their heart desires. But $6800 is hard to come by for most of the working stiffs.

IP: Logged
uman4546
Member
Member # 2948

Icon 1 posted      Profile for uman4546         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I missed it. I'll try to catch the rerun tonight. It's way better than Politically Incorrect because they actually let people talk more. PI used to fly by too fast. The only thing I don't like about it,is that they suffer from "Hey,we're on cable" syndrome. Meaning they're often raunchy for the sake of being raunchy. Maher can come off as a jerk at time too,even if I agree with him most of the time.
IP: Logged
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3