US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7410

On April 27 2017 23:06 PhoenixVoid wrote:

It's weird how Trump tends to reverse his mind as soon as he talks to the people in charge of the organizations or partnerships he rails against. Either he really doesn't know what he talks about and ends up parroting what he was told because he realizes they know better, or it's all a ploy to scare them into negotiations and better terms for America.

On April 27 2017 23:06 PhoenixVoid wrote:

It's weird how Trump tends to reverse his mind as soon as he talks to the people in charge of the organizations or partnerships he rails against. Either he really doesn't know what he talks about and ends up parroting what he was told because he realizes they know better, or it's all a ploy to scare them into negotiations and better terms for America.

On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:

Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment?

E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems?

On April 27 2017 23:27 Mohdoo wrote:


I think the plan was to play this "I'm a mad man! I might actually just sink this ship!", but everyone knows how utterly fucked he would be. So every single person is calling every single bluff because he's out of his league.

I'm curious how people feel about the likelihood of the wall being built.

On April 27 2017 22:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:

It's not societal envy. It's avoiding having a country of poor with a few super billionaires.

The economic elite has gotten exponentially richer in the last thirty year while basically no one else has. That's not good. That's why people are pissed.

Do you think making a stratospheric gift to billionaires is a good idea right now?

On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:

As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob.

On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:

As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob.

On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:


Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people.

So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population.

On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:

Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction.

On April 27 2017 23:52 JinDesu wrote:


If I am understanding your position correctly, you are saying - if society gains in total, and the bottom portion (whatever percent that is) still grows and can afford to have a family, disposable income, and live a life that allows for moving up the ladder without hard restrictions - then it doesn't matter how much more gain the top percent makes (and it is irrelevant how much more they make).

Is that a correct interpretation of your position?

If so, I am somewhat in agreement with that ideal, but I don't think our current society matches up with that.

On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:

Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction.

On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:


I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why?

On March 09 2017 11:13 KwarK wrote:
I feel like reminding people of Trump's tax proposals during the election for whatever reason.

So right now there is effectively a 0% bracket below all the tax brackets composed of deductions and exemptions. This is calculated as follows
# of adults (1 for single, 2 for married) * $6,350 + # of family members (adults, children, dependents, whatever) * $4050

So a single mother with 2 kids and her aged mother would be 1*$6,350+4*$4050 in the 0% bracket, or $22,550

The Trump plan disposes of exemptions entirely and does a flat $15,000 deduction per adult (1 single, 2 married). Great for single childless people with nobody to support, their 0% goes from $10,400 ($6,350 + $4,050) to $15,000, about the same for married couples with two kids, absolutely shitty for anyone single supporting people. Kids, parents, grandkids, extended family, disabled folks, whatever, you get nothing for them unless you marry them.

In the current system above that variable 0% bracket is a 10% bracket. In the Trump plan that's a 12%. So if you're our single mother mentioned above in the current system and making $30k then your 0% bracket is $0-$22,550 and you're paying 10% on the $7,450 above that. In the Trump plan you're paying 12% on the $15,000 above your $0-$15,000 bracket. $1,800 under Trump vs $745 right now.

The lowest tax rate is actually planned to go up, while simultaneously reducing the variable 0% bracket for the people who need it most.

Additionally our single mother described above would currently get a status called Head of Household that entitles her to larger brackets, increasing the amount of money she can have taxed at 10%. The Trump plan calls for a simplification of the tax system by removing HoH. HoH is a generous bracket for single adults with dependents because the tax code thinks that if you've got dependents then your discretionary income at every tax bracket will be lower due to those additional expenses. Without HoH a widow whose husband died 3 years ago leaving her with 3 kids gets taxed as single, for example.

I'd say that these tax increases that seem to almost deliberately target the most vulnerable in society are built to offset the huge tax decreases on the rich but they won't even begin to tackle that because an extra thousand dollars from the single mothers won't offset a 7% tax cut on incomes over a quarter mil. Raising taxes specifically on single earner families and families with dependents isn't about to balance the budget, it's just a "fuck you".

Worth pointing that out every now and then. The Trump tax plan isn't about tax cuts, although it certainly features a number of those for the 1%, it's about class warfare.

On April 28 2017 00:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:

You cut massively social services to finance tax cuts for the 0,1%, you are making the poor poorer and the rich richer. Period.

There is a definite amount of wealth that needs to be divided. The time when people believed in vodoo economics and that taking to the poor to give to the rich meant moar wealth and everybody is happy is over.

What make you say that Pikkety is religious exactly? I've read economists and journalists from both sides saying the book, that I haven't read, is very sound and rigorous. It's mainly a compilation of data.

But yeah, when someone says something you don't like, call him religious. Because your position doesn't look dogmatic at all and you are obviously arguing in good faith. As always.

On April 28 2017 00:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:

You cut massively social services to finance tax cuts for the 0,1%, you are making the poor poorer and the rich richer. Period.

There is a definite amount of wealth that needs to be divided. The time when people believed in vodoo economics and that taking to the poor to give to the rich meant moar wealth and everybody is happy is over.

What make you say that Pikkety is religious exactly? I've read economists and journalists from both sides saying the book, that I haven't read, is very sound and rigorous. It's mainly a compilation of data.

But yeah, when someone says something you don't like, call him religious. Because your position doesn't look dogmatic at all and you are obviously arguing in good faith. As always.

On April 28 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:
Self quoting re the Trump tax plan


We can play a game with this. You describe a family (single parent, two parent, widow (with # of years since death), whatever, with # of kids, # of those kids <18 and gross income) and I'll tell you how much their taxes will change under the Trump tax plan. I'll write a script to calculate it today.

Currently, households do not pay taxes on a certain minimum amount of income, depending on size and family status. During the campaign, Trump proposed exempting households from paying taxes on their first $15,000 in income, regardless of the type or size of the household. He also proposed bringing the minimum marginal rate that ordinary households pay on their income up from 10 percent to 12 percent.

According to the new document, there would be no increase in that minimum rate. Households would be able to avoid taxes on their first $25,200 in income for a married couple (the figure for individual taxpayers would be half that), but on top of that, there could be additional exemptions depending on the size of the household, as in the current system.