|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 27 2017 11:59 {CC}StealthBlue 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.
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.
Poll: Will the wall be built?Yes (2) 7% No (26) 93% 28 total votes Your vote: Will the wall be built? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
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.
You can gauge Trump’s stance on something by the last person he spoke with on the subject. So on the NAFTA issue is was likely: Bannon/Miller and then followed by Canada and whoever in Congress called to say “No, no, no, no, no.”
|
On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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?
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 23:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. Poll: Will the wall be built?Yes (2) 7% No (26) 93% 28 total votes Your vote: Will the wall be built? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
The whole wall obviously not. I could see a token small piece somewhere tho.
As for his constant reneging, I think this is his attempt at negotiating. He claims some extreme position to try and get a better bargaining position . Then as soon as he confronts the other party they either call his bluff or make a minor concession and he immediately falls off his original position. Eventually everyone will just call his bluffs.
|
On April 27 2017 22:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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?
If you define the poor as the bottom twenty or twenty five percent of society, the poor will always be with you. If your only solution to poverty is wealth redistribution, your way of thinking is impoverished.
And hey, since I see we're tossing out the old partisan divide playbook lines, what do you have against letting other people keep their hard-earned money? Particularly ones who have been forced to part with a greater percentage of it than you for ages? It goes nowhere because we have very different ideas on government and that tax-and-spend life. I can read Capital in the Twenty-First Century or the other religious texts and profit about as much, it's just too much a conflict of competing visions.
|
On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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.
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.
|
Large gaps in wealth/power disparity creates an unstable society, especially if the systems in place appear to favor a small number of people retaining that wealth over generations. People don’t care if someone has several billion dollars if their needs are meet and they can assure a similar place for their children. But the trend in the US economy is that later generation’s earning power will be reduced, while the cost of entering the work force increases.
|
On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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.
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 23:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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. 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.
Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction.
|
|
|
On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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. 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. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction.
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 April 27 2017 23:52 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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. 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.
You may understand that to be my greatest critique of looking at the problem through an inequality lens. Low social mobility/economic mobility is a problem worthy of deep consideration, even including government involvement. If the SNAP program and other assistance programs were cut to the degree that someone with credit card debt loses his job and the average outcome is starvation and death, that too is bad. You're right that current society doesn't match up all that well, there's plenty of blame to be spread around on that issue, but we can keep talking about the incremental measures that will help.
|
On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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. 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. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction.
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 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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. 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. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. 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?
Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free.
|
United States43565 Posts
Self quoting re the Trump tax plan
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.
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.
|
On April 28 2017 00:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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. 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. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. 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.
where did danglars call pikkety religious? I don't see that in the quote chain.
|
On April 28 2017 00:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. 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? 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. 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. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. 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.
Are social services there to prove you spend X trillion on social services, or there to help people get back on their feet and provide for the extremes of disability?
And yes I disagree almost to the word of your description of what is and what needs to be done.
In Southern California, particularly Hollywood, I lived and worked through a time when he was regarded as a prophet and deity. If I wanted to revisit the broad divide on how to organize society, I'd be better off reading that book, which will be one of my next reads this year. And novel length is necessary to explain the divide on poverty, inequality, income, wealth, taxation, federalism, constitutional governance, the social contract, and welfare. If we're just spouting the tired cliches on tax cuts for the rich, I'll read some liberal rags from the 80s--the dialogue hasn't actually improved.
|
On April 28 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:Self quoting re the Trump tax plan Show nested quote +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. 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.
Source
|
United States43565 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [Trump's trade negotiations with…] +Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
The EU is a single economic bloc with no internal tariffs and fixed external tariffs, we can't make any deal. Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
The EU is a single economic bloc with no internal tariffs and fixed external tariffs, we can't make any deal. Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
Okay, so Germany is within the EU so you'll have to negotiate with the EU. Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
As far as external trade goes, Germany is to the EU like Florida is to the US, it doesn't make its own treaties. Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
If you make a trade deal with the EU then that'll be a trade deal that covers your trade with Germany technically so I guess you could do that. Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
The name of the EU trade commissioner is Cecilia Malmström, she can help you make a trade deal with Germany but I cannot, I just govern Germany, EU trade is outside of my power. Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
Look, I just don't have the power to make a trade deal with you. Germany doesn't control its own external trade policy, we ceded that power to the EU. Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
We deal no can make. Not allowed. Sad! Trump said:
I want to make a trade deal with Germany. The balance of trade deficit is too high, we need to fix it. Merkel said:
Hey, Jared, I think your father-in-law is broken, can you come take a look at him. Trump said:
I want to make a tra- Jared said:
Don, she's not allowed to make the deal with you. Trump said:
Is it because she's a woman? Jared said:
Sure, why not. Trump said:
Then the deal's off. I never wanted a trade deal with Germany anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
21567
75
61
EPT
