|
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 November 09 2017 00:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 00:11 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote:
I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill. You shouldn't "bank" on upholding the use of an oftentimes inaccurate label in place of admitting that this line we've drawn between "capitalist" and "socialist" is mostly bullshit utilized by pundits and fear mongers in service of outrage in lieu of actual understanding. We can and must do better.
That's pretty dumb. There is no better way to express abstract concepts without useing the oversimplified labels we've given them. If we throw them out everything is chaos and no one.either understands what the other is saying or we have to spend most the conversation in disclaimers and explanations.
|
On November 09 2017 00:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote:
I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill.
Can you imagine if the US were like Sweden in tax burden and our top 10% paid only 27% of total tax revenue compared to 45%?
Maybe we could get spending reduction bills off the ground.
|
On November 09 2017 00:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 00:11 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote:
I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill. Can you imagine if the US were like Sweden in tax burden and our top 10% paid only 27% of total tax revenue compared to 45%? Maybe we could get spending reduction bills off the ground.
how much of the wealth does the top 10% of Sweden have compared to those same in the US?
not knowing that the disparity doesn’t mean very much.
|
On November 09 2017 00:35 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 23:37 Ryzel wrote:On November 08 2017 23:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Don't know what this guys talking about, the districts that typically elect Republicans in California (e.g. Orange County) have VERY rich constituents who would have a lot to gain from this tax bill. Not true at all. If they limit interest deductions and take away state and local tax deductions, taxes on many, many people in these areas will go up. It's particularly important in those areas, as my feeling is that GOP support in those districts is largely economic; if you prove that there's no financial benefit to tagging along with the GOP culture wars, I would expect mass defections in those areas.
90+ out of the top 100 poorest counties are in red states and perhaps you've heard of Owsley County, Ky?
I wouldn't count on Republicans recognizing that they are getting fucked by their representatives (or at least that they will vote differently as a result).
On November 09 2017 00:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 00:11 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote:
I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill. Can you imagine if the US were like Sweden in tax burden and our top 10% paid only 27% of total tax revenue compared to 45%? Maybe we could get spending reduction bills off the ground.
Easiest way to lower their tax burden would be to quit hording all of the wealth. Wealthy people payed a lower share of taxes when their rates were MUCH higher (nominally, but still higher effectively than now) when they just hoarded less of the wealth.
Wealthy people paying so much of the tax burden is a direct result of them taking on more of the wealth, and little-nothing to do with rates.
|
On November 09 2017 00:50 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 00:49 Danglars wrote:On November 09 2017 00:11 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote:
I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill. Can you imagine if the US were like Sweden in tax burden and our top 10% paid only 27% of total tax revenue compared to 45%? Maybe we could get spending reduction bills off the ground. how much of the wealth does the top 10% of Sweden have compared to those same in the US? not knowing that the disparity doesn’t mean very much.
Also the socialist governments are far more comfortable regulating the industries they control, like healthcare and education. It makes it easier to keep the costs down when you are knee deep in the industry and understand it.
|
On November 09 2017 00:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 00:13 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2017 00:11 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote:
I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill. You shouldn't "bank" on upholding the use of an oftentimes inaccurate label in place of admitting that this line we've drawn between "capitalist" and "socialist" is mostly bullshit utilized by pundits and fear mongers in service of outrage in lieu of actual understanding. We can and must do better. That's pretty dumb. There is no better way to express abstract concepts without useing the oversimplified labels we've given them. If we throw them out everything is chaos and no one.either understands what the other is saying or we have to spend most the conversation in disclaimers and explanations.
You've misunderstood my point and then run it into the end zone as though you've just scored a touchdown for the Minnesota Know-Nothings; admitting that governments implement policies that run the gamut in terms of the highly artificial "capitalism-socialism" spectrum in no way requires that we throw out their use as terms. The point is that US politicians everywhere refuse to try and complicate ideas that desperately need collective reconsideration, capitalism and socialism included. These men and women are cowards who hide behind the worst facets of crowd-appeasement simplism, and while you're free to parrot their exaggerative ideas, I'd recommend a different take, "pretty dumb" or not.
"If we throw them out everything is chaos"- look around you, dawg.
|
On November 09 2017 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 00:35 CatharsisUT wrote:On November 08 2017 23:37 Ryzel wrote:Don't know what this guys talking about, the districts that typically elect Republicans in California (e.g. Orange County) have VERY rich constituents who would have a lot to gain from this tax bill. Not true at all. If they limit interest deductions and take away state and local tax deductions, taxes on many, many people in these areas will go up. It's particularly important in those areas, as my feeling is that GOP support in those districts is largely economic; if you prove that there's no financial benefit to tagging along with the GOP culture wars, I would expect mass defections in those areas. 90+ out of the top 100 poorest counties are in red states and perhaps you've heard of Owsley County, Ky? I wouldn't count on Republicans recognizing that they are getting fucked by their representatives (or at least that they will vote differently as a result).
Right, hence my distinction regarding the culture war element of the GOP. The problems the GOP is currently having getting anything done are in large part a result of having three sets of "conservative" ideals under one tent (economic, social, and cultural). So while voters in KY may not be economically conservative, if they are socially and culturally conservative then their support for the GOP makes sense even if it hurts them economically.
I think that group of voters is much smaller in Orange County.
|
United States43952 Posts
On November 09 2017 00:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 00:11 Sermokala wrote:On November 08 2017 23:46 Plansix wrote:On November 08 2017 23:17 Sermokala wrote:
I'd rather live in a Successful socialist state then a free market capitalist nation as well. I've never seen someone lay out how exactly thats suppose to work however so I never feel the need to support the revolution. We won’t know unless we try. And its not binary. We can have a little socialism for things like healthcare, housing and education/job training and a bunch of capitalism for everything else. Compromise is the essence of success and all but I'll still bank on calling Scandinavia more.free market then socialist. The government being.responsible for maintaining the conditions for a free market. People just arnt advocating for the global revolution like they used to so everythings chill. Can you imagine if the US were like Sweden in tax burden and our top 10% paid only 27% of total tax revenue compared to 45%? Maybe we could get spending reduction bills off the ground.
The amount of tax the richest pay as a proportion of total tax paid is primarily dependent upon how disproportionately high their income is compared to the general population, rather than the percentage tax they pay.
Let's put it another way. Even with a completely flat tax rate structure the richest 10% would still pay 50% of the total taxes if they had 50% of the total income.
What you're observing is that Sweden has a much more equitable distribution of income.
|
By the way, if the Republican tax plan's hit on tuition benefits goes through, the higher ed bubble is going to burst like an infested terran as huge numbers of staff and service employees start reconsidering the value of their low-paying jobs.
|
On November 09 2017 01:04 farvacola wrote:
By the way, if the Republican tax plan's hit on tuition benefits goes through, the higher ed bubble is going to burst like an infested terran as huge numbers of staff and service employees start reconsidering the value of their low-paying jobs.
If nobody adjusts, you'll see huge surge in state school enrollment, that's for sure.
What's likely, though, is that there's some card shuffling in the finance stream.
|
On November 09 2017 01:01 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2017 00:35 CatharsisUT wrote:On November 08 2017 23:37 Ryzel wrote:Don't know what this guys talking about, the districts that typically elect Republicans in California (e.g. Orange County) have VERY rich constituents who would have a lot to gain from this tax bill. Not true at all. If they limit interest deductions and take away state and local tax deductions, taxes on many, many people in these areas will go up. It's particularly important in those areas, as my feeling is that GOP support in those districts is largely economic; if you prove that there's no financial benefit to tagging along with the GOP culture wars, I would expect mass defections in those areas. 90+ out of the top 100 poorest counties are in red states and perhaps you've heard of Owsley County, Ky? I wouldn't count on Republicans recognizing that they are getting fucked by their representatives (or at least that they will vote differently as a result). Right, hence my distinction regarding the culture war element of the GOP. The problems the GOP is currently having getting anything done are in large part a result of having three sets of "conservative" ideals under one tent (economic, social, and cultural). So while voters in KY may not be economically conservative, if they are socially and culturally conservative then their support for the GOP makes sense even if it hurts them economically. I think that group of voters is much smaller in Orange County.
The perks I was referring to I took from Kwark's post, namely the repeal of estate tax. Regardless of whether the bill actually hikes or cuts their taxes, the ability to keep all their money in the family and secure the financial stability of their children and grandchildren is a pretty big motivator.
|
Yeah, the bill's treatment of the AMT and estate tax alone qualify it as distinctly pro-rich, that seems pretty clear.
|
On November 09 2017 01:04 farvacola wrote:
By the way, if the Republican tax plan's hit on tuition benefits goes through, the higher ed bubble is going to burst like an infested terran as huge numbers of staff and service employees start reconsidering the value of their low-paying jobs.
I've really wondered what would have to happen if the tuition tax goes through. Most notably, graduate students wouldn't be able to afford their own taxes. Stipends are incredibly small, and tuition is so expensive. I know my disposable income was less than the increase in taxes I would have had. So basically no one could afford to go to grad school in its current state, which includes people in school right now.
Does the university require students be paid larger stipends, which just means grants have to pay more? I guess maybe that's the plan, it just funnels money from government agencies that fund research back to the government.
|
I think Doc is right to suggest that there's going to have to be some card shuffling if the tuition tax survives, but like you point out, it'll likely be some kind of absurd mess lol.
|
On November 09 2017 01:13 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2017 01:01 CatharsisUT wrote:On November 09 2017 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2017 00:35 CatharsisUT wrote:On November 08 2017 23:37 Ryzel wrote:Don't know what this guys talking about, the districts that typically elect Republicans in California (e.g. Orange County) have VERY rich constituents who would have a lot to gain from this tax bill. Not true at all. If they limit interest deductions and take away state and local tax deductions, taxes on many, many people in these areas will go up. It's particularly important in those areas, as my feeling is that GOP support in those districts is largely economic; if you prove that there's no financial benefit to tagging along with the GOP culture wars, I would expect mass defections in those areas. 90+ out of the top 100 poorest counties are in red states and perhaps you've heard of Owsley County, Ky? I wouldn't count on Republicans recognizing that they are getting fucked by their representatives (or at least that they will vote differently as a result). Right, hence my distinction regarding the culture war element of the GOP. The problems the GOP is currently having getting anything done are in large part a result of having three sets of "conservative" ideals under one tent (economic, social, and cultural). So while voters in KY may not be economically conservative, if they are socially and culturally conservative then their support for the GOP makes sense even if it hurts them economically. I think that group of voters is much smaller in Orange County. The perks I was referring to I took from Kwark's post, namely the repeal of estate tax. Regardless of whether the bill actually hikes or cuts their taxes, the ability to keep all their money in the family and secure the financial stability of their children and grandchildren is a pretty big motivator.
It'd take more than a few generations before the family would start having to actually do something with their lives with the estate tax.
|
On November 08 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 16:36 mozoku wrote:
Sort of jumping back a page here, but I'm struggling to understand how this tax bill is supposed to be a "tax cuts for the rich"? There's literally no interpretation of this bill where this makes any sense, and the fact that anyone believes it is a testament to how thoroughly the left has brainwashed a large part of it's base--it's Fox News-level nonsense dogma.
Corporate tax cuts are happening everywhere in the world... because the world has realized that it's more efficient to tax people than corporations. When you tax a corporation, the tax is pushed on to consumers, employees, and shareholders in hard-to-measure amounts. When you repeal it, the largest portion does go to shareholders but the US has to lower nominal corporate taxes rates to maintain the real tax rate in the new bill due to loophole closures. Finally, sure, this part of the bill is the most regressive portion (the GOP generally values growth over income equality after all), but that's made up for by the fact that the vast majority of the individual tax cuts are going to the middle class.
Furthermore, the marginal rates on high earners are generally higher now, so the individual tax rates are more progressive in that sense. Sure, many high earners pay less overall but so does just about everyone else as well. It's not really tax reform, it's a tax cut.
Finally, the top 1% of earners pays literally 50% of the total tax bill. Good lord, I understand the "but they can afford to pay more" argument but 50%? If that's not progressive enough for you, you might as well just straight up ask for a free ride through life. If you think your tax bill is too high, maybe you should consider looking where we can trim expenses instead of trying to pay more of your expenses with someone else's money. I'm not sure when our reference point for "not progressive enough" became the status quo instead of absolute reality.
For the record, I'm not even a really a fan of this tax bill (even though I'd likely reluctantly vote for it). I'm a fan of small government in principle, but this bill feels more like Trump populist handouts then growth-minded reform. And before I'm accused of being irrationally scared of government (as is the usual knee-jerk reaction I get when I post), I'll restate for the 100th time that I'd rather have single payer than the current healthcare mess (though I'm somewhat uncomfortable with it in principle) and that I believe corporations may be underregulated in certain industries (though overregulated in others). It's tax cuts for the rich because under it the rich pay less in taxes. Elimination of the AMT and of the estate tax are deliberate policies targeted for the 0.1%. I'm not really sure how you can not understand why it's a tax cut for the rich. The rich are having their taxes cut by it. That's what it does. In what sense could that not ever be a tax cut for the rich?
Is this not a picture-perfect example of abusing weasel words? Yeah, it's cutting tax for the rich. It's also cutting taxes for everyone. The implication of an accusation that the bill is "tax cuts for the rich" in the context of attacks from the left is pretty much always "the rich are trying to screw the rest of us and reward their rich buddies", which I demonstrated is clearly not the case for this bill in my post.
ChristianS: I only skimmed Kwark's breakdown a while ago, but my recollection is that he ignored the fact that the rearranging of marginal rates and brackets gave most of the tax cuts to the middle class, and focused on the elimination of a bunch of deductions that affect relatively few people. Instead of looking at Kwark's cherry-picked analysis that looks at counts of provisions of who is favored instead of looking at the actual amounts, try looking at an actual analysis.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TjeHEGF.jpg)
Source
As a percentage of income, the middle class (20k-200k annual income) is by far getting the largest tax cut.
|
On November 09 2017 01:19 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 23:44 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2017 16:36 mozoku wrote:
Sort of jumping back a page here, but I'm struggling to understand how this tax bill is supposed to be a "tax cuts for the rich"? There's literally no interpretation of this bill where this makes any sense, and the fact that anyone believes it is a testament to how thoroughly the left has brainwashed a large part of it's base--it's Fox News-level nonsense dogma.
Corporate tax cuts are happening everywhere in the world... because the world has realized that it's more efficient to tax people than corporations. When you tax a corporation, the tax is pushed on to consumers, employees, and shareholders in hard-to-measure amounts. When you repeal it, the largest portion does go to shareholders but the US has to lower nominal corporate taxes rates to maintain the real tax rate in the new bill due to loophole closures. Finally, sure, this part of the bill is the most regressive portion (the GOP generally values growth over income equality after all), but that's made up for by the fact that the vast majority of the individual tax cuts are going to the middle class.
Furthermore, the marginal rates on high earners are generally higher now, so the individual tax rates are more progressive in that sense. Sure, many high earners pay less overall but so does just about everyone else as well. It's not really tax reform, it's a tax cut.
Finally, the top 1% of earners pays literally 50% of the total tax bill. Good lord, I understand the "but they can afford to pay more" argument but 50%? If that's not progressive enough for you, you might as well just straight up ask for a free ride through life. If you think your tax bill is too high, maybe you should consider looking where we can trim expenses instead of trying to pay more of your expenses with someone else's money. I'm not sure when our reference point for "not progressive enough" became the status quo instead of absolute reality.
For the record, I'm not even a really a fan of this tax bill (even though I'd likely reluctantly vote for it). I'm a fan of small government in principle, but this bill feels more like Trump populist handouts then growth-minded reform. And before I'm accused of being irrationally scared of government (as is the usual knee-jerk reaction I get when I post), I'll restate for the 100th time that I'd rather have single payer than the current healthcare mess (though I'm somewhat uncomfortable with it in principle) and that I believe corporations may be underregulated in certain industries (though overregulated in others). It's tax cuts for the rich because under it the rich pay less in taxes. Elimination of the AMT and of the estate tax are deliberate policies targeted for the 0.1%. I'm not really sure how you can not understand why it's a tax cut for the rich. The rich are having their taxes cut by it. That's what it does. In what sense could that not ever be a tax cut for the rich? Is this not a picture-perfect example of abusing weasel words? Yeah, it's cutting tax for the rich. It's also cutting taxes for everyone. The implication of an accusation that the bill is "tax cuts for the rich" in the context of attacks from the left is pretty much always "the rich are trying to screw the rest of us and reward their rich buddies", which I demonstrated is clearly not the case for this bill in my post. ChristianS: I only skimmed Kwark's breakdown a while ago, but my recollection is that he ignored the fact that the rearranging of marginal rates and brackets gave most of the tax cuts to the middle class, and focused on the elimination of a bunch of deductions that affect relatively few people. Instead of looking at Kwark's cherry-picked analysis that looks at counts of provisions of who is favored instead of looking at the actual amounts, try looking at an actual analysis.
Source As a percentage of income, the middle class (20k-200k annual income) is by far getting the largest tax cut.
Is that "middle class"? I have a hard time imagining that someone who makes 10x more than someone else is still in the same "class". Also the "Doesn't include massive tax cut for the wealthy in our breakdown" kinda undermines the point.
EDIT: I'd also add that "1 million and above" is a great way to hide information for those making significantly more than $1m
|
On November 08 2017 15:55 IgnE wrote:
I appreciate your taking the time to read and think about what I wrote and acknowledge a certain open-mindedness on your part.
That being said my opinion here is that you are thinking about sovereignty and "the social contract" in the wrongs ways. Let me get around to reading Leviathan before I try and flesh out exactly why that is, though. Sovereignty is a tricky thing. I'm still trying to work it out.
I'm pretty sure that Leviathan is not going to give you the answers that you're looking for. As I was digesting your original post and considering a response, one of the things that struck me is the degree to which the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School rejects (expressly or implicitly) the core liberal precepts of Enlightenment thinking. If you think about it and consider the vastly different conclusions that Marxism and classic liberalism reach, this makes perfect sense. But here's the key point that I think that you should take some time to consider: do we really want to reject and destroy the intellectual foundation for the argument that individual liberty is an absolute?
I will note two things that caught my eye as needing immediate correction.
1) You said that both fascism and communism were totalitarian. It is true that both Fascism and Communism were totalitarian. But those were only historically contingent political formations. I would argue that only one social structure necessarily tends towards the herd instinct, and the desire to have someone else legislate life. A communistic social structure demands active participation in the political sphere, in the truly Greek sense, as action among equals. What the revolutionary communists of the 20th century carried with them was the fascizing elements carried by the man of ressentiment.
Well, we're still waiting for someone to figure how to safely and equitably get to communist utopia. Until someone figures out how to circumvent the seemingly necessary period of tyranny (which never goes well), I'm not sure how useful appeals to this utopia are.
2) You say that "values" are often at issue in American politics, and choose abortion, as the exemplary "value" issue. On the one hand, there is some sense in this. The religious fervor of the pro-life crowd does not seem directly tied to economics as disciplinarized by the university. On the other hand, however, state intrusion into abortion is a prime example of the exercise of sovereign power on "bare life." It is police power (broadly conceived here as the networks of institutions, laws, social codes, and actual policemen) exercised in the matter of abortion/birth control that is one of the most clear examples of state biopower, dictating what individuals can and can't do with their bodies, how they are to conduct their sexual lives, and to whom or to what they owe certain kinds of legal obligations. Keep in mind here that economics comes from oikos (household) and nemein/nomos (distribute, dwell, possess, law). Abortion is a biopolitical issue in the sense that it's the intrusion of sovereign power into private household ways of life, and it is an economic issue, in the Arendtian Greek sense, in that it is the expansion of a private household issue that would have been prepolitical into the public realm, where administration of the national household (demographic control, birth rates, ensuring a female population of caretakers) has subsumed the properly political.
If you're going to take this broad of a view of "economics," then yeah, every political question does become one of economics because you have effectively eliminated the dichotomy between economic politics and non-economic politics. If we accept that exercise of the police power is an "economic" issue, then it is rather hard for me think of what political issue is not an economic issue.
|
I’m having a tough time dealing with the idea that 20K isn’t just living in poverty.
|
i’m looking at that bottom right section and seeeing the richest people getting the most severe tax break.
but maybe i’m just cherry picking.:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
