|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense.
Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country.
|
Bisutopia19359 Posts
On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country.
I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral.
|
On May 07 2019 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country. I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral.
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
|
On May 07 2019 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country. I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral.
Afaik, no one is proposing this. Even the most left-leaning progressives are simply calling for a marginal tax rate as high as it used to be a few decades ago, additionally taxing just the highest margins of a multi-millionaire's/ billionaire's income, not half of all they make.
Also, why does there have to be an upper limit? That's an assertion without evidence. Is a billion dollars too much to take from one person? You really can't answer that unless you know how much they're making. That's why fair, proportional taxes are implemented; it all depends on income. Furthermore, it's interesting that you used the word "immoral"; many people would think that a tiny percentage of the population hoarding all of the wealth at the expense of others is "immoral".
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37085 Posts
I'm sorry but this:
For me, it is Pete ("Butt") Buttigieg because of he is like Justin Trudeau, basically the gay version of a good looking young guy who appeals to people who like good looking young guys. It's hard to imagine that candidates such as that Green Party guy think he has a chance, then again Joe Biden appears to be leading at the moment due to people casting protest votes against the #MeToo movement going too far in its condemnation of sexual harassment.
I think Bernie Sanders has less of a chance winning this time than last time given his novelty has worn out. Warren, well, she just seems like a grumpy granny. And let's be honest we have never even heard of any of the other candidates.
is not an acceptable OP. When I told you to add more content, I didn't mean make an opening statement that reads like a blog.
Please edit the opening post. An acceptable opening post should state only facts about the Democratic candidates. It should get the readers interested in investing into the thread. And edit out our PM conversation, since that doesn't need to be public.
EDIT: Thread will remain open for now since people are already having discussions. However, if the OP remains unchanged after a couple of days, then the thread will be closed.
Or, if someone else feels like they can do a better job and would like to open and maintain a new thread, then feel free to PM me and I will close this one.
|
Bisutopia19359 Posts
On May 07 2019 05:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country. I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral. Afaik, no one is proposing this. Even the most left-leaning progressives are simply calling for a marginal tax rate as high as it used to be a few decades ago, additionally taxing just the highest margins of a multi-millionaire's/ billionaire's income, not half of all they make. Also, why does there have to be an upper limit? That's an assertion without evidence. Is a billion dollars too much to take from one person? You really can't answer that unless you know how much they're making. That's why fair, proportional taxes are implemented; it all depends on income. Furthermore, it's interesting that you used the word "immoral"; many people would think that a tiny percentage of the population hoarding all of the wealth at the expense of others is "immoral".
I wasn't saying a limit on how much is taken should be imposed, but a limit on the percentage. Someone should make more then 25cents of every dollar they earn. It's that tax percentage I have an issue with. I think it's too high for every earning class right now (but that's a personal opinion ). Wether you believe their personal income was rightfully earned is a different discussion that I dont think should affect the former.
|
On May 07 2019 06:03 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 05:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 07 2019 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country. I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral. Afaik, no one is proposing this. Even the most left-leaning progressives are simply calling for a marginal tax rate as high as it used to be a few decades ago, additionally taxing just the highest margins of a multi-millionaire's/ billionaire's income, not half of all they make. Also, why does there have to be an upper limit? That's an assertion without evidence. Is a billion dollars too much to take from one person? You really can't answer that unless you know how much they're making. That's why fair, proportional taxes are implemented; it all depends on income. Furthermore, it's interesting that you used the word "immoral"; many people would think that a tiny percentage of the population hoarding all of the wealth at the expense of others is "immoral". I wasn't saying a limit on how much is taken should he imposed, but a limit on the percentage. Someone should make more then 25cents of every dollar they earn. It's that tax percentage I have an issue with. I think it's too high for every earning class right now (but that's a personal opinion ). Wether you believe their personal income was rightfully earned is a different discussion that I dont think should affect the former.
Taxes are the lowest they have been living history, especially for the top earning bracket. Corporations are at 1930's tax rates, which should give everyone pause. And due to the current state of politics, the IRS has been hit with budget cuts to the point where they are having trouble dealing with tax avoidance. I've been hearing this statement that we all pay 50% of our income in taxes most of my life, even though taxes have been reduced several times. It is hard to humor this opinion when anti-tax policy has dominated US politics for 40 years.
|
I find it fascinating that despite a somewhat prominent argument for center right policy the most popular candidate in the poll is notoriously the furthest to the left.
Is this people on the right hoping for weak candidate (in their view) or is it that most people do prefer Sanders to the rest but aren't inclined to explain it?
|
This forum leans pretty left (like most online forums really) so I assume it's the latter.
|
On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country. I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral. Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs. My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
The lefts proposals to fix those issues require much more than just taxing the 1%. In reality every welfare state in the West heavily taxes everyone except the poor. There aren't enough rich people to sustain government spending of 40-50% of GDP.
|
On May 07 2019 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it fascinating that despite a somewhat prominent argument for center right policy the most popular candidate in the poll is notoriously the furthest to the left.
Is this people on the right hoping for weak candidate (in their view) or is it that most people do prefer Sanders to the rest but aren't inclined to explain it?
Small, non-representative sample size.
|
On May 07 2019 18:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it fascinating that despite a somewhat prominent argument for center right policy the most popular candidate in the poll is notoriously the furthest to the left.
Is this people on the right hoping for weak candidate (in their view) or is it that most people do prefer Sanders to the rest but aren't inclined to explain it? Small, non-representative sample size.
I'm only speaking to the sample and the posts/posters perspectives so I'm not sure the size matters in this case. It will be interesting to see how this thread evolves and whether the posts start to match the polling more closely though.
|
Norway28804 Posts
On May 07 2019 14:20 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country. I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral. Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs. My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%. The lefts proposals to fix those issues require much more than just taxing the 1%. In reality every welfare state in the West heavily taxes everyone except the poor. There aren't enough rich people to sustain government spending of 40-50% of GDP.
It is certainly true that Scandinavian countries tax most people more than the US does, and a lot of it is concealed through VAT. (Income taxes themselves aren't all that high in Norway, much higher in Denmark though. Myself I make something like $60k per year but I only pay ~25% taxes, however we have reasonably hefty consumption taxes, especially for items that have other negative effects. (tobacco, alcohol, sugar, cars, petrol).
However I don't have to pay for health care (like $15 per visit regardless of how expensive it is to treat), and I have $35k total student loans after spending 6 years in university. If people want universal health care and free college tuition, they will indeed have to expect to pay more in taxes across the board, not just the top 1%. Prolly top 50% will see some increase in tax burden.
But aside from the top 1-10%, they will also heftily benefit from certain expenses being significantly less expensive, or not expenses at all.
Like, nobody in norway has a 'college fund' for their children. That's not an expense we have. Kindergarten likewise - most children are in kindergarten from age 1-6, and it costs at most like $300 per kid for one month - for most it's significantly lower, but costs vary depending on income. Essentially, if you are full time employed without children, you have enough money regardless of profession and regardless of our taxation levels being higher. People in more economically vulnerable positions, students, parents of younger children, people in positions where it's not such a given that they will have enough, get subsidized in some shape or form. I'm not gonna pretend that you can realize a scandinavian social democracy without increasing taxes across the board; you can't. But I will definitely argue that for a reasonably large % of people, the added costs they feel through increased taxation is alleviated through lower costs for stuff they used to have to pay for. Reasonably well educated adults without children are one group that is outside the top 10% income wise and who might still end up paying slightly more overall, but it's hard for me to be all that sympathetic - this group already has plenty.
|
On May 07 2019 19:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2019 14:20 RvB wrote:On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 04:05 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 03:47 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 03:04 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2019 02:54 BisuDagger wrote:On May 07 2019 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, Biden is terrible at running for office and the those Onion articles about him being a doofy uncle in the White House are the only reason he is even in the running. That meme of a character somehow obliterated his shitty record on pretty much every issue that matters to modern Democrats.
Edit: Warren going after billionaires is one of the least controversial parts of her platform. Most Americans have no love for the super wealthy and dislike student loans a whole lot. I disagree. I think there's a massive debate between those who are looking to retire on social security wanting trillions to fix that problem versus those who took out loans for education and can't get themselves out of debt. I also believe there are other groups of people who are looking for rich money to fix their problems and don't want to see it distributed elsewhere. And then there is me saying, “We should do both, really.” Student debt is a huge problem for the country and the student loan industry had enjoyed enough federal protection from being discharged. And the social safety nets created for our aging population need to be addressed. And none of this is going to happen on the cheap. The whole plan of pitting the young against the old only works if we buy into the idea that they need to fight over the scraps super wealthy are willing to give up. I agree both issues need to be tackled. But I won't vote for any who says we will do it by taxing the 1% or any other income class. We already give up too much through income. I want a candidate that understands this. I lived off very little so I could pay off my debt and make a good salary. Anyone who wants to take more of my hard earned salary directly out of my paycheck will miss my vote. I'm not opposed to other taxes outside of income tax if they make sense. Unless you make millions upon millions, I doubt you are going to be taxed any more. This is about people making more money than they know what to do with and who control more of the wealth than is health for the country. I still think it's wrong. A 50% income tax means half of everything you earn goes to the government. Why should that be so? If people are upset about the amount of money someone earns maybe there are other ways to fix it. But just saying well you earn X amount so we want you to give half to the government so they can choose how to spend it isn't okay. And the1% are taxed more then that. There has to be a limit on how much the government can take on earned income before it's just immoral. Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs. My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%. The lefts proposals to fix those issues require much more than just taxing the 1%. In reality every welfare state in the West heavily taxes everyone except the poor. There aren't enough rich people to sustain government spending of 40-50% of GDP. It is certainly true that Scandinavian countries tax most people more than the US does, and a lot of it is concealed through VAT. (Income taxes themselves aren't all that high in Norway, much higher in Denmark though. Myself I make something like $60k per year but I only pay ~25% taxes, however we have reasonably hefty consumption taxes, especially for items that have other negative effects. (tobacco, alcohol, sugar, cars, petrol). However I don't have to pay for health care (like $15 per visit regardless of how expensive it is to treat), and I have $35k total student loans after spending 6 years in university. If people want universal health care and free college tuition, they will indeed have to expect to pay more in taxes across the board, not just the top 1%. Prolly top 50% will see some increase in tax burden. But aside from the top 1-10%, they will also heftily benefit from certain expenses being significantly less expensive, or not expenses at all. Like, nobody in norway has a 'college fund' for their children. That's not an expense we have. Kindergarten likewise - most children are in kindergarten from age 1-6, and it costs at most like $300 per kid for one month - for most it's significantly lower, but costs vary depending on income. Essentially, if you are full time employed without children, you have enough money regardless of profession and regardless of our taxation levels being higher. People in more economically vulnerable positions, students, parents of younger children, people in positions where it's not such a given that they will have enough, get subsidized in some shape or form. I'm not gonna pretend that you can realize a scandinavian social democracy without increasing taxes across the board; you can't. But I will definitely argue that for a reasonably large % of people, the added costs they feel through increased taxation is alleviated through lower costs for stuff they used to have to pay for. Reasonably well educated adults without children are one group that is outside the top 10% income wise and who might still end up paying slightly more overall, but it's hard for me to be all that sympathetic - this group already has plenty.
The problem is that in Norway, to get the benefits, you have to live your life in a certain way. If I want to go live like a hermit in the woods, and make money with some online business, I'd have to pay higher taxes, and get little in return. This is one of my fundamental problems with higher taxes, you lose choice.
Honestly, I wouldn't increase income or corporate taxes at all in the US, if anything, a sales tax hike could be argued for though.
|
Norway28804 Posts
It might very well be true that there are other countries more suitable for being a hermit in the woods while running an internet business. While I think it's a good thing that society allows for outliers, designing society around catering to the needs of people who have no interest or desire to be part of society seems to make little sense to me.
|
Yikes - not exactly a strong field of candidates. The Republican wins at the state and local levels over the past decade has limited the positions for rising Democrats, and we're starting to see the impact of this. Plus, the emphasis on identity politics appears to have further winnowed the field.
Now you're stuck with candidates that are way too old (e.g., Biden, Sanders), or have limited experience (Pete B.)
|
On May 08 2019 00:48 Bagration wrote:
Yikes - not exactly a strong field of candidates. The Republican wins at the state and local levels over the past decade has limited the positions for rising Democrats, and we're starting to see the impact of this. Plus, the emphasis on identity politics appears to have further winnowed the field.
Now you're stuck with candidates that are way too old (e.g., Biden, Sanders), or have limited experience (Pete B.)
Or you have a candidate like Klobuchar who has the experience, isn't old, and is perfectly positioned to win the swing states the party needs for the presidency.
|
Honestly, I've seen worse. And identity politics is always a factor, especially in the Trump's pandering to white grievance politics.
|
On May 07 2019 04:29 Plansix wrote:
Why not? If that is the amount of money we need to rebuild the country after 50 years of doing nothing, then that is the amount they need to be taxed. It isn’t like that sort of tax rate is anything new. Taxes were that high in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
I don’t really care about morality, because I know how wealth inequality solves itself on a long enough time line. And that resolution will be less than moral. Either the government can do it or it will get solved through extra governmental means, like an economic collapse or some sort of civil unrest. We are facing some real problems this country that are simply not getting attention because everyone is convinced that a bombing economy will somehow fix the housing shortage, student loan crisis and rising healthcare costs.
My state is facing a real problem with massive numbers of homeless children that they simply do not have services to deal with it. We are also facing housing shortage and so signs of affordable housing being on the legislature’s to do list. And these problems won’t stay in the costal cities, people are getting priced out all over the country. This isn’t some abstract debate about the morality of taxes. These are real problems that must be solved and I’m not interested in the debate about how much is to much. 90% was what we taxed the rich in the 1940s and 1950s. Lets not get to that crisis level and just do 50%.
It's so easy to say this when you're not rich yourself.
How about this, consider the computer you're currently using to play Starcraft, or your cellphone, because these are things you can relate to.
Can you imagine that each time you brought one, you had to contribute to someone half the cost of their computer or cellphone?
|
On May 08 2019 00:48 Bagration wrote:
Now you're stuck with candidates that are way too old (e.g., Biden, Sanders), or have limited experience (Pete B.)
Why do you think Butt has limited experience? He has far more experience (mayor, veteran, McKinseys, Harvard, Oxford, is gay - which in itself is pretty much a qualification given Obama was voted in for being black rather than any of his non-policies such as "change") than other hugely popular Democrats, such as that Ortega-Cruz chick who's only ever worked as a waitress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
