|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 22 2020 00:39 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 23:52 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 22:15 iamthedave wrote:On October 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
I would actually be surprised if Biden never met any of his son's associates. That's the price of nepotism.
Doodsmack, doesn't it make your blood boil that a billionaire only paid $750 in taxes for several years? I know it does mine. I'm 90% sure that the new and improved doodsmack doesn't care about any of Trump's misdeeds. It's not a misdeed necessarily, I mean look at Amazon they paid $0 in taxes. Clearly they are gaming the system within the bounds of the law. As for Trump's 750, if I'm not mistaken the NYT article said he paid millions in advance, and the 750 was just the amount he paid at tax time to adjust things (similar to how you get a refund or owe some money at tax time but you had taxes withheld from your paychecks all year). If I'm right on that its another instance if media misinformation that the wider left has bought into uncritically. And the number of people saying it's okay for Amazon to do that are... ?
Doodsmack has convinced me. I won't be voting for either Amazon or Hunter Biden this year.
On October 22 2020 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I hate democrats, but I hate authoritarians more (this is where you can differentiate me from GH : we agree economically on most things but have different priorities). Don't think this is accurate but I don't have a very clear picture in my mind of your politics/priorities. Other than voting for Biden which I find to be emptyheaded in most cases I've encountered. No one likes Biden, but if he wins I expect his voters to constantly make excuses for him and Democrats enacting less socially regressive Republican policy.
Far left societal anarchist/post structural anarchist ideally. That's an endgoal though, and not one happening anytime soon (ie, not for hundreds of years). More practically, I'm for things like 100% tax rates on income above 10 million, wealth taxes, massive regulations on corporations, trust busting, etc. I think I'm -8.7/-8.9 on the political compass or something close to -9.
I live in a swing state so I really don't have the same freedom to not vote in this election. If economics (ie anti-capitalism) is your priority, then I can understand your opposition : Biden with a GOP congress and Trump with a GOP congress will have very similar results on that issue. My bet is twofold : one, that a democratic congress will help push him to left, and my more major issue is that I think 4 more years of a Trump presidency would make change much harder to effect, unless the goal is to have the system collapse. There's also all the pure social issues like lgbtq+ rights, immigration, racism, etc. I'm too risk averse to want societal collapse.
(I'm still unsure if Hillary losing in 2016 was worth it, tbh. It revitalized the left and helped crush neoliberalism but so much damage has been done to the environment due to it).
On October 22 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 00:47 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2020 00:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 21 2020 23:52 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 22:15 iamthedave wrote:On October 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
I would actually be surprised if Biden never met any of his son's associates. That's the price of nepotism.
Doodsmack, doesn't it make your blood boil that a billionaire only paid $750 in taxes for several years? I know it does mine. I'm 90% sure that the new and improved doodsmack doesn't care about any of Trump's misdeeds. It's not a misdeed necessarily, I mean look at Amazon they paid $0 in taxes. Clearly they are gaming the system within the bounds of the law. As for Trump's 750, if I'm not mistaken the NYT article said he paid millions in advance, and the 750 was just the amount he paid at tax time to adjust things (similar to how you get a refund or owe some money at tax time but you had taxes withheld from your paychecks all year). If I'm right on that its another instance if media misinformation that the wider left has bought into uncritically. The fact that billionaires like Trump [he's on record saying how smart he is for taking advantage of the tax code, he said it makes him 'smart'] and megacorporations like Amazon game the system within the bounds of the law to pay effectively zero tax should make you angry. It shouldn't matter which way you lean politically, we all pay our fair share or the system goes to shit. It's also extraordinarily uncritical to assume that Amazon is doing nothing untoward in its tax strats anyway; the complexity and lack of transparency relative to megacorp tax laws is a problem in and of itself. The public can't really tell if megacorps are being aboveboard one way or the other, and given how many tax strats turn on legal grey areas themselves, it's silly to assume anything other than, we can't really tell what the wealthy are doing in terms of tax compliance and the opacity is a feature, not a bug. Worth remembering the IRS said last year that it's cheaper and easier to focus on lower income taxpayers. Show nested quote +On the one hand, the IRS said, auditing poor taxpayers is a lot easier: The agency uses relatively low-level employees to audit returns for low-income taxpayers who claim the earned income tax credit. The audits — of which there were about 380,000 last year, accounting for 39% of the total the IRS conducted — are done by mail and don’t take too much staff time, either. They are “the most efficient use of available IRS examination resources,” Rettig’s report says.
On the other hand, auditing the rich is hard. It takes senior auditors hours upon hours to complete an exam. What’s more, the letter says, “the rate of attrition is significantly higher among these more experienced examiners.” As a result, the budget cuts have hit this part of the IRS particularly hard. www.propublica.org
Yep. It's especially bad because their funding has been continually hamstrung, especially after the fake IRS audit scandal under Obama.
The only rich people getting caught now are the most blatant (Reynold's and Reynolds owner who just got charged for 2 billion in tax evasion) or dumbest offenders (Trump cashing a 74$ million return check in a most likely fraudulent manner)
Not only do they have to do these audits, but they have to deal with the expensive legal system. So even if the ROI is high enough, if they can't afford the upfront cost. They're pretty non-political animals, but I'm sure it's no coincidence that their funding was reduced to the level where they have to target the poor.
SAN FRANCISCO — Robert Brockman, the Houston billionaire and CEO of a software company, has been charged with taking $2 billion through a scheme to evade taxes, hide assets, and launder money, in what federal prosecutors say is the biggest case of its kind.
Brockman, 79, was charged in a 39-count indictment that includes charges of money laundering, conspiracy, wire fraud, and tax evasion. The 42-page indictment, unsealed Thursday morning, alleges that in the late 1990s, Brockman formed companies on the British Virgin Islands and later used them to conceal assets from the IRS.
Federal prosecutors have not moved to hold him in pretrial detention, but argued that Brockman’s access to a private jet in Houston makes him a flight risk. At a court hearing Thursday morning, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins ordered Brockman to remain released but imposed a $1 million bond over defense objections.
The indictment covers a 20-year period. It was secured thanks in part to the help of Robert F. Smith, another billionaire who was also being investigated for allegedly evading taxes on a massive scale, though Anderson would not detail what sparked the investigation. Smith avoided criminal charges by agreeing to help with Brockman’s prosecution.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/15/texas-billionaire-bob-brockman-charged-with-biggest-tax-evasion-case-in-us-history-feds-say-losses-total-2-billion/
|
On October 22 2020 00:38 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 23:52 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 22:15 iamthedave wrote:On October 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
I would actually be surprised if Biden never met any of his son's associates. That's the price of nepotism.
Doodsmack, doesn't it make your blood boil that a billionaire only paid $750 in taxes for several years? I know it does mine. I'm 90% sure that the new and improved doodsmack doesn't care about any of Trump's misdeeds. It's not a misdeed necessarily, I mean look at Amazon they paid $0 in taxes. Clearly they are gaming the system within the bounds of the law. As for Trump's 750, if I'm not mistaken the NYT article said he paid millions in advance, and the 750 was just the amount he paid at tax time to adjust things (similar to how you get a refund or owe some money at tax time but you had taxes withheld from your paychecks all year). If I'm right on that its another instance if media misinformation that the wider left has bought into uncritically. The fact that billionaires like Trump [he's on record saying he took advantage of the tax code, he said it makes him 'smart'] and megacorporations like Amazon game the system within the bounds of the law to pay effectively zero tax should make you angry. It shouldn't matter which way you lean politically, we all pay our fair share or the system goes to shit.
I feel theres also a great difference between a corporation utilizing every tax loop hole available, and the people's representative to the highest public office doing the same. The former are gaming a system in which they are the player, while the latter is gaming the system they themself control the rules to (and are elected to moderate).
As for Trump's chinese tax payment - it's both amusingly ironic that he's been financially supporting the chinese government more than the american, considering his windbag shouting against said regime, while also interesting to see how a budiness venture that "ultimately went nowhere" ended up making Trump owe 400x more tax to China than his american business. The last point, especially, should make people question either his domestic (lack of) success to cause such low payments, or what business Trump has in China which resulted in a 400x higher tax payment.
|
On October 22 2020 01:04 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 00:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 21 2020 23:52 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 22:15 iamthedave wrote:On October 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
I would actually be surprised if Biden never met any of his son's associates. That's the price of nepotism.
Doodsmack, doesn't it make your blood boil that a billionaire only paid $750 in taxes for several years? I know it does mine. I'm 90% sure that the new and improved doodsmack doesn't care about any of Trump's misdeeds. It's not a misdeed necessarily, I mean look at Amazon they paid $0 in taxes. Clearly they are gaming the system within the bounds of the law. As for Trump's 750, if I'm not mistaken the NYT article said he paid millions in advance, and the 750 was just the amount he paid at tax time to adjust things (similar to how you get a refund or owe some money at tax time but you had taxes withheld from your paychecks all year). If I'm right on that its another instance if media misinformation that the wider left has bought into uncritically. The fact that billionaires like Trump [he's on record saying he took advantage of the tax code, he said it makes him 'smart'] and megacorporations like Amazon game the system within the bounds of the law to pay effectively zero tax should make you angry. It shouldn't matter which way you lean politically, we all pay our fair share or the system goes to shit. I would agree that these people should all pay their fair share and then some. I'm just not sure that under current law it's a misdeed (it's definitely not a crime).
OK, at least we agree on something. I'm actually fairly certain that by the end of the Trump tax audit it will turn out that he broke no laws in the process and he's simply lost a lot of money so his tax bill was appropriate. Honest question here, do you feel let down by the Republican tax reform law that made no effort to close loopholes that are currently exploited by billionaires/megacorporations? They had a golden opportunity to do it, as Trump said, a once in a generation revamp of the tax code. Or is this something you don't feel strongly about?
On October 22 2020 01:13 plated.rawr wrote:
I feel theres also a great difference between a corporation utilizing every tax loop hole available, and the people's representative to the highest public office doing the same. The former are gaming a system in which they are the player, while the latter is gaming the system they themself control the rules to (and are elected to moderate).
The brunt of the tax-dodging happened before he became president, according to the leaked tax returns, so it is not actually different. He did have an opportunity to do something about it when they reformed the tax laws, but expecting Trump to do the right thing...
|
I'd say my priority is transitioning away from capitalism toward communism (which is democratic, not authoritarian). People like Biden and Trump are in opposition to that, so I identify them as such.
Biden and Democrats are more dangerous in some ways. Namely that they desperately want to keep capitalism palatable enough to ensure its perpetuation and will act to do as much. Trump and Republicans think capitalism is too palatable and exacerbate the suffering as motivation for people not to be poor.
Swing state or not I still think people should vote for what they support (even if that's Biden and his perpetuation of atrocities seen during the Obama admin and beyond). I voted PSL.
|
On October 22 2020 00:24 Nevuk wrote:
I didn't say it was proof of corruption. I said it was proof we were going to see more evidence of corruption before election day.
A distinction without a difference if I ever saw one. You have no reason (other than partisanship/Trump hatred) to assume that merely having a bank account in China is evidence that signs of corruption will be coming out. You're just trying to criminalize everything about Trump.
|
On October 22 2020 01:13 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 00:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 21 2020 23:52 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 22:15 iamthedave wrote:On October 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
I would actually be surprised if Biden never met any of his son's associates. That's the price of nepotism.
Doodsmack, doesn't it make your blood boil that a billionaire only paid $750 in taxes for several years? I know it does mine. I'm 90% sure that the new and improved doodsmack doesn't care about any of Trump's misdeeds. It's not a misdeed necessarily, I mean look at Amazon they paid $0 in taxes. Clearly they are gaming the system within the bounds of the law. As for Trump's 750, if I'm not mistaken the NYT article said he paid millions in advance, and the 750 was just the amount he paid at tax time to adjust things (similar to how you get a refund or owe some money at tax time but you had taxes withheld from your paychecks all year). If I'm right on that its another instance if media misinformation that the wider left has bought into uncritically. The fact that billionaires like Trump [he's on record saying he took advantage of the tax code, he said it makes him 'smart'] and megacorporations like Amazon game the system within the bounds of the law to pay effectively zero tax should make you angry. It shouldn't matter which way you lean politically, we all pay our fair share or the system goes to shit. I feel theres also a great difference between a corporation utilizing every tax loop hole available, and the people's representative to the highest public office doing the same. The former are gaming a system in which they are the player, while the latter is gaming the system they themself control the rules to (and are elected to moderate). As for Trump's chinese tax payment - it's both amusingly ironic that he's been financially supporting the chinese government more than the american, considering his windbag shouting against said regime, while also interesting to see how a budiness venture that "ultimately went nowhere" ended up making Trump owe 400x more tax to China than his american business. The last point, especially, should make people question either his domestic (lack of) success to cause such low payments, or what business Trump has in China which resulted in a 400x higher tax payment.
The problem with this logic is that the "tax loophole" that Trump used was part of the last financial crisis when Biden was VP. If you're going to blame the highest public office you'd be blaming Obama and Biden, not Trump. I don't agree with giving credit to the president for legislation, but your argument doesn't make any sense. You can't hold Trump accountable for tax loop holes before he was even a politician.
From what I've read, the losses that he carried forward to not pay taxes are not valid, but that would be argued in court and result in paying the difference not jail time.
|
To be fair, it wasn't just a loophole, it was an unintended loophole. It was never intended to be used in the manner that Trump used it. So I'd call that incompetence on the parts of the people who wrote and passed it, rather than intentional aid to Trump.
Trump's tax bill did quadruple the loophole, so I can definitely blame him for that.
On October 22 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd say my priority is transitioning away from capitalism toward communism (which is democratic, not authoritarian). People like Biden and Trump are in opposition to that, so I identify them as such.
Biden and Democrats are more dangerous in some ways. Namely that they desperately want to keep capitalism palatable enough to ensure its perpetuation and will act to do as much. Trump and Republicans think capitalism is too palatable and exacerbate the suffering as motivation for people not to be poor.
Swing state or not I still think people should vote for what they support (even if that's Biden and his perpetuation of atrocities seen during the Obama admin and beyond). I voted PSL.
I agree that the Democrats want this, but I don't think it matters. The current system of capitalism so obviously can't handle where we're going to be in 15-20 years that I don't think anything they can do will delay any transition away from it.
|
On October 22 2020 01:32 Nevuk wrote:To be fair, it wasn't just a loophole, it was an unintended loophole. It was never intended to be used in the manner that Trump used it. So I'd call that incompetence on the parts of the people who wrote and passed it, rather than intentional aid to Trump. Trump's tax bill did quadruple the loophole, so I can definitely blame him for that. Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd say my priority is transitioning away from capitalism toward communism (which is democratic, not authoritarian). People like Biden and Trump are in opposition to that, so I identify them as such.
Biden and Democrats are more dangerous in some ways. Namely that they desperately want to keep capitalism palatable enough to ensure its perpetuation and will act to do as much. Trump and Republicans think capitalism is too palatable and exacerbate the suffering as motivation for people not to be poor.
Swing state or not I still think people should vote for what they support (even if that's Biden and his perpetuation of atrocities seen during the Obama admin and beyond). I voted PSL. I agree that the Democrats want this, but I don't think it matters. The current system of capitalism so obviously can't handle where we're going to be in 15-20 years that I don't think anything they can do will delay any transition away from it.
They will align themselves with those fighting against that transition before they align themselves with those calling for it. Biden's made clear he'd rather work with Republicans than moderate social democrats like Bernie Sanders or AOC. I wish we had 20 years to wait, but we don't.
|
On October 22 2020 01:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 01:13 plated.rawr wrote:On October 22 2020 00:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 21 2020 23:52 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 22:15 iamthedave wrote:On October 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
I would actually be surprised if Biden never met any of his son's associates. That's the price of nepotism.
Doodsmack, doesn't it make your blood boil that a billionaire only paid $750 in taxes for several years? I know it does mine. I'm 90% sure that the new and improved doodsmack doesn't care about any of Trump's misdeeds. It's not a misdeed necessarily, I mean look at Amazon they paid $0 in taxes. Clearly they are gaming the system within the bounds of the law. As for Trump's 750, if I'm not mistaken the NYT article said he paid millions in advance, and the 750 was just the amount he paid at tax time to adjust things (similar to how you get a refund or owe some money at tax time but you had taxes withheld from your paychecks all year). If I'm right on that its another instance if media misinformation that the wider left has bought into uncritically. The fact that billionaires like Trump [he's on record saying he took advantage of the tax code, he said it makes him 'smart'] and megacorporations like Amazon game the system within the bounds of the law to pay effectively zero tax should make you angry. It shouldn't matter which way you lean politically, we all pay our fair share or the system goes to shit. I feel theres also a great difference between a corporation utilizing every tax loop hole available, and the people's representative to the highest public office doing the same. The former are gaming a system in which they are the player, while the latter is gaming the system they themself control the rules to (and are elected to moderate). As for Trump's chinese tax payment - it's both amusingly ironic that he's been financially supporting the chinese government more than the american, considering his windbag shouting against said regime, while also interesting to see how a budiness venture that "ultimately went nowhere" ended up making Trump owe 400x more tax to China than his american business. The last point, especially, should make people question either his domestic (lack of) success to cause such low payments, or what business Trump has in China which resulted in a 400x higher tax payment. The problem with this logic is that the "tax loophole" that Trump used was part of the last financial crisis when Biden was VP. If you're going to blame the highest public office you'd be blaming Obama and Biden, not Trump. I don't agree with giving credit to the president for legislation, but your argument doesn't make any sense. You can't hold Trump accountable for tax loop holes before he was even a politician. From what I've read, the losses that he carried forward to not pay taxes are not valid, but that would be argued in court and result in paying the difference not jail time.
True, he was simple another player having his lawyers and accountants play the game pre-16, so blaming the previous state of affairs in relation to tax legislation on him isnt fair. It does, however, paint rather clear image of his philosophy in relation to said ruleset, a mentality that would also color his later presidental motivations.
As for not blaming the president for legislation- while Montesquieu might have considered the split of power in government to be more robust, the modern reality of american government is something entirely different, I'd argue.
|
|
|
On October 22 2020 01:58 JimmiC wrote:
It is such a unpopular move to fund the IRS, but really that is what people should push for, the more they had the more they could go after the big guys and the IRS is one of the best "money makers" that the government has. But people all hate them so you would never get elected on a platform that included funding them, even if you said it was to go after the rich and big corps, people wouldn't believe it. They all think they will soon win the lottery and be tax dodging millions themselves.
|
On October 22 2020 01:32 Nevuk wrote:To be fair, it wasn't just a loophole, it was an unintended loophole. It was never intended to be used in the manner that Trump used it. So I'd call that incompetence on the parts of the people who wrote and passed it, rather than intentional aid to Trump. Trump's tax bill did quadruple the loophole, so I can definitely blame him for that. Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd say my priority is transitioning away from capitalism toward communism (which is democratic, not authoritarian). People like Biden and Trump are in opposition to that, so I identify them as such.
Biden and Democrats are more dangerous in some ways. Namely that they desperately want to keep capitalism palatable enough to ensure its perpetuation and will act to do as much. Trump and Republicans think capitalism is too palatable and exacerbate the suffering as motivation for people not to be poor.
Swing state or not I still think people should vote for what they support (even if that's Biden and his perpetuation of atrocities seen during the Obama admin and beyond). I voted PSL. I agree that the Democrats want this, but I don't think it matters. The current system of capitalism so obviously can't handle where we're going to be in 15-20 years that I don't think anything they can do will delay any transition away from it.
I've actually been wondering what people see as a realistic path forward for the US. It feels like if you were to generally poll people who vote in this election on how closely their political values are represented by the candidate they voted for, the average response would be "Not very well, but better than the other guy."
This leads me to hope that the next 4-8 years result in a dissolving of one of the two major parties and transition into a multi-party platform that actually allows people to have their views represented. Of course, the US system itself seems invested in not changing, so 4-8 years seems like a massive pipe dream unless there's an 'explosion' to spark more rapid change.
So, out of curiosity, what does the transition you're talking about look like?
|
On October 22 2020 02:33 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 01:32 Nevuk wrote:To be fair, it wasn't just a loophole, it was an unintended loophole. It was never intended to be used in the manner that Trump used it. So I'd call that incompetence on the parts of the people who wrote and passed it, rather than intentional aid to Trump. Trump's tax bill did quadruple the loophole, so I can definitely blame him for that. On October 22 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd say my priority is transitioning away from capitalism toward communism (which is democratic, not authoritarian). People like Biden and Trump are in opposition to that, so I identify them as such.
Biden and Democrats are more dangerous in some ways. Namely that they desperately want to keep capitalism palatable enough to ensure its perpetuation and will act to do as much. Trump and Republicans think capitalism is too palatable and exacerbate the suffering as motivation for people not to be poor.
Swing state or not I still think people should vote for what they support (even if that's Biden and his perpetuation of atrocities seen during the Obama admin and beyond). I voted PSL. I agree that the Democrats want this, but I don't think it matters. The current system of capitalism so obviously can't handle where we're going to be in 15-20 years that I don't think anything they can do will delay any transition away from it. I've actually been wondering what people see as a realistic path forward for the US. It feels like if you were to generally poll people who vote in this election on how closely their political values are represented by the candidate they voted for, the average response would be "Not very well, but better than the other guy." This leads me to hope that the next 4-8 years result in a dissolving of one of the two major parties and transition into a multi-party platform that actually allows people to have their views represented. Of course, the US system itself seems invested in not changing, so 4-8 years seems like a massive pipe dream unless there's an 'explosion' to spark more rapid change. So, out of curiosity, what does the transition you're talking about look like? The US can't move towards a multi-party system without remaking the entire electoral system. Congressmen being tied to individual districts doesn't work with proportional representation.
So the chance of that happening in the next 4-8 is utterly 0. even in the next decades I don't see how either party would give up their current massive advantage over outside parties.
|
On October 22 2020 01:58 JimmiC wrote:
It is such a unpopular move to fund the IRS, but really that is what people should push for, the more they had the more they could go after the big guys and the IRS is one of the best "money makers" that the government has. But people all hate them so you would never get elected on a platform that included funding them, even if you said it was to go after the rich and big corps, people wouldn't believe it.
Yup it's something like for every dollar invested in the IRS, 4 dollars comes back in revenue. Defunding the IRS is just allowing fraud.
|
On October 22 2020 02:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 01:58 JimmiC wrote:
It is such a unpopular move to fund the IRS, but really that is what people should push for, the more they had the more they could go after the big guys and the IRS is one of the best "money makers" that the government has. But people all hate them so you would never get elected on a platform that included funding them, even if you said it was to go after the rich and big corps, people wouldn't believe it. They all think they will soon win the lottery and be tax dodging millions themselves.
It’s also possible that they have had personal experience with the IRS and just don’t like them. Lots of people hate paying a tax bill at the end of the year. The people who have been audited might also have had interactions with a bureaucracy which proceeds according to the legalistic rhetoric and logic of the state agency. Getting a bill with a bunch of threats on it leaves many with a bad taste in their mouth, and interfacing with an opaque governmental organization that doesn’t understand their unique situation (everyone is the protagonist of their own life, with special concerns and qualifications) and doesn’t express itself warmly and humanely can lead to bad feelings. Saying “hey lets fund the IRS so they can do more audits” might just sound like a way for government to harrass more people, no matter what economic arguments you might make for why it benefits them.
Any discussion about the politics of taxes should start from some basic facts 1) the majority of Americans don’t understand how their own taxes work or are calculated 2) pay little or nothing in taxes outside of payroll taxes that are automaticaly deducted 3) the ones who do own things (homes for the most part) mostly try to reduce their tax bills themselves, taking advantage of deductions, whether or not their application of those deductions is correct 4) maybe pay (and resent paying) someone to do their taxes just so that they can take advantage of tax deductions and proof themselves against IRS audits 5) if they do get audited almost always find it to be annoying at best and catastrophic at worst
|
On October 22 2020 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 02:33 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 22 2020 01:32 Nevuk wrote:To be fair, it wasn't just a loophole, it was an unintended loophole. It was never intended to be used in the manner that Trump used it. So I'd call that incompetence on the parts of the people who wrote and passed it, rather than intentional aid to Trump. Trump's tax bill did quadruple the loophole, so I can definitely blame him for that. On October 22 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd say my priority is transitioning away from capitalism toward communism (which is democratic, not authoritarian). People like Biden and Trump are in opposition to that, so I identify them as such.
Biden and Democrats are more dangerous in some ways. Namely that they desperately want to keep capitalism palatable enough to ensure its perpetuation and will act to do as much. Trump and Republicans think capitalism is too palatable and exacerbate the suffering as motivation for people not to be poor.
Swing state or not I still think people should vote for what they support (even if that's Biden and his perpetuation of atrocities seen during the Obama admin and beyond). I voted PSL. I agree that the Democrats want this, but I don't think it matters. The current system of capitalism so obviously can't handle where we're going to be in 15-20 years that I don't think anything they can do will delay any transition away from it. I've actually been wondering what people see as a realistic path forward for the US. It feels like if you were to generally poll people who vote in this election on how closely their political values are represented by the candidate they voted for, the average response would be "Not very well, but better than the other guy." This leads me to hope that the next 4-8 years result in a dissolving of one of the two major parties and transition into a multi-party platform that actually allows people to have their views represented. Of course, the US system itself seems invested in not changing, so 4-8 years seems like a massive pipe dream unless there's an 'explosion' to spark more rapid change. So, out of curiosity, what does the transition you're talking about look like? The US can't move towards a multi-party system without remaking the entire electoral system. Congressmen being tied to individual districts doesn't work with proportional representation. So the chance of that happening in the next 4-8 is utterly 0. even in the next decades I don't see how either party would give up their current massive advantage over outside parties.
Tying some representatives to districts does work with a proportional system, it is what we do in Germany. But really, anything is better than what the US currently have. I think few voting systems are worse than FPTP winner takes all.
|
The way i see it is that many Americans seem to see the constitution as a second bible. It's obviously outdated and doesn't quite work anymore. France has had 5 constitutions since the american one was written and transitioning towards a sixth has been a platform if some serious politicians.
Don't think there is that much hope on that front.
|
On October 22 2020 02:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 02:12 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2020 01:58 JimmiC wrote:
It is such a unpopular move to fund the IRS, but really that is what people should push for, the more they had the more they could go after the big guys and the IRS is one of the best "money makers" that the government has. But people all hate them so you would never get elected on a platform that included funding them, even if you said it was to go after the rich and big corps, people wouldn't believe it. They all think they will soon win the lottery and be tax dodging millions themselves. It’s also possible that they have had personal experience with the IRS and just don’t like them. Lots of people hate paying a tax bill at the end of the year. The people who have been audited might also have had interactions with a bureaucracy which proceeds according to the legalistic rhetoric and logic of the state agency. Getting a bill with a bunch of threats on it leaves many with a bad taste in their mouth, and interfacing with an opaque governmental organization that doesn’t understand their unique situation (everyone is the protagonist of their own life, with special concerns and qualifications) and doesn’t express itself warmly and humanely can lead to bad feelings. Saying “hey lets fund the IRS so they can do more audits” might just sound like a way for government to harrass more people, no matter what economic arguments you might make for why it benefits them. Any discussion about the politics of taxes should start from some basic facts 1) the majority of Americans don’t understand how their own taxes work or are calculated 2) pay little or nothing in taxes outside of payroll taxes that are automaticaly deducted 3) the ones who do own things (homes for the most part) mostly try to reduce their tax bills themselves, taking advantage of deductions, whether or not their application of those deductions is correct 4) maybe pay (and resent paying) someone to do their taxes just so that they can take advantage of tax deductions and proof themselves against IRS audits 5) if they do get audited almost always find it to be annoying at best and catastrophic at worst
If only there wasn't a multi billion dollar tax preparation industry lobbying against changes that would hurt their bottom line.
|
On October 22 2020 01:04 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 00:38 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 21 2020 23:52 Doodsmack wrote:On October 21 2020 22:15 iamthedave wrote:On October 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
I would actually be surprised if Biden never met any of his son's associates. That's the price of nepotism.
Doodsmack, doesn't it make your blood boil that a billionaire only paid $750 in taxes for several years? I know it does mine. I'm 90% sure that the new and improved doodsmack doesn't care about any of Trump's misdeeds. It's not a misdeed necessarily, I mean look at Amazon they paid $0 in taxes. Clearly they are gaming the system within the bounds of the law. As for Trump's 750, if I'm not mistaken the NYT article said he paid millions in advance, and the 750 was just the amount he paid at tax time to adjust things (similar to how you get a refund or owe some money at tax time but you had taxes withheld from your paychecks all year). If I'm right on that its another instance if media misinformation that the wider left has bought into uncritically. The fact that billionaires like Trump [he's on record saying he took advantage of the tax code, he said it makes him 'smart'] and megacorporations like Amazon game the system within the bounds of the law to pay effectively zero tax should make you angry. It shouldn't matter which way you lean politically, we all pay our fair share or the system goes to shit. I would agree that these people should all pay their fair share and then some. I'm just not sure that under current law it's a misdeed (it's definitely not a crime).
The president being proud of gaming the system instead of fucking fixing it should make you angry.
|
On October 22 2020 02:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2020 02:33 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 22 2020 01:32 Nevuk wrote:To be fair, it wasn't just a loophole, it was an unintended loophole. It was never intended to be used in the manner that Trump used it. So I'd call that incompetence on the parts of the people who wrote and passed it, rather than intentional aid to Trump. Trump's tax bill did quadruple the loophole, so I can definitely blame him for that. On October 22 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'd say my priority is transitioning away from capitalism toward communism (which is democratic, not authoritarian). People like Biden and Trump are in opposition to that, so I identify them as such.
Biden and Democrats are more dangerous in some ways. Namely that they desperately want to keep capitalism palatable enough to ensure its perpetuation and will act to do as much. Trump and Republicans think capitalism is too palatable and exacerbate the suffering as motivation for people not to be poor.
Swing state or not I still think people should vote for what they support (even if that's Biden and his perpetuation of atrocities seen during the Obama admin and beyond). I voted PSL. I agree that the Democrats want this, but I don't think it matters. The current system of capitalism so obviously can't handle where we're going to be in 15-20 years that I don't think anything they can do will delay any transition away from it. I've actually been wondering what people see as a realistic path forward for the US. It feels like if you were to generally poll people who vote in this election on how closely their political values are represented by the candidate they voted for, the average response would be "Not very well, but better than the other guy." This leads me to hope that the next 4-8 years result in a dissolving of one of the two major parties and transition into a multi-party platform that actually allows people to have their views represented. Of course, the US system itself seems invested in not changing, so 4-8 years seems like a massive pipe dream unless there's an 'explosion' to spark more rapid change. So, out of curiosity, what does the transition you're talking about look like? The US can't move towards a multi-party system without remaking the entire electoral system. Congressmen being tied to individual districts doesn't work with proportional representation. So the chance of that happening in the next 4-8 is utterly 0. even in the next decades I don't see how either party would give up their current massive advantage over outside parties.
That's why I reference it being a massive pipe dream and/or requiring an event that sparks the change. It's my vain attempt to remain optimistic for the US' future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
