|
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 |
Oh boy I see oBlade still hasn't learned about the Trump tax 'cut'.
Trump did not cut taxes for the middle class. He cut taxes for the rich and gave a TEMPORARY reduction for the rest, which turns into an actual tax increase over time to pay for the tax cut to the rich that doesn't get phased out.
His tax plan was revenue neutral over 10 years (a requirement for passing through Congress the way it did) and it achieved that by taxing the poor to pay for the rich.
This has been mentioned like 100x since the plan for came out, how the fuck are people still getting this wrong.
|
|
|
On October 28 2024 22:46 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy I see oBlade still hasn't learned about the Trump tax 'cut'.
Trump did not cut taxes for the middle class. He cut taxes for the rich and gave a TEMPORARY reduction for the rest, which turns into an actual tax increase over time to pay for the tax cut to the rich that doesn't get phased out.
His tax plan was revenue neutral over 10 years (a requirement for passing through Congress the way it did) and it achieved that by taxing the poor to pay for the rich.
This has been mentioned like 100x since the plan for came out, how the fuck are people still getting this wrong.
Dear God, you are absolutely right.
If nothing is done before 2027, the bottom 60% of taxpayers may end up having to pay $30 per year more than if the law had never been passed.
![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/SfwwF4p/thefuck.png)
This has totally changed my mind on this atrocious piece of tax policy that demonstrably provided tax relief, albeit temporary, for the middle class, within the confines of Drumpf not being able to pass almost anything with the other party calling him Hitler and refusing to work together, except for criminal justice reform and $5 trillion of covid spending which they were for some reason happy to play ball on.
Oh, either that or you're completely fucking wrong.
Drumpf's tax act which passed Congress was not revenue neutral, and did not have to be revenue neutral. If Congress had to be revenue neutral we wouldn't be $36 trillion in the hole and digging deeper every year. You only have to sunset whatever you add to the deficit so it stops after 10 years. You do not have to suddenly make up for it at the end. Otherwise, if you want to put something into law which adds to the budget deficit for more than 10 years, you need a filibuster proof majority, that's the only rule.
So this leaves us in the precarious position of having tax cuts expiring in 2027 with no possible way to extend them - oh, except the very apparatus, Congress, that brought them to us in the first place, so we can just renew them.
|
What is this misinformation? Future taxes will be a lot worse under Trump and a lot better under Harris. They're almost diametrically opposed to each other.
![[image loading]](https://sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/itep/Harris-vs-Trump-tax-plans-for-2026.png)
https://itep.org/kamala-harris-donald-trump-tax-plans/
If you read the article, you'll see point for point why exactly Trump's tax plan is a complete disaster for workers. Not only is it much worse than Harris', it actively takes money from people. She plans to maintain the benefits and improve upon them.
Under Trump, the rich are gonna get richer and the poor are gonna get poorer. Under Harris it's the exact opposite.
|
Bisutopia19379 Posts
On October 29 2024 01:00 Magic Powers wrote:What is this misinformation? Future taxes will be a lot worse under Trump and a lot better under Harris. They're almost diametrically opposed to each other. https://itep.org/kamala-harris-donald-trump-tax-plans/If you read the article, you'll see point for point why exactly Trump's tax plan is a complete disaster for workers. Not only is it much worse than Harris', it actively takes money from people. She plans to maintain the benefits and improve upon them. Under Trump, the rich are gonna get richer and the poor are gonna get poorer. Under Harris it's the exact opposite.
Word! Harris keeps speaking my language with her tax cuts and tariff policies. She's the most fiscal conservative candidate in the race lol. It could be all talk, but she's saying all the right things for an in the middle conservative.
|
On October 29 2024 01:05 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 01:00 Magic Powers wrote:What is this misinformation? Future taxes will be a lot worse under Trump and a lot better under Harris. They're almost diametrically opposed to each other. https://itep.org/kamala-harris-donald-trump-tax-plans/If you read the article, you'll see point for point why exactly Trump's tax plan is a complete disaster for workers. Not only is it much worse than Harris', it actively takes money from people. She plans to maintain the benefits and improve upon them. Under Trump, the rich are gonna get richer and the poor are gonna get poorer. Under Harris it's the exact opposite. Word! Harris keeps speaking my language with her tax cuts and tariff policies. She's the most fiscal conservative candidate in the race lol. It could be all talk, but she's saying all the right things for an in the middle conservative.
That's good to hear! It's bizarre that Trump wants to raise taxes so much through his tariff "plan".
|
On October 29 2024 01:00 Magic Powers wrote:What is this misinformation? Future taxes will be a lot worse under Trump and a lot better under Harris. They're almost diametrically opposed to each other. https://itep.org/kamala-harris-donald-trump-tax-plans/If you read the article, you'll see point for point why exactly Trump's tax plan is a complete disaster for workers. Not only is it much worse than Harris', it actively takes money from people. She plans to maintain the benefits and improve upon them. Under Trump, the rich are gonna get richer and the poor are gonna get poorer. Under Harris it's the exact opposite.
You can agree or disagree with tariffs. ITEP doesn't like them, like most globalist stock bubble economists.
But conflating tariffs on imported goods with the tax that you figure with your accountant every year and going "look tax go up!" - I mean, this is not honest enough to deserve further consideration. Nevertheless, I am, so here we go.
If ITEP wanted to calculate the 20% flat tariff with its corresponding tax cuts, that'd be interesting, but they're being disingenuous calculating it with the 2017 tax plan because that was in an environment with selective tariffs on trade, not blanket/umbrella tariffs that Drumpf is proposing now.
It's like when Musk says Model Whatever is starting at $30k, when he includes $6k of tax credits on the purchase (reasonable) and $10k of gas savings (bullshit). That's not what a "price" is. Similarly... that's not what we are talking about with "taxes." Inflation also makes prices up but it's not a "tax" per se. It's not levied on the consumer. You can argue 100% of it gets passed to the consumer, but it's not levied on them. Like a corporate capital gains tax increase causing Apple to charge you more for iPhones isn't a tax on consumers in the lowest tax brackets despite the fact that leftists push for policies like that and someone else wants to make them look bad so they frame it that way.
ITEP omits that Drumpf's presumptive tax cuts under a tariffmaxxing policy would exceed the 2017 cuts. The 2017 cuts Republicans want to extend in a base case. In a +20/50/100%, whatever it may be, tariff plan, Drumpf has specifically floated moving to a mainly tariffs/customs/duties way of funding the government, reducing to eliminating income tax. (He may be right or wrong about that, and some percent of it may be bluster, nevertheless we have at least arrived at something interesting - I've heard that "literally" means "figuratively" but this is the first time I've heard "no plan" to mean "plan.")
To actually figure out the methodology and what assumptions have been made and what has been dressed up and what things have been omitted - the authors are not pro-tariff so I doubt they have done their best to give tariffs their fair shake - I, or anyone else, need to read this paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4834397 which looks interesting but I have to bookmark for a later moment.
|
On October 29 2024 01:00 Magic Powers wrote:What is this misinformation? Future taxes will be a lot worse under Trump and a lot better under Harris. They're almost diametrically opposed to each other. https://itep.org/kamala-harris-donald-trump-tax-plans/If you read the article, you'll see point for point why exactly Trump's tax plan is a complete disaster for workers. Not only is it much worse than Harris', it actively takes money from people. She plans to maintain the benefits and improve upon them. Under Trump, the rich are gonna get richer and the poor are gonna get poorer. Under Harris it's the exact opposite.
I somewhat disagree with it, while it is true that tariffs will be mostly passed on consumers they cant exactly be counted as tax. My guess would be that food and energy will be cheaper, as they are mostly domestic product and would receive tax cut in his proposal (that depends how he would tax/tariff petrol, coal and such though, but petrol being petrol i guess would get special treatment), which would help relieve some necessary costs of living. Also I think tax exempt, for overtime in particular, is massive for hard working people (although I am not sure he would be able to sustain it). Tax exempt "for companies that make their product in America" is I guess attempt to bring manufactures to US to avoid tariffs and get a tax break, not sure if it would work though (I think only way to make it work would be consecutive governments keeping it that way)
Overall I am not sure whose plan is actually better, (tbh I think Kwark would be best person to have a go at it), Still not a fan of counting tariffs as taxes.
Edit - oBlade bit me to it.
|
Bisutopia19379 Posts
On October 29 2024 02:31 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 01:00 Magic Powers wrote:What is this misinformation? Future taxes will be a lot worse under Trump and a lot better under Harris. They're almost diametrically opposed to each other. https://itep.org/kamala-harris-donald-trump-tax-plans/If you read the article, you'll see point for point why exactly Trump's tax plan is a complete disaster for workers. Not only is it much worse than Harris', it actively takes money from people. She plans to maintain the benefits and improve upon them. Under Trump, the rich are gonna get richer and the poor are gonna get poorer. Under Harris it's the exact opposite. I somewhat disagree with it, while it is true that tariffs will be mostly passed on consumers they cant exactly be counted as tax. My guess would be that food and energy will be cheaper, as they are mostly domestic product and would receive tax cut in his proposal (that depends how he would tax/tariff petrol, coal and such though, but petrol being petrol i guess would get special treatment), which would help relieve some necessary costs of living. Also I think tax exempt, for overtime in particular, is massive for hard working people (although I am not sure he would be able to sustain it). Tax exempt "for companies that make their product in America" is I guess attempt to bring manufactures to US to avoid tariffs and get a tax break, not sure if it would work though (I think only way to make it work would be consecutive governments keeping it that way) Overall I am not sure whose plan is actually better, (tbh I think Kwark would be best person to have a go at it), Still not a fan of counting tariffs as taxes. Edit - oBlade bit me to it.
I agree with that too. Tariff's don't count as that kind of tax and are very different. Regardless, Kamala is consistently saying she will lower taxes for the middle class and small businesses.
|
|
|
On October 28 2024 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2024 20:59 oBlade wrote:
Trump was not chosen, he was elected; there's a difference. So if Harris gets elected president next week, she can no longer be considered an unqualified DEI hire by BlackJack and Republicans?
1. I didn’t say she was unqualified
2. Yes, obviously. Calling Harris a “DEI hire” for being elected President makes as much sense as calling Trump a “DEI hire.” None.
|
Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway?
|
Is there any world in which a black woman could be running without you saying that she has been chosen to run because she is a black woman?
I don’t particularly like Harris but she seems to me like the most qualified candidate to run for office since Obama. Much, much better imo than Clinton, Biden or Trump.
|
On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway?
Then it goes to the Supreme Court and we count on them to be the non partisan guardians of the Republic they have been chosen for being.
|
Fortunately Oregon is not a swing state and I was told by reliable sources that hundreds of votes don't matter so nothing to worry about.
Just get ready for the most secure election in history.
|
Northern Ireland27266 Posts
On October 29 2024 04:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Is there any world in which a black woman could be running without you saying that she has been chosen to run because she is a black woman?
I don’t particularly like Harris but she seems to me like the most qualified candidate to run for office since Obama. Much, much better imo than Clinton, Biden or Trump.
Was Mike Pence a DEI pick because he had cachet with evangelical Christian’s?
If there’s any job going where meritocratic merits don’t apply, it’s political positions. I mean, I think they should but, they clearly don’t
|
On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway?
Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now.
|
On October 29 2024 04:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Is there any world in which a black woman could be running without you saying that she has been chosen to run because she is a black woman?
I don’t particularly like Harris but she seems to me like the most qualified candidate to run for office since Obama. Much, much better imo than Clinton, Biden or Trump.
I think Hillary Clinton's resume for president was one of the most extensive and qualified CVs in the past two decades. Of course, that doesn't make her likeable and doesn't gift her the win, but I think she was insanely qualified on paper.
|
On October 29 2024 04:10 oBlade wrote:Fortunately Oregon is not a swing state and I was told by reliable sources that hundreds of votes don't matter so nothing to worry about.
I am aware that Oregon is not a swing state. Are you aware that cities have more than "hundreds of votes"?
|
Hate to say it guys, but it sure does feel like a Trump win at the moment... it feels like the momentum is completely gone for Harris. How do they go up against Vance/Gabbard/Ramaswami/Musk? Saw Jordan Peteson's caricatural endorsement of these people, this feels legitimately insane to observe. The amount of glazing for these people, they're gone off the deep end with their savior complex. I'm not saying that I'm surprised to not have seen it before now, but the layers are just stacking upon each other at a neckbraking pace. Dems are just soggy milktoast in comparison. Playing the same game isn't what they should do, but where is the firepower?
Also: hope everything goes smoothly, but if ballot boxes are already set on fire... sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
