|
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 |
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
On February 21 2026 03:35 Falling wrote: Your Warren Buffet quote doesn't seem to align with your go all in on sales tax idea? Like, at all???
Looks like Warren just wants to fix the current progressive tax systems so people in the ultra rich categories actually pay what it says on paper? As well as creating a new tax bracket with a much higher percentage than taxing at 17%. Which sounds imminently reasonable.
It's 'prolly' useful to have a few different sources of revenue so you have a few different levers to pull to raise revenue without being regressive on the poor or stifling growth. 'Prolly' that's the reason no country has tried a mono-tax policy? I mean, I’m not especially well versed in the nitty-gritty of taxation policy, but aren’t blanket consumption taxes disproportionately punitive to the poor? If one wants to make some arbitrary luxury goods tax then that shifts the burden to richer folks, but surely it’s never going to offset a removal of income tax.
I mean it is a Jimmy proposal and, least to my eyes quite arbitrary and untethered from economic reality. If Jimmy thinks it’s frivolous it’s useless and should be taxed out the wazoo, regardless of whether x activity is actually beneficial in a socioeconomic sense
|
United States43597 Posts
On February 21 2026 02:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Consumption based taxes are an effective way to tax the rich. Except they're absolutely not.
The problem is the runaway train of compounding growth where the income exceeds the capability of people to spend. It's all the capital growth that is never getting spent which turns into more capital which turns into more capital growth. The excess that generates even more excess.
You're proposing to deal with that by refusing to touch the excess.
|
On February 21 2026 02:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Consumption based taxes are an effective way to tax the rich. This is prolly why they are never brought up as a viable option. Tariffs are "barely ok" as a consumption based tax. The better way: a straightforward national sales tax similar to Canada's GST. I'd crank it up to a % high enough until it completely replaces income tax. Then, I'd end income tax. You exempt rent, groceries, and medical care from this sales tax. This is the best way to tax the rich who love to spend money on total bullshit. You can always double the tax % for things like video games, $250,000 sports cars, ZEGNA Black Zai skiis, sugar filled carbonated drinks, cigarettes etc etc.... Warren Buffett 2011: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich". This is from an NY Times Op-Ed by Buffett in 2011. + Show Spoiler +OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot. To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. I didn’t refuse, nor did others. [...] People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent. Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. [...] I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged [...] But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. Any how, thank God the US Supreme Court made the proper decision today. Isn't 'tax 101' that a consumption tax is regressive because poor people spend a larger % of their income on consumption then rich people?
You always pretend like your smart but then you say the most stupid shit.
|
We should incentivize the rich to hoard their wealth even more than they already do, what could go wrong. Also poor people should have luxuries put even further out of their reach. I am very smart.
|
Canada11426 Posts
that is why the Warren Buffett item is in a separate paragraph. You might want a transition sentence then because the way that reads is paragraph one is your claim, paragraph two is the support to your claim. But, sure.
make your case. More or less just did. If the current US tax regime is as Warren Buffet lays out, I would support his proposed changes for the reasons he lays out. I would reject getting rid of income tax in favour of a super sales tax as I doubt it would raise sufficient revenue, and if it's a high flat sales tax, it would be a regressive tax. (A greater portion of a low income goes to basic cost of living purchases that a sales tax would hit. Whereas a progressive income tax can ease the tax burden on the first $50,000 you make with an adjustable basic personal amount to carve out more space for people barely making ends meet.) A balance of progressive income tax combined with sales tax, property tax etc allows revenue raised without putting undue burden on those at the bottom end.
|
On February 21 2026 04:06 farvacola wrote: We should incentivize the rich to hoard their wealth even more than they already do, what could go wrong. Also poor people should have luxuries put even further out of their reach. I am very smart.
One thing that effectively caps the mega richs wealth is confining it to be spent only in their countries.
Or charging them monstrous premiums when they are abroad.
|
On February 21 2026 04:17 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 04:06 farvacola wrote: We should incentivize the rich to hoard their wealth even more than they already do, what could go wrong. Also poor people should have luxuries put even further out of their reach. I am very smart. One thing that effectively caps the mega richs wealth is confining it to be spent only in their countries. Or charging them monstrous premiums when they are abroad. Fair point, and the US tax regime uses a number of tools that look a lot like that, namely Report of Foreign Bank Account disclosure requirements and the transfer pricing approach to locating the domesticity of income earned by international companies (among others). More to that end could certainly be done and there are lots of holes in what already exists that could be closed up. Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon sadly.
|
On February 21 2026 03:07 FlaShFTW wrote: Kavanaugh's dissent is so pitiful, and while I know he's a rat, I'd really expect more from a SC justice... basically said "well, we don't know how to resolve the issue if we rule this is illegal! What do we do with refunds, we haven't thought of that!"
Yeah Justice Kavanuagh, I guess if the illegal item is too hard to fix, we shouldn't rule it illegal. Fucking joke.
Pam Bondi was saying approximately the same thing. "If we prosecute all the Epstein clients our whole system will collapse! What's a little child diddling compared to the DOW being over 50,000?"
|
That’s the problem with electing the Epstein class, they are not looking to tax themselves.
This is also why congress and senators get so rich in the states. Not going to make sensible rules when they are making out like bandits.
|
Kav bro wrote something very similar in his dissent in Purdue, he’s a broken record when it comes to shrugging in the face of difficult to unwind illegal shit
|
On February 21 2026 04:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 04:17 Vivax wrote:On February 21 2026 04:06 farvacola wrote: We should incentivize the rich to hoard their wealth even more than they already do, what could go wrong. Also poor people should have luxuries put even further out of their reach. I am very smart. One thing that effectively caps the mega richs wealth is confining it to be spent only in their countries. Or charging them monstrous premiums when they are abroad. Fair point, and the US tax regime uses a number of tools that look a lot like that, namely Report of Foreign Bank Account disclosure requirements and the transfer pricing approach to locating the domesticity of income earned by international companies (among others). More to that end could certainly be done and there are lots of holes in what already exists that could be closed up. Ain’t gonna happen anytime soon sadly.
Yeah imagine how bad it‘d be if they spent their money in their own country instead of using it to assault others through their nonsense machines.
Or rather. If they were forced to spend.
|
Taxing the wealthy is a solved problem. Capital gains (only realized is necessary if we ban taking out loans on the basis of unrealized gains, but taxing unrealized gains isn't impossible either) and non-first-home property worth over $1m in increasing brackets until it's 99.9% on amounts over $20m or something along those lines. That takes zero dollars from the working class, has zero risk of capital flight (which has been wildly over-stated even on income taxes), doesn't reward firing employees for stock buybacks, and it's exceedingly difficult to hide stocks and property from the IRS.
It's not a math problem, it's a political problem sprouting from an education problem. Politicians just don't want to do that because swing voters don't realize how bad wealth inequality has gotten and all the cool stuff we could have if the Epstein class had tax rates like they did in the 1950s.
|
On February 21 2026 04:41 LightSpectra wrote: Taxing the wealthy is a solved problem. Capital gains (only realized is necessary if we ban taking out loans on the basis of unrealized gains, but taxing unrealized gains isn't impossible either) and non-first-home property worth over $1m in increasing brackets until it's 99.9% on amounts over $20m or something along those lines. That takes zero dollars from the working class, has zero risk of capital flight (which has been wildly over-stated even on income taxes), doesn't reward firing employees for stock buybacks, and it's exceedingly difficult to hide stocks and property from the IRS.
It's not a math problem, it's a political problem sprouting from an education problem. Politicians just don't want to do that because swing voters don't realize how bad wealth inequality has gotten and all the cool stuff we could have if the Epstein class had tax rates like they did in the 1950s. Only quibble I have with this is that it is actually fairly easy to hide property like stocks and real estate under current US tax laws, especially when it comes to use of vehicles like partnerships and trusts (REITs being a prime example). Beneficial ownership rules that requires those entities to report who their owners are started to take off a few years ago and made things somewhat easier, but they’ve mostly been rendered a dead letter and didn’t solve the more fundamental moral hazards created by easy, effectively limitless pass through structures.
|
On February 21 2026 04:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 04:41 LightSpectra wrote: Taxing the wealthy is a solved problem. Capital gains (only realized is necessary if we ban taking out loans on the basis of unrealized gains, but taxing unrealized gains isn't impossible either) and non-first-home property worth over $1m in increasing brackets until it's 99.9% on amounts over $20m or something along those lines. That takes zero dollars from the working class, has zero risk of capital flight (which has been wildly over-stated even on income taxes), doesn't reward firing employees for stock buybacks, and it's exceedingly difficult to hide stocks and property from the IRS.
It's not a math problem, it's a political problem sprouting from an education problem. Politicians just don't want to do that because swing voters don't realize how bad wealth inequality has gotten and all the cool stuff we could have if the Epstein class had tax rates like they did in the 1950s. Only quibble I have with this is that it is actually fairly easy to hide property like stocks and real estate under current US tax laws, especially when it comes to use of vehicles like partnerships and trusts (REITs being a prime example). Beneficial ownership rules that requires those entities to report who their owners are started to take off a few years ago and made things somewhat easier, but they’ve mostly been rendered a dead letter and didn’t solve the more fundamental moral hazards created by easy, effectively limitless pass through structures.
And just like that, the Hamster Wheel returns.
1. There's a problem [wealth distribution in this case] 2. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam.
Math, political, education, whatever the problems, figuring out a way off the wheel is a necessary step to addressing them.
Anyone got any ideas for getting off the Hamster Wheel everyone finds themselves on at the end of discussing something like this? Or will we just go back to 1. shortly?
|
On February 21 2026 04:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 04:41 LightSpectra wrote: Taxing the wealthy is a solved problem. Capital gains (only realized is necessary if we ban taking out loans on the basis of unrealized gains, but taxing unrealized gains isn't impossible either) and non-first-home property worth over $1m in increasing brackets until it's 99.9% on amounts over $20m or something along those lines. That takes zero dollars from the working class, has zero risk of capital flight (which has been wildly over-stated even on income taxes), doesn't reward firing employees for stock buybacks, and it's exceedingly difficult to hide stocks and property from the IRS.
It's not a math problem, it's a political problem sprouting from an education problem. Politicians just don't want to do that because swing voters don't realize how bad wealth inequality has gotten and all the cool stuff we could have if the Epstein class had tax rates like they did in the 1950s. Only quibble I have with this is that it is actually fairly easy to hide property like stocks and real estate under current US tax laws, especially when it comes to use of vehicles like partnerships and trusts (REITs being a prime example). Beneficial ownership rules that requires those entities to report who their owners are started to take off a few years ago and made things somewhat easier, but they’ve mostly been rendered a dead letter and didn’t solve the more fundamental moral hazards created by easy, effectively limitless pass through structures.
I'm not saying tax evasion is impossible, but you're talking figurative pennies compared to the literal trillions in unrealized capital gains that the tech industry is sitting on, and they can't hide that. The main loophole they use (to my knowledge) is they take out bank loans using their stock portfolio as collateral. That can easily be banned.
|
If the president knows to be in a compromised position and unwell, the best he can do for his nation is resign.
That would actually earn him respect. Even if all the things he covered up won‘t surface. But there‘s a bit of hope someone else will do that.
His family would probably thank him for that. Immediately or in the long run.
|
Canada11426 Posts
5. Need to fix the system I think the closest to finding the first step to fix the system is what Newsom is doing with redistricting. You have a national problem that can only be solved at the state level across every state. You aren't going to remove state control over how elections are run (well, Trump is floating that idea but for nefarious reasons).
So you are stuck in the prisoner's dilemma where no-one wants to be the one to reform how redistricting works in their state.
The only solution to the prisoner's dilemma is to play nice first. And then if it is not reciprocated, absolutely smack them down. And then make a new offer and smack again if an open offer is taken advantage of.
Redistricting in favour of Democrats in California is a warning shot across the bow though unfortunately making the bad system worse. But a few more follow ups might be necessary to put the fear of God into Republican states. There is then a slim chance for a sit down in the equivalent of the First Minister meeting to negotiate some sort of accord/ armistice to commit to reform whereby redistricting is done through an independent body (by state- never going to get one independent body for all in the US) with an agreed upon representation formula.
It will also never happen. It won't happen under Trump because the man has only thoughts for accruing power and none for how to reform the system to make it better in the long run- just better for him personally. So he would only be a hindrance to chairing/ mediating the Governors' meeting.
And even without Trump, I just don't see everyone putting down their swords at this point. But however slim, I think playing hardball with the threat to make redistricting worse across all Democrat run states, if Republican states don't back down is the only way forward.
I guess, either that or bite the bullet and try and amend the constitution so that a federal independent agency (the equivalent of Elections Canada) operates federal elections. We might bring peace to the Middle East before then though.
But it is still Newsom redistricting to force a compromise in Congress and Senate to get an independent Elections USA.
|
The British are probably smart enough to understand that an attack for Iran blocks the energy supply route Trump has left to block, which is why they don‘t allow the use of their bases after Europe committed to supporting Ukraine.
By now, nobody sane in the world wants to depend on the US for basic needs unless absolutely necessary.
Because it becomes increasingly clear that the Russians have compromised him in some way, along with some of his trusted billionaires.
It‘s like the election was an intelligence test for the whole population which it failed and now he‘s going to give them the result..
Around here mostly we don‘t care except for keeping American manufactured monstrosities at bay. But they‘re growing very hard to ignore.
And Drumpf doesn‘t have the balls to resign and confess. Too much power in the hands of a madman.
If I were to be US president I wouldn‘t have Cohen as attorney just telling me to deny all allegations.
If he doesn‘t resign, someone will do it for him. But he probably believes these are the end days and if they aren‘t, he‘ll make it so.
|
In any case, let me know when Trumps testicals are back in stock for a brief gander.
My bastard current country knows more about them than they let on.
Hotel owners and their associates are more powerful than you‘d believe…
Or some big bastards who flaunt themselves as pediatrician around these parts.
|
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|