|
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 August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling.
I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts.
Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious.
Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are.
|
On August 10 2026 23:10 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. + Show Spoiler +
I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts.
Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative + Show Spoiler +, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious. Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are.
Who here do you think this doesn't apply to?
|
On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess?
You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part.
Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months?
|
On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling.
Astounding how certain people in this thread are incapable of giving a simple answer to demonstrate they're not bad faithmaxxing.
|
On August 10 2026 23:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:10 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. + Show Spoiler +
I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts.
Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative + Show Spoiler +, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious. Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are. Who here do you think this doesn't apply to?
Micronesia seems like a great example, there are many other US based posters who are pragmatic and consistent in their stances and views on how to put an end to the rise of fascism in the USA.
You, on the other hand would definitely, in my book, fall under the performative category since you don't really seem to care enough to focus on the actual problem and only want to push your pet issues and pursuit revenge against the Democrat party.
|
On August 10 2026 23:21 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2026 23:10 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. + Show Spoiler +
I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts.
Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative + Show Spoiler +, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious. Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are. Who here do you think this doesn't apply to? Micronesia seems like a great example, there are many other US based posters who are pragmatic and consistent in their stances and views on how to put an end to the rise of fascism in the USA. You, on the other hand would definitely, in my book, fall under the performative category since you don't really seem to care enough to focus on the actual problem and only want to push your pet issues and pursuit revenge against the Democrat party.
So "pragmatic and consistent stances" (those seem like somewhat conflicting traits?) is how you distinguish opposition to the rise of fascism in the US from those just doing so performatively?
Based on that you identified dyhb as a performative hypocrite.
You sure that's what you want to go with?
|
On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months?
Wow sorry, I thought you had a basic understanding of what Iran was doing. They are closing an important strait, and sending drones into US allies and their ships. It’s creating a massive imbalance because Irans weapons cost in the thousands and they have way more munitions than the multimillion dollar equipment that it takes to stop them.
So if the US doesn’t capitulate, Iran will just keep doing what they are doing. Iran doesn’t have elections to worry about, they don’t care about suffering on their citizens due to bombs or economic damage.
This is super basic shit, makes me wonder how little you understand what’s going on in the world around you, and makes your undying and unyielding support of one of the objectively worst leaders to ever come to power make more sense.
|
On August 10 2026 23:19 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. Astounding how certain people in this thread are incapable of giving a simple answer to demonstrate they're not bad faithmaxxing.
No state in the US has mandatory voting so the issue with "but who would you vote for"maxxing is you don't have to be bothered to vote at all to begin with.
|
On August 10 2026 23:19 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. Astounding how certain people in this thread are incapable of giving a simple answer to demonstrate they're not bad faithmaxxing.
You’re never going to get one from danglers. Just concern trolling and straw manning. Kind of amusing to watch when you know the schtick.
|
On August 10 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:19 LightSpectra wrote:On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. Astounding how certain people in this thread are incapable of giving a simple answer to demonstrate they're not bad faithmaxxing. No state in the US has mandatory voting so the issue with "but who would you vote for"maxxing is you don't have to be bothered to vote at all to begin with.
Thanks dyhb's alt, but I presume they're capable of saying "Not voting" or "third party" if that's their main account's opinion.
|
On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Wow sorry, I thought you had a basic understanding of what Iran was doing. They are closing an important strait, and sending drones into US allies and their ships. It’s creating a massive imbalance because Irans weapons cost in the thousands and they have way more munitions than the multimillion dollar equipment that it takes to stop them.
Yeah they've been doing that already and oil is at like $85 and nobody wants to use the Strait after realizing they're insane. Why did they add these demands now and not start from those? Utter waste of 5 months. Imagine how much quicker they could have gotten Blumpf to agree to war reparations. Of course, the amount of reparations paid would have been lower since 5 months of stuff would have remained un-blownup, but that's another issue.
How many of those ultraefficient spartan munitions has Iran rained down upon its imperialist and worldwide neutral enemies in the last, say, week of not being able to move their own oil and use their own ports? This isn't rhetorical.
On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:
So if the US doesn’t capitulate, Iran will just keep doing what they are doing. Iran doesn’t have elections to worry about, they don’t care about suffering on their citizens due to bombs or economic damage.
They care about economic damage lol. That's what the little peashooting attacks are retaliation against.
If your argument is they would send last ditch drones at cargo ships even if they had no US ships blockading them, because they don't have elections and don't care about anything... great, it's a super hawkish escalation justification.
|
On August 10 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:
Yeah they've been doing that already and oil is at like $85 and nobody wants to use the Strait after realizing they're insane.
As of this writing (10 August 2026, 8:47am central time) there are 120 tankers, 95 bulk carriers, and 135 other ships waiting to cross the Strait: https://hormuzstraitmonitor.com/
If you scroll down there's a "Regional Impact Heatmap" that shows how much each part of the world relies on stuff moved through the Strait. Did you know 80% of South Korea's oil supply goes through Hormuz?
|
On August 10 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Wow sorry, I thought you had a basic understanding of what Iran was doing. They are closing an important strait, and sending drones into US allies and their ships. It’s creating a massive imbalance because Irans weapons cost in the thousands and they have way more munitions than the multimillion dollar equipment that it takes to stop them. Yeah they've been doing that already and oil is at like $85 and nobody wants to use the Strait after realizing they're insane. Why did they add these demands now and not start from those? Utter waste of 5 months. Imagine how much quicker they could have gotten Blumpf to agree to war reparations. Of course, the amount of reparations paid would have been lower since 5 months of stuff would have remained un-blownup, but that's another issue. How many of those ultraefficient spartan munitions has Iran rained down upon its imperialist and worldwide neutral enemies in the last, say, week of not being able to move their own oil and use their own ports? This isn't rhetorical. Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:
So if the US doesn’t capitulate, Iran will just keep doing what they are doing. Iran doesn’t have elections to worry about, they don’t care about suffering on their citizens due to bombs or economic damage. They care about economic damage lol. That's what the little peashooting attacks are retaliation against. If your argument is they would send last ditch drones at cargo ships even if they had no US ships blockading them, because they don't have elections and don't care about anything... great, it's a super hawkish escalation justification.
ROLF, you think the US is winning and wearing down Iran???? LOL OMFG Jesus Christ mate!
They didn’t ask for it at the start because even their most positive assessments didn’t have the US doing it this badly.
It’s too bad that you created an imaginary world and didn’t make it a pleasant place.
|
On August 10 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Wow sorry, I thought you had a basic understanding of what Iran was doing. They are closing an important strait, and sending drones into US allies and their ships. It’s creating a massive imbalance because Irans weapons cost in the thousands and they have way more munitions than the multimillion dollar equipment that it takes to stop them. Yeah they've been doing that already and oil is at like $85 and nobody wants to use the Strait after realizing they're insane. Why did they add these demands now and not start from those? Utter waste of 5 months. Imagine how much quicker they could have gotten Blumpf to agree to war reparations. Of course, the amount of reparations paid would have been lower since 5 months of stuff would have remained un-blownup, but that's another issue. How many of those ultraefficient spartan munitions has Iran rained down upon its imperialist and worldwide neutral enemies in the last, say, week of not being able to move their own oil and use their own ports? This isn't rhetorical. Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:
So if the US doesn’t capitulate, Iran will just keep doing what they are doing. Iran doesn’t have elections to worry about, they don’t care about suffering on their citizens due to bombs or economic damage. They care about economic damage lol. That's what the little peashooting attacks are retaliation against. If your argument is they would send last ditch drones at cargo ships even if they had no US ships blockading them, because they don't have elections and don't care about anything... great, it's a super hawkish escalation justification.
Or they are just stalling for the midterms and China drops the mic when it comes to oil prices.
Que panic in the US and GOP getting fucked in the house and the senate.
Iran gets some kind of deal and reopens the strait.
Democrats spend the next 2 years fucking with Trump which means he leaves the rest of the world alone and China can do whatever they want.
|
It would be the funniest shit ever if Democrats told Iran they'd sell them some weapons after the 2028 election and use the proceeds to fund rebels in Nicaragua.
|
Since oBlade is playing dumb, how do we feel about the strategic oil reserve running out around the midterms.
|
On August 10 2026 23:52 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Wow sorry, I thought you had a basic understanding of what Iran was doing. They are closing an important strait, and sending drones into US allies and their ships. It’s creating a massive imbalance because Irans weapons cost in the thousands and they have way more munitions than the multimillion dollar equipment that it takes to stop them. Yeah they've been doing that already and oil is at like $85 and nobody wants to use the Strait after realizing they're insane. Why did they add these demands now and not start from those? Utter waste of 5 months. Imagine how much quicker they could have gotten Blumpf to agree to war reparations. Of course, the amount of reparations paid would have been lower since 5 months of stuff would have remained un-blownup, but that's another issue. How many of those ultraefficient spartan munitions has Iran rained down upon its imperialist and worldwide neutral enemies in the last, say, week of not being able to move their own oil and use their own ports? This isn't rhetorical. On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:
So if the US doesn’t capitulate, Iran will just keep doing what they are doing. Iran doesn’t have elections to worry about, they don’t care about suffering on their citizens due to bombs or economic damage. They care about economic damage lol. That's what the little peashooting attacks are retaliation against. If your argument is they would send last ditch drones at cargo ships even if they had no US ships blockading them, because they don't have elections and don't care about anything... great, it's a super hawkish escalation justification. ROLF, you think the US is winning and wearing down Iran???? LOL OMFG Jesus Christ mate! They didn’t ask for it at the start because even their most positive assessments didn’t have the US doing it this badly. It’s too bad that you created an imaginary world and didn’t make it a pleasant place.
Your answer of: ignored the question, was incorrect. Safe to say less than 10 drone/missile strikes.
Why so few strikes when they're winning so hard? Would launching more strikes not get the US to un-blockade and unsanction their oil faster, which is the demand you told me they are going to get eventually? Why stall, why not make the US use those munitions now like you said.
On August 10 2026 23:48 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:
Yeah they've been doing that already and oil is at like $85 and nobody wants to use the Strait after realizing they're insane. As of this writing (10 August 2026, 8:47am central time) there are 120 tankers, 95 bulk carriers, and 135 other ships waiting to cross the Strait: https://hormuzstraitmonitor.com/If you scroll down there's a "Regional Impact Heatmap" that shows how much each part of the world relies on stuff moved through the Strait. Did you know 80% of South Korea's oil supply goes through Hormuz?
Now do a breakdown of how many tankers are waiting to get IN, and how many are waiting to get OUT.
What their flags and origins and destinations are.
And compare that to traffic in January and February and the jam in March.
For example the US just sent 55 away from transiting.
https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2086568419164369145
|
Why did they have to send 55 ships away if "nobody wants to use the Strait"?
|
leaving because you realise your not getting in for months is now the same as not needing to go in.
They were waiting outside for shits and giggles, obvious.
|
On August 11 2026 00:12 LightSpectra wrote:
Why did they have to send 55 ships away if "nobody wants to use the Strait"?
Iran wants to use the Strait.
Other countries, not quite as much anymore, as the traffic analysis you eschewed to go down the more enlightening road of "Gotcha it's not literally nobody" shows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
