Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Valwinz]

imao is ok when Biden does it
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1388209606103605250

 

[Xzi]

imao is ok when Biden does it
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1388209606103605250

More like it's okay to act on advice from the CDC, which we know Trump never did. The situation in India is dire, which is why the US and many other countries are sending whatever medical supplies they can spare.

 

[Foxi4]

Which is ridiculous, they'll do everything they can to pay as little in taxes as possible, no matter what their rate on the books is.

Explain how lowering tax rates doubled tax revenues and decreased tax avoidance under Reagan, and did near enough the same thing under Trump. If your aim is to have a treasury that's bursting with cash for dumb-dumb boondoggles, you should opt for options that maximise tax revenues, yes or no? A higher percentage does not necessarily translate to higher tax revenues if it kills businesses - there is a number between 0% (no revenue, everything stays in private pockets) and 100% (no revenue, nobody works for free) that is optimal, it is up to Congress to establish and implement that number, and that number can in fact change depending on economic circumstances. The relation between taxation and federal tax revenue is not a line that goes from zero into the heavens - it's a curve. To claim otherwise is silly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

More like it's okay to act on advice from the CDC, which we know Trump never did. The situation in India is dire, which is why the US and many other countries are sending whatever medical supplies they can spare.

China was literally welding people inside their apartments and catching people off the streets like dogs to put them in makeshift isolation - I'd say it was pretty dire.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Gee, I wonder what the political scene is here on GBATemp? Gotta be filled with reasonable and intelligent people since most are hackers, modders, and coders and such. It must be different than other places! Most likely no liberals and liberal logic.

reads and skims the replies to this thread



.....I don't know why I was expecting anything to be different.....

 

[Foxi4]

I was curious and searched at a glance.

1) You have to have insurance.
2) Insurance must be nonprofit for basic care.
3) Still uses some taxes.

Still not as efficient as other counties healthcare.

Seems to have excellent outcomes and it removes the government from the business of providing healthcare, which the government knows nothing about. The private sector is more efficient at this, the government merely created an environment in which it can do so effectively - that's the government's job.

1) Permit to purchase most guns
2) Carrying permit
3) Time limits
4) Stored safely


Actually, just looking at their gun laws, it doesn't seem as lax as people are making it.

You seem to be under the impression that you don't need a permit to carry in the US, or that no checks whatsoever exist, or that some weapons aren't explicitly taxed, or that there are no storage safety requirements, or perhaps all of the above. You're mistaken on all counts if that's the case. Comparatively speaking, gun control in Switzerland is far closer to the American model than it is to any European state.

Kind of misleading, apparently taxes varies.

Your tax rate varies because in addition to the federal CIT there are other taxes you may also have to cover, particularly on the municipal level. We're not interested in that because we're discussing the federal government, not the equivalent state governments. With that said, even if you combined all of those taxes in Switzerland, you'd still be paying anywhere between 11% and 21.6%, which is miniscule compared to most European states and equivalent or better than the US rate, which is 21% plus any state-level taxes which range between 1% and 12%. If we're comparing like to like, you're better off in Switzerland.

 

[SG854]

Explain how lowering tax rates doubled tax revenues and decreased tax avoidance under Reagan, and did near enough the same thing under Trump. If your aim is to have a treasury that's bursting with cash for dumb-dumb boondoggles, you should opt for options that maximise tax revenues, yes or no? A higher percentage does not necessarily translate to higher tax revenues if it kills businesses - there is a number between 0% (no revenue, everything stays in private pockets) and 100% (no revenue, nobody works for free) that is optimal, it is up to Congress to establish and implement that number, and that number can in fact change depending on economic circumstances. The relation between taxation and federal tax revenue is not a line that goes from zero into the heavens - it's a curve. To claim otherwise is silly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
China was literally welding people inside their apartments and catching people off the streets like dogs to put them in makeshift isolation - I'd say it was pretty dire.

Has anyone found the optimal tax rate?

Seems to have excellent outcomes and it removes the government from the business of providing healthcare, which the government knows nothing about. The private sector is more efficient at this, the government merely created an environment in which it can do so effectively - that's the government's job.
You seem to be under the impression that you don't need a permit to carry in the US or that no checks whatsoever exist, or that some weapons aren't explicitly taxed, or that there are no storage safety requirements. You're mistaken on all counts if that's the case. Comparatively speaking, gun control in Switzerland is far closer to the American model than it is to any European state.
Your tax rate varies because in addition to the federal CIT there are other taxes you may also have to cover, particularly on the municipal level. We're not interested in that because we're discussing the federal government, not the equivalent state governments. With that said, even if you combined all of those taxes in Switzerland, you'd still be paying anywhere between 11% and 21.6%, which is miniscule compared to most European states and equivalent or better than the US rate, which is 21% plus any state-level taxes which range between 1% and 12%. If we're comparing like to like, you're better off in Switzerland.

When Trump tarriffs hit and gpu prices rose. Lots of people were saying welcome to European Prices. Those VAT's really drives up the price. Made me realize how much cheaper computer parts were in America compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Foxi4]

Decreasing taxes on the rich means a greater tax burden on the poor by default. It also means there's less funding for important projects, and it's a great way to balloon both the national debt and deficit. I guess the right stopped caring about that around the time GWB was elected though, being that they've been spending more than Democrats on average since then, while simultaneously reducing the government's revenue and wondering why the economy keeps crashing on their watch.

"The rich" already carry effectively *all* of the federal tax burden. If any of this was up to me, lower and maybe even the middle income tax brackets would pay no income tax whatsoever - they don't pay enough to make a difference and paying a 0% income tax would enable them to accumulate wealth faster. To put this in perspective, the top 50% of income earners paid in 97% of *all* federal income tax revenue in 2017, the bottom 50% paid *3%*. The top 1% of taxpayers carried a burden of 38.5% while the bottom *90%* paid in *29.9%* of the total. I am *perfectly happy* with half of the country's tax payers not paying any income tax at all and ending up with 3% less revenue (in fact, I'm not even sure if revenues would decrease all that much thanks to increased spending by the public, you'd see more income from the sales taxes in local governments etc.), I want that money in private hands so that people can spend it on improving their lives, the last thing I want is for those people to earn less in wages, spend more in living costs and pay more in taxes. There's your "tax the rich" segment - here's a proposal, only tax the rich, don't tax anybody else because there's no point in doing that, you're only decelerating their growth and decreasing income mobility.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/

Regarding libertarians and economic policy, I'm sorry that libertarians on the left side of the aisle are economically illiterate, they share that trait with the rest of the left. You're under the mistaken impression that this applies to the entire group, which is not the case.

Has anyone found the optimal tax rate?

Hard to say yes or no to that one given the fact that the economy is in constant flux and the optimal point moves, it's not static because it's not a static system. If you keep cutting and your revenues still inexplicably increase, or remain the same, you're not there yet. If you increase it and your revenues decrease, you're past that mark.

When Trump tarriffs hit and gpu prices rose. Lots of people were saying welcome to European Prices. Those VAT's really drives up the price. Made me realize how much cheaper computer parts were in America compared to the rest of the world.

I was always against tarrifs and did not approve of this move by the Trump administration, as I don't approve of any additional tax, duty or levy. With that said, it showed that ultimately it was the consumers who paid the price, which illustrates my point. Taxes are put on the dollar, not on the individual. If I have something to sell that you want to buy, I don't want to be in the hole for selling it. Somebody will have to pay that extra X%, and it's not going to be me - I have an X% profit margin in mind, so guess what? Your GPU just got more expensive, and since supply decreased while the demand is the same or higher due to the crypto boom, the environment couldn't be better for me to jack the price up. It's not magic, it's simple cause and effect. I want my money, I need someone to butter up my toast, and the unfortunate privilege of doing that falls on you since you want my GPU. I'm not lowering the price until demand decreases and my stock starts gathering dust in the warehouse - that's not happening, you can't get a GPU these days to save your life, even if you offer a soul of a newborn for it.

 

[Xzi]

Explain how lowering tax rates doubled tax revenues and decreased tax avoidance under Reagan, and did near enough the same thing under Trump.

Any source for that under Trump? Again, the estimated tax avoidance of the rich is $800 billion annually, I highly doubt his tax cuts had any effect on that whatsoever.

A higher percentage does not necessarily translate to higher tax revenues if it kills businesses

We aren't talking about small businesses here, and obviously they aren't impacted by the top tax bracket. There's no reason a higher percentage shouldn't translate to higher tax revenues, other than the fact that the rich have lobbied to make the code needlessly complex to ensure it's full of loopholes they can exploit.

China was literally welding people inside their apartments and catching people off the streets like dogs to put them in makeshift isolation - I'd say it was pretty dire.

Sure, I'm not denying that. In this particular case it's not that he took the wrong action, it's just the way he went about it and the fact that he took that action too late. Cases of COVID-19 had already been confirmed inside the US for over a month when he decided to restrict travel, and blaming the whole of China for the virus encouraged a lot of violence directed at Asian-Americans.

here's a proposal, only tax the rich, don't tax anybody else because there's no point in doing that, you're only decelerating their growth and decreasing income mobility.

Well shiiiet, you should've just made such a proposal to begin with. Of course I'd be happy with that solution, along with 98% of Americans (the ones that haven't totally bought into "bootstraps" propaganda anyway). Their wealth isn't earned or generated from their own hard work, so it only makes sense they remove all tax burden from the working class they exploit.

Regarding libertarians and economic policy, I'm sorry that libertarians on the left-side of the aisle are economically illiterate, they share that trait with the rest of the left. You're under the mistaken impression that this applies to the entire group, which is not the case.

No, I'm talking about right-wing libertarians in specific, and only the ones I've met IRL. Why would any of them bother shilling for trickle-down economics when it's done nothing but keep their wages low and drastically decrease upward mobility? Libertarians are all about personal freedoms, and corporations/billionaires tend to trample over those whenever convenient.

 

[Foxi4]

Any source for that under Trump? Again, the estimated tax avoidance of the rich is $800 billion annually, I highly doubt his tax cuts had any effect on that whatsoever.

Sure! The best source there is, in fact. Federal tax revenues have continued to increase under Trump in spite of the tax cuts. Here's the revenues by year, as reported by the U.S. Treasury:

• FY 2020 $3.71 trillion estimated, around $3.42 actual (as of October) because we had a pandemic and an economic shutdown which, as it turns out, was very expensive. I'd have to do a deeper dive to find out if this is the final result, but let's assume it is.
• FY 2019 $3.46 trillion
• FY 2018 $3.33 trillion
• FY 2017 $3.32 trillion

Anyone telling you that the Trump tax cuts led to decreased tax revenue is lying to you, the numbers don't reflect that. In spite of the pandemic shutting the entire country down and severely limiting commerce the federal government is still raising *more* in revenue than before the tax cuts. In 2018 alone revenue from income taxes increased by 6%, and kept increasing even further in 2019. In fact, tax receipts have reached all-time highs during his presidency.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

The Trump administration's problem was always excessive spending, much of which was inherited or mandatory, but a lot was also new and unnecessary. Tax cuts should go hand in hand with spending cuts - the former is popular, the latter is not. Tax cuts do not increase the deficit, spending well beyond your means does.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-revenue-keeps-rising-11557691166

Decreased tax avoidance is cited among the (many) reasons why you'd get such a counter-intuitive result, but you can't effectively measure that, so take it however you want. I'm going to say that decreased tax avoidance is part of it because it's a sensible assumption to make.

We aren't talking about small businesses here, and obviously they aren't impacted by the top tax bracket. There's no reason a higher percentage shouldn't translate to higher tax revenues, other than the fact that the rich have lobbied to make the code needlessly complex to ensure it's full of loopholes they can exploit.

There's a million reasons why a higher percentage doesn't always lead to increased revenues, as I've explained earlier.

Sure, I'm not denying that. In this particular case it's not the he took the wrong action, it's just the way he went about it and the fact that he took that action too late. Cases of COVID-19 had already been confirmed inside the US for over than a month when he decided to restrict travel, and blaming the whole of China for the virus encouraged a lot of violence directed at Asian-Americans.

I'm glad that we agree restricting travel to and from pandemic hot spots was the correct decision. Can we now agree, a year after the fact, that it had nothing to do with xenophobia and everything to do with the virus running rampant in Wuhan?

Well shiiiet, you should've just made such a proposal to begin with. Of course I'd be happy with that solution, along with 98% of Americans (the ones that haven't totally bought into "bootstraps" propaganda anyway). Their wealth isn't earned or generated from their own hard work, so it only makes sense they remove all tax burden from the working class they exploit.

Welcome aboard. Fuck the tax man.

No, I'm talking about right-wing libertarians in specific, and only the ones I've met IRL. Why would any of them bother shilling for trickle-down economics when it's done nothing but keep their wages low and drastically decrease upward mobility? Libertarians are all about personal freedoms, and corporations/billionaires tend to trample over those whenever convenient.

Because engaging with a corporation is consensual. Engaging with a government is mandatory. During his speech Biden said that "government is just you and me". That's a fucking lie, the government is not you and me, it's not "We The People". The government is a group of our agents that we send to Washington to do a specific job, and we allow them special privileges that "We The People" don't have for the purposes of doing that job, on the proviso that they do not trample on our individual rights in the process, which they do anyway. A corporation *can* be you and me, we can shake hands and start one today if we wanted to, we can't shake hands and start a government.

It's a difference of perspective, and the same disconnect I have with left wingers in general. They see the Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, as a permissive document - a list of things we are allowed to do by the government. Libertarians see this document as a *restrictive* one, it's a set of restrictions imposed on the government by "We The People". A short list of things our agents *cannot* touch because they're our inalienable rights. These are two very different seats with very different views on the situation.

To put this in short, a corporation is just a group of people operating as one, as in incorporated. The government is a group of agents that we select, a group which has more power than "We The People", and we permit it to have those powers for the explicit purpose of protecting our individual rights. When Biden says that government is people, that it's just like us, he humanises it and makes it all friendly. Friends don't knock on my door and demand payment at the point of a gun because I had the audacity to make an income, corporations don't do that, but the government does. We allow it to do so as a necessary evil, but we don't have to like it or be friends with it, or send it Thanksgiving cards. The government comes from "We The People", we create it and consent to it, but it is not "like us".

Bit of a word salad, but it's early morning and my head is still in the shed, so you'll have to cut me some slack, wink wink.

 

[Xzi]

In spite of the pandemic shutting the entire country down and severely limiting commerce the federal government is still raising *more* in revenue than before the tax cuts.

That's not too surprising as corporate profits spiked during the pandemic, but along with them so did tax avoidance (just ask Bezos). By your own numbers we can see that revenue stayed virtually flat in the three years previous.

Can we now agree, a year after the fact, that it had nothing to do with xenophobia and everything to do with the virus running rampant in Wuhan?

The travel restrictions themselves weren't necessarily xenophobic, at least not the restrictions put in place because of COVID, but Trump's rhetoric surrounding the virus certainly was.

Because engaging with a corporation is consensual.

Tell that to all the small towns that only have a Wal-Mart for a grocery store.

A corporation *can* be you and me, we can shake hands and start one today if we wanted to, we can't shake hands and start a government.

A *business* can be founded by you and me, but the inevitable outcome of that in a lot of parts of the country would be at best a low-ball offer for corporate buyout, and at worst they run us out of town (into bankruptcy). Neither of those is necessarily consensual.

It's a difference of perspective, and the same disconnect I have with left wingers in general. They see the Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, as a permissive document - a list of things we are allowed to do by the government. Libertarians see this document as a *restrictive* one, it's a set of restrictions imposed on the government by We The People. A short list of things our agents *cannot* touch because they're our inalienable rights. These are two very different seats with very different views on the situation.

That being the case, you'd think both groups would be in favor of a second Bill of Rights, or at least expansion of the first one. Libertarians seem to often get bogged down by two or three fringe/niche issues though, and lose sight of the bigger picture as a result.

 

[Foxi4]

That's not too surprising as corporate profits spiked during the pandemic, but along with them so did tax avoidance. By your own numbers we can see that revenue stayed virtually flat in the three years previous.

I disagree. You'd have to look at specific revenue streams to draw that conclusion - revenue from income specifically has increased, which accounts for 50% of all revenue, give or take. We also saw an increase in overall revenue in 2018 and 2016, it was not stagnant. I know this is represented as X,YZ, but we're talking about billions of dollars here. Not worth arguing about though since there's no real way to measure the exact amount of tax unpaid though, we can only operate on guesstimates.

The travel restrictions themselves weren't necessarily xenophobic, at least not the restrictions put in place because of COVID, but Trump's rhetoric surrounding the virus certainly was.

I'll take that, even if I disagree with the latter half.

Tell that to all the small towns that only have a Wal-Mart for a grocery store.

Tell that to the government which is stifling competition on behalf of big business. Under my audacious plan mom and pop would pay zero tax if they chose to compete and open a small shop right next to your own doorstep, at least until they reach the corporate tax level, which would likely take a hot minute. The government should encourage competition, most proposals on the left discourage it.

A *business* can be founded by you and me, but the inevitable outcome of that in a lot of parts of the country would be at best a low-ball offer for corporate buyout, and at worst they run us out of town (into bankruptcy). Neither of those is necessarily consensual.

You don't have to accept a buyout offer if you believe that you can out-compete a local corporate entity, which isn't always beyond the realm of possibility. Have you been to a corporate-ran store recently? They're all ran by fuckballs who don't know what they're doing. That's neither here nor there, my point is that the barrier for entry should be as low as possible, as I said earlier.

That being the case, you'd think both groups would be in favor of a second Bill of Rights, or at least expansion of the first one. Libertarians seem to often get bogged down by two or three fringe/niche issues though, and lose sight of the bigger picture as a result.

I think they may have a problem with who'd write the bill. I can't speak for other people, but I myself am very careful about expanding the list of "inalienable rights" and dead set against shrinking it. The Constitution is possibly the only bill that was actually written by We The People. A bunch of guys showed the king the middle finger and said that they're independent now. A few years later they called the first US Congress consisting of just a bunch more guys and wrote a bunch of stuff on a piece of paper, stuff that the government to this day has to respect as the highest law of the land. It is the most "We The Peoplest" piece of legislation in all of U.S. law, and it's nearly all-encompassing.

There's also a disconnect on the grounds of defining what a "right" is. Libertarians only accept negative rights - those are rights that prohibit another from acting upon the rights holder. Progressives propose positive rights, which is a silly concept that just translates to an entitlement.

You'll notice that the language of the Bill of Rights is very specific - it lists things that shall not be infringed upon. It doesn't say things like "you can speak freely" or "you can bear arms", or "you can get a speedy trial", it says "Congress shall make no law (...) abridging the freedom of speech", "(...) right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury". Those are things Congress *cannot* do. To pick one of many proposed rights, "you have a right to healthcare" is a positive right. That's not a restriction of power, that's an entitlement. Who grants it? Based on what? If you were to frame it in a way of the original, you'd say that "Congress shall make no law restricting access to healthcare", and I'd be okay with that - it'd be egregious if it did, an imposition on commerce in fact, but that kind of statement has very different implications - it doesn't guarantee that one will receive care, it merely restricts the power of Congress to prevent one from getting care. Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be a bad addition - it's prevent Congress from making laws that restrict shopping for healthcare across state lines, or even internationally if needs be - a positive outcome, if I do say so myself.

 

[SG854]

I disagree. You'd have to look at specific revenue streams to draw that conclusion - revenue from income specifically has increased, which accounts for 50% of all revenue, give or take. We also saw an increase in overall revenue in 2018 and 2016, it was not stagnant. I know this is represented as X,YZ, but we're talking about billions of dollars here. Not worth arguing about though since there's no real way to measure the exact amount of tax unpaid though, we can only operate on guesstimates.
I'll take that, even if I disagree with the latter half.
Tell that to the government which is stifling competition on behalf of big business. Under my audacious plan mom and pop would pay zero tax if they chose to compete and open a small shop right next to your own doorstep, at least until they reach the corporate tax level, which would likely take a hot minute. The government should encourage competition, most proposals on the left discourage it.
You don't have to accept a buyout offer if you believe that you can out-compete a local corporate entity, which isn't always beyond the realm of possibility. Have you been to a corporate-ran store recently? They're all ran by fuckballs who don't know what they're doing. That's neither here nor there, my point is that the barrier for entry should be as low as possible, as I said earlier.
I think they may have a problem with who'd write the bill. I can't speak for other people, but I myself am very careful about expanding the list of "inalienable rights" and dead set against shrinking it. The Constitution is possibly the only bill that was actually written by We The People. A bunch of guys showed the king the middle finger and said that they're independent now. A few years later they called the first US Congress consisting of just a bunch more guys and wrote a bunch of stuff on a piece of paper, stuff that the government to this day has to respect as the highest law of the land. It is the most "We The Peoplest" piece of legislation in all of U.S. law, and it's nearly all-encompassing.

There's also a disconnect on the grounds of defining what a "right" is. Libertarians only accept negative rights - those are rights that prohibit another from acting upon the rights holder. Progressives propose positive rights, which is a silly concept that just translates to an entitlement.

You'll notice that the language of the Bill of Rights is very specific - it lists things that shall not be infringed upon. It doesn't say things like "you can speak freely" or "you can bear arms", or "you can get a speedy trial", it says "Congress shall make no law (...) abridging the freedom of speech", "(...) right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury". Those are things Congress *cannot* do. To pick one of many proposed rights, "you have a right to healthcare" is a positive right. That's not a restriction of power, that's an entitlement. Who grants it? Based on what? If you were to frame it in a way of the original, you'd say that "Congress shall make no law restricting access to healthcare", and I'd be okay with that - it'd be egregious if it did, an imposition on commerce in fact, but that kind of statement has very different implications - it doesn't guarantee that one will receive care, it merely restricts the power of Congress to prevent one from getting care. Now that I think about it, it wouldn't be a bad addition - it's prevent Congress from making laws that restrict shopping for healthcare across state lines, or even internationally if needs be - a positive outcome, if I do say so myself.

How many people are in the top 50%?

I tried to look at how much you have to make to reach that bracket. But information I found was for 3 person housholds. Houses have different amounts of people living in them so need different yearly income to reach the top 50%.


I calculated 2 couples working $10 an hour for 8 hr work days puts them in the top 50%. So they are in the 97% paying the majority of taxes. Or 60% of the taxes paid if you don't count the top 1%. So basically minimum wage workers with two working couples reaches the top 50%.

But thats only for a Household of 3 people which the majority is not. Plus each state has different living fees. I want to know what % of the population reached the top 50% adjusting for family size and living area.

 

[Lacius]

That's because I don't necessarily listen to the sentiment of the mob at any given moment, I am laser focused on optimal solutions that lead towards my stated goals. The "democracy" part of the equation is the public picking representatives that best represent their interests and can effectively implement policies that will better their lives in the long run, leaving as much kaching in their pockets while spending the least kaching in the budget. That's what I care about. Right now we're having a discussion on an Internet forum, so I don't need to account for what you believe or support, I only have to present my point of view to other readers. It might not be a popular point of view, but that has never bothered me before and it isn't about to start bothering me now. As far as political candidates are concerned, they campaign on specific promises - how they get from Point A to fulfilling the promise is completely immaterial to me as a potential voter, I only care about what they're promising and how likely it is that the promise will be fulfilled. Optimal solutions give predictable results with a high likelyhood of success, so that's what I tend to advocate for.

Just so we are clear, you appear to be arguing that you don't care how a candidate comes to power as long as they're from your team. In addition to being authoritarian, isn't that arbitrary? I think I've made this point before, but you've spent some time arguing against abolishing the Electoral College, for example, but you're pretty much admitting that you'd actually be arguing for its abolishment too if it benefited your team and your policy positions. Doesn't that mean we should discount a lot of the arguments you've made in the past?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It wasn't a request, and even if it was, you didn't fulfill it.

It was a rhetorical question showing that you arbitrarily targeted me with a opinion that nobody believes or is making the argument for. It's either illiteracy on your part or malice.

I don't think I'm a hypocrite and I don't want anything from you, but you keep giving whatever it is you are giving, anyway. Complete garbage to me.


. It's simple math.

So far, Trump gave you $1800 and Biden gave you $1400. Apparently people believe the money came out of their own pockets.

It's an apples and oranges comparison when you're talking about different time frames and different states of economy and the pandemic, and it's pretty irrelevant. I'll give the Republicans full credit for the first two stimulus checks, if we are ignoring the facts that they were bipartisan bills, had to be negotiated with a Democratic House, should have contained more money, and would have contained more money if the Democratic Party had been in charge of the White House and Senate.

The issue is Biden said we should receive $2,000 while the second check was still being negotiated, and after the $600 check went out, Biden was sworn in and made it right without any support from Senate Republicans. While it should have been more in my opinion, it was the correction of a problem caused by the Republican Party. Biden and the Democratic Party should definitely get credit for their relief bill, and the promise of $2,000 was kept.

 

[tabzer]

Just so we are clear, you appear to be arguing that you don't care how a candidate comes to power as long as they're from your team. In addition to being authoritarian, isn't that arbitrary? I think I've made this point before, but you've spent some time arguing against abolishing the Electoral College, for example, but you're pretty much admitting that you'd actually be arguing for its abolishment too if it benefited your team and your policy positions. Doesn't that mean we should discount a lot of the arguments you've made in the past?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


It's an apples and oranges comparison when you're talking about different time frames and different states of economy and the pandemic, and it's pretty irrelevant. I'll give the Republicans full credit for the first two stimulus checks, if we are ignoring the facts that they were bipartisan bills, had to be negotiated with a Democratic House, should have contained more money, and would have contained more money if the Democratic Party had been in charge of the White House and Senate.

The issue is Biden said we should receive $2,000 while the second check was still being negotiated, and after the $600 check went out, Biden was sworn in and made it right without any support from Senate Republicans. While it should have been more in my opinion, it was the correction of a problem caused by the Republican Party. Biden and the Democratic Party should definitely get credit for their relief bill, and the promise of $2,000 was kept.

The promise of $2,000 was kept, depending who you ask and what words that they listened to when they decided what the promise meant. I can see reasons for both yes and no, and I do think it was somewhat sloppy and overstepping. In the end, to me at least, it looks like people are crediting Biden for portions that the Trump admin supplied. If we are going to compare apples to apples, like I said before--Trump gave you $1800 and Biden gave you $1400.

Also, that's not even the most interesting subject of conversation. This is:

I received a $600 check and a $1,600 check, just as promised. I received $2,000 in total. Thank you, President Biden

It's going into my signature if you don't acknowledge fudging simple math.

 

[omgcat]

so whens that Biden crash coming? i was hoping to buy some cheap stock.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

imao is ok when Biden does it
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1388209606103605250

imagine being upset that we want to keep out a potential escape variant that would render our vaccines potentially uselss or much less effective. i thought you wanted things to go back to normal?

 

[KingVamp]

Forgot to mention, Switzerland has a more direct democracy than US.

Seems to have excellent outcomes and it removes the government from the business of providing healthcare, which the government knows nothing about. The private sector is more efficient at this, the government merely created an environment in which it can do so effectively - that's the government's job..

There are plenty of healthcare systems that governments fund public healthcare just fine. Meanwhile, our private sector got us paying double, only to cover half the amount of people.

You seem to be under the impression that you don't need a permit to carry in the US

I don't see any federal law for this and last time I checked, some states are weakening their gun laws even further.

that no checks whatsoever exist,

No, just the oddly of private sales sidestepping most gun laws. Even Switzerland need some kind of record.

that there are no storage safety requirements.

No federal law, besides transfers. In fact, doesn't seem like most states have any laws on this. There's a bit more when children are around, but even that's kind of low.

Your tax rate varies because in addition to the federal CIT there are other taxes you may also have to cover, particularly on the municipal level. We're not interested in that because we're discussing the federal government, not the equivalent state governments. With that said, even if you combined all of those taxes in Switzerland, you'd still be paying anywhere between 11% and 21.6%, which is miniscule compared to most European states and equivalent or better than the US rate, which is 21% plus any state-level taxes which range between 1% and 12%. If we're comparing like to like, you're better off in Switzerland.

This at face value, just shows how broken our healthcare is, when we don't have a universal healthcare at all.

Well shiiiet, you should've just made such a proposal to begin with. Of course I'd be happy with that solution, along with 98% of Americans (the ones that haven't totally bought into "bootstraps" propaganda anyway). Their wealth isn't earned or generated from their own hard work, so it only makes sense they remove all tax burden from the working class they exploit.

The irony is, while I doubt zero taxes will ever happen, it is Democrats that are most likely to remove some burden from the lower class. Like with basic income.

 

[Foxi4]

Just so we are clear, you appear to be arguing that you don't care how a candidate comes to power as long as they're from your team. In addition to being authoritarian, isn't that arbitrary? I think I've made this point before, but you've spent some time arguing against abolishing the Electoral College, for example, but you're pretty much admitting that you'd actually be arguing for its abolishment too if it benefited your team and your policy positions. Doesn't that mean we should discount a lot of the arguments you've made in the past?

I've never said that I don't care how a candidate comes to power. What I said was that they should use any and all available legal measures to push their policy goals, regardless of whether I personally like them or not. If a chess piece is on the board and you arbitrarily choose not to use it, you electively put yourself at a disadvantage, often at your own peril. If a move is legal, it is not below the belt - if you don't use it, your opponent will. The time for principles and changes in the system comes after you win - without power you can't enact change, so your principles are just words. Politicians have to operate in the system that exists, not the system they dream of. I was not, and am not, in favour of abolishing the Electoral College - I think it should be emulated around the world, if anything.

How many people are in the top 50%?

I tried to look at how much you have to make to reach that bracket. But information I found was for 3 person housholds. Houses have different amounts of people living in them so need different yearly income to reach the top 50%.


I calculated 2 couples working $10 an hour for 8 hr work days puts them in the top 50%. So they are in the 97% paying the majority of taxes. Or 60% of the taxes paid if you don't count the top 1%. So basically minimum wage workers with two working couples reaches the top 50%.

But thats only for a Household of 3 people which the majority is not. Plus each state has different living fees. I want to know what % of the population reached the top 50% adjusting for family size and living area.

I'm not entirely sure regarding the exact number, but I think allowing the bottom 50% of earners who need a boost the most to have a rate of zero percent and a better chance at a head start is the first step in the right direction. This isn't unprecedented either - in the UK the bottom tax bracket is in fact 0%, so if all of you guys are so keen on emulating European countries, that's a good place to start. There is absolutely no reason at all why the poor should be taxed - they're already poor.

EDIT: A quick Google later, the bottom 50% of earners equaled 71 million Americans as of 2017, or a little under 22% of the population. That's *a lot of people* who shouldn't be paying any income tax.

How much do you need to make to be in the top 50% of earners? Just $41,740.

Fall below that level, and you are in the bottom half, along with about 71 million of your fellow taxpayers. All told, that group earned just 11.3% of the AGI reported on 2017 federal returns. And they paid about 3% of all the income taxes paid.

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/t054-c000-s001-how-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html

Giving them a rate of 0% would be a sacrifice of 3% total income tax revenues. 3%. We can keep slashing even above that mark as far as I'm concerned.

Forgot to mention, Switzerland has a more direct democracy than US.

There are plenty of healthcare systems that governments fund public healthcare just fine. Meanwhile, our private sector got us paying double, only to cover half the amount of people.

I don't see any federal law for this and last time I checked, some states are weakening their gun laws even further.

No, just the oddly of private sales sidestepping most gun laws. Even Switzerland need some kind of record.

No federal law, besides transfers. In fact, doesn't seem like most states have any laws on this. There's a bit more when children are around, but even that's kind of low.

This at face value, just shows how broken our healthcare is, when we don't have a universal healthcare at all.

The irony is, while I doubt zero taxes will ever happen, it is Democrats that are most likely to remove some burden from the lower class. Like with basic income.

A law doesn't have to be federal in order to be binding. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one - if the Swiss can manage, so can the US, and I find their model to be more attractive than many European models. There's a reason why Switzerland tops the charts not only in happiness, but also income.

 

[Lacius]

I've never said that I don't care how a candidate comes to power. What I said was that they should use any and all available legal measures to push their policy goals, regardless of whether I personally like them or not. If a chess piece is on the board and you arbitrarily choose not to use it, you electively put yourself at a disadvantage, often at your own peril. If a move is legal, it is not below the belt - if you don't use it, your opponent will. The time for principles and changes in the system comes after you win - without power you can't enact change, so your principles are just words. Politicians have to operate in the system that exists, not the system they dream of. I was not, and am not, in favour of abolishing the Electoral College - I think it should be emulated around the world, if anything.
I'm not entirely sure regarding the exact number, but I think allowing the bottom 50% of earners who need a boost the most to have a rate of zero percent and a better chance at a head start is the first step in the right direction. This isn't unprecedented either - in the UK the bottom tax bracket is in fact 0%, so if all of you guys are so keen on emulating European countries, that's a good place to start. There is absolutely no reason at all why the poor should be taxed - they're already poor.

EDIT: A quick Google later, the bottom 50% of earners equaled 71 million Americans as of 2017, or a little under 22% of the population. That's *a lot of people* who shouldn't be paying any income tax.
Giving them a rate of 0% would be a sacrifice of 3% total income tax revenues. 3%. We can keep slashing even above that mark as far as I'm concerned.
A law doesn't have to be federal in order to be binding. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one - if the Swiss can manage, so can the US, and I find their model to be more attractive than many European models. There's a reason why Switzerland tops the charts not only in happiness, but also income.

A person should not necessarily use all the legal options available to them, and just because the system is a certain way doesn't mean it's democratic or shouldn't change. For example, if I were alive during a time of slavery, that doesn't mean I should own slaves because it would get me ahead economically. Principles are not something that should be an afterthought.

 

[Foxi4]

A person should not necessarily use all the legal options available to them, just because the system is a certain way doesn't mean it's democratic or shouldn't change. For example, if I were alive during a time of slavery, that doesn't mean I should own slaves because it would get me ahead economically. Principles are not something that should be an afterthought.

We're talking about political campaigns, not about slave ownership. If you're going to make an argument that's several centuries out of date, owning or refusing to own slaves was a moral dilemma, not a matter of specific political principles. Both sides of the political aisle owned slaves. In fact, white people *and* black people owned slaves. You really dug deep for this one, didn't you?

 

[Lacius]

We're talking about political campaigns, not about slave ownership. If you're going to make an argument that's several centuries out of date, owning or refusing to own slaves was a moral dilemma, not a matter of specific political principles. Both sides of the political aisle owned slaves. In fact, white people *and* black people owned slaves. You really dug deep for this one, didn't you?

It's called an analogy, and I'm sorry it hit a nerve.