The stimulus bill includes a tax break for the 1%

SG854 · Mar 29, 2020

Taleweaver said:
Hey...didn't you say Trump intervened in that process just one post before? So...since you're so adament on hammering on that point, shouldn't he have been removed from office right now?

But meh...I'll forego your personal insults, diversion and attempt that your opinion outweighs news channels and go along with it because on a ground level you're certainly right. It's the house who passes legislations and assign money, and since democrats hold the majority, you can correctly pin it on them.

But really: that only works if they can oversee it being handled well. If @Xzi is right and Trump overrides the oversight, then that "controls the purse PERIOD" thing is moot. My guess is that you'll disagree, which is okay (this is a forum after all), but before you make it personal about me as well...can we at least agree that IF @Xzi is correct, then the entire criticism from the OP is valid?

@Foxi4 : I know that's what it says, but is that really the plan? From my recollection, US already has quite a low overhead, and all these tax cuts Trump imposed (irrelavant of who benefitted the most) didn't help. If this all comes down to "okay, guys: because of this situation it's okay if y'all pay a total of 2 trillion dollars LESS than normal", will the government be able to afford it? Meaning: does the USA collect over 2 trillion dollars in taxes in the first place?
(note: I always assumed the easy - but on the long run dangerous - solution: print extra money. It helps everyone in the short run, though it might undermine the position of the dollar in the long run)

How much control does Trump have though?

In 2019 he proposed a 1 billion dollar cut to the CDC but Congress didn't allow it to happen. They instead increased the CDC budget to 260 million.

In 2020 he proposed another cut of 750 million which is also a bad idea like the 2019 proposal and again Congress wouldn't let him have it. They then countered his proposal by instead increasing the budget to 420 million rather then decreasing it.

So when it involves money how much control does Trump have? Because it has to pass Congress, they are the checks and balances to bad idea's and have countered his bad idea's.

Foxi4 · Mar 29, 2020

notimp said:
Another example for why taxation is a must. You get all the money. You save for retirement. The house market collapses, or the stock market crashes.

There goes your plan for retirement.

In societies with a normal demographic progression you have the people currently working, pay for the retirement of people currently being retired. As the second sector (if normal demographic progression) is smaller - stuff suddely works out - stock market tanking or people loosing houses, doesnt matter - there is still money to attend to your elders.

Same argument with education.

Another argument for taxation are large infrastructure projects. Where investments needed are so high, that they arent recoupable within one generation of 'people' this goes for people heading companies as well - if upfront costs get too large, no one is investing.

How come, I havent met one libertarian yet that actually roughly knows what his tax money is mostly going to and why....

Oh, I know where the money's going - I just don't want it to go there. The error you're making here is assuming that the number one priority for a libertarian would be security - that's an error straight from the outset. Many, if not most libertarians believe that all that is great comes from risk, not safety. We accept the reality of risk - some people will lose their life savings on the stock market, others will make ten times what they've put in, and that's okay too. The primary motivator for a libertarian is obviously liberty. We believe in personal freedoms and individual responsibility - that includes both responsibility for success and for failure. It's "Liberty or Death" for a reason - the kind of death isn't specified.

Money is the quantum of life - we exchange the limited amount of time we have in our lives for an arbitrary concept of value through labour. When you take something that is mine and give it to someone else without my enthusiastic consent, you're not taking away papers with numbers on them, you're taking a part of my life. If I'm taxed at 20%, I'm a slave for 20% of the year, there's no other way to put it.

You're also under the mistaken impression that libertarians are against *all* taxation whereas in reality they're against *some* of it, primarily the income tax. Most libertarians are okay with a sales tax and prefer it to an income tax since it involves a singular exchange of currency that the government has provided - that is a form of service rendered, so most find it inoffensive. Taxing me for working on the other hand is asinine, and taxing me for anything after income tax is taxing me twice on the same dollar, which is highway robbery.

Again, long discussion, not really within the scope of this thread.

notimp · Mar 29, 2020

I didnt argue security once.

I argued - need for base level of social care. ("If stuff goes wrong") Not so much only for their sakes, but for everyones (you dont want to live in a society, where a third of people have no money for retirement, because of a 'world event').
I argued - infrastructure project costs that would outspend returns within one human generation
I argued - education costs, that at a base level, probably shouldnt be left to "does the family have any money for any education of their children at all"

- and I argued response time in situations where you would have to prep up something like a government at least temporarily. (Think crisis of some sort.)

Because most of that is structural - costs are so high, that you could never, ever cover it with 'philantropic efforts' alone. Hence taxes.

While 'constant crisis' might be a great motivator (if its constant it isnt), there is a point, where society as a whole has decided, we cant have it.

Education is maybe the best example. It is stupid and selfharming behavior for societies, if we let your parents 'moxy' in life refute the chances of their childred to get even basic education.

So something has to be done here.
("Then make edication free" doesnt work, because yous till need teachers, and social mobility (mixing of children).)

Else - revolts.

In feudalism it was easier. You just had to make sure that the peasants horizon ended at the villages gates. (They thought churches were fancy..

)

There unrestricted libertarian ideals might still have worked.
--

This is by the way, why societies becoming 'wealthy' is strongly correlated with getting birth rates under control at first. It allows for planning aside from next generation 3x the people want food and perspective. Although I'm sure they'd be scrambling like champions..

SG854 · Mar 29, 2020

Isn't the 1% also affected by the Corona Virus? Their businesses are shut down too.They are losing money. They are fearing of loosing their business when all of this is over. They need some help too.

And not all of the 1% is Amazon and McDonlads which are still open during this pandemic. Not all 1% is a fictional evil villains oppressing their workers.

There is too much bickering between Democrats and Republicans about money and who's benefiting from tax breaks and Democrats rejecting stimulus proposals when this is not the time to be doing that. Many people are out of work right now and really need that money soon especially since rent fees are coming up.

Foxi4 · Mar 29, 2020

notimp said:
I didnt argue security once.

I argued - need for base level of social care. ("If stuff goes wrong") Not so much only for their sakes, but for everyones.
I argued - infrastructure project costs that would outspend returns within one human generation
I argued - education costs, that at a base level, probably shouldnt be left to "does the family have any money for any education of their children at all"

- and I argued response time in situations where you would have to prep up something like a government at least temporarily. (Think crisis of some sort.)

Because most of that is structural - costs are so high, that you could never, ever cover it with 'philantropic efforts' alone.

While 'constant crisis' might be a great motivator (if its constant it isnt), there is a point, where society as a whole has decided, we cant have it.

Education is maybe the best example. It is stupid and selfharming behavior for societies, if we let your parents 'moxy' in life refute the chances of their childred to get even basic education.

So something has to be done here.
("Then make edication free" doesnt work, because yous till need teachers, and social mobility (mixing of children).)

Else - revolts.

In feudalism it was easier. You just had to make sure that the peasants horizon ended at the villages gates. There libertarian ideals might still have worked.

Social care equals security - "if something goes wrong" is literally the definition of a safety net. In regards to infrastructure, that predates government - lighthouses for instance were built by trade companies that required safe passage for their ships, but if you want a "libertarian" explanation for why taxing for infrastructure would be legitimate, protection of the inalienable rights of its citizens is the main objective of the State. As such, the State must enable their exercise, this by extension means establishing an environment where commerce can be conducted. This includes roads and highways, common currency etc., *however*, none of those necessitate an income tax. Taxation should be payment for services rendered, so a simple sales tax on fuel would suffice. Those who use the roads the most would use the most fuel, and by extension pay a fair share for infrastructure. Without getting into the mess of education and other things you brought up, they're inconsequential in the context of income tax which was only enacted in 1861 as a temporary measure to fund the Civil War. It was later repealed and replaced in 1862, and then finally repealed completely in 1872. After two decades income tax returned in 1894 to fund a tariff dispute as part of the Tariff Act. It wasn't until the 16th Amendment (1913) came along that income tax became a constant in American life and whenever it creeper up, it was because of a war effort, not to fund any noble causes you mention.

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

SG854 · Mar 29, 2020

For reference to reach the top 1% you need at least $500,000 a year which is not a whole lot of money when you consider how expensive it is to run a business. Any virus pandemic and country wide shut down will put your business in the danger zone. Top 1% Businesses are not just the Taco Bells and Walmarts of the country.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bl...ericans-now-need-at-least-500-000-a-year-to-e

notimp · Mar 29, 2020

Foxi4 said:
Social care equals security - "if something goes wrong" is literally the definition of a safety net.

Yes, but I argued for it not from the individuals perspective, but societys. (You dont want to live in a society where 1/3 of the population because of a sudden event has no money for retirement anymore.)

The costs to abandon a city and go away 'somewhere else' (as someone who still is affluent in such a scenario) are just too high - even economically for that individual.

Thats "too yolo".

You can only do that in societies, that only needs a few logs of wood and clay bricks to build all their infrastructure. If you build something more technologically advanced, you need a buffer.

usually that comes from taxes (burde sharing by the working population), it also could come from natural ressources or empirialism.

But with the industrial revolution we decided to actually give workers some of the money that formerly was just profit so now society itself can sustain itself throughout (non existential) periods of crisis.

Foxi4 · Mar 29, 2020

notimp said:
Yes, but I argued for tt not from the individuals perspective, but societys. (You dont want to live in a society where 1/3 of the population because of a sudden event has no money for retirement anymore.)

The costs to abandon a city and go away 'somewhere else' (as someone who still is affluent in such a scenario) are just too high - even economically for that individual.

Thats "too yolo".

Most libertarians are individualists, so the "society" argument doesn't fly. Taking something from me and giving it to somebody else, for whatever reason, purely on the basis of me having more and them having less is political Robin Hoodism. I'm not responsible for the poor life decisions of 1/3rd of the society, I'm responsible for my own. The onus is on them to secure their own future, not on me to bail them out. I can *choose* to do so by being charitable, but I should not be coerced into it at the point of gun, which is what unfair taxation is. If you disagree with that notion, try not paying taxes for a while.

Like I said, there is a sizable discussion to be had about this, but I don't think it belongs in this thread, so I'll do my best not to further derail. My initial point, which I stand by, is that "taking less" from someone does not equate to "giving" them anything - there is a fundamental difference between "giving" and "taking" that's not really debatable.

notimp · Mar 29, 2020

Foxi4 said:
Most libertarians are individualists, so the "society" argument doesn't fly.

Build me a skyscraper on your own.
Heck build me a smartphone on your own.

Again - libertarians live a few hundred years to late..

The ideology kind of works, if all you need can be created by lets say 300 people and a patch of land. Anything thats above that needs (complex) societal systems.

I say kind of - because you still have a big gap you fill with 'believe' of what to do if a structural crisis hit (sorrounding conditions change so fast, adaption, while sustaining becomes a problem for even 1/3 of your population (call it group, call it society, ..)). And you burn through individuals ('didnt make it' eh - next), pretty fast (under anarchy 'like' systems).

Foxi4 · Mar 29, 2020

notimp said:
Build me a skyscraper on your own.
Heck build me a smartphone on your own.

Again - libertarians live a few hundred years to late..

The ideology kidn of works, if all you need can be created by lets say 300 people and a patch of land. Anything thats above that needs (complex) societal systems.

The government doesn't build skyscrapers or smartphones - corporations do. Individuals come together to form groups by means of contractual agreement and choose to work together - the emphasis is on "choose" and "agreement". You mistake libertarians for hermits - we're not against cooperation, we're against coercion. You're not forced to work, but you will die if you don't, so circumstances put you on a path of labour - you choose to do so because eating is preferable to starving. People can do more when they work together, thus they come together in various forms, which in turn builds the backbone of the economy. All of your questions in regards to libertarianism seem to have pretty simple answers - I don't think you really discussed these issues with any libertarians before. Perhaps you should - we're really not as kooky as you'd think.

SG854 · Mar 29, 2020

Foxi4 said:
The government doesn't build skyscrapers - corporations do. Individuals come together to form groups by means of contractual agreement and choose to work together - the emphasis is on "choose" and "agreement". You mistake libertarians for hermits - we're not against cooperation, we're against coercion. You're not forced to work, but you will die if you don't, so circumstances put you on a path of labour. People can do more when they work together, so this they come together in various forms, which in turn builds the backbone of the economy. All of your questions in regards to libertarianism seem to have pretty simple answers - I don't think you really discussed these issues with any libertarians before. Perhaps you should - we're really not as kooky as you'd think.

Sometimes circumstances can take you off the path of labor like the virus epidemic. People can't work even if they want to, until the government says it's a ok. This epidemic has woken up alot of people and made them rethink issues and how to handle the tax system. Especially when a situation like this happens again in the future. We need a safety net if a situation like this again arises.

Foxi4 · Mar 29, 2020

SG854 said:
Sometimes circumstances can take you off the path of labor like the virus epidemic. People can't work even if they want to, until the government says it's a ok. This epidemic has woken up alot of people and made them rethink issues and how to handle the tax system. Especially when a situation like this happens again in the future. We need a safety net if a situation like this again arise .

I think you've answered your own query in the second sentence. That, and it's not entirely true - not all businesses are closed, certain businesses are considered essential commerce. Nothing is stopping you from a temporary change of career, and it's not your neighbour's fault that you didn't save for a rainy day. It's harsh, but so are most things in life.

SG854 · Mar 29, 2020

Foxi4 said:
I think you've answered your own question in the second sentence. That, and it's not entirely true - not all businesses are closed, certain businesses are considered essential commerce. Nothing is stopping you from a temporary change of career, and it's not your neighbour's fault that you didn't save for a rainy day. It's harsh, but so are most things in life.

But there isn't enough business open right now to hire everyone out of work.

Foxi4 · Mar 29, 2020

SG854 said:
But there isn't enough business open right now to hire everyone out of work.

Adaptation is key to economic success - companies with a robust online backend are operating perfectly fine, those that are still in the 20th century do not. That tells you which ones are on a path to success and which ones are on a path to failure.

notimp · Mar 30, 2020

Sure. lets say corporations "produce" all the wealth. Corporations also are social structures. But they are structures that usually are unfit to plan long into the future for more than 30 years (usually even more than five).

Lets say it works out well - corporation flurishes, what does it do with their workers? Worker camp arrangements?

Lets say they build cities (and not just worker camps), who builds and maintains the roads, who buils the bridges, who makes sure basic education is a thing?

A company usually cant handle that complexity very well (It goes opposed to the way they are structured - ), so the answer becomes "we all do" (everyone that then lives in that city). And we need the means, so company pays for it. But through a revenue sharing agreement with us. So we influence societal planning decisions, and not company.

As soon as you get to 'and what about that bridge in 100 years' or 'and what about the workers children' - same logic applies.

Rough cut of "whats a company".

A company basically splits complex tasks into parts, and then seeks to replicate people that can perform those tasks. Thats narrow focused, efficiency driven, ... Those structures are unable to run societies (or large groups, or call it what you like.

), because they care about position fulfillment and role replication, and see the entire rest as an externality.

Also companies can go bankrupt - and its better, that when they do - your city doesnt collaps as a result (destroyed wealth (the roads were still fine?!).
-

The basic point you need to understand is the 'who pays for infrastructure, education, ...' question, model wise. For centuries it wasnt the people in a state. It was corporations and the state. (They made all the money.)

With industrialization workers got a major share of that, and voting powers, but also had to pay for 'society maintenance'.

And they do it (especially in the US) mostly through (also taxes on) consumption (if demographics hold, and you can make them through PR). So to them it even seems fun.

You cant have both. (Pay increase that came after the industrial revolution, and not having to pay taxes.)
-

If we'd go back to libertarian models, you would earn much less, and company would pay for worker camps.

(Accommodation, infrastructure, ...)

Also it turns out - Infrastructure - also strongly correlated with how wealthy a country can become. (Synergy effects when stuff works) And we are back to the issue of "who builds them for 120 years and then maintains them"-

If you say "companies" at that point, they cant take risk and fail at the same rate - so you end up with corporate states. (Or oligopolies. Cartels.)

All you are doing is insisting "there is no structural cost" - while sticking your fingers in your ears at some point.

(Corporations build skyscapers based on grants, or insurances that they 'own profits' for that spot for about 100 years (concessions). Those are only worth anything, if someone can convincingly argue, that they get returns back - hence, executive branch, legislative branch, overall structure that honors contracts even in 100 years) and thats 'just' Skyskrapers. If you are talking about highways or railway nets - the costs are a factor higher, and the risk is much harder to absorb by even one (or even a few) very rich individual(s).

And if youd then supplement a company - that company would have to be granted not to be able to fail for the reamortization period, effectively becoming 'state like' (systemic).) Just so that the investment makes sense to anyone.

Ravenhide23 · Mar 30, 2020

My biggest issue with Trump is that he's a spineless moron. And that's all. With COVID-19 literally knocking on his door, he has the power to completely override Congress and whatever complaints they might have in regards to closing United States borders and attempting to prevent an influx of the virus. And then, since he did not take steps to prevent and/or limit the spread of the virus, he should have declared a National Emergency before it got as bad as it is. Unfortunately, our "esteemed" President, like nearly half of the American population, remains convinced that the virus isn't all that serious, so we still have a crisis on our hands that could have been avoided without this stooge in office.

Foxi4 said:
Adaptation is key to economic success - companies with a robust online backend are operating perfectly fine, those that are still in the 20th century do not. That tells you which ones are on a path to success and which ones are on a path to failure.

I feel like this is pretty narrow-minded of you, honestly. Especially since said companies with a robust online backend are extremely unlikely to higher someone (even temporarily) with no experience with an online backend at all. That's kind of like asking a plumber to fix an electrical problem and expecting there to be no issues there. And lets not even get into the fact that changing careers (again, even temporarily) isn't nearly as easy or simplistic as you're making it sound.

Foxi4 · Mar 30, 2020

Ravenhide23 said:
I feel like this is pretty narrow-minded of you, honestly. Especially since said companies with a robust online backend are extremely unlikely to higher someone (even temporarily) with no experience with an online backend at all. That's kind of like asking a plumber to fix an electrical problem and expecting there to be no issues there. And lets not even get into the fact that changing careers (again, even temporarily) isn't nearly as easy or simplistic as you're making it sound.

I think it's a fundamental mistake to assume that you have to be hired by someone in order to operate in commerce. The obstacles you're talking about are only obstacles because you perceive them as such - I don't have a recipe for success for you, if I did, I would've been a millionaire myself. What I do know is that you have a variety of options at your disposal, from changing careers through picking up a part-time job to becoming self-employed, nobody should be burdened with your troubles besides yourself. I'm not entirely heartless though - I do recognise that some calamities are unprecedented and thus I'm entirely fine with the current bill as the payouts are effectively returning the money taken from citizens back to them in a time of crisis. I was against taking that money in the first place, so I can only clap when it's returned.

SG854 · Mar 30, 2020

Foxi4 said:
Adaptation is key to economic success - companies with a robust online backend are operating perfectly fine, those who are still in the 20th century do not. That tells you which ones are on a path to success and which ones are on a path to failure.

It seems luck rather then on a path to success and a path to failure. People already with an online back end got lucky to still be functioning they weren't affected by the virus. But not everything can be done online only. We do need business that provide physical labor, even it they are not considerd essential now. And even businesses considered essentially to our living had the whole factory shut down when a worker is discovered to have a virus.

Transfering quickly to an online business is easier said then done. You are not going to expect a factory worker to know how to run an online backend successfully, make enough money till the pandemic is over, especially when they are in the red already. Its takes experience and time to learn, and to build up.

And since they were workers in a different career and was considered a good business that will stay in function for a long time they didn't learn online skills to prepare for a day like this, it just wasn't neccessary because who would have predicted this would happen in the way it did? An outbreak like this in this way haven't happened before in modern times.

That answer seems too easy to say and to put the blame on the person for not preparing and maintaining the belief to limit the safety net. We sometimes need it for unexpected events like this.

Foxi4 · Mar 30, 2020

SG854 said:
It seems luck rather then on a path to success and a path to failure. People already with an online back end got lucky to still be functioning they weren't affected by the virus. But not everything can be done online only. We do need business that provide physical labor, even it they are not considerd essential now. And even businesses considered essentially to our living had the whole factory shut down when a worker is discovered to have a virus.

Transfering quickly to an online business is easier said then done. You are not going to expect a factory worker to know how to run an online backend successfully, make enough money till the pandemic is over, especially when there are in the red already. Its takes experience and time to learn, and to build up.

And since they were workers in a different career and was considered a good business that will stay in function for a long time they didn't learn online skills to prepare for a day like this, itvjust want neccessary because who would have predicted this would happen in the way it did? An outbreak like this in this way havent happened before in modern times.

That answer seems too easy to say and to put the blame on the person for not preparing and maintaining the belief to limit the safety net. We sometimes need it for unexpected events like this.

You're right, I am blaming someone for being unprepared. Not necessarily the worker, he's simply a cog in the works, but the business owner. Businesses involving physical labour such as construction or manufacturing are overwhelmingly essential commerce - buildings are still being built, many factories are still running. The business sectors primarily affected by the lockdown are 1) restaurants and 2) non-essential retail, both of which have effectively operated in the online space for years. Admittedly in times of pandemic you also have to deal with food preparation restrictions, but at that stage we're touching upon the question whether the government *should* restrict the free market in the first place. Let's stick to the bill being discussed rather than meander further away from the subject.

SG854 · Mar 30, 2020

Foxi4 said:
You're right, I am blaming someone for being unprepared. Not necessarily the worker, he's simply a cog in the works, but the business owner. Businesses involving physical labour such as construction or manufacturing are overwhelmingly essential commerce - buildings are still being built, many factories are still running. The business sectors primarily affected by the lockdown are 1) restaurants and 2) non-essential retail, both of which have effectively operated in the online space for years. Admittedly in times of pandemic you also have to deal with food preparation restrictions, but at that stage we're touching upon the question whether the government *should* restrict the free market in the first place. Let's stick to the bill being discussed rather than meander further away from the subject.

Restaurants are still open for take out here in the U.S. but you can't eat inside.

On the question of should government shut down the free market in times like these. Well hospitals are being over run by Corona Virus patients. They are running out of supplies. They need to limit the amount of people getting the virus. Even people that don't have to corona virus are affected. People that are in a car accident, people that need cancer treatment, and other types of illnesses, if the hospital is over run by corona virus patients and not enough doctors and supplies to go around who's gunna help these people when they need help?

Shutting down business and having social distancing helps so that hospitals are not over run. Sometimes government needs to take these actions like these and shut down/restrict the free market.

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

@Foxi4 none essential retail also includes clothing stores. Not essential now but will be later on. That can't be done online.

The stimulus bill includes a tax break for the 1%

Hail Mary

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Hail Mary

Endless Trash

Hail Mary

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Hail Mary

Endless Trash

Hail Mary

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Member

Endless Trash

Hail Mary

Endless Trash

Hail Mary

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum