• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

The American Politics Discussion Thread

22,952
Posts
19
Years
The numbers don't really even support $250,000 as the upper portion of middle-class, however, especially when the median and mean incomes are between $40,000 and $60,000. The upper ceiling is far closer to $150,000.

I think a decent compromise would be a graduated increase in the rate from $250,000, with it peaking to the pre-Bush rates at $1 million this year, and gradually returning the rate to normal all the way down to $250,000 over a period of 7 years.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
The numbers don't really even support $250,000 as the upper portion of middle-class, however, especially when the median and mean incomes are between $40,000 and $60,000. The upper ceiling is far closer to $150,000.
I recognize those numbers, I just... don't like them.

If you're trying to live in the suburbs with what is traditionally viewed as a middle class lifestyle, you'll likely need an income of at least $125,000. What's considered upper-middle today, seems to really be what the true middle class once was, is supposed to be, and hopefully will be again - in my eyes anyway.

The middle class is disappearing, I don't think it helps to speed up the process.

Around $750,000 is where the "1%" tends to start, and I don't think households with an income of $250,000 are in the same boat as millionaires and billionaires. If $750,000 is too high a line, I'd settle for $500,000 around 37.8% and 1million+ at 39.6%.

Also... if anyone can clear this up for me since I'm a Canadian. Do you guys have a State-level income tax? Or is just things like sales taxes?
 
22,952
Posts
19
Years
Well, that's where the buying power required to have a "middle-class" life is right now, I agree, at least for a family of 4. You used to get that quality of life on far less money, but inflation has driven things upwards in price while wages have not caught up.

Oh, yes, we do have state-level income taxes. As far as I'm aware, every state has income taxes. States also have property taxes and sales taxes, though some states only collect one or neither of these latter two.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Just a random thought, but wouldn't laws that ban gay marriage be a violation of the first amendment? As their are religions that support and allow gay marriages, then any law that forbids gay marriage is a violation of the free practice provisions.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
That's not quite right. If you had a religion where the doctrine was to get gay married then maybe there would be a case, but things can be illegalized that a religion tolerates.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
The idea behind the free practice provisions were to prevent government from interfering in religion, and supporting one religion over another.

Even though it isn't the doctrine, religions that would normally allow gay marriages can't due to laws prohibiting gay marriage. This is government interfering with Religion.

Alternatively, laws banning gay marriages are showing support for certian religions. Given that a large portion of people against gay marriage are so because they believe marriage to be a religious instution, rather then a government instution, then banning gay marriage can be seen as supporting religions that are against gay marriage.

Personally, this is why I've believed that we need to separate marriage by Religion and State. Let all the rights normally given to married couples be given out via the state marriage, and then let the Religious people choose a church marriage. Marriages done under the state wouldn't apply as a Religious marriage, however people who choose a Religious marriage can choose to have it also apply as a state marriage so they would be eligible for the benefits that it gives out.

This would satisfy both parties, as it protects the sanctity of marriage, when relating to Religion (Giving the Religious crowd what they want) while also giving equal rights and benefits to gays and lesbians. (Giving gays and lesbians what they want, and also allowing them the option of a Religious marriage if they so desire and if they find a church that allows it.)
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
The idea behind the free practice provisions were to prevent government from interfering in religion, and supporting one religion over another.

Even though it isn't the doctrine, religions that would normally allow gay marriages can't due to laws prohibiting gay marriage. This is government interfering with Religion.

Alternatively, laws banning gay marriages are showing support for certian religions. Given that a large portion of people against gay marriage are so because they believe marriage to be a religious instution, rather then a government instution, then banning gay marriage can be seen as supporting religions that are against gay marriage.

Personally, this is why I've believed that we need to separate marriage by Religion and State. Let all the rights normally given to married couples be given out via the state marriage, and then let the Religious people choose a church marriage. Marriages done under the state wouldn't apply as a Religious marriage, however people who choose a Religious marriage can choose to have it also apply as a state marriage so they would be eligible for the benefits that it gives out.

This would satisfy both parties, as it protects the sanctity of marriage, when relating to Religion (Giving the Religious crowd what they want) while also giving equal rights and benefits to gays and lesbians. (Giving gays and lesbians what they want, and also allowing them the option of a Religious marriage if they so desire and if they find a church that allows it.)
But there are religions that want to practice polygamy and child brides and we don't allow that, thankfully. I mean, I want people to be able to get married if they want, but I don't think we should go down the religion road to make it happen.

I agree that we need to divorce (haha) the idea of marriage from religion. Sure, if you personally want your marriage to be religious then that's fine, but marriage is not something religion should have a say on except when that marriage is taking place within its doors.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
I see nothing wrong with polygamy, really. If a person wants to get married to multiple partners, and they want the same thing, then they should be allowed to. They would be limited to a Religious marriage in this case though.

Point on child brides though, I didn't consider that.

Although, I'd say that marriages under either system would have to comply with the age of consent for the state. Then again, this would go against the intentions of the separation.
 
Last edited:

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.
Don't like that gays want to / can get married? Too bad.

That's my view.
 

WingedDragon

Competitive Trainer
1,288
Posts
11
Years
"Fiscal cliff"

Im sure there will be no deal done by Monday night, but does anyone have any faith that something will be done within the next month?

I personally would hope so trying to be optimistic, but the pessimism in me says it wont be done and it will just stay as is. Both parties suck.
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
It's a toss-up at this point. Either they won't come up with one and each side will blame the other, or they will come up with one that's absolutely horrible but looks nice and makes them look good so they can all sell themselves as "masters of compromise" in their next election.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
I don't know why we can't have a deal for middle income people. Nobody is arguing that the middle class should pay more. We should get that done, spare most people, and then debate separately how much the higher income people should have to pay.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Part of the reason is the Republican in fighting. A group of Republicans tried working with the Dems, but the rest of the Repubs beat them down.

The parties refuse to work with each other, but the Republicans are refusing to work with other Republicans.

Imo, all of them need to be locked up in their buildings until they come up with a solution to this. Lock the congress and senate in their meeting rooms, lock the president in his office, and only let them out when they come up with and agree on a solution. Should this take time and they need food, they would be provided a basic meal of unsalted crackers and water.

Edit - I bet that if the stipulations package that they are trying to prevent from going into effect had writeins that would have prevented them from being paid for their terms, and required them to pay back pay they recieved the previous term, then they would be working together.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
Unsalted crackers and water would not meet their needs as far as nutrition goes.

And you have to remember - this is a job. Do we lock doctors in their practices because people die every day from no access to good healthcare?
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Thats the point. The poor quality of the food will be another incentive for them to work together.

Their job is to make our country a better place. Their refusal to act will ruin our country. I don't care how it's done, but something needs to be done to force them to do their damn job.

A doctors job is to try, keyword try, to heal their patient of their ailments or to prevent them from dying. Even though they are not always sucuessful, their attempts to mean that they are doing their jobs.
 
Last edited:

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
When governments either fail or become too authoritarian, revolutions follow.
 

Shiny Bidoof

On fire
49
Posts
11
Years
  • Age 32
  • Ohio
  • Seen Jun 14, 2013
Thats the point. The poor quality of the food will be another incentive for them to work together.

Their job is to make our country a better place. Their refusal to act will ruin our country. I don't care how it's done, but something needs to be done to force them to do their damn job.

A doctors job is to try, keyword try, to heal their patient of their ailments or to prevent them from dying. Even though they are not always sucuessful, their attempts to mean that they are doing their jobs.

I almost disagreed with you, but then I remembered how little this congress has actually done and... yeah, if anyone deserves punishment for not doing their jobs, it's these guys.

I encourage everyone to look up the "do-nothing congress" under Truman. They were universally despised for their inaction, and this congress has done waaaaaaaaay less.

Also, I agree that the more radical parts of the republican party need to just let go already. You shouldn't put the entire country at risk because you can't sufficiently harm old people (medicare and social security are not at risk, regardless of what Fox news says, there's no other reason to cut them and deny people over 60 healthcare and retirement).

I don't know why we can't have a deal for middle income people. Nobody is arguing that the middle class should pay more. We should get that done, spare most people, and then debate separately how much the higher income people should have to pay.

It gives them leverage over the president. If they don't pass his bills they can hold it over his head and say "sign what we tell you to and maybe you'll get what you want."

Democrats screwed up and gave away all their leverage, I don't expect the Republicans to do the same.
 

Sweets Witch

I just love ham jerky.
1,388
Posts
11
Years
Let the rage over the gun control executive orders begin! :D I would not be surprised if the NRA marched on the capital.

I sincerely hope they do because there's no doubt that a majority of that crowd would be armed and the scene could easily be viewed as one of terrorism. That'd be some great publicity for the pro-gun movement.
 
Back
Top