2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

Kanzler said:

How does that create new jobs?

Click to expand...

By putting Americans into the jobs illegals are doing and stopping foreign labour.

FreakyLocz14 said:

By putting Americans into the jobs illegals are doing and stopping foreign labour.

Click to expand...

But aren't those low-skilled, low-paid, labour intensive jobs ie the kind of jobs that people don't really like doing?

Kanzler said:

But aren't those low-skilled, low-paid, labour intensive jobs ie the kind of jobs that people don't really like doing?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he also called for a much lower income tax rate which would relieve some of the burden on the rich and middle class and make pay for the lower class non-existent, and would lower the government's power. The highest percentage bracket, which is one million and up would get a tax of 15% (which is apparently lower than the corporate tax in China). This would help the economy because more spending cash means more business and more jobs pop up as a result.

And besides, money is a strong motivator. If the person really needs money badly, they could just sit on their asses and do nothing and get an unemployment check that racks up more money than the lower-middle class. Or get that job (which some will probably do because they don't want to be labeled a lazy bum or don't have children.)

Thepowaofhax said:

I'm pretty sure he also called for a much lower income tax rate which would relieve some of the burden on the rich and middle class and make pay for the lower class non-existent, and would lower the government's power. The highest percentage bracket, which is one million and up would get a tax of 15% (which is apparently lower than the corporate tax in China). This would help the economy because more spending cash means more business and more jobs pop up as a result.

And besides, money is a strong motivator. If the person really needs money badly, they could just sit on their asses and do nothing and get an unemployment check that racks up more money than the lower-middle class. Or get that job (which some will probably do because they don't want to be labeled a lazy bum or don't have children.)

Click to expand...

Incidentally, The Economist, a magazine nobody can accuse of being anywhere near the left while keeping a straight face, considered those plans "exorbitant", "pie-in-the-sky" and would send the deficit and the debt "ballooning".

The evidence that income-tax cuts for high earners boost growth is thin at best. Predictions that tax cuts in the early 2000s would cause enough growth to pay for themselves look foolish today.

Click to expand...

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...re-welcome-their-detail-not-their-contents-be

Fun fact: W. Bush's tax cuts caused trillions of deficit and little-to-no-growth. I guess the right answer is doing even bigger cuts!

Thepowaofhax said:

I'm pretty sure he also called for a much lower income tax rate which would relieve some of the burden on the rich and middle class and make pay for the lower class non-existent, and would lower the government's power. The highest percentage bracket, which is one million and up would get a tax of 15% (which is apparently lower than the corporate tax in China). This would help the economy because more spending cash means more business and more jobs pop up as a result.

And besides, money is a strong motivator. If the person really needs money badly, they could just sit on their asses and do nothing and get an unemployment check that racks up more money than the lower-middle class. Or get that job (which some will probably do because they don't want to be labeled a lazy bum or don't have children.)

Click to expand...

If he plans on reducing taxes that much, then wouldn't he be forced to cut a lot of government programs? According to The Tax Foundation, Trump's plan would reduce revenues by about a trillion dollar each year for the next ten years. In 2015, the government's budget was $3.8 trillion dollars. So that would mean the government has to make do with 25% less revenue each year.

And this plan amounts to a tax cut for the wealthy. Americans with incomes in the bottom 20% would see their after-tax adjusted gross income (AGI) grow about 1%. Middle income tax payers see their income grow between 3% to 8%. But the wealthiest would see their incomes rise by 20%. He's dressing it up with pennies for the working classes, but it seems like another round of tax cuts for the rich.

Ivysaur said:

Incidentally, The Economist, a magazine nobody can accuse of being anywhere near the left while keeping a straight face, considered those plans "exorbitant", "pie-in-the-sky" and would send the deficit and the debt "balooning".



http://www.economist.com/news/leade...re-welcome-their-detail-not-their-contents-be

Fun fact: W. Bush's tax cuts caused trillions of deficit and little-to-no-growth. I guess the right answer is doing even bigger cuts!

Click to expand...

Actually, a cut in government revenue would be a good thing for a government is slowly encroaching onto our rights. However, it's not like he's just cutting the upper-classes tax rates anyways; it is lower for the middle and lower class. Since the Middle and Lower class have money, that would mean they probably have more money to spend and thus a potential for growth in the economy because it is more encouraged.

There's also the fun fact that George W. Bush was a dipshit and went to war with Irag and Afghanistan, which costed the US.

Kanzler said:

If he plans on reducing taxes that much, then wouldn't he be forced to cut a lot of government programs? According to The Tax Foundation, Trump's plan would reduce revenues by about a trillion dollar each year for the next ten years. In 2015, the government's budget was $3.8 trillion dollars. So that would mean the government has to make do with 25% less revenue each year.

And this plan amounts to a tax cut for the wealthy. Americans with incomes in the bottom 20% would see their after-tax adjusted gross income (AGI) grow about 1%. Middle income tax payers see their income grow between 3% to 8%. But the wealthiest would see their incomes rise by 20%. He's dressing it up with pennies for the working classes, but it seems like another round of tax cuts for the rich.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, some of the government programs such as ObamaCare are unnecessary. For example, the privatization of Health Care would lower costs due to competition, and would eliminate a lot of the current barriers between health care systems (for example, each state has different qualifications for medicaid and health care providers are, most of the time, limited in what area they can operate in). And again, I want a smaller government and reducing the revenue would certainly help with making the government smaller.

Again, they are still getting more money at the end of the day and it helps limit the government.

Thepowaofhax said:

In my opinion, some of the government programs such as ObamaCare are unnecessary. For example, the privatization of Health Care would lower costs due to competition, and would eliminate a lot of the current barriers between health care systems (for example, each state has different qualifications for medicaid and health care providers are, most of the time, limited in what area they can operate in). And again, I want a smaller government and reducing the revenue would certainly help with making the government smaller.

Again, they are still getting more money at the end of the day and it helps limit the government.

Click to expand...

Who's getting more money at the end of the day? If you're a middle income American you get about 5% more income under Trump's plan. Somebody in the top 10% gets 20% more income. Unless you're in the top 10% I don't see how you can be satisfied with this. You know in those movies where the main character throws down a bag of coins to make a getaway because all the poor people rush in to grab the coins? This is what this plan is like for those middle and lower income Americans that somehow support this plan. If I'm going to be bribed for a 20% tax cut for the wealthiest 1%, then at least give me a 20% tax cut as well!

To give you an idea of what 5% looks like: if you make 40k a year after tax, then under Trump's plan you'd make 42k. You'd get $2000 in your pocket, but you'd probably be losing a lot more in government programs.

If we're so concerned about limiting government here, then wouldn't it be better to just cut spending without putting more money in rich people's pockets year after year?

And how does government spending encroach into our rights? There's no logical connection there, unless I'm missing part of the explanation.

Kanzler said:

But aren't those low-skilled, low-paid, labour intensive jobs ie the kind of jobs that people don't really like doing?

Click to expand...

People who are on public benefits should be required to fill them.

Kanzler said:

Who's getting more money at the end of the day? If you're a middle income American you get about 5% more income under Trump's plan. Somebody in the top 10% gets 20% more income. Unless you're in the top 10% I don't see how you can be satisfied with this. You know in those movies where the main character throws down a bag of coins to make a getaway because all the poor people rush in to grab the coins? This is what this plan is like for those middle and lower income Americans that somehow support this plan. If I'm going to be bribed for a 20% tax cut for the wealthiest 1%, then at least give me a 20% tax cut as well!

To give you an idea of what 5% looks like: if you make 40k a year after tax, then under Trump's plan you'd make 42k. You'd get $2000 in your pocket, but you'd probably be losing a lot more in government programs.

If we're so concerned about limiting government here, then wouldn't it be better to just cut spending without putting more money in rich people's pockets year after year?

And how does government spending encroach into our rights? There's no logical connection there, unless I'm missing part of the explanation.

Click to expand...

Just saying, but if there's less money the government would have less money. Less money logically would mean that since it has less money, it couldn't do as much stuff (for example, less money for the NSA to spy on us because "muh terror" when they haven't found many terrorists at all, which by the way, goes against privacy laws).

There's also the fact that federal income tax brackets are dependent on money. Here they are. Taxes for 40k go from 25% federal income tax to 5% income tax. For those making 30k and under, it removes 9% of the taxes assuming he's going for the 1-5-10-15 plan, 30,001 to 100k pay less, of course (from the max possible of this, it would be from 33% to 5%), etc. These cuts in the federal income tax are huge, and while it doesn't help as much, further tax cuts on other taxes can help with this (now, I doubt anyone in the presidency can cut the state income taxes, but if it is a possibility, it would be a good idea for some of the Republicans to run for that.)

FreakyLocz14 said:

People who are on public benefits should be required to fill them.

Click to expand...

I would agree with this, but morally it would have to be people who don't bother getting a job and not people trying to get a job.

Thepowaofhax said:

I would agree with this, but morally it would have to be people who don't bother getting a job and not people trying to get a job.

Click to expand...

Why not? During the Great Depression the, government both provided public assistance as well as placed people into jobs. It means to be a hand up, not a handout.

Thepowaofhax said:

Just saying, but if there's less money the government would have less money. Less money logically would mean that since it has less money, it couldn't do as much stuff (for example, less money for the NSA to spy on us because "muh terror" when they haven't found many terrorists at all, which by the way, goes against privacy laws).

There's also the fact that federal income tax brackets are dependent on money. Here they are. Taxes for 40k go from 25% federal income tax to 5% income tax. For those making 30k and under, it removes 9% of the taxes assuming he's going for the 1-5-10-15 plan, 30,001 to 100k pay less, of course (from the max possible of this, it would be from 33% to 5%), etc. These cuts in the federal income tax are huge, and while it doesn't help as much, further tax cuts on other taxes can help with this (now, I doubt anyone in the presidency can cut the state income taxes, but if it is a possibility, it would be a good idea for some of the Republicans to run for that.)


I would agree with this, but morally it would have to be people who don't bother getting a job and not people trying to get a job.

Click to expand...

I really don't think money is the limiting factor for government control. According to one estimate, the NSA costs about $10-$20 billion a year. Now that's a lot of money, but that's not even 1% of the federal budget. If we wanted to abolish the NSA we could do it today, and not because we don't have enough money to run it.

Most government money isn't spent on things that limit freedoms. Social security, unemployment benefits, health care, the military, veteran benefits, and interest on debt aren't really things that restrict freedoms but they make up 86% of the federal budget. I see no significant relationship between government spending and government control.

Since we're still talking about Trumps tax plans, don't you see how it causes the rich to get richer without doing anything worth talking about for the middle and lower income people? We can cut all the taxes we want in the world, but it would still be wrong to make a plan that allows the rich to live more easily than they already do if you're not going to give everybody else the same benefit. If you're going to support a plan to cut taxes, then at least support one that benefits you as well as everybody else (I'm assuming you're not in the top 10%).

FreakyLocz14 said:

People who are on public benefits should be required to fill them.

Click to expand...

I don't think that would work in the long run - it would keep them on welfare forever. If you have these manual labour jobs that don't involve a lot of skill, don't pay a lot, then you're not going to get promoted, you're not going to develop any new skills worth transferring to a better paying job, and you wouldn't be saving enough for additional training.

FreakyLocz14 said:

Why not? During the Great Depression the, government both provided public assistance as well as placed people into jobs. It means to be a hand up, not a handout.

Click to expand...

If someone is looking for a job, sooner or later they would find one. Someone who is lazy and soaks up welfare like a sponge, burdening the middle and lower classes, should be the ones forced into jobs because they clearly show no wanting to being anywhere near productive. Someone who looks for the job at the very least shows signs of wanting to be productive and can become productive.

Kanzler said:

I really don't think money is the limiting factor for government control. According to one estimate, the NSA costs about $10-$20 billion a year. Now that's a lot of money, but that's not even 1% of the federal budget. If we wanted to abolish the NSA we could do it today, and not because we don't have enough money to run it.

Most government money isn't spent on things that limit freedoms. Social security, unemployment benefits, health care, the military, veteran benefits, and interest on debt aren't really things that restrict freedoms but they make up 86% of the federal budget. I see no significant relationship between government spending and government control.

Since we're still talking about Trumps tax plans, don't you see how it causes the rich to get richer without doing anything worth talking about for the middle and lower income people? We can cut all the taxes we want in the world, but it would still be wrong to make a plan that allows the rich to live more easily than they already do if you're not going to give everybody else the same benefit. If you're going to support a plan to cut taxes, then at least support one that benefits you as well as everybody else (I'm assuming you're not in the top 10%).

Click to expand...

Well, it is just an example. Limiting the budget also brings more pluses, such as less funds for the state police which leads to equipment downgrades (aka less automatic rifle-wielding SWAT teams, meaning less demilitarization of police). You also seem to forget that this same revenue was spent on federal agencies, that at one point or another, have breached the individual's rights. For example, there is the case of the Mk. Ultra (no, not that Illuminati shit, the cold war shit) and the same government agency that aided prohibition and intentionally poisoned alcohol for prevent people from drinking. Sure, they are older example, but both would have been drastically affected with lower government revenue because they government couldn't throw money at them.

For Social Security and the others, I see no reason to spend such a huge amount of money on the military. For example, we are currently funding more than 50% of NATO. Not only is this ridiculous, but it does nothing when our government spending is only ticking up giant fucking amount of debt that will leave the next generation worse off than our current generation. For Medicaid/ObamaCare/Medicare, I only see Medicare and Medicaid being valid, but at the end of the day if we remove a lot of the limitations that prevent health care insurers from insuring people in other states and not just a select few, there would be competition and that would lead to a hell of a lot cheaper health care than fining the poor for not being able to pay enough to cover both parts of ObamaCare or other sanctimonious shit. Social Security and Veteran Benefits aren't the only real one I have no problem with, and it would make it easier for unemployment benefits to be limited so that people try to get a job and not stay there, similar to how it was before a certain someone repealed a certain piece of regulation.

I also pointed out that if someone had 40k, their federal income tax is 25% and that if it went to his 5% federal income tax rate, the federal income tax would drop to 5%. Seeing as I'm a middle class citizen, that drop is very significant. It still benefits me one way or the other.

Thepowaofhax said:

Well, it is just an example. Limiting the budget also brings more pluses, such as less funds for the state police which leads to equipment downgrades (aka less automatic rifle-wielding SWAT teams, meaning less demilitarization of police). You also seem to forget that this same revenue was spent on federal agencies, that at one point or another, have breached the individual's rights. For example, there is the case of the Mk. Ultra (no, not that Illuminati ****, the cold war ****) and the same government agency that aided prohibition and intentionally poisoned alcohol for prevent people from drinking. Sure, they are older example, but both would have been drastically affected with lower government revenue because they government couldn't throw money at them.

Click to expand...

We're talking about federal taxes and the federal budget right now. That's what the president would have power over. And again, all these controversial government programs were not significantly affected by the amount of money available to the government. I highly doubt that all of Mk. Ultra cost as much as a single aircraft carrier. And Prohibition wasn't even enforced effectively.

None of these examples make a good link between government control and government spending because there is no logical connection. When 86% of the federal budget goes to things that do not cause unnecessary government control over freedoms, it's really hard to make the case that you can starve the government out of control. Do you know how we get government out of our lives? It's by electing officials who will make decisions and appoint people who decide to limit government control. Spending has little to do with it.

Thepowaofhax said:

For Social Security and the others, I see no reason to spend such a huge amount of money on the military. For example, we are currently funding more than 50% of NATO. Not only is this ridiculous, but it does nothing when our government spending is only ticking up giant ****ing amount of debt that will leave the next generation worse off than our current generation.

Click to expand...

Do you realize what that graph actually means? The article is titled "This is how much NATO member states spend on their military", and the graph is titled "NATO members' military expenditures in billions of dollars, 2014". It's not talking about funding NATO at all (although I do agree it demonstrates how much the US spends on the military and that is problematic).

Thepowaofhax said:

I also pointed out that if someone had 40k, their federal income tax is 25% and that if it went to his 5% federal income tax rate, the federal income tax would drop to 5%. Seeing as I'm a middle class citizen, that drop is very significant. It still benefits me one way or the other.

Click to expand...

That's not how income tax works. You pay a marginal tax on your income, which means that you pay the percentage for the whatever money you make within a tax bracket. There are other things called deductibles, which decrease your taxable income. The higher your deductible, the less tax the government can take from your income. Let me give you an example.

Here is the federal income tax system currently for a single person. The first $9,275 of your taxable income (after applying the deductible) is taxed at 10%. The following $28,375 (up to 9,275 + 28,374 = $37650) is taxed at 15%. The following $53,300 (up to - you do the math - $90,750) is taxed at 25%. You also get a $6,300 standard deduction and $4,000 personal exemption which reduces whatever taxable income you have by $10,300. So if you have $10,300 or less in income then the deductible covers all of your income and you don't pay tax at all. If you have $10,301 in income, then you have $1 of taxable income and you'd pay 10% tax on that one dollar.

Here is Trump's system. The first $25,000 of your income is not taxed. The second $25,000 (up to $50k) is taxed at 10%. I won't mention the rest because it's not involved in the example and I've put enough in this post as it is.

So if you earn $40k in income, then the government can only tax $40k - $10.3k = $29,700 of it. That means none of your money is even taxed at 25%. The first $9275 is taxed at 10% so you pay $927.5 there. You have $20,425 remaining which is taxed at 15% so you pay $3,063.45 there. Add the two together for a total of $3991.25 in income tax, and what you have left is just north of $36k.

Under Trump's system, you pay nothing on the first $25,000 leaving you $15,000 to be taxed at 10%. That's $1,500 in taxes leaving you with $38.5k after taxes.

You'd get $2,500 more under Trump's system, but that's only 7% of your income. Someone who earns $250k+ can expect to have about 20% more income - that's 50k, more than you make to begin with in tax savings. How is that fair? Why wouldn't Trump raise income taxes on the rich, or at least reduce taxes for the poor without reducing taxes for the rich? Keep in mind that Trump would be forced to cut government programs that lower and middle income Americans disproportionately benefit from and it's clear who's getting shafted.

Kanzler said:

We're talking about federal taxes and the federal budget right now. That's what the president would have power over. And again, all these controversial government programs were not significantly affected by the amount of money available to the government. I highly doubt that all of Mk. Ultra cost as much as a single aircraft carrier. And Prohibition wasn't even enforced effectively.

None of these examples make a good link between government control and government spending because there is no logical connection. When 86% of the federal budget goes to things that do not cause unnecessary government control over freedoms, it's really hard to make the case that you can starve the government out of control. Do you know how we get government out of our lives? It's by electing officials who will make decisions and appoint people who decide to limit government control. Spending has little to do with it.



Do you realize what that graph actually means? The article is titled "This is how much NATO member states spend on their military", and the graph is titled "NATO members' military expenditures in billions of dollars, 2014". It's not talking about funding NATO at all (although I do agree it demonstrates how much the US spends on the military and that is problematic).



That's not how income tax works. You pay a marginal tax on your income, which means that you pay the percentage for the whatever money you make within a tax bracket. There are other things called deductibles, which decrease your taxable income. The higher your deductible, the less tax the government can take from your income. Let me give you an example.

Here is the federal income tax system currently for a single person. The first $9,275 of your taxable income (after applying the deductible) is taxed at 10%. The following $28,375 (up to 9,275 + 28,374 = $37650) is taxed at 15%. The following $53,300 (up to - you do the math - $90,750) is taxed at 25%. You also get a $6,300 standard deduction and $4,000 personal exemption which reduces whatever taxable income you have by $10,300. So if you have $10,300 or less in income then the deductible covers all of your income and you don't pay tax at all. If you have $10,301 in income, then you have $1 of taxable income and you'd pay 10% tax on that one dollar.

Here is Trump's system. The first $25,000 of your income is not taxed. The second $25,000 (up to $50k) is taxed at 10%. I won't mention the rest because it's not involved in the example and I've put enough in this post as it is.

So if you earn $40k in income, then the government can only tax $40k - $10.3k = $29,700 of it. That means none of your money is even taxed at 25%. The first $9275 is taxed at 10% so you pay $927.5 there. You have $20,425 remaining which is taxed at 15% so you pay $3,063.45 there. Add the two together for a total of $3991.25 in income tax, and what you have left is just north of $36k.

Under Trump's system, you pay nothing on the first $25,000 leaving you $15,000 to be taxed at 10%. That's $1,500 in taxes leaving you with $38.5k after taxes.

You'd get $2,500 more under Trump's system, but that's only 7% of your income. Someone who earns $250k+ can expect to have about 20% more income - that's 50k, more than you make to begin with in tax savings. How is that fair? Why wouldn't Trump raise income taxes on the rich, or at least reduce taxes for the poor without reducing taxes for the rich? Keep in mind that Trump would be forced to cut government programs that lower and middle income Americans disproportionately benefit from and it's clear who's getting shafted.

Click to expand...

Except all of those mentioned were payed by tax dollars from government spending. Logically, it would still limit their spending ability. All of them, tax funded, had done something that is government control. Starve the government from revenue, and you starve many of the burdens and the government programs that do deal with government control (such as the NSA, the Federal Department of Education that is unneeded, ETC).

Also, I meant to link the one saying the US pays 73% of NATO's funding, but that's beyond the point now. Besides, I don't want to subscribe to Wallstreet Journal.

Now, I will admit that I don't understand taxes regarding federal income tax, but you seem to forget one thing as well. In this country, we are taxed for just about every thing. I could list many examples, from the Federal and state Income taxes, the taxes from internet, phone, electricity, taxes on gas, the ludicrous death tax that taxes money given to someone via a will twice, property taxes, sales tax, etc. At the end of the day, the middle class is hammered by all these taxes and about 50ish% of their paycheck goes bye-bye. I see no reason for Socialism because one, if someone earns their millions of dollars, they should not have it taxed at ludicrous levels, two, we shouldn't have risky income taxed (for example, the oil stocks; why tax this when they spend their own money knowing that it could be gone and that they could only get up to 3000$? It also affects social security as well!), three we should remove a majority of these damned taxes, and four, it means even more taxes. As it stands, if we got by with no income taxes in the 1930s 1890s.

So I tell you this; why should we keep taxing in the individual? Why should we implement another system of taxes under socialism that will make people who make up to one million dollars pay 90% of it to the government, live off of 50k and still have to pay other taxes, effectively making them poor while the poor get to soak up all the welfare they want by simply not working? After all, they already play the risky part of running businesses, stimulating the economy and giving you jobs. At this point, we need to figure out what is "enough" taxation. Clearly this current system is hammering the middle class and hurting potential economic growth.

Edit: Meant to type 1890s and not 1930s. RIP.

Thepowaofhax said:

Except all of those mentioned were payed by tax dollars from government spending. Logically, it would still limit their spending ability. All of them, tax funded, had done something that is government control. Starve the government from revenue, and you starve many of the burdens and the government programs that do deal with government control (such as the NSA, the Federal Department of Education that is unneeded, ETC).

Click to expand...

Starve the government from revenue, and you starve many of those necessary functions and services as well. Starving a government won't change its objectives - look at North Korea. Its government is poor and it will still decide to overspend on its military and nuclear weapons. The only way to change a government's objectives is to elect officials that do what we want them to do - stop surveillance, stop the wars, stop corruption - and hold them accountable. We can look at undemocratic governments all over the world and see that governments will still oppress you on a budget. Revenue has very little to do with it.

Thepowaofhax said:

Also, I meant to link the one saying the US pays 73% of NATO's funding, but that's beyond the point now. Besides, I don't want to subscribe to Wallstreet Journal.

Click to expand...

NATO's total budget is a bit north of $2 billion dollars. If 73% is the correct value, then the US spends about 4 percent of 1 percent of its budget on NATO. We could slash a whole bunch of defense spending before we come even close to cutting NATO funding.

Thepowaofhax said:

Now, I will admit that I don't understand taxes regarding federal income tax, but you seem to forget one thing as well. In this country, we are taxed for just about every thing. I could list many examples, from the Federal and state Income taxes, the taxes from internet, phone, electricity, taxes on gas, the ludicrous death tax that taxes money given to someone via a will twice, property taxes, sales tax, etc. At the end of the day, the middle class is hammered by all these taxes and about 50ish% of their paycheck goes bye-bye. I see no reason for Socialism because one, if someone earns their millions of dollars, they should not have it taxed at ludicrous levels, two, we shouldn't have risky income taxed (for example, the oil stocks; why tax this when they spend their own money knowing that it could be gone and that they could only get up to 3000$? It also affects social security as well!), three we should remove a majority of these damned taxes, and four, it means even more taxes. As it stands, if we got by with no income taxes in the 1930s.

Click to expand...

Well, there was a lot of income tax going on in the 1930s. Unemployment was 25% but other working people were still getting taxed. The government also spent a lot of money to create jobs, and that was arguably successful but also involved debt spending which soared to the point when it was triple the GDP and almost double debt pre-depression. So the money's gotta come from somewhere.

And I don't know if about half of the average paycheck goes to taxes. Someone should look up on that.

Thepowaofhax said:

So I tell you this; why should we keep taxing in the individual? Why should we implement another system of taxes under socialism that will make people who make up to one million dollars pay 90% of it to the government, live off of 50k and still have to pay other taxes, effectively making them poor while the poor get to soak up all the welfare they want by simply not working? After all, they already play the risky part of running businesses, stimulating the economy and giving you jobs. At this point, we need to figure out what is "enough" taxation. Clearly this current system is hammering the middle class and hurting potential economic growth.

Click to expand...

You're betraying your lack of understanding of taxes again - I just explained how marginal taxes work. And the top federal income tax bracket in the US is 40% and that's nowhere near 90%. Also, talk to some of the doctors or lawyers or engineers in your neighbourhood about how that punishing American tax burden is eating into their upper-middle class lifestyle. Also, talk to some of those minimum wage workers in your neighbourhood about how they're not working.

The middle class is being hammered not by tax rates. In fact according to this:


average tax rates have actually declined over the past few decades. So why does the middle class feel like it's being hammered? Because the average American household income has hardly grown since the 70's. Wake up people! It's not your taxes that's fucking you over, it's the size of your paycheque. And the government doesn't have any control over that (unless you work for the government).

RE 1890. Back then the government didn't really do much. That was the case in pretty much all of the Western world. There was no social security, unemployment benefits, healthcare wasn't as comprehensive as it is now, less than 70% of kids were in school, there was no Interstate and other massive forms of transportation infrastructure, and there were few pollution controls - factories just billowed smoke into the air. In 2016 (but honestly even 100 years ago) we don't consider that "getting by" anymore.

Kanzler said:

Starve the government from revenue, and you starve many of those necessary functions and services as well. Starving a government won't change its objectives - look at North Korea. Its government is poor and it will still decide to overspend on its military and nuclear weapons. The only way to change a government's objectives is to elect officials that do what we want them to do - stop surveillance, stop the wars, stop corruption - and hold them accountable. We can look at undemocratic governments all over the world and see that governments will still oppress you on a budget. Revenue has very little to do with it.



NATO's total budget is a bit north of $2 billion dollars. If 73% is the correct value, then the US spends about 4 percent of 1 percent of its budget on NATO. We could slash a whole bunch of defense spending before we come even close to cutting NATO funding.



Well, there was a lot of income tax going on in the 1930s. Unemployment was 25% but other working people were still getting taxed. The government also spent a lot of money to create jobs, and that was arguably successful but also involved debt spending which soared to the point when it was triple the GDP and almost double debt pre-depression. So the money's gotta come from somewhere.

And I don't know if about half of the average paycheck goes to taxes. Someone should look up on that.



You're betraying your lack of understanding of taxes again - I just explained how marginal taxes work. And the top federal income tax bracket in the US is 40% and that's nowhere near 90%. Also, talk to some of the doctors or lawyers or engineers in your neighbourhood about how that punishing American tax burden is eating into their upper-middle class lifestyle. Also, talk to some of those minimum wage workers in your neighbourhood about how they're not working.

The middle class is being hammered not by tax rates. In fact according to this:

average tax rates have actually declined over the past few decades. So why does the middle class feel like it's being hammered? Because the average American household income has hardly grown since the 70's. Wake up people! It's not your taxes that's ****ing you over, it's the size of your paycheque. And the government doesn't have any control over that (unless you work for the government).

Click to expand...

North Korea was already a dictatorship that the populous willingly wanted and their citizens are indoctrinated. You cannot change indoctrination easily, and with such a system they willingly wanted they can never change due to the one party system and how it on;y has one candidate- the son of the leader that had died.

I did edit the post, sad that you didn't see it. I meant to put the 1890s because 1930's = depression.

Half of it does due to other taxes. Again, this is factoring in taxes such as property taxes, etc.

You also missed the point of that paragraph. I said that socialism would make those income taxes be 90%, not that they are currently. You misread, and it is understandable.

Also, the paragraph accompanying the graph is talking about the lowering tax rates for the rich and poor. There is also the fact that it includes only income tax, and not many other taxes. This is a good example, going to the first example. This is not including other taxes like property taxes, fuel taxes, etc but it does help give you an idea. Also, here's a list of 97 taxes. Logically speaking, a Socialist system would lead to a class of takers who are essentially welfare sponges and don't want to work because the government furnishes them with money every day while the middle and lower class workers slave away at their expense.

Also, increasing the minimum wage would increase product costs, etc. You can't fix this paycheck problem if our government is taxing the people to shit to pay for everything whilst doing jack shit for our debt. It is clear that the establishment doesn't know nothing. Raising pay checks on the other hand, instead of prioritizing money spent on debt, will only cause more inflation.

Thepowaofhax said:

You also missed the point of that paragraph. I said that socialism would make those income taxes be 90%, not that they are currently. You misread, and it is understandable.

Click to expand...

And you have decided that it will happen because...?

For instance, one of the most socialist countries in the world, where everybody has free healthcare and education and guaranteed income even if they are unemployed, Sweden, has a maximum marginal rate of 56% for earnings over 80,000€, which is more than enough for a middle class family to live well enough on a year (quite in fact, the Prime Minister makes 250,000 €/year).

I guess since the US does everything big, they'll suddenly pass gigantic tax rates that no other democratic socialist country anywhere else in the world needs?

Also, the paragraph accompanying the graph is talking about the lowering tax rates for the rich and poor. There is also the fact that it includes only income tax, and not many other taxes. This is a good example, going to the first example. This is not including other taxes like property taxes, fuel taxes, etc but it does help give you an idea. Also, here's a list of 97 taxes. Logically speaking, a Socialist system would lead to a class of takers who are essentially welfare sponges and don't want to work because the government furnishes them with money every day while the middle and lower class workers slave away at their expense.

Click to expand...

As we can see, Sweden has a 6% unemployment rate. Meanwhile, Denmark has a terrifying 7.1%. All of them smoochers and... Did you know that any unemployment under 5% of the population is considered "unfixable", since there are many reasons why a number of people will be unemployed at some given time, other than "smooching the government"?

I mean, there are some "smoochers" who are medically unable to work. Then there are some "smoochers" that can only work part-time. Or who would rather work part-time. Or who are looking for a better job after quitting/being fired from their current one and can't just find it overnight. Or who have skills that are in short demand in that moment (and perhaps can't develop new ones because that would cost them thousands).

Incidentally, if you guarantee everybody a, say, 600€ guaranteed income, which is barely enough to either pay rent or eat (choose your favourite!) every month, it's hard to see someone who will say "okay, well, why work if I can barely get enough food to survive this month as a freebie!". In turn, you will find that people already working for the minimum salary will have much better lives.

Also, increasing the minimum wage would increase product costs, etc. You can't fix this paycheck problem if our government is taxing the people to **** to pay for everything whilst doing jack **** for our debt. It is clear that the establishment doesn't know nothing. Raising pay checks on the other hand, instead of prioritizing money spent on debt, will only cause more inflation.

Click to expand...

Considering that the current US inflation rate is under 1% and has been like that for two years -the Fed has a 2-3% goal, which is missing-, then I think some extra inflation wouldn't be bad.

As a bonus, the US's debt is a bit of an oddity because it's the only country in the world which exports its own currency as if it were a commodity (essentially because the rest of the world demands it). Yeah, the US exports dollars the same way other countries export iron or oil. Which makes the debt issue a bit more complex to describe.

Of course, I see you haven't mentioned this issue:



I think the problem is not that the lower 90% earners have "too many taxes". I think that the problem is that the top 5% make a dispropportionately ginormous amount of money. If the massively billionaire amounts made by the top riches were redistributed, they wouldn't feel a thing and, in turn, the Government could spend that money in giving, say, income bonuses to the lower earners on top of their paychecks (as in the UK) or simply giving them free healthcare (as in all of Europe). Or more social programs, or wahtever you want.

But if I have a thousand million dollars, or two or 15, I can be taken away some hundreds of dollars and my lifestyle wouldn't be affected at all.

Ivysaur said:

And you have decided that it will happen because...?

For instance, one of the most socialist countries in the world, where everybody has free healthcare and education and guaranteed income even if they are unemployed, Sweden, has a maximum marginal rate of 56% for earnings over 80,000€, which is more than enough for a middle class family to live well enough on a year (quite in fact, the Prime Minister makes 250,000 €/year).

I guess since the US does everything big, they'll suddenly pass gigantic tax rates that no other democratic socialist country anywhere else in the world needs?



As we can see, Sweden has a 6% unemployment rate. Meanwhile, Denmark has a terrifying 7.1%. All of them smoochers and... Did you know that any unemployment under 5% of the population is considered "unfixable", since there are many reasons why a number of people will be unemployed at some given time, other than "smooching the government"?

I mean, there are some "smoochers" who are medically unable to work. Then there are some "smoochers" that can only work part-time. Or who would rather work part-time. Or who are looking for a better job after quitting/being fired from their current one and can't just find it overnight. Or who have skills that are in short demand in that moment (and perhaps can't develop new ones because that would cost them thousands).

Incidentally, if you guarantee everybody a, say, 600€ guaranteed income, which is barely enough to either pay rent or eat (choose your favourite!) every month, it's hard to see someone who will say "okay, well, why work if I can barely get enough food to survive this month as a freebie!". In turn, you will find that people already working for the minimum salary will have much better lives.



Considering that the current US inflation rate is under 1% and has been like that for two years -the Fed has a 2-3% goal, which is missing-, then I think some extra inflation wouldn't be bad.

As a bonus, the US's debt is a bit of an oddity because it's the only country in the world which exports its own currency as if it were a commodity (essentially because the rest of the world demands it). Yeah, the US exports dollars the same way other countries export iron or oil. Which makes the debt issue a bit more complex to describe.

Of course, I see you haven't mentioned this issue:

I think the problem is not that the lower 90% earners have "too many taxes". I think that the problem is that the top 5% make a dispropportionately ginormous amount of money. If the massively billionaire amounts made by the top riches were redistributed, they wouldn't feel a thing and, in turn, the Government could spend that money in giving, say, income bonuses to the lower earners on top of their paychecks (as in the UK) or simply giving them free healthcare (as in all of Europe). Or more social programs, or wahtever you want.

But if I have a thousand million dollars, or two or 15, I can be taken away some hundreds of dollars and my lifestyle wouldn't be affected at all.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I'm not about to fork over 55% of my income to a government. These taxes are ridiculous, especially factoring in other taxes like their VAT taxes that are at 25%.

Scandinavia's unemployment problem isn't that much of an issue because they, out of all countries, have this magical time limit where if you don't get a job while being unemployed, you're out of luck once they stop giving you welfare, etc. We don't have that since it has been repealed, so logically, why work when you can sit there for an infinite amount of time racking up welfare benefits? After all, there is no time limit. The only excuse for this is that you have something that makes you unable to work at all. The highest time there is 500 days, which only gives them a year and 135 days.

So you think extra inflation wouldn't matter that much? I'm sorry, but having a mix of the highest corporate income tax in the developed world (3rd if you include Chad and another middle eastern country; not sure if they are developed) and forcing wages to go up will force more companies to go out-of-country or they will have to make their items hike up at ridiculous prices as well as lay-off workers. Meanwhile, other countries with great economies seem to be doing better. For example, your favorite Scandinavian countries seem to have a much lower corporate income tax, making them more competitive.


(Sorry that this is ridiculously huge.)

And now, you want more social programs. Again, the taxes in this country are ridiculous and adding even more taxes is not going to help. Redistribution of their money wouldn't help because that will also encourage them to pack their bags and move to a different country so that their businesses can employ workers that they can pay the smallest amount of money possible and have low taxes/no socialist. Aka Mexico, India, etc. It only makes sense that they have that money because they were the ones that managed and assumed the risk of a business, stimulate the economy either by stock market or other things, and employ people. They can't do either of these things as well if you keep on taxing them.

@NK the point is that a government will oppress you whether it has a lot of money or not. You can't starve a government out of oppression. Don't think that the NSA will disappear even if you cut the federal budget by half. You'd probably need revenue to decline to North Korea levels before the NSA starts to look unaffordable.

@1890s I edited my post too. Read that bit about pollution, lack of universal K-12 education, roads, social security, healthcare. Only 87% of the population was literate and less than 50% of blacks were literate.

How did we ever get to 90% tax socialism? I thought we were talking about how Trump's plan is a tax break to the rich. Is the logical connection here that if we don't have Trump's plan we'll have 90% tax socialism?

Also, you're not going to fork even close of 55% of your taxes over unless you're in the 1%. If you're not a millionaire or a billionaire yet, it's a good idea to not worry about what's not even going to happen to millionaires or billionaires.

Okay. Latest poll out of South Carolina looks bad for Sanders - his numbers haven't really changed since a couple months back and the primary is in two weeks. Is the beginning of the end of the line or just dirt off his shoulders?

The Republican debate tonight was dismal. I still consider myself conservative, but these men do not represent my views in any way. It's frankly depressing to see how terrible this election already is with all the Republicans and Hillary attacking Sanders underhandedly on the Democratic side. Add in Scalia's death and a nightmare and embarrassment for the American people looms overhead.