Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

prawnsambo

everlast75 wrote: »

Her idea is 70 cents on the dollar AFTER the first 10 million in earnings - which seems like a thoughtworthy place to start...

Yeah. It's not exactly an outrageous suggestion. Because you know, that eleventh million is so vital.

An_Toirpin

Igotadose wrote: »

Paul Krugman points out that AOC is actually in good company with her recommended tax rates: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html

"The controversy of the moment involves AOC’s advocacy of a tax rate of 70-80 percent on very high incomes, which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance (although Republicans blocked him from an appointment to the Federal Reserve Board with claims that he was unqualified. Really.) And it’s a policy nobody has every implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history."

The tGOP are ensuring AOC remains in Congress for a long time. There's zero chance a GOPer can take her seat, so they're guaranteeing endless media coverage with their stupid attacks. I wonder, maybe that's actually the plan - keep a 'Socialist' with high viz in DC for them to stir up their knuckledragging base. Perhaps some other Dem might challenge her, but I doubt it, she's way too photogenic and too good at social media for the Dem establishment to not back her going forward.

I expect to see Senator AOC in the not too distant, probably 2022/2024, she'll mostly be on the hustings in 2020 ensuring lots of anti-Trump coverage.

The absurdly high income tax rates that used to exist are well known and I can assure you they csused all sorts of distortions. The West shifted away from such income taxes because they are counter productive and hard to implement. incomes wi disappear and switch to capital gains as well as causing tax flight. Sir Chester Beatty is one famous example of a tax exhile who moved to escape such taxes in the UK. Lastly it unethical that hard work is taxed at 80%.

AOC is media savvy but she is illiterate, ditsy and unarticulate.

Wanderer78

An_Toirpin wrote:

The absurdly high income tax rates that used to exist are well known and I can assure you they csused all sorts of distortions. The West shifted away from such income taxes because they are counter productive and hard to implement. incomes wi disappear and switch to capital gains as well as causing tax flight. Sir Chester Beatty is one famous example of a tax exhile who moved to escape such taxes in the UK. Lastly it unethical that hard work is taxed at 80%.

What if some of this income was made from 'unearned income' streams?

An_Toirpin

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. It's not exactly an outrageous suggestion. Because you know, that eleventh million is so vital.

Tell me exactly how many people of that wealth earn it through incomes and not capital gains and what percentage of such income earners are unlikely to switch it to capital gains of needs be.

20Cent

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The absurdly high income tax rates that used to exist are well known and I can assure you they csused all sorts of distortions. The West shifted away from such income taxes because they are counter productive and hard to implement. incomes wi disappear and switch to capital gains as well as causing tax flight. Sir Chester Beatty is one famous example of a tax exhile who moved to escape such taxes in the UK. Lastly it unethical that hard work is taxed at 80%.

AOC is media savvy but she is illiterate, ditsy and unarticulate.

Tax capital gains as well then. Clearest signal on how the game is rigged is that the guy stacking shelves is taxed while someone who is already rich making money from investments is not.

prawnsambo

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Tell me exactly how many people of that wealth earn it through incomes and not capital gains and what percentage of such income earners are unlikely to switch it to capital gains of needs be.

I have no idea. I do know that the top 1% earners in the US earn 13% of the total wages paid. And that's those earning over $700k or thereabouts. The top 0.1% earn over 5% of total wages. That cohort starts at about $2.5 million. These are based on 2017 figures.

Blowfish

Igotadose wrote: »

The tGOP are ensuring AOC remains in Congress for a long time. There's zero chance a GOPer can take her seat, so they're guaranteeing endless media coverage with their stupid attacks. I wonder, maybe that's actually the plan - keep a 'Socialist' with high viz in DC for them to stir up their knuckledragging base. Perhaps some other Dem might challenge her, but I doubt it, she's way too photogenic and too good at social media for the Dem establishment to not back her going forward.

It strikes me that what they are actually doing is what happened to Trump himself. As a first time electee she normally wouldn't be getting anywhere near the free media attention that she is, but their attempts at attacking her are raising her profile a lot more than it normally would. It backfired in 2016 with Trump and it's likely to do so here too.

batgoat

Actually find the young voices in Democrats such as Cortez to be an optimistic sign. Fact she got elected means that there are places in America that want a more socialist system and she could well be a sign of how America will change in the next decade or two. Admittedly, Bernie was likely somewhat of a sign of this too. Anyway, yet to see any sign that AOC is "illiterate" or uneducated.

Leroy42

An_Toirpin wrote: »

AOC is media savvy but she is illiterate, ditsy and unarticulate.

And yet you support Trump?

Igotadose

20Cent wrote: »

Tax capital gains as well then. Clearest signal on how the game is rigged is that the guy stacking shelves is taxed while someone who is already rich making money from investments is not.

Or, restore the capital gains tax rate to what it was pre-GWB. That was probably his biggest giveaway to his corporate overlords (that, and invading Iraq.)

"As you can see, with the exception of pre-1941 and 2004-2012, maximum capital gains tax rates have regularly been 20% or higher. You'll note that between 1970 and 1979, wealthy taxpayers were forced to part ways with between 30.2% and 35% of their capital gains. The current rate of 20% is actually low compared to where things have been since 1941, and investors should be thankful for it."

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/11/a-95-year-history-of-maximum-capital-gains-tax-rat.aspx

MadYaker

An_Toirpin wrote: »

AOC is media savvy but she is illiterate, ditsy and unarticulate.

I know this is a serious debate forum but when I read this sort of stuff from a trump supporter it makes it very hard for me to believe that that person is participating in good faith. Like how can someone post a statement like that and not see the hypocrisy?

AOC should have known that the 70% tax was only going to cause hassle. The fact that it’s for people’s earnings after 10 mil was always going to be lost in the partisan noise. The only headlines I’ve seen say “70% tax on high earners” and that’s never going to be a runner in America no matter how many democrats get elected. I’d like to see her in Congress though

Akrasia

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. It's not exactly an outrageous suggestion. Because you know, that eleventh million is so vital.

Memories of P Flynn complaining about how expensive it is to pay for multiple houses and holiday homes etc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9ORNfD8e_sk

Akrasia

MadYaker wrote: »

I know this is a serious debate forum but when I read this sort of stuff from a trump supporter it makes it very hard for me to believe that that person is participating in good faith. Like how can someone post a statement like that and not see the hypocrisy?

AOC should have known that the 70% tax was only going to cause hassle. The fact that it’s for people’s earnings after 10 mil was always going to be lost in the partisan noise. The only headlines I’ve seen say “70% tax on high earners” and that’s never going to be a runner in America no matter how many democrats get elected. I’d like to see her in Congress though

Bernie Sanders said the same kinds of things and if it wasn't for him being sabbotaged by the DNC he would probably be POTUS now

Igotadose

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The absurdly high income tax rates that used to exist are well known and I can assure you they csused all sorts of distortions. The West shifted away from such income taxes because they are counter productive and hard to implement. incomes wi disappear and switch to capital gains as well as causing tax flight. Sir Chester Beatty is one famous example of a tax exhile who moved to escape such taxes in the UK. Lastly it unethical that hard work is taxed at 80%.

AOC is media savvy but she is illiterate, ditsy and unarticulate.

I imagine she can spell inarticulate. Illiterate? Unlikely again, she's an elected official. Ditsy? Compared to, I dunno, "stable genius" grabbing them by the p*ssy?

The change from post-war high income tax to 'trickle down voodoo economics,' to paraphrase GHWB, was a giveaway to the GOP backers of Ronald Reagan, no more, no less. It's proven to not work. GWB made it worse because at least there was some revenue from capital gains, but that's been gutted as well.

Need proof? How's that deficit doing?

everlast75

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/250975772083380226?s=19


A tweet for everything....

everlast75

Wallace must not need the wages from the rest of his tenure...


https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1081966342603821057?s=19

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Her idea is 70 cents on the dollar AFTER the first 10 million in earnings - which seems like a thoughtworthy place to start...

there should be no tax rate over 49.9% on anything. 100% taxation is slavery or communism , you should always strive to be closer to the free market than that.

That said OC is a confessed socialist and im sure this is just the start in a long line of ideas to cripple the economy and starve people that will all hopefully be shot down.

Whatever people want to think of trump, she's the biggest idiot to enter the US political sphere this decade.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there should be no tax rate over 49.9% on anything. 100% taxation is slavery or communism , you should always strive to be closer to the free market than that.

That said OC is a confessed socialist and im sure this is just the start in a long line of ideas to cripple the economy and starve people that will all hopefully be shot down.

Whatever people want to think of trump, she's the biggest idiot to enter the US political sphere this decade.

I can't determine whether you've actually read my post, or your blinkered view that the poor are the scourge of the nation is all that you see.

There was a third rate of tax in the US before and the world didn't fall down.

But the deficit is increasing at an exponential rate, so there's nothing wrong with the capitalistic model as it is eh?

The rich get richer, screw everyone else!

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

I can't determine whether you've actually read my post, or your blinkered view that the poor are the scourge of the nation is all that you see.

There was a third rate of tax in the US before and the world didn't fall down.

But the deficit is increasing at an exponential rate, so there's nothing wrong with the capitalistic model as it is eh?

The rich get richer, screw everyone else!

the deficit is because the government spend too much, it is there because they over spend. Surely you know by now how against government spending I am and how government spending and the taxation to fund it is incredibly far from my economics.

The solution to the deficit problem is to cut spending , massively, Politicians on any side of the aisle seem to never see that option for some reason.

listermint

everlast75 wrote: »

I can't determine whether you've actually read my post, or your blinkered view that the poor are the scourge of the nation is all that you see.

There was a third rate of tax in the US before and the world didn't fall down.

But the deficit is increasing at an exponential rate, so there's nothing wrong with the capitalistic model as it is eh?

The rich get richer, screw everyone else!

Eric hasn't a breeze.

Its cheerleaders like himself that don't seem to comprehend it's a zero sum game you simply cannot continue to increase the difference between rich and poor and at the same time have a healthy operational economy. Something has to give and likely it would be revolt. Imagine yellow vest style protests in the US only with their arsenal of guns available in public hands

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there should be no tax rate over 49.9% on anything. 100% taxation is slavery or communism , you should always strive to be closer to the free market than that.

That said OC is a confessed socialist and im sure this is just the start in a long line of ideas to cripple the economy and starve people that will all hopefully be shot down.

Whatever people want to think of trump, she's the biggest idiot to enter the US political sphere this decade.

Eh, that wouldn't starve anyone... For a person, who doesn't worry about depriving poor people of healthcare, I don't really think you mind if people starve. As was already pointed out, plenty of economists support such plans so it's not remotely an idiotic idea. It was also in place during the most economically successful period in US history.

You seem to think socialism is inherently evil, it really isn't and it looks like it's that it will become increasingly more popular with the new generation of Democrats. The voter base for the GOP is shrinking overall btw.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the deficit is because the government spend too much, it is there because they over spend. Surely you know by now how against government spending I am and how government spending and the taxation to fund it is incredibly far from my economics.

The solution to the deficit problem is to cut spending , massively, Politicians on any side of the aisle seem to never see that option for some reason.

Taking money out of taxation to hand back to big business for stock buybacks is your model of capitalism?

Even you can't believe that .

Its not even suspicious anymore you don't seem to have a coherent answer for this that makes sense.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

Eh, that wouldn't starve anyone... For a person, who doesn't worry about depriving poor people of healthcare, I don't really think you mind if people starve. As was already pointed out, plenty of economists support such plans so it's not remotely an idiotic idea. It was also in place during the most economically successful period in US history.

You seem to think socialism is inherently evil, it really isn't and it looks like it's that it will become increasingly more popular with the new generation of Democrats. The voter base for the GOP is shrinking overall btw.

Its the ideology that has resulted in the most deaths in modern history. The idea behind it is mutually exclusive to people having personal freedom and autonomy over their work and how they spend what they earn.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

Taking money out of taxation to hand back to big business for stock buybacks is your model of capitalism?

Even you can't believe that .

Its not even suspicious anymore you don't seem to have a coherent answer for this that makes sense.

I never mentioned anything about stock buybacks. I oppose all tax increases and think the solution to the deficit problem is to massively cut government spending. It was that spending that got them in trouble in the first place.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about stock buybacks. I oppose all tax increases and think the solution to the deficit problem is to massively cut government spending. It was that spending that got them in trouble in the first place.

No we have to discuss it because that's what happened.

Massive tax cuts from the government resulted in stock buybacks.

It did not result in your Eutopia of large scale economic boost.

It never does and never has


Your selling snake oil with your infantile economic viewpoint.

And governments have to spend . Private industry isn't going to keep the show on the road as demonstrated above.

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I oppose all tax increases and think the solution to the deficit problem is to massively cut government spending.

That's a textbook example of what I've referred to in the past as one-dimensional thinking. If you reduce any extremely complex issue to a single variable, you come up with an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

No we have to discuss it because that's what happened.

Massive tax cuts from the government resulted in stock buybacks.

It did not result in your Eutopia of large scale economic boost.

It never does and never has


Your selling snake oil with your infantile economic viewpoint.

And governments have to spend . Private industry isn't going to keep the show on the road as demonstrated above.

They don't have to outspend their takings though, George W Bush and Obama completely undid the surplus clinton left behind and bloated the civil service and government quangos to the point that regardless of who is in charge , a massive spending cut is the only way to get the deficit under control.

Government shouldnt punish rich people for years of mismanagement.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They don't have to outspend their takings though, George W Bush and Obama completely undid the surplus clinton left behind and bloated the civil service and government quangos to the point that regardless of who is in charge , a massive spending cut is the only way to get the deficit under control.

Government shouldnt punish rich people for years of mismanagement.

George Bush brought them into an incredibly expensive war.

Cheerleaded on by special interests in the defense industry.

There's your private industry in action tens of millions of dollars every year in lobbying power. What's your thoughts on that.

Eric Cartman

listermint wrote: »

George Bush brought them into an incredibly expensive war.

Cheerleaded on by special interests in the defense industry.

There's your private industry in action tens of millions of dollars every year in lobbying power. What's your thoughts on that.

The solution is to restrict lobbying, like trump did in his first quarter in office. It does need to be restricted further and also less government means less people to lobby.

And yet again, I oppose government spending and believe military spending should be reduced just like all the other spending. We're not here to discuss my feelings on george bush at all, sure Obama continued those wars and now people are going mad because trump wants to pull the troops out.

Igotadose

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They don't have to outspend their takings though, George W Bush and Obama completely undid the surplus clinton left behind and bloated the civil service and government quangos to the point that regardless of who is in charge , a massive spending cut is the only way to get the deficit under control.

Government shouldnt punish rich people for years of mismanagement.

You're right about the surplus, but that was mostly due to a big tax take. Then, GWB cut the capital gains tax, Citizen's United passed, and that was game over for the federal deficit. Further, Bush financed Iraq "off the books" so it was impossible to say how much was being spent. Obama put it back on the books, as well as having the Fed start QE (as against austerity, which many advocated for) which in turn softened the dollar and bloated the budget, as things cost more, weaker, USD.

Most of the budget deficit growth under Obama was the accounting for military spending, and bringing the economy back through investments in the likes of GM, bank bailouts (some of which paid off, some that didn't.)

Trump's been living off that, and the ill-thought-out tax cut (a tax cut, with no spending cuts) is just more budget bloat.