TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#43351: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:01:24 PM

[up] Wow, that totally misses the point. There's a group of people called, oh I don't know, the martyrs who died for following Christ. The idea is that God will reward those who serve Him but, and this is the important bit, the reward most likely won't be financial prosperity.

Granted, there has been two thousand years between then and now, but there is nowhere in the Bible that supports that as a general thing. Especially not in the New Testament. Remember the Rich Young Ruler who was told to give everything away to the poor if he wanted to follow Jesus?

EDIT: Yes, I'm taking a class on Christian Theology, why?

edited 10th Dec '12 1:05:44 PM by Zendervai

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43352: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:04:28 PM

@Ekuran: That's sort of what I was thinking, what with the connection to televangelists. But what I was thinking of had roots in the eighteen hundreds, too. Hmm.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43353: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:08:28 PM

I found Politico's article on tax "loopholes" and the closure thereof: here. The top ten amount to a total of $834 billion per year and include: employer-sponsored health insurance (this hits both the business and the employee), pension benefits, mortgage interest, Medicare benefits, capital gains rates (actually this is much smaller than I remembered at $71.4 billion), the Earned Income Tax Credit, deduction of state and local taxes, exclusion of capital gains at death/gift carryover, charitable contributions, and employer benefits under "cafeteria" plans.

@Starship: Nobody gets to keep all of their money; it's called taxation. The question isn't whether we should tax, but how much. Absent 100% taxation, there is no point at which you stop getting more money as your income rises.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Ekuran Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#43354: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:09:24 PM

[up][up]There was probably something similar to it that Robber Barons used as self-justifications for hoarding their wealth at the expense of everyone else.

edited 10th Dec '12 1:11:38 PM by Ekuran

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43355: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:12:19 PM

Being told to work so that the State can take the majority of my income, hence effectively making me a unwilling volunteer for the State, really isn't my scene. Clearly, this a gross generalization, so obviously, I'll hope you'll correct the assumptions as they arise.

Question to thread: Was Carnegie what we'd call a Rockefeller Republican? I didn't understand all of the cliff notes version of Gospel of Wealth, but for some reason, it sounded.....right..to me.

It was an honor
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43356: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:17:17 PM

Wait, I'm just confusing myself now. Nevermind.

edited 10th Dec '12 1:18:41 PM by AceofSpades

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43357: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:19:35 PM

I set up a theoretical tax scenario based on various incomes and tax brackets, to illustrate the concept of progressive taxation.

  • Incomes: $10K, $100K, $1M, $10M.
  • Tax Scenario A: 20% flat tax
  • Tax Scenario B: 0/10/20/30% brackets at $0/10K/100K/1M.
  • Tax Scenario C: 0/10/30/70% brackets at $0/10K/100K/1M.

Results:

  • In Scenario A, the bottom guy pays $2K in taxes and the top guy pays $2M in taxes. Each time you increase the income by 10 times, you increase take home pay 10 times.
  • In Scenario B, the bottom guy pays $0 in taxes and the top guy pays $2.9M in taxes. The $100K earner takes home 9.1 times more money than the $10K earner, and the $10M earner takes home 8.8 times more money than the $1M earner.
  • In Scenario C, the bottom guy pays $0 in taxes and the top guy pays $6.6M in taxes. Going up the incomes, the increase in take home pay is 9.1x, 7.9x, and 4.7x.

Results: Even at the top tax bracket under the most progressive plan, a person earning 10 times more money than the guy below him still takes home 4.7 times more money after taxes.

To see the calculations, I uploaded a copy of the document to Google Drive, here.

edited 10th Dec '12 1:21:40 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#43358: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:21:18 PM

The first Facebook response on that "seven steps for the GOP to capture the youth vote" article:

Markley, you wouldn't vote Republican if your life depended on it. So I think your insipid suggestions fall flat here. While the Republican Party certainly has its work cut out for it, turning into a party for anti-religious Democrats like yourself is hardly a path to success. Thanks, though.
I don't think they're getting the message...

[up] Can you share the calculations? I want to figure out how much revenue you bring in (as a percentage of all the money everyone makes) if, say, there are ten taxpayers in each bracket.

edited 10th Dec '12 1:23:16 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43359: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:25:52 PM

I just uploaded it and pasted a link (here again if you missed it). I converted from Excel to ODS for compatibility, but it won't preview for some reason — maybe because this machine only has Office on it and not OpenOffice.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#43360: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:27:31 PM

...I don't actually have ods on my computer, so that's not very helpful.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43361: Dec 10th 2012 at 1:37:01 PM

Is there a common file format that I can use?

Hmm, apparently Google Drive can preview XLS files. Linky.

Edit: I updated the spreadsheet with population ratio calculations, figuring the percent of revenue that would come from each income bracket.

edited 10th Dec '12 1:43:53 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43363: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:06:54 PM

@Starship:

Being told to work so that the State can take the majority of my income, hence effectively making me a unwilling volunteer for the State, really isn't my scene. Clearly, this a gross generalization, so obviously, I'll hope you'll correct the assumptions as they arise.
Other than zero taxes of any sort (including sales tax [or VAT for Europeans], property tax, state/local tax, payroll tax, etc.), there is no point at which you are not giving some of your income to the State. The question therefore needs to be, "How much is needed and from whom?" not, "Should I be paying taxes?"

A given percentage of taxation is not an equal burden to all people. A family of four earning $50,000 gross who is taxed an additional $2,000 is forced to reduce their spending by an equivalent amount. You have gained nothing from this exercise fiscally and you have potentially taken away stuff they need. A family of four earning $500,000 gross who is taxed an additional $20,000 will see virtually no impact on their quality of life, and that $20,000 is probably going to come out of savings rather than spending, anyway.

edited 10th Dec '12 2:09:18 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Chalkos Sidequest Proliferator from The Internets Since: Oct, 2010
Sidequest Proliferator
#43364: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:07:37 PM

Yeah, there's the "Prosperity Gospel," which is "anyone who is wealthy is so because God wanted them to be, and a strong implication that therefore they shouldn't be handing it out to the poor, who are poor because they deserve it and God wanted them to be."

There is also the "Gospel of Wealth," which is "I got this money through hard work and taking the opportunities open to me, so by God, I'm not going to just give it to people, but I'm damn well going to make sure they have as many opportunities as possible." Thus, those subscribing to it tended to focus on education and improving social mobility, such as (in the instance of Andrew Carnegie) building the famous network of Carnegie Libraries. It's also very hard on those who simply inherit their wealth, viewing them as ill-suited morally for handling it. A Gospel of Wealth-subscribing captain of industry might leave only a portion of his fortune to his children, while investing the rest in libraries or deserving charities.

edited 10th Dec '12 2:09:29 PM by Chalkos

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43365: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:08:47 PM

I thought we'd moved past the Gilded Age. Apparently I was wrong.

edit: It could also be that you're going against God's wishes by not being charitable. That was kind of important to Jesus.

edited 10th Dec '12 2:09:13 PM by Kostya

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
Chalkos Sidequest Proliferator from The Internets Since: Oct, 2010
Sidequest Proliferator
#43367: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:10:54 PM

Carnegie's big thing was that people who just inherit their wealth haven't worked for it, and therefore haven't developed the moral fiber necessary to use it. It was as much a class thing as anything else— at the time, "new money" was viewed as a separate class from "old money," so he wasn't exactly at the top of the social pyramid (even if he was at the top of the "haha I can buy your asses out from under you" pyramid). By impugning the morals of old money he was telling them he was better than they were.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43368: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:13:02 PM

Carnegie's big thing was that people who just inherit their wealth haven't worked for it, and therefore haven't developed the moral fiber necessary to use it.
I tend to agree with this statement on general principle, as it strikes me that there are few wealthy people these days who can truly be said to have "worked for it". You can tell largely by how appreciative they are of the people who work for them.

edited 10th Dec '12 2:13:34 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43369: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:14:51 PM

Okay, just to be clear, I like taxes. As a card carrying capitalist, I see it as the government provides services to the populace, and like any other laborer, should be paid for it's services. And I see nothing wrong with taxing those who profit off your services more than those struggling to just make it.

I'm just a little concerned because during the OWS threads, there were actually suggestions that people shouldn't be allowed to make over a certain amount of money; that nobody who made that much could possibly have earned it, thus it really is the property of the State.

That kind of Evil Commie Socialism, naturally, is something I'd oppose. Bitterly.

sad Of course, it was that same fear that allowed me to buy the invasion plot scenarios that was being shoved in my face, so.....

It was an honor
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43370: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:18:12 PM

I think that's just hot air, Starship. I can see where they are coming from, but there is a certain point at which taxation becomes punitive and disincentivizes work. That's something the Soviet Union found out the hard way. If it's any comfort to you, those kinds of hardcore socialists are nearly as repugnant to most Democrats as they are to Republicans, and they have no voice in our political platform... unlike the GOP's crazies.

edited 10th Dec '12 2:19:46 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43371: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:20:51 PM

and they have no voice in our political platform... unlike the GOP's crazies.

surprised Ouch!

...but true.

It was an honor
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43372: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:21:25 PM

Carnegie's big thing was that people who just inherit their wealth haven't worked for it, and therefore haven't developed the moral fiber necessary to use it.

Dammit, why can't we have more guys like that?

This is slightly off topic but it's interesting that Chalkos is talking about Andrew Carnegie. I applied to Carnegie-Mellon a few weeks ago.

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#43373: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:28:55 PM

Good luck Kostya,

Dammit, why can't we have more guys like that?

Hi, I'm Starship. Pleased to meet you.

It was an honor
Chalkos Sidequest Proliferator from The Internets Since: Oct, 2010
Sidequest Proliferator
#43374: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:29:44 PM

But alas, you aren't fabulously wealthy, and neither am I. sad Andrew Carnegie, however, certainly was, so when he said something about money, people sat down and listened.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#43375: Dec 10th 2012 at 2:32:35 PM

I think a lot of that talk also stemmed from frustration, Maxima. And the idea that if we tie the salaries of a top earner in a company to the lowest paid, that would help somewhat with the wealth disparity. I'm not sure if that would work.

But, Costco's CEO pays himself something like (as of my last reading on this particular company) $500,000 a year and manages to pay his workers over fifteen dollars an hour, as well as keeping prices low. This has inspired not only customer loyalty but employee loyalty. Wal-Mart does not follow this philosophy, to the point that people are inspired to protest that store chain specifically and attempt to form a union. The heirs get something in order of millions of dollars from the company.

Which sounds like a more moral business?


Total posts: 417,856
Top