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
Okay, let's clear something up, I'm for higher taxes on the rich. In fact, I don't think you should have to pay taxes if you make less than $38,000.
Between, $100,000 and $4 million, I'm okay with a progressive tax. But after a certain amount, I don't want to get penalized for no other reason than I made a lot of money.
What right-wingers get pissed off with is this constant justification of "you can afford it." Not the fucking point. I made my money honestly, I'm entitled to it. It's not your place to judge me for spending it how I will.
It was an honor![]()
That's my point.
Like Nixon, Regan's far-right rhetoric was often undercut by his actual policies.
For all his talk of small government the federal payroll increased by 200,000 during his administration.
Hell, Clinton deregulated more than Reagan and George H. W. Bush combined
edited 4th Apr '13 12:59:38 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Yeah, if I have a minimum wage job which I work 40 hours a week, I'll make about $15,000 a year. If I have $500 of rent each month, that comes out to be just $9,000 in a year. Add to that about $300 a month on food, that's now down to about $6,000 in a year. Add to that another 300 a month for the water bill, and that's down to $3,000 a year. A 30% tax is $4,800 a year on $15,000 a year. That leaves me $1,800 in debt.
If I get a million a year as a salary, and I have $1,000 of rent each month, $600 on food each month, $300 on the electrical bill each month, $300 on the internet each month, and $300 on water each month, you have $970,000 a year left over. A 30% tax is 300,000. That leaves me with $670,000.
Do you see the difference here?
Deviant, I think your summation of Reagan was one of the most intelligent things I ever read. Thank you.
Additionally, for all his "white-fear" he was a big fan of Colin Powell, then a two-star general in the role of NSA, and rumors are he was very supportive of Powell running for President on the Republican ticket.
re:Flat Tax - Instead of flat taxes or progressive taxes, I'd be okay with paying a flat amount after a certain amount. For instance a flat fee of [insert some amount] on every million dollars over $5 million.
Once again, not the point I'm making. First of all, in Starshipland, you wouldn't be paying taxes and you'd be entitled to a bunch of stimulus programs, but that's neither here nor there.
When you start making $500,000 a year, I want you to keep that money, because you earned it.
I feel like liberals see people's income as simply tax revenue, and right-wingers see it as people's money.
edited 4th Apr '13 12:57:12 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorIt's not your place to judge me for spending it how I will. No it's not. Just how much of it you get to keep.
If we made that book and got a hundred million dollars I don't care that I have to pay a million in taxes a year now at this point. Why should I? I can still afford the hot tub, the limos, the batmobile, the secret underground shelter.
Here's why flat taxes are a bad idea in a simple example:
Okay, hypothetical government X has a flat tax of 25% (because it's easy to calculate for).
Bob makes $20,000 per year and the government takes 25%, leaving him with $15,000. With this, he can barely afford a very basic standard of living and the government gets a petty $5000.
Alice, however, makes $200,000 per year and the government takes 25%, leaving her with $150,000. With this, she can still live comfortably and the government gets a decent $50,000.
The government gets $55,000 from Alice and Bob and screws Bob over hard while Alice is fine.
Now, with progressive taxation (using, for simplicity, 10% for income under $100,000 and 50% for income over $100,000), the picture looks more like this:
Bob makes $20,000 and the government takes 10%, leaving him with $19,000, which doesn't hurt his standard of living nearly as much and he can afford to eat slightly better than ramen noodles for every meal.
Alice makes $200,000 and the government takes 10% of the first $100,000 and 50% of the second $100,000 for a total of $60,000. This leaves Alice with $140,000, which is still plenty to live comfortably, and as such, she isn't particularly affected by this compared to the flat tax.
As a result of this progressive taxation, the government collects $61,000 from Alice and Bob, doesn't screw Bob nearly as hard, and Alice is still fine.
And that is progressive taxation, somewhat overly simplified. Basically, the rich can more easily afford to pay more, even proportionally, than the poor.
Because without your money, a family might not get their Welfare payments to pay the rent, might not get healthcare to make sure their kids don't get a nasty cold that keeps them out for school too long, and generally afford the bills so they're not inside a house with no lights or heat.
Yep, Reagan was sending messages throughout his campaign and his presidency that it was okay to be a racist if you were a Republican.
edited 4th Apr '13 1:04:09 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The government does help you earn money. As in, without, have fun defending your business from theft. Or all the other fun things people take for granted.
Starship, the highest tax rate that rich people can support is around 60%. Nowhere as low as you thing. Anything higher than that does discentivise work. (However, at that level, you're not doing that much work anymore hahahahah.)
![]()
Without a government, have fun earning Money. (And keeping it. And not having the world be an despot laden hellhole)
edited 4th Apr '13 1:05:33 PM by DrTentacles
What you people don't seem to get is that nobody wants to hear that they should turn over more of their honestly earned money on the sole basis of "you can afford it."
If I break into the Chase bank a few blocks from me and say "Well, they can afford it," I'm still going to jail.
EDIT: Am I the only one who'd support a 40% flat tax on all income over $4million? And totally no taxes if you make less than $40,000??
edited 4th Apr '13 1:06:03 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorBecause that's a crime Star. You don't intend to give anything back to the bank you steal from. Progressive taxation means that government legitimately takes more money from the people who need it less to services and infrastructure that benefit the whole country. Taxation is not theft and it never will be.
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.John Kerry to donate 5 percent of salary to State Department charity
And that's why you and I disagree. "How much do you need" is not a question anyone has any right or business asking.
The government should be asking how much does it need to make sure we enure a comfortable and high standard of living for all. Then take that amount in taxes, taking more from the rich.
It was an honorErr Star. What's the difference from taking more from the rich than saying "the rich don't need this money, tax them higher".
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.

Starship Maxima, I think it's time for another history lesson. In the Long Gilded Age, before the reforms of the new deal, do you know what the top income tax rate on the rich was? I'll give you a hint: one percent. Yep.
When talking about wealth and "fairness", what matters is not the absolute amount of money you have, but that (a) you can afford the necessities of life: food, housing, clothes, medical care, transportation, education, etc.; (b) you feel compensated commensurate with the effort you put in and the value you contribute; (c) higher gross income confers higher net income.
Top marginal tax rates after World War II were 90-plus percent; these of course were only on the richest of the rich. In general, top rates on the wealthy were in the 70 percent range throughout the Golden Age of the 1940s - 1970s, dropping down only after Reagan got into office.
While it's true that the rich in America were much poorer in absolute terms than at any time before or since, there is no evidence that this caused any harm to society or to the rich in general, and plenty of evidence that it led to massive general prosperity, the erosion of class barriers, and a general sensation that things were going very well for just about everyone.
Then we got a monetarist in the White House, taxes on the wealthy dropped, estate taxes dropped even more, and inequality started to soar again. We are now just as unequal on the scale of income as we were in the 1920s, social mobility is nearly as bad, and opportunities for the poor are just as constrained.
In short, higher taxes on the wealthy lead to greater opportunity and freedom for everyone. Lower taxes lead to less opportunity and greater inequality. It's that simple. You've been taught lies.
edited 4th Apr '13 12:51:51 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"