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

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52476: Apr 4th 2013 at 2:51:04 PM

The progressive scheme DOES continue if you stop raising your cut. If you left the tax rate at 40% after $10 million dollars, you're literally making $400,000 on every million past that point.

If the government can't fund what it needs to at that point, perhaps we need to get rid of those guys and find somebody who can actually intelligently budget and spend money.

It was an honor
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#52477: Apr 4th 2013 at 2:51:20 PM

[up][up][up] Because we need more so as to ensure that the basics in society are run. You don't need more to run your basics, we (the government) need more so as to run ours. Once we've got our stuff covered (with a bit on top for emergencies) you can keep as much as you want. But as by this point you have not only your basics but also your luxuries covered, you can fork over a bit to cover societies basics.

edited 4th Apr '13 3:01:31 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TheGirlWithPointyEars Never Ask Me the Odds from Outer Space Since: Dec, 2009
Never Ask Me the Odds
#52478: Apr 4th 2013 at 2:57:43 PM

[up][up] But up until that point, the richer you are, the higher percentage you pay. Why stop that at some high, arbitrary number - doesn't that overly benefit the billionaire over everyone else?

edited 4th Apr '13 2:59:02 PM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52479: Apr 4th 2013 at 2:58:57 PM

What is wrong with benefitting the billionaire?? What crime did they commit? Because they're a billionaire they need to be penalized??

It was an honor
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#52480: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:01:17 PM

How does it punish them? They're still making more money than anyone else.

TheGirlWithPointyEars Never Ask Me the Odds from Outer Space Since: Dec, 2009
Never Ask Me the Odds
#52481: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:02:36 PM

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being rich, or keeping the money you're entitled to. But everyone else pays a higher percentage the more they earn. Why should a bilionaire be exempt from that?

She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating Liveblog
IConfuseMe from Washington, DC Since: Jan, 2010
#52482: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:03:03 PM

I think what people are tying to ask you you is what is intrinsically different between the guy making 10 million dollars and the guy making 11 million dollars that the buck stops there?

Why those numbers? It comes off as rather arbitrary, like your saying your okay with progressive taxation for everyone under 10 million but not those over it.

But why 10 million? Why not 20 million or 100 million? Why is it fair to progressively tax up to 10 million if it is not fair to progressively tax 20 million?

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#52483: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:03:30 PM

Taxing the billionaire is kind of like taking part of his food at a buffet. Yeah, it's kind of annoying, but he can just go get more food.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#52484: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:04:21 PM

In a vacuum, I don't give a shit how much a billionaire is making as long as I can survive.

In reality, there's only so much currency in circulation, and when it accumulates at the top tier and never comes back down, people get epically screwed (to say nothing of how disproportionately many of the magnates got there in the first place through shady business and policy). Taxes exist so we can have nice things we can't do on our own — pragmatically, they have to come from people who can comfortably afford them and won't be impoverished by paying them.

edited 4th Apr '13 3:07:08 PM by Pykrete

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52485: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:10:13 PM

Ah. I think I see the issue here.

I agree with progressive tax in so far as the poor should never be expected to shoulder the same burden as the rich. It's like a pendulum, I agree it should never swing too far right.

But then you guys want to keep draining money from the rich with the only justification being "you can afford it" and "you owe the country". So you want to continue progressive tax past the point of any sparing the poor and now it goes straight to punish the rich.

A 30% flat tax from $4million, $10 million, whatever high income doesn't mean the government isn't getting more money the more money someone earns. So you see, from where I sit, the only reason to keep helping yourself to more of the bigger pie is simple entitlement.

edited 4th Apr '13 3:11:13 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#52486: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:14:24 PM

How does it punish the rich?

Seriously? How does it hurt them? How does it punish them?

Punishing them would be if they were earning more money than the people earning less money than them, yet they were receiving less money.

None of us are in favor of that.

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52487: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:16:18 PM

It's punishment in that you already have a system for getting more money the more somebody makes, but you're not happy with that and you decide to take even more for no other reason than "well, they're making more".

It's like the government, under your (general your) system, as no limits to how much it can yank out of someone's pockets. Kinda like certain third-world and banana republics.

It was an honor
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#52488: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:18:10 PM

But then you guys want to keep draining money from the rich with the only justification being "you can afford it" and "you owe the country".

No. Please read the thread. I've stated multiple times that we want to drain more money from the rich because we need more money to make the government run. Don't ignore that because other arguments are easier to defeat.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#52489: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:18:28 PM

With respect to defining "obscenely wealthy", I think I can safely say that an annual income of $100 million counts.

And I need to reiterate that the top marginal tax rate is already about 40% and is hit at $400,000, not $10 million. Essentially, you're arguing that that's too much when we've had that rate at 90% and still had a rapidly growing economy. We had those tax rates for about four decades.

edited 4th Apr '13 3:19:57 PM by Balmung

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#52490: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:20:25 PM

Yes. The government takes money because they're greedy bastards.

Not because the wealthy can afford higher tax rates, their standard of living will be unaffected, to counterbalance the fact that over time, wealth tends to accumulate, and because by taxing them, we can increase the standard of living for everyone with literally not cost in standard of living, happiness, or incentives for hard work.

It's because we're greedy bastards.

Ok, Starship. New approach. What do you consider too high a tax rate? (Not in terms of percent. In terms of effect on the person.)

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
IConfuseMe from Washington, DC Since: Jan, 2010
#52492: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:21:30 PM

I do not understand how it is precieved as a punishment.

Punishment would imply that A) they did something wrong, B) that it was hurting them.

I also do not understand how it is a sense of entitlement. (At least not in the way you are using it. Food stamps, welfare veterans benefits, medicare etc, are all entitlements legally speaking. I do not think that is what you meant.)

No one is say take 80% percent of their paycheck just cause we can. We're saying take a percentage as needed. If the country can pay all it's bills by having billionaires pay a 35% rate, no ones say to crank it up to 45% for shiggles.

We are not saying, "Take more cause they're making more."

e are saying "Take more because society needs more to keep functioning and they are the ones with the greatest ability to shoulder the burden."

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#52493: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:22:36 PM

[up][up] Shouldn't that be directed at congress?

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#52494: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:23:11 PM

Yeah, it's not Obama's job.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52495: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:23:48 PM

To which I already said that if you can't properly manage your finances, then maybe we need to find a goverment that can.

It's not my fault Obama can force through Obamacare but won't go after the tax loopholes. It's not my fault the Democrats talk about amnesty for illegals but won't force Big Corp to finally pay their taxes.

Doing either one of those, let alone both, would probably allow the US to give its citizens a year off from paying taxes.

It was an honor
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#52496: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:25:25 PM

Would anyone here support a 100% Tax Rate above a certain income, or higher?*

edited 4th Apr '13 3:26:19 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#52497: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:25:26 PM

What Tax loopholes?

Name them. Describe what we can realistically do about them. Tell me how much of a drain they are.

[up] Personally, yes, but wouldn't expect a society to.

edited 4th Apr '13 3:26:25 PM by DrTentacles

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#52498: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:25:57 PM

I'd like the Marginal Tax Rate we had under Nixon.

Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $200,000: 77% - 70%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 27.5% - 36.5%

Just throwing my two-cents in there. 70% sounds fair.

EDIT: Here's some Tax Loopholes we could get rid of.

[up][up]

I wouldn't. A 100% Tax Rate is blatantly punishing the rich for being rich.

edited 4th Apr '13 3:33:23 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#52499: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:26:01 PM

[up]x4 Now if only the Republicans would let the Democrats do all this...

Frankly, it's a miracle that Obamacare passed as it is.

edited 4th Apr '13 3:26:19 PM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52500: Apr 4th 2013 at 3:31:50 PM

And I need to reiterate that the top marginal tax rate is already about 40% and is hit at $400, 000, not $10 million. Essentially, you're arguing that that's too much when we've had that rate at 90% and still had a rapidly growing economy. We had those tax rates for about four decades.

I got no problem with this. In fact I'd through in flat fees for certain amounts past $1 million on top of that.

Yes. The government takes money because they're greedy bastards.

You say this sarcastically, but the fact is the government does seem to have an issue with responsibly using it's tax dollars.

If the country can pay all it's bills by having billionaires pay a 35% rate, no ones say to crank it up to 45% for shiggles.

If folks would actually follow this, I'd have no argument.

With respect to defining "obscenely wealthy", I think I can safely say that an annual income of $100 million counts.

See, I disagree with the mere term. If someone didn't steal then they have $100 million. Period. Any opinion on how obscene it is, is petty.

Would anyone here support a 100% Tax Rate above a certain income, or higher

Never.

What Tax loopholes? Name them. Describe what we can realistically do about them. Tell me how much of a drain they are

You can Google Cayman Islands yourself.

It was an honor

Total posts: 417,856
Top