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
Basically, Starship, you like the idea of social programs, but you don't want to actually fund them. Decreasing wealth disparity helps everyone, including the super wealthy get more wealthy.
By taxing their additional income a lot now, we let them make more money that was possible before in the future. They're paying into society the same way that other people paid into society before them.
Otherwise we need to drop something. That's going to be social programs, law enforcement, emergency services, defence, something. Government needs more money to spend than it's currently pulling in in order to feed the poor and homeless.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dickedited 4th Apr '13 3:58:26 PM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."![]()
The Recession ended in June 2009.
We're just going through a slow recovery.
Wayne LaPierre: 'No evidence' gun control would have changed Newtown
edited 4th Apr '13 4:01:43 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016No Shima, I want the government to run it's finances like an actual business and not some sort of charity. You know, actually be accountable.
The City of New York cut scholarship programs and laid off nearly a thousand workers because it had to make up the difference when it allowed Scientific Applications International Corporation and its subcontractors to milk the city for $600 MILLION fucking dollars.
So when the government comes looking for me to foot the bill for its stupidity of course I'm going to get pissed. And if liberals took time to acknowledge these truths, right-wingers would be more willing to do business, pun intended.
It was an honor![]()
The problem is, the money that has been wasted has already left the State's wallet. I agree that it's due to bad decisions etc., but that won't make the actually important bills pay themselves.
Right now, the taxes are needed for merely damage control. The US are putting out fires and need to buy water/foam right now, and has no money to do it.
edited 4th Apr '13 4:08:05 PM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Given the way most big business exploit workers and goes out of the way to ensure it's top employees are protected, I do not think that was the most wise example...
But even if we were to magically cut out all waste, I don't think we are going to come up with the trillion dollars needed to balance the federal governments yearly spending out.
Senator Feinstein (D-CA): NRA threatening lawmakers with reelection funding
If we were willing to raise brackets on the top taxes of capital gains (like %90 on any capital gains over 50 million per year) we could do without an income tax increase. A financial transaction tax of 0.01% would have the double effect of bringing in a lot of extra revenue and ending a lot of the hazardous currency and derivatives gambling.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I just saw this link
, which caught my attention because "Obama job disapproval highest since before reelection": it's split between 47% approval and 48% disapproval. And I suspect that his image is being tarnished because of the gun controversy. He "fell" for poking a sensitive issue and it seems to be fueling the anti-Obama rhetoric, even though it's likely the guns aren't the whole reason for it.
Personally, it would just be more progressive and productive if we got a major immigration reform completed first, before we revisit the arms. I know this is indeed a serious matter and I feel for the victims of Newtown and Aurora shootings, but the gun measures are polarizing the nation and stirring up more controversy when it hurts further congressional work. I just think that we should accomplish one thing at a time and not end up with another deadlocked Congress.
The City of New York cut scholarship programs and laid off nearly a thousand workers because it had to make up the difference when it allowed Scientific Applications International Corporation and its subcontractors to milk the city for $600 MILLION fucking dollars.
Okay, so you want the government to run itself accountably like a business, then you give an example of its current failing by pointing out where a business ran off with all its money and will never be held accountable for anything.
edited 4th Apr '13 5:35:52 PM by Pykrete
You seem to realize this, as a few pages back you said something about not taxing anything below $40,000/year. What you seem to be hung up on is differences between different levels of "rich as hell" — like your example of taxing someone making $4M vs someone making $50M. Keep in mind, though, that the current top tax bracket is only $400k — meaning that all income above $400,000/year is already taxed at the same rate (39.6%). So the problem you seem to be trying to argue against doesn't actually exist.
If I've misinterpreted you somewhere, my apologies.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I'm not sure if we need to talk about this in two places, the other being Economics thread, but I'll just address this to Starship.
Just because your "level" of work, along with income and its tax portion, go up doesn't mean your living expenses also go up proportionally. Let's say an average family spends about $3000 a month - 2/3 of it for housing and utilities, the rest for groceries and other expenses. That might get cut if you're in the lower class, double if you're in the upper class. But if you make $100,000, you're not going to be in a position where you have to spend $50,000 a month.
There are two factors here: absolute amount of money (how many $), and proportion relative to another amount (how much % of $). I think what the others here are saying is that the spending falls more into the absolute category. It doesn't go up very high as you get richer.
this.
In laymans terms, Maxima.
If I make a million a year and buy a 500,000 dollar house, then if I start making 20 million a year, I am likely not going to buy a 10 million dollar house just because I got richer. Once I have a certain level of luxury I'm going to throw my excess into stocks or banks to make myself more money because I'm set for life as long as I dont do something stupid like spend it.
I know that may be hard to grasp because most poor or middle class people have a laundry list of shit they would buy if they were rich. (and thats why lottery winners go bankrupt)
edited 4th Apr '13 6:20:32 PM by Midgetsnowman
Well, the rich do buy expensive luxury stuff, they just don't often invest a significant fraction of their income in it. And buying extravagant luxury items tends to be more trading money between the upper echelons rather than trickling it down as a middle-class artisan good.
edited 4th Apr '13 8:19:49 PM by Pykrete
Maxima, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the argument about taxing the rich is actually about principles at all, it's about specific numbers. Most of us want the rich to pay more than the poor to some extent, and the argument is whether the marginal tax rate in the highest bracket should be (insert number between 40% and 90% here).
Personally, I'd go for 50% or 60%. Nice round number that doesn't discourage the rich from trying to get richer, but does ensure that a reasonable share of the money earned that way goes towards benefitting the poor.
Now, I'm not sure I buy the argument that the rich have, necessarily, a moral duty to contribute to the benefit of society because they benefitted from it; the fact is that rich individuals don't benefit from paying higher taxes, and they don't benefit from their workers being able to get rich. I'd reframe this as a social contract issue (much as I loathe the baggage that usually comes with the social contract model, it works for this); the people of the United States should agree that the whole benefits if the members of society who are better-able to pay do so. (Conversely, I think it's wrong to condemn the guy who emigrated to Singapore to avoid paying taxes. If he doesn't see any benefit in staying within the American social contract, why the hell should he stay?)
edited 4th Apr '13 8:29:57 PM by Ramidel
Yes, Ramidel, it does come down to specific numbers. And it seems that whey I say, "Wait. How much more do you need than 40% on everybody's income over $400,000? You're literally making $40,000 on every $100,000 earned," the answers that come back, to my mind, don't hold up to scrutiny.
"The rich should pay more." - As if a man making $10 million isn't paying more than one making $2 million.
"You're just going to accumulate it." - So? Who's business if I just accumulate it?
"You're using more resources." - As if saying that makes it so.
"It won't hurt you." - Again, so?
It's as if money is viewed as this thing that belongs to the government and the government alone gets to decide who actually gets it. Not like people actually earn it or anything.
That's where you hear people start saying socialism and communism, cause it sure as hell starts sounding like it.
edited 4th Apr '13 8:37:57 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor![]()
the guy making ten million plus likely doesnt earn it, maxima. Unless you consider someone who juggles financial stocks more hard working and deserving than the guy making 10 dollars an hour destroying his body while attaching parts in a factory all day.
And the only reason you hear people start screaming communism at that point is because its a damned good way to deflect the debate away from anyone noticing that the people who work hardest get the shittiest paychecks.
Is being a CEO a stressful job? sure. Is having to load trucks at speeds only considered viable because some efficiency expert somewhere decided efficient packing of product superseded any concern for the comfort or longevity of their employees joints far more stressful for leagues less pay? Oh hell yes.
edited 4th Apr '13 8:52:39 PM by Midgetsnowman
@Maxima: Well, you won't hear me arguing with the idea that it's socialism.
Here's one argument that's more liberal than socialist, though (though it does have a bit of leveling attitude in it): The wealthy can use their wealth to affect politics, and will do so to the detriment of others (whatever laws are written against the measure) unless controlled. The best countermeasure is to ensure that the poor are lifted up to an extent that they will not be forced to work without assurances of adequate pay and benefits, and that they will be assured of the necessary leisure to participate in the political process (see: voter disenfranchisement, which the Republicans have been using against the poor). This takes money.
If you can run a functioning budget with this goal in mind (along with the other functions of a government) at a 40% marginal tax rate, fine. But if you need more money, raise the taxes on those best able to pay. As California's financial woes have shown, you can't have a welfare system unless you're willing to pay for it.
You won't hear me arguing about eliminating tax loopholes (preferably in a way that doesn't cause unnecessary crashes and burns, like the tax loophole elimination on housing that caused the savings-and-loan industry to crash and burn, but this is not mandatory) or enforcing government accountability and transparency, of course.

I don't need an estimate. What I would absolutely love is to see the government open that secret book of sweet deals and dubious kickbacks before they cry poverty.
It was an honor