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

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
#52551: Apr 4th 2013 at 8:58:48 PM

Starship, we're wanting a system like the Nordic one, right? With similar social safety nets, national services and others bits and bobs. The Swedish government's budget is (2009) $19,670 per capita. Meaning a similar US budget would have to be 315,614,000 times 19,670. You wana work out how big that number it?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
PhilippeO Since: Oct, 2010
#52552: Apr 4th 2013 at 8:59:59 PM

i think accumulation of resources: money, land or factory is troubling by itself. historically chinese dynasties collapsed, when a number of great landowner accumulated enough land to intimidate and weakened the state. Hungary, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire all have trouble when great landowner started intimidate free peasant and contest the authority of the state. the era before trust-busting and new deal also show accumulation of wealth by small number of people is extremely dangerous.

Resource give access : better lawyer to flount law, bribe to government official, paying private security, rent-a-crowd, propaganda apparatus. at some point, allowing ultra-rich individual to exist create state-within-a-state that undermine social compact.

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#52553: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:01:38 PM

That's where you hear people start saying socialism and communism, cause it sure as hell starts sounding like it.
What's wrong with Socialism? Basically every Western First World nation makes use of Socialism along with Capitalism. The idea is the government should take over where private industry can't handle things or private industry's methods of doing things actively harms more than it helps.

"You're just going to accumulate it." - So? Who's business if I just accumulate it?
This has been explained to you before, I'm pretty sure. But basically money just sitting around after a point hurts the economy more than it helps.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#52554: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:03:06 PM

@Potatoes: Better say that having money sit around is value-neutral. It does nothing.

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52555: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:03:37 PM

Actually Midget, that's why Taoist's suggestion about capital gains taxes caught my attention.

As I you can see I don't take kindly to people's earnings being taken from them. But, if all you did was throw it in some trust...hell yes, that should get taxed. You're literally making money off a system that's in place, all you did was put money in it.

Also, another troper discussed Georgist economics that holds that property owners, another group that make money simply from having a thing should be taxed more.

I support both those ideas. We need to start getting rid of rich cows anyway.

It was an honor
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#52556: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:05:20 PM

@Maxima: And most of the "one percent"'s income comes from capital gains.

Do you now agree that we need to loose the vampires on the rich?

edited 4th Apr '13 9:05:32 PM by Ramidel

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
#52557: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:13:15 PM

You're literally making money off a system that's in place, all you did was put money in it.

This is different from the guy who buys out an entire street in an urban center and then charges stupidly high rents, how? The vast majority of rich people don't get rich by making an idea, or even investing in an idea. They made it by throwing money into whatever is on the way up then pulling out before it goes down, they're just making money off a system that's in place.

Also I worked out our US budget. It's 6.2081274e+12, that number is so big I don't even understand it. Now do you really think it can be done with a 40% rate on the rich and a 0% tax rate on the poor?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52558: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:14:26 PM

When someone earns money honestly, and they're not gaming the system, they've done their share for society. If they want to accumulate socks, cars, houses, or money, that is their right.

@Ramidel - If that's what you're going after, then yes, though I didn't consider it vampirism.

It was an honor
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#52559: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:24:11 PM

@Silasw: I got the same value, 6.2 trillion is a good approximation. If I had an idea of how much profit happens in the capital gains area, how much in financial transactions happens, and how much is lost to loopholes, then I can guess at the optimal rates for income, capital gains, and financial transaction taxes after problematic loopholes are closed.

That said, the U.S. federal government's expenditures are well in excess of 6.2 trillion dollars, and that's before you add the states. We do have spending to cut. I would love to go after defense pork, subsidization of the private prison industry, and corporate subsidies in the areas of energy and agriculture, for starters. We could save hella money on law enforcement by kicking the War on Terror to the curb too.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#52560: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:26:18 PM

I suppose I could get behind earned incomes having a lower tax cap than capital gains, though it seems more complex than needed. I'm pretty sure you could get the Screen Actors' Guild behind that proposal, though.

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#52561: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:33:57 PM

@maxima: the thing is..getting rich mostly involves gaming the system. past a certain level of success you no longer have to work to make money. You pay other people to work to make you money.

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
#52562: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:34:11 PM

[up][up][up] Hmmm, maybe that's not the way to work it out then. We need Fighter here to tell us how best to work out what the US budget would be if the system was like Sweden.

edited 4th Apr '13 9:34:20 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
terlwyth Since: Oct, 2010
#52563: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:34:45 PM

@Taoist Like I said earlier (which post got ignored to hell),you'll need some politicians that isn't aren't neo-con kiss-ups on the foreign policy front.

And since only 6 states voted for the one politician that wasn't a neo-con in 1980,...well so much an alternative.

As long as the neo-con "lets invade everyone that bothers us" bullshit pervades,we will never be able to even consider cutting pork on defense.

edited 4th Apr '13 9:36:38 PM by terlwyth

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#52565: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:57:31 PM

America's defense budget will never be Sweden-like. Like it or not, we do have outstanding defense responsibilities to the world. (Insert my running suggestion to collect tribute from Japan here. ^^)

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#52566: Apr 4th 2013 at 9:59:08 PM

"The rich should pay more." - As if a man making $10 million isn't paying more than one making $2 million.
There's a difference between "more" in an absolute sense and in a relative sense. We're making arguments for why the extremely rich should not only pay more in an absolute sense (eg, $5M instead of $1M) but as a portion of their total income (eg, 50% instead of 40%).

"You're just going to accumulate it." - So? Who's business if I just accumulate it?
As has been mentioned, idle money actually harms the economy. We, as a society, do not want people to simply horde large amounts of cash. So we tax that idle cash. That acts as both an incentive for people to not keep their money idle, and put it to more beneficial uses for society as a whole if they leave it idle anyway.

"You're using more resources." - As if saying that makes it so.
The rich absolutely benefit more from society than the poor do. The government didn't make them rich, but without the government, they couldn't be rich — without a police force and an army keeping them safe; without infrastructure providing them with water, power, and easy travel; without a court system to interpret and enforce contracts that they make... without all of those things provided by government, being rich would be impossible.

Sure, if government were to suddenly cease to exist, everyone would suffer, but the rich have farther to fall. As such, it seems reasonable to have them contribute more (proportionally) to ensuring that government services continue.

"It won't hurt you." - Again, so?
If it did hurt them, then that would be an argument against doing it. That's why we don't charge the lowest income brackets 50% in taxes — because then they wouldn't be able to survive on what was left. But charging the same is not true of the highest income brackets, so that's not an argument you can use against charging them higher tax rates.

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.
Now that's just strawmanning. No one's suggesting a 100% tax rate where all income is distributed solely as the government sees fit.

That's where you hear people start saying socialism and communism, cause it sure as hell starts sounding like it.
That presupposes that socialism is a bad thing. The political right uses "socialism" as a dirty word, but there are a ton of socialist policies — Social Security and Medicare being the two big ones — that are both incredibly popular among citizens (and, importantly, voters) and a huge force for social good in society (eg, keeping the sick and the elderly from dying on the streets because they can't afford things they need).

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#52567: Apr 4th 2013 at 10:04:27 PM

When someone earns money honestly, and they're not gaming the system, they've done their share for society. If they want to accumulate socks, cars, houses, or money, that is their right.
And that's our difference. I personally believe that their share for society is done when they ensure their fellow man doesn't suffer. And again, taxation is one of the more efficient ways to do it, arguably. Charity is good, but taxation needs to also be a part of the equation.

Basically: With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#52568: Apr 4th 2013 at 10:59:27 PM

@Potatoes: I'm not really sure I agree with an a priori duty to one's fellow man at all. Reciprocal and contractual duties (including social contract), sure, along with a basic understanding that no one in abject poverty has any duty to the law. But any duty that the rich have to society derives from membership in society and the benefits they receive from being a part of that society.

RTaco Since: Jul, 2009
#52569: Apr 4th 2013 at 11:19:54 PM

Starship, your last post makes it sound like you think we don't want the rich to be rich, or to have luxuries.

What we want is social spending, and taxing the wealthy more is the way to achieve that while causing as little suffering (or in this case, inconvenience) to people as possible.

edited 4th Apr '13 11:21:18 PM by RTaco

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#52570: Apr 4th 2013 at 11:23:09 PM

How about a conditional tax? Like the one in Affordable Care Act. You're exempt from some of the tax if you spend more of your income on economic activity.

RTaco Since: Jul, 2009
#52571: Apr 4th 2013 at 11:29:22 PM

That's what a lot of tax write-offs are.

Which is why anyone asking to just "simplify" the tax code needs to re-evaluate what they're saying.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#52572: Apr 5th 2013 at 12:00:25 AM

That, and spending on "economic activity" usually translates to rich people giving each other money in one thinly-veiled way or another, rather than getting it out of their steel trap.

edited 5th Apr '13 12:00:41 AM by Pykrete

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#52573: Apr 5th 2013 at 12:28:24 AM

What R Taco said ([up]x4). The thought is not "They're rich! get them!".

It's "We need money right now, who can we tap without bankrupting them?"

edited 5th Apr '13 12:28:52 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#52574: Apr 5th 2013 at 5:34:46 AM

To appease Republicans, Obama proposes social cutbacks in new budget.

Noooooo....Why?

Oh. Right. Because the Republicans are willing to crash the budget.

Because they're unwilling to make the rich pay more than 20% effective tax rate, and would rather take money from those who can't afford it than from those who can.

Fuck me.

edited 5th Apr '13 5:38:09 AM by DrTentacles

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#52575: Apr 5th 2013 at 5:41:02 AM

Goddamn it Barry! The one thing you do I can get behind and you back down on that to appease who, those Tea Lunatics??!

God help us all.

It was an honor

Total posts: 417,856
Top