hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 277 of 302 FirstFirst ... 177227267274275276277278279280287 ... LastLast
Results 5,521 to 5,540 of 6040

Thread: US Politics Thread, 2.0

  1. #5521
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    The current average household income of the top 5% of earners (around 7 million people) in the U.S. is $376,587 in 2019. The top 5% contributed 839.8 billion in income tax, an average effective tax rate of approx 31.86%

    The 2019 estimated total Federal Tax Take in the US is around $3.5 trillion, income tax making up around 50% of this (1.7tn) (rest being payroll taxes, customs. corporate taxes, estate taxes etc)

    If your goal is to raise the total tax take of government by, say, 20%, or 700bn dollars, even taxing the top 5% at 50% effective (which would require marginal rates shooting up to 60+ at low six figures), you would still be 322 million short - i.e. this raise would not raise enough without tax increases on the middle classes.

    To put the entire tax burden of 700bn additional dollars on the top 5%, an effective tax rate of approx 58.4%. To put this in context, this would require new marginal bands in the 70 - 80% range around the 1m mark

    Note that if rich people somehow avoid paying this 58.4% effective rate, the burden on the remaining of the 5% must increase accordingly through yet higher marginal bands.

    What do you think a new marginal band of 75(+?)% for income over 1m or so would do to the economy?

    #hedidthemaths
    80% on every dollar above say, $5,000,000 of income in a year? All income being taxed at the same rate, regardless of source (investments vs. wages)? Elimination of loopholes and exceptions? And the new revenue spent on Universal Healthcare and other social and infrastructure programs?

    Can I add a massive cut to pork spending, military spending, NATO, foreign aid and overseas adventurism expenditures too?

    Sounds good.

    Who can I vote for that will do that?
    Sounds good, three things though:
    First: What is pork spending? I assume you don't mean the meat.
    Second: foreign aid is the one thing you shouldn't cut. Well employed it's a powerful tool to make other countries worth living (through economic growth or more stability and peace) and thus worth for people to stay there. The latter eases the burden on any welfare system you have, as a lot of refugee, whether political or economic, is quite often a financial burden at first. That normalizes over time.
    Third: with Nato spending, do you mean money you spend on the institution of Nato or the US defense spending? You seem to mean Nato as an institution.
    According to Nato, their budget for both civilian and military expenditures are €2.7 billion. 22% off that is paid for by the US, Germany pays 14%, the UK and France each pay about 10%.
    Napkin math tells me the US thus spends about €550 million on Nato. Not that much considering Nato does provide some benefits to the US, like AWACS crews and logistical planning.

    Sources:

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_168945.htm

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  2. #5522

    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Posts
    3,151
    I yield to your expertise on the subject.

  3. #5523
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    The current average household income of the top 5% of earners (around 7 million people) in the U.S. is $376,587 in 2019. The top 5% contributed 839.8 billion in income tax, an average effective tax rate of approx 31.86%

    The 2019 estimated total Federal Tax Take in the US is around $3.5 trillion, income tax making up around 50% of this (1.7tn) (rest being payroll taxes, customs. corporate taxes, estate taxes etc)

    If your goal is to raise the total tax take of government by, say, 20%, or 700bn dollars, even taxing the top 5% at 50% effective (which would require marginal rates shooting up to 60+ at low six figures), you would still be 322 million short - i.e. this raise would not raise enough without tax increases on the middle classes.

    To put the entire tax burden of 700bn additional dollars on the top 5%, an effective tax rate of approx 58.4%. To put this in context, this would require new marginal bands in the 70 - 80% range around the 1m mark

    Note that if rich people somehow avoid paying this 58.4% effective rate, the burden on the remaining of the 5% must increase accordingly through yet higher marginal bands.

    What do you think a new marginal band of 75(+?)% for income over 1m or so would do to the economy?

    #hedidthemaths
    80% on every dollar above say, $5,000,000 of income in a year? All income being taxed at the same rate, regardless of source (investments vs. wages)? Elimination of loopholes and exceptions? And the new revenue spent on Universal Healthcare and other social and infrastructure programs?

    Can I add a massive cut to pork spending, military spending, NATO, foreign aid and overseas adventurism expenditures too?

    Sounds good.

    Who can I vote for that will do that?
    Sounds good, three things though:
    First: What is pork spending? I assume you don't mean the meat.
    Second: foreign aid is the one thing you shouldn't cut. Well employed it's a powerful tool to make other countries worth living (through economic growth or more stability and peace) and thus worth for people to stay there. The latter eases the burden on any welfare system you have, as a lot of refugee, whether political or economic, is quite often a financial burden at first. That normalizes over time.
    Third: with Nato spending, do you mean money you spend on the institution of Nato or the US defense spending? You seem to mean Nato as an institution.
    According to Nato, their budget for both civilian and military expenditures are €2.7 billion. 22% off that is paid for by the US, Germany pays 14%, the UK and France each pay about 10%.
    Napkin math tells me the US thus spends about €550 million on Nato. Not that much considering Nato does provide some benefits to the US, like AWACS crews and logistical planning.

    Sources:

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_168945.htm

    Tapapapatalk
    Traditionally, pork-barrel spending is spending targeted to various congresspersons’ districts for the sake of enticing them to vote a particular way on a particular issue.

    Like “vote for this bill and we’ll appropriate funds to build a bridge in your district” or something like that.

    Libertarians and conservatives who pull their hair out over balanced budgets get upset about it and rant about “cutting pork,” but there’s good research that shows that the fight against pork-barrel spending is one of the driving factors behind polarization and Congress’ inability to get things done. It’s almost like if you can make it so that a representative can go to her district and say “yes I voted for the Dem tax bill, but in exchange we’re getting a bunch of federal money for a new hospital” more shit will get passed.

  4. #5524
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    5,536
    Imagine the average tax being higher than the UK and you dont even get healthcare, scenes

  5. #5525

  6. #5526
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    14,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    The current average household income of the top 5% of earners (around 7 million people) in the U.S. is $376,587 in 2019. The top 5% contributed 839.8 billion in income tax, an average effective tax rate of approx 31.86%

    The 2019 estimated total Federal Tax Take in the US is around $3.5 trillion, income tax making up around 50% of this (1.7tn) (rest being payroll taxes, customs. corporate taxes, estate taxes etc)

    If your goal is to raise the total tax take of government by, say, 20%, or 700bn dollars, even taxing the top 5% at 50% effective (which would require marginal rates shooting up to 60+ at low six figures), you would still be 322 million short - i.e. this raise would not raise enough without tax increases on the middle classes.

    To put the entire tax burden of 700bn additional dollars on the top 5%, an effective tax rate of approx 58.4%. To put this in context, this would require new marginal bands in the 70 - 80% range around the 1m mark

    Note that if rich people somehow avoid paying this 58.4% effective rate, the burden on the remaining of the 5% must increase accordingly through yet higher marginal bands.

    What do you think a new marginal band of 75(+?)% for income over 1m or so would do to the economy?

    #hedidthemaths
    80% on every dollar above say, $5,000,000 of income in a year? All income being taxed at the same rate, regardless of source (investments vs. wages)? Elimination of loopholes and exceptions? And the new revenue spent on Universal Healthcare and other social and infrastructure programs?

    Can I add a massive cut to pork spending, military spending, NATO, foreign aid and overseas adventurism expenditures too?

    Sounds good.

    Who can I vote for that will do that?
    Sounds good, three things though:
    First: What is pork spending? I assume you don't mean the meat.
    Second: foreign aid is the one thing you shouldn't cut. Well employed it's a powerful tool to make other countries worth living (through economic growth or more stability and peace) and thus worth for people to stay there. The latter eases the burden on any welfare system you have, as a lot of refugee, whether political or economic, is quite often a financial burden at first. That normalizes over time.
    Third: with Nato spending, do you mean money you spend on the institution of Nato or the US defense spending? You seem to mean Nato as an institution.
    According to Nato, their budget for both civilian and military expenditures are €2.7 billion. 22% off that is paid for by the US, Germany pays 14%, the UK and France each pay about 10%.
    Napkin math tells me the US thus spends about €550 million on Nato. Not that much considering Nato does provide some benefits to the US, like AWACS crews and logistical planning.

    Sources:

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_168945.htm

    Tapapapatalk
    Traditionally, pork-barrel spending is spending targeted to various congresspersons’ districts for the sake of enticing them to vote a particular way on a particular issue.

    Like “vote for this bill and we’ll appropriate funds to build a bridge in your district” or something like that.

    Libertarians and conservatives who pull their hair out over balanced budgets get upset about it and rant about “cutting pork,” but there’s good research that shows that the fight against pork-barrel spending is one of the driving factors behind polarization and Congress’ inability to get things done. It’s almost like if you can make it so that a representative can go to her district and say “yes I voted for the Dem tax bill, but in exchange we’re getting a bunch of federal money for a new hospital” more shit will get passed.
    Ah thank you.

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  7. #5527
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    19,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrixus Zephyr View Post
    I've got Betsy Devos on our boat today. Trying to think of ways I can tell her she's a terrible human without getting fired.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    Poison everything
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  8. #5528

    Join Date
    October 18, 2019
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    Imagine the average tax being higher than the UK and you dont even get healthcare, scenes
    Average across the entire US?

  9. #5529
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    10,153
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    Imagine the average tax being higher than the UK and you dont even get healthcare, scenes
    Unless you serve in the military (seriously the benefits are insane and I considered it as a teenager just for the benefits and pension). That's where all our "healthcare" money is going to: playing world police and paying out the ass for it. I don't think we'll find a politician willing to cut back on military spending to increase civilian spending. It would be seen as "stealing from the troops" or something.

    Service guarantees citizenship.

  10. #5530
    Movember 2011 RazoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Motherland
    Posts
    31,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaztick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    Imagine the average tax being higher than the UK and you dont even get healthcare, scenes
    Unless you serve in the military (seriously the benefits are insane and I considered it as a teenager just for the benefits and pension).

    Service guarantees citizenship.
    Until you actually have to collect them, is VA still being a pile of dicks?

  11. #5531
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrixus Zephyr View Post
    I've got Betsy Devos on our boat today. Trying to think of ways I can tell her she's a terrible human without getting fired.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    Poison everything
    That would accomplish nothing and probably be counterproductive. The systems that allowed someone like Devos to gain prominence will also allow a replacement to quickly take her place

  12. #5532
    Donor Spaztick's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    No Longer up High Sierra's Ass
    Posts
    10,153
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaztick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by evil edna View Post
    Imagine the average tax being higher than the UK and you dont even get healthcare, scenes
    Unless you serve in the military (seriously the benefits are insane and I considered it as a teenager just for the benefits and pension).

    Service guarantees citizenship.
    Until you actually have to collect them, is VA still being a pile of dicks?
    They are still a broken inefficient agency that barely talks to each department much less other branches of the government and whose current health care plan is still "tell the vietnam vets to hurry up and die."

  13. #5533
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,583
    Surprised no one commented on this (not really):

    Quote Originally Posted by Politico
    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in an interview for Plouffe’s Campaign HQ podcast. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up because she’s also a Russian asset.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...russias-050991
    So, Jill Stein is a Russian Asset, and Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed to be a Russian Asset, eh?

    Gabbard responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by Twitter
    Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

    It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.


    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...ssian-asset%2F
    So, is this a factual statement? Is Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard Russian Assets? Or did Hillary drink some of whatever Trump's been drinking the past few years?

    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    You (Isyel) are at the ranking top of all the other users in here that consistently just dishes out insults without any other content. You had it coming. Take it like a man and grow up.
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Just in case this isn't clear by now (and it really shouldn't be necessary to point out, you're all grownups) saying that people should be killed because of their political or religious convictions IS NOT FUCKING OK. Tempban handed out in the movie thread. Apply a minimum of self control ffs

  14. #5534
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    16,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Surprised no one commented on this (not really):

    Quote Originally Posted by Politico
    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in an interview for Plouffe’s Campaign HQ podcast. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up because she’s also a Russian asset.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...russias-050991
    So, Jill Stein is a Russian Asset, and Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed to be a Russian Asset, eh?

    Gabbard responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by Twitter
    Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

    It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.


    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...ssian-asset%2F
    So, is this a factual statement? Is Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard Russian Assets? Or did Hillary drink some of whatever Trump's been drinking the past few years?
    Down to definitions, I suppose. There was a significant amount of russian-derived facebook and twitter materiel in her favour, not to mention her public cosiness with Putin. Whether that means she actively collaborated with the Russians, or was merely convenient for them to use I wouldn't like to say. In both cases you could say she was an asset to them, even if not an asset of theirs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  15. #5535
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,010
    It's in Russian interests for America to stop pouring treasure and blood into interventionist wars.

    It's also in the interests of the American people to do that.

    It's against the interest of the shareholders of defense contractors.

    :thinking:

  16. #5536
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,556
    Well, certainly Clinton couldn't have lost because she is terrible.

    Seriously though, at least Russia clearly "likes" Stein and Gabbard.

    Last edited by Dorvil Barranis; October 19 2019 at 04:56:57 PM.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  17. #5537
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Surprised no one commented on this (not really):

    Or did Hillary drink some of whatever Trump's been drinking the past few years?
    Probably.

    She picked a fight with an obscure politician who is polling at like 1%. It's fair to say that she gave Tulsi more coverage and prominence to spoil the election if she chose to.

    Hillary is incredibly bad at this politics thing, even though her egotistical brain must be telling her that she's a genius.

  18. #5538
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Surprised no one commented on this (not really):

    Quote Originally Posted by Politico
    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in an interview for Plouffe’s Campaign HQ podcast. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up because she’s also a Russian asset.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...russias-050991
    So, Jill Stein is a Russian Asset, and Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed to be a Russian Asset, eh?

    Gabbard responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by Twitter
    Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

    It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.


    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...ssian-asset%2F
    So, is this a factual statement? Is Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard Russian Assets? Or did Hillary drink some of whatever Trump's been drinking the past few years?
    Stein certainly is, and Gabbard talks like she is, so...

    And if Karl Rove himself is defending poor little Tulsi from big bad Killary, well.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/karl-r...rd-accusations

    That speaks volumes now, doesn't it...
    Last edited by erichkknaar; October 19 2019 at 06:43:26 PM.
    meh

  19. #5539
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    16,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    It's in Russian interests for America to stop pouring treasure and blood into interventionist wars.

    It's also in the interests of the American people to do that.

    It's against the interest of the shareholders of defense contractors.

    :thinking:
    Wut? Putin and the Russian government are laughing like drunken donkeys at the way the US is pouring blood and treasure away on futile wars.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  20. #5540
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    10,628
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Surprised no one commented on this (not really):

    Quote Originally Posted by Politico
    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in an interview for Plouffe’s Campaign HQ podcast. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up because she’s also a Russian asset.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...russias-050991
    So, Jill Stein is a Russian Asset, and Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed to be a Russian Asset, eh?

    Gabbard responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by Twitter
    Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

    It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.


    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...ssian-asset%2F
    So, is this a factual statement? Is Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard Russian Assets? Or did Hillary drink some of whatever Trump's been drinking the past few years?
    Stein certainly is, and Gabbard talks like she is, so...

    And if Karl Rove himself is defending poor little Tulsi from big bad Killary, well.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/karl-r...rd-accusations

    That speaks volumes now, doesn't it...
    This is the first I've heard of Gabbard being a Russian asset. Has Hillary admitted that not campaigning in Great Lakes states cost her dearly? If not, why are we listening to her?
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •