Politics: The Undiscovered Country

[Pidesco]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

warren has been consistent solid during all the debates and she hasn't resorted to the cheap theatrics a few o' her fellows. smart and prepared. too bad she is a bit left o' where we feel comfortable voting 'cause she is one o' the few democrats we hasn't been able to genuine criticize, based on performance, at some point during the debates.

HA! Good Fun!

 

What policy proposals of hers are you uncomfortable with? Basically, what does "she is a bit left o' where we feel comfortable voting" mean exactly?

I mean by European standards you strike me as moderate right all the way, but in the current American politics spectrum you might as well be the pinkoest of all the pinkos, by my personal estimation.

[Guard Dog]

53 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

 

What policy proposals of hers are you uncomfortable with? Basically, what does "she is a bit left o' where we feel comfortable voting" mean exactly?

I

Two words: Wealth Tax. They already tax you when you earn it. They tax you when you spend it. They tax you when you invest it. They tax you when you inherit it. They take half of it when you die. Now they are going to tax it when you do nothing with it. 

Besides, most of what Warren is promising is fiscally unachievable without massively increasing taxes on every one. "The rich" suddenly becomes a two income family making a combined $200k a year but just barely staying ahead of their debts and expenses. 

The US is taxed at a lower rate than elsewhere, particularly Europe that is true. But not a whole lot less and we get a lot less benefit from the taxes we do pay. Largely that is because we can't seem to go four years without involving ourselves in another war. Something Warren and pretty much everyone else (except Gabbard) is completely fine with. 

Not speaking from Gromnir, just my $.02

Edited September 13, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/09/12/beto-orourke-gun-buyback

Uh huh. Good luck with that. 

[Pidesco]

54 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Two words: Wealth Tax. They already tax you when you earn it. They tax you when you spend it. They tax you when you invest it. They tax you when you inherit it. They take half of it when you die. Now they are going to tax it when you do nothing with it. 

Besides, most of what Warren is promising is fiscally unachievable without massively increasing taxes on every one. "The rich" suddenly becomes a two income family making a combined $200k a year but just barely staying ahead of their debts and expenses. 

The US is taxed at a lower rate than elsewhere, particularly Europe that is true. But not a whole lot less and we get a lot less benefit from the taxes we do pay. Largely that is because we can't seem to go four years without involving ourselves in another war. Something Warren and pretty much everyone else (except Gabbard) is completely fine with. 

Not speaking from Gromnir, just my $.02

Your (wrong ) views I'm already familiar with, but thanks.

 

Where are you getting that 200k number from, though? As far as I know Warren's wealth tax proposal is to tax people's wealth above 50 million at 2%. Anyway if you stand to be affected by this tax, congrats.

[Hurlshort]

I am a two income family and we are barely staying ahead of debts and expenses, so it's not like the current administration is working for us. We made $160k last year. We can't afford to buy a house and struggle not to take on debt every month.

[Malcador]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/09/12/beto-orourke-gun-buyback

Uh huh. Good luck with that. 

Doubt he's going anywhere, really, so no need to worry.

And another reason politicians should stay off Twitter : https://www.newsweek.com/texas-beto-orourke-briscoe-cain-gun-reform-1459074

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Malcador

[ShadySands]

2 hours ago, Pidesco said:

Where are you getting that 200k number from, though? As far as I know Warren's wealth tax proposal is to tax people's wealth above 50 million at 2%. Anyway if you stand to be affected by this tax, congrats.

I think it's a slippery slope type of argument

I'm curious about the next debate since unless a figurative literal ton of people drop out we're going to have more people participating.

[smjjames]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/09/12/beto-orourke-gun-buyback

Uh huh. Good luck with that. 

Yeah, the unanswered question is 'how'. Aside from the 'kicking in of doors with jackboots' imagery that is used, how would it be done? Come up and ask nicely? I suppose there is the legal route, but with 400 something million guns with AR-15 and AK-47 style weapons taking up I don't know how many % of that, even if it was less than 1% or even 1% of 1%, we're still talking about millions which is going to tie up a lot of legal resources. Simply put or tl;dr, it's going to take a LOT of resources no matter the solution.

 

18 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

 

I'm curious about the next debate since unless a figurative literal ton of people drop out we're going to have more people participating.

Tom Steyer has already made the October debates. There could be maybe one or two, or three at most, others that make it in. I'm of the opinion that they should still split it down further into debates with 5 or 6 people since having 10 is unwieldly. Unfortunately, theres no simple answer to dealing with a large group of debaters and having it work well at the same time while being on television.

[Pidesco]

 

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I am a two income family and we are barely staying ahead of debts and expenses, so it's not like the current administration is working for us. We made $160k last year. We can't afford to buy a house and struggle not to take on debt every month.

That just means there's something comically wrong with the US. I live in Sweden, a rich and expensive country, by European standards, where I make a good wage by local standards. My wife is currently unemployed, and we're a family of four. We save money every year. We bought a house.

If we made 160k per year before tax, we'd be millionaires in 5 years without even trying.

[smjjames]

10 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

 

That just means there's something comically wrong with the US. I live in Sweden, a rich and expensive country, by European standards, where I make a good wage by local standards. My wife is currently unemployed, and we're a family of four. We save money every year. We bought a house.

If we made 160k per year before tax, we'd be millionaires in 5 years without even trying.

California also has sky high rent and mortages, which goes a long way towards explaining it, but it may be more complicated than just that for hurlshot.

[Pidesco]

10 minutes ago, smjjames said:

California also has sky high rent and mortages, which goes a long way towards explaining it, but it may be more complicated than just that for hurlshot.

The housing market is insane around here.

[Gfted1]

160K x 5 = 800000

[Pidesco]

Just now, Gfted1 said:

160K x 5 = 800000

Sorry, I was doing my math with Swedish money, so I'd be a Swedish millionaire. Which is kinda crappy I guess. I'd have roughly 150k USD in the bank after 5 years. I'd be a USD millionaire within my lifetime, though.

[Gromnir]

6 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

What policy proposals of hers are you uncomfortable with? Basically, what does "she is a bit left o' where we feel comfortable voting" mean exactly?

I mean by European standards you strike me as moderate right all the way, but in the current American politics spectrum you might as well be the pinkoest of all the pinkos, by my personal estimation.

the trump years has resulted in a misleading impression o' Gromnir positions. am fiscal conservative even by American standards, albeit with a few caveats.

for instance, the proposed wealth tax is stoopid. is not stoopid 'cause it is a bad idea to tax the ultra-wealthy. is stoopid 'cause is largely ineffective. the ultra-wealthy typical do not have large taxable income, relative speaking. rich folks don't like taxes anymore than does the middle class, but the rich got far more options for avoiding paying. the ultra-wealthy, for instance, rare earn exorbitant amounts in the way o' income yearly; they don't get a paycheck for going to their 9-5 (7-8 for many o' us) as does the average American. live in the foundation/corporate house and use the foundation jet to fly to wherever is stuff which is trappings o' rich but is not ordinary taxable. fed doesn't tax rich for stuff they own and the rich know how to keep income low. if you wanna tax the ultra rich, capital gains is where you first need make changes. max capital gains rate is 20% on property held over a year. 

just one issue. heck, business losses being able to apply to personal taxes (and carried forward almost indefinite) is another serious loophole which needs be addressed.

the thing is, get up in front o' Americans and explain a rational and effective tax overhaul is not gonna resonate. "tax the rich" is easy to understand and most Americans realize they ain't rich. so sure, tax the rich.

am also not in favor o' raising corporate tax rates. most business is not the monolithic organizations we immediate think o' when imagining big companies, which is different from corporation. raise corporate tax rate disproportional hurts smaller business, which is a majority o' corporations btw, but again, explain nuances to voters is ignored in favor o' a message which will resonate. 

furthermore, warren's plans is too complex and interdependent, and she is too focused on domestic issues. she gots a wonderful complex house o' cards. tax on rich will pay for X, which will raise standard o' living for Y which will... unfortunate, the US political landscape don't make such possible. warren is never gonna get what she wants, not any o' it. every success she achieves would be altered by necessary compromise. her tax on rich, even if it made it through Congress, would not be as she describes, which would necessarily impact her plans for universal health care and student loan forgiveness and would likely have further debt increases and...

obama and trump has provided a somewhat distorted perspective o' the Presidency to Americans and europeans. most o' the stuff warren wants to change domestic is requiring Congressional action. we do not have a parliamentary system where our President is head o' the controlling party/parties. we got genuine separation o' powers and even our legislature is further divided.  President warren would not be able to wave a magic wand and implement tax changes and universal health care and free educations with student loan forgiveness. look what happened with trump during his first two years. he had BOTH house and senate majorities and he still couldn't get anything done domestic other than a last-minute and cobbled together tax reduction along with appointments o' judges and Justices... and the judges thing is owed to mitch more than any other single politician.  oh, and first two years is when most Presidents get their signature programs implemented, 'cause even if a President gets a second term, is first two years o' first term when they historical have most influence with Congress. afterwards, is foreign policy which dominates Presidential agenda. warren is kinda light on foreign policy, other than wanting to get troops home which is, once again, gonna resonate during an election but rare works out as planned.

raise fed minimum wage is crude and will hurt as many as it helps, but again, it sounds compassionate and is easy for voters to understand.

etc.

can go down list o' warren positions and...

warren is smart and am agreeing with her regarding the need for bank regulation, 'cause so many people has already forgotten the major causes o' great recession.  unfortunate, is too many issues 'pon which we disagree.

'course, as 'tween trump and warren, we would vote warren with recognition that assuming we vote in CA, our vote wouldn't matter save as a way to further inflate the inevitable popular vote fail for trump. popular fail is actual more important than many realize. is precise because trump were relative unpopular that so many in his party were willing to vote against party during all important first two years. as terrible as has been trump's trampling o' the Constitution and his maximization o' american divisiveness, situation woulda' been far worse if trump were elected with the proverbial mandate from the people kinda popular vote. every vote for the democrat opposing trump will weaken trump political even if he manages to get elected again. keep trump as impotent as possible is a good thing.

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, smjjames said:

California also has sky high rent and mortages, which goes a long way towards explaining it, but it may be more complicated than just that for hurlshot.

Not too much more complicated. Rent eats 35% of our income, we are taxed 22% from the fed (bit more complicated than that, but close enough) and 9% from the state. 

I mean, I think about leaving the Bay Area sometimes, but we also make that salary because we live in the Bay Area. Teachers make half as much in most of the country. At least my retirement rate will be nice if I stick it out and the retirement fund doesn't collapse. 

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

 

If we made 160k per year before tax, we'd be millionaires in 5 years without even trying.

the 800k total is a hurdle, but not insurmountable. folks really don't understand compound interest and investment. how much o' the 160k is genuine disposable? let's assume with real belt tightening, you could eek by on 40k, which am knowing is problematic, but why not, eh? baloney sandwiches and live in a hovel. can do it five years? might consider it when you see results. so 120k with additional invest o' 120k per year. assume modest 8% return and semi-annual compounding.

resulting return + invest is over 900k in five years.  am only using compound interest calculation. am not assuming wacky kinda rot, but am using semi annual. 

this is how the rich become ultra wealthy w/o even trying. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 13, 2019 by Gromnir
one too many per years

[Gfted1]

Checking the exchange rate, Im already a millionaire in Thailand. I should open a bar in Pattaya Beach. /Kermit

[HoonDing]

I thought foreigners can't own anything in Thailand.

[Gfted1]

Huh, youre right. That stinks. Ill have to come up with a new plan now. :(

[Gromnir]

as an aside, am feeling great sympathy for hurl regarding rent. am also in CA and am current renting out two residential homes in a gated community east o' sacramento. one property is ~1600 sqft and the other is ~1900 sqft. both is 3br/2ba 1-stories. rent we collect from both (not each) for the year is under 50k. admitted, am hardly maximizing rent we could collect, but by keeping a bit low am almost certain to have 100% occupancy. meanwhile, the homes we own is increasing in value, as does most such properties. bought the 1900 sqft home for 163k in 2004. is worth ~560k today and is no mortgage... and keep in mind, am actual kinda disappointed by the amount o' growth from the property in question which is why we didn't sell it and am instead keeping as a rental. more than tripling value in 15 years is considered bad.

rents situation in the bay area is nuts. the money hurl is forced to functional flush down the drain each month on rents is almost criminal, but such is what the market supports. am actual knowing folks in the bay area who would kill to only need pay ~56k per year on rent.

not fun.

[Gfted1]

They should funnel that money into the Poop Patrol. Maybe make an app or something too.

[Zoraptor]

8 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Two words: Wealth Tax. They already tax you when you earn it. They tax you when you spend it. They tax you when you invest it. They tax you when you inherit it. They take half of it when you die. Now they are going to tax it when you do nothing with it.

For a rich person a lot of that is purely theoretical tax though. Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said he paid less actual tax than his secretary despite the wealth disparity?

If you're rich enough to afford good lawyers and good accountants you tend to end up paying very little tax because you can afford the good accountants and lawyers that most people cannot. Same is true for companies, which is why there's such a concerted push in some places to actually tax companies by gross revenue rather than profit after the subsidiary 'licenses' technology at gross profit -50k to its 'parent' in a tax haven.

4 hours ago, smjjames said:

Yeah, the unanswered question is 'how'. Aside from the 'kicking in of doors with jackboots' imagery that is used, how would it be done? Come up and ask nicely? I suppose there is the legal route, but with 400 something million guns with AR-15 and AK-47 style weapons taking up I don't know how many % of that, even if it was less than 1% or even 1% of 1%, we're still talking about millions which is going to tie up a lot of legal resources. Simply put or tl;dr, it's going to take a LOT of resources no matter the solution.

If it were a linear relation to the Australian and (projected) NZ buy back programs it would be ~15 million guns for the US; though the situation certainly aren't directly equivalent with the US having higher overall ownership and legal handguns, but a narrower range of weapons likely to be involved in a putative US buyback scheme than the Aus/ NZ ones.

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

For a rich person a lot of that is purely theoretical tax though. Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said he paid less actual tax than his secretary despite the wealth disparity?

 

no. buffet said he were having a lower tax rate than his secretary. is an important difference. buffet mentioned how he paid near $2million in fed tax from year 201something-or-other. his overall tax rate were near 15%. 

am certain you may find actual dates and numbers, but am also certain am close.

HA! Good Fun!

ps apologies for extreme late edit, but is also worth mentioning that it were obama who mentioned buffet's secretary. obama takes buffet more general comments 'bout low tax rate, and then the President used secretary to illustrate the disparity. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Gromnir

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

7 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

That just means there's something comically wrong with the US. I live in Sweden, a rich and expensive country, by European standards, where I make a good wage by local standards. My wife is currently unemployed, and we're a family of four. We save money every year. We bought a house.

If we made 160k per year before tax, we'd be millionaires in 5 years without even trying.

There absolutely is something comically wrong with America, rent is out of control to the point when I was making $20 an hour (about 2.5x minimum wage) I struggled to afford a single bedroom apartment (relatively cheap) and my less fortunate friends routinely had to go back to their parent's house. Buying a house would require a massive commitment that is practically off the table for me, and I have a credit score of around 800 so I don't get screwed on interest. This is to say nothing of the various loans people end up getting saddled with or the costs of taking care of kiddos, which make prosperity even more out of reach for quite a lot of people. **** is gonna get so bad in America it's either going to need massive reform or the guillotine is coming back in style.

[Azdeus]

Just had a quick look for my local town, it's in the "ghetto", 3room+kitchen 80sqm apartment, 6400sek rent, 300 people in queue...