Politics and world news

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I don't have any sympathy for the 1%, so I'm not sure what the concern is. Their wealth has seen massive spikes in recent years while the middle class struggles to keep up with basic COLA.

IT BEGINS.

And fascism starts either when the government hands power to them (Germany and Italy), they launch a coup (Spain and Latin America), or when liberalism doesn't let states do enough imperialism (Japan). The forms of bigotry associated with fascist movements/states were widely existing phenomenon before and after.

[ComradeYellow]

Sure but Hitler was elected chancellor before he became Fuhrer.  I of course being more into the "psyche" of how those peaceful hardworking Germans could ever elect such a monster.  A lot of it had to do with the Versailles Treaty (which was of course rather unfair) but most of it had to do with the Weimar governments poor handling of the situation.  When people despair...

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I don't have any sympathy for the 1%, so I'm not sure what the concern is. Their wealth has seen massive spikes in recent years while the middle class struggles to keep up with basic COLA.

Are you drawing a comparison between two these two facts.? Because one has little to do with the other. So is this a statement envy or a faulty understanding or economics? Or just frustration.? Because it's not like the 1% took anything away from you personally right? 

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

Sure but Hitler was elected chancellor before he became Fuhrer. 

Well akshually...

.. that's an often repeated myth; he was appointed Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg and not elected to the position. He/ NSDAP got less votes in the election after which he was appointed chancellor than in the previous election (37 July32 vs 33 November32) mostly due to his intransigence being seen as the main reason for the 2nd election; so 2/3 of voting Germans didn't vote for him.

He was, of course, wildly popular in the early years when he looked like a success for Germany despite that.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Hurlshort]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Are you drawing a comparison between two these two facts.? Because one has little to do with the other. So is this a statement envy or a faulty understanding or economics? Or just frustration.? Because it's not like the 1% took anything away from you personally right? 

I am really just saying I am not worried about taxes going up for the wealthy. They will be fine. They don't need me to worry about political candidates making their lives more difficult. As you said, even Sanders would be limited in his actual capacity to limit the growing inequity of wealth in this country. 

Also, it is fairly personal that I can't afford a single family home on a two-teacher income. Those housing prices are driven by the disparity of wealth in the Silicon Valley.

[Skarpen]

48 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I am really just saying I am not worried about taxes going up for the wealthy. They will be fine. They don't need me to worry about political candidates making their lives more difficult. As you said, even Sanders would be limited in his actual capacity to limit the growing inequity of wealth in this country. 

Also, it is fairly personal that I can't afford a single family home on a two-teacher income. Those housing prices are driven by the disparity of wealth in the Silicon Valley.

So your solution to your problem with buying a house is to tax those homeowners more? Hmm, I wonder how the market would react. Maybe by raising the prices to compensate? But that's ok, right? Because it seems you would be ok to be worse yourself just to tax those pesky 1% ☺

[BruceVC]

16 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I am really just saying I am not worried about taxes going up for the wealthy. They will be fine. They don't need me to worry about political candidates making their lives more difficult. As you said, even Sanders would be limited in his actual capacity to limit the growing inequity of wealth in this country. 

Also, it is fairly personal that I can't afford a single family home on a two-teacher income. Those housing prices are driven by the disparity of wealth in the Silicon Valley.

Fair enough, I understand this argument and it is reasonable. Its not about unnecessary bashing of wealthy people which seems counterproductive 

But just to add something else strange about the 1 %  statement. Its suppose to represent a good news story about the achieved wealth and journey  of certain successful Americans

Yet it can become a negative story and people make real and unfair comparisons to financial challengers in there own personal life, so just see it as a positive and legitimate reality of the USA  

 

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I am really just saying I am not worried about taxes going up for the wealthy. They will be fine. They don't need me to worry about political candidates making their lives more difficult. As you said, even Sanders would be limited in his actual capacity to limit the growing inequity of wealth in this country. 

Also, it is fairly personal that I can't afford a single family home on a two-teacher income. Those housing prices are driven by the disparity of wealth in the Silicon Valley.

the thing is, check what bernie and elizabeth warren is saying 'bout taxing the rich, then compare to your bill gates post from recent. democrats is selling a tax scheme which resonates with voters: tax the wealthy. hurl isn't worried, but is a stoopid scheme. bill gates knows it is stoopid. is why bill gates, for example, focuses on stuff such as capital gains loopholes. 

a 45% tax on estates valued between $3 million and $10 million is not a hard sell 'cause how many folks has $3 million? tax the other guy is always ok. happens with poor as well as rich. recall when oregon state senators failed to show for votes? were 'cause city folks in oregon were creating an environmental tax which would disproportionate affect the rural populace. tax other people is ez. 

the thing is, tax wealth is stoopid. for instance, how do you value an estate? who values? you gonna pay irs to appraise value o' estates nationwide? and what happens when government appraised property sells for considerable less than it were appraised? gonna refund the tax? to have estates appraised yearly is a serious hurdle, and will create a whole new catalog o' loopholes as estates is broken into smaller portions 'mongst families and trusts and foundations. 

and many o' those struggling farmers who is being crushed by trump's trade war and is dependant on subsidies may fall in the $3 million range, depending on when the estate is valued. gambling is outlawed in most states, but modern family farming is a kind o' legalized gambling and is ubiquitous. every year farmers go deep in debt and pray for weather to be good and unrest in central america to subside and trade war with china to end. if all goes well, a farmer may make a whole bunch o' money, which they need then reinvest just to stay viable and must needs take out more loans regardless to start cycle for next year... god willing. 

value estates is one problem... just one. 

bill gates wants to fix inheritance (that is what he is talking 'bout when he references the "estate tax"... which is different than bernie and warren taxing estates yearly) and capital gains, while eliminating a serious loophole for hedge fund millionaires/billionaires. such is not what bernie and elizabeth is talking 'bout. sadly, have bill gates explain is less appealing to voters than, "tax the rich." 

am knowing bill is a smart guy, but is not bill being smarter than bernie and elizabeth. bill is not running for office, so he may offer options which do not have voter appeal. 

hurl shouldn't worry 'bout the wealthy, but he should be concerned if a proposed tax on the wealthy will be ineffective and (ironic) costly. 

am in favor o' taxing the wealthy more than they is being taxed today. a considerable increase is in order. unfortunate, we want the taxing to be done smart and not stoopid. stuff such as a 45% tax on estates totaling more than $3 million is ez math but complete and total busted. 

as such, we recommend vote bill gates for USA CFO 2020. is the position we suspect trump thought he were running for during the previous cycle, in spite o' being woefully unqualified.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Chilloutman]

well, Trump made one assassination and started demonstrations against government which target of that assassination was part of. If this is not win win I don't know what

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/12/iran-riot-police-anti-government-backlash-ukraine

 

I hope Kathphood is ok

Edited January 13, 2020 by Chilloutman

[Guard Dog]

7 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I 

Also, it is fairly personal that I can't afford a single family home on a two-teacher income. Those housing prices are driven by the disparity of wealth in the Silicon Valley.

Oh I hear you there. Eleven years ago I left South Florida for the same reason. There I lived in a 1100 sq' house on a 400 x 600' lot in a suburb where I could ear my neighbors TV from my kitchen. For 2/3 of what I sold that house for I bought 24.5 acres AND built a house on it.  I know family ties you tightly to north Cal but the beauty of your profession is that it's everywhere should you ever want out. Housing costs go up until the reach a point no one can afford them. Then the demand drops and they start to go down. A thing is worth what someone will pay for it. 

But here is the thing and there is no getting around this... rich people paying more in taxes will not benefit you any more. It will not make the costs of living go down. It will not even delay the debt apocalypse since any new tax revenue will be more than offset by runaway spending. And it's basic economics: if and activity becomes less profitable there will be less of that activity. Increasing things like  capital gains tax means a decrease in economic growth through investment. Taxing assets means a divestiture of assets. More taxes now means less revenue later.

[Blarghagh]

Taxing the wealthy wouldn't be the biggest thing, fixing the tax system so that their massive corporations actually pay taxes would make a bigger dent, provided of course it is implemented well which, let's face it, it won't be because Republicans exist. There are megacorporations with negative tax rates in the US. The taxpayers pay them millions. Where does that make sense? 

[Malcador]

Then that would kill jobs!

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, sure, Fortune 500 company Activision Blizzard gets 228M dollars from the taxpayer in the same year it laid off 800 people to "create jobs".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, TrueNeutral said:

Taxing the wealthy wouldn't be the biggest thing, fixing the tax system so that their massive corporations actually pay taxes would make a bigger dent, provided of course it is implemented well which, let's face it, it won't be because Republicans exist. There are megacorporations with negative tax rates in the US. The taxpayers pay them millions. Where does that make sense? 

It makes sense if you consider that the purpose of US policy is to support megacorps.

[Guard Dog]

Flat Tax is the way to go. 15% flat tax on all income and everyone pays. From the burger flipper to Jeff Bezos. No exemptions, no deductions

[Gfted1]

VAT is the way to go. FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM DIVVVVVIDDDDENNNNDSSSS GET IN MY POCKET!

[Guard Dog]

The US economy lives and dies on consumption. VAT & sales taxes make consumption more expensive. When an activity costs more you get less of it. Bad idea to cut your own throat. 

[Malcador]

33 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Flat Tax is the way to go. 15% flat tax on all income and everyone pays. From the burger flipper to Jeff Bezos. No exemptions, no deductions

What would be the minimum income needed for this?

[Gfted1]

10 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The US economy lives and dies on consumption. VAT & sales taxes make consumption more expensive. When an activity costs more you get less of it. Bad idea to cut your own throat. 

Consumer spending drives the economy?

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, TrueNeutral said:

Taxing the wealthy wouldn't be the biggest thing, fixing the tax system so that their massive corporations actually pay taxes would make a bigger dent, provided of course it is implemented well which, let's face it, it won't be because Republicans exist. There are megacorporations with negative tax rates in the US. The taxpayers pay them millions. Where does that make sense? 

tax corporations higher is probable not ideal.  pass on the tax hit to consumers is the obvious response. the thing is, in the US, the money ends up in the hands o' individuals, so tax persons is gonna get to the root issue. if corporate entities and large partnerships makes billions o' dollars in profits 'cause of tax breaks, such money doesn't just stay in the business. eventual the money makes its way to the wealthy owners and investors. tax people gets to the heart o' the issue w/o punishing consumers.

the thing is, current, capital gains, where rich people make most o' their money, is taxed at 20%, and there is functional ways to reduce such even further. even all those corporate profits tn sees is making their way to individuals via disbursements and investments which is gonna be taxed as capital gains, 'cause smarty executives know how to keep their income lowish. the system is rigged in favor o' the wealthy. a single filer, making +$40k per year is being taxed at 22%, but the wealthy is functional having the majority o' their wealth being taxed somewhere south o' 20%. 

the inheritance taxes feels like a double-hit. your money gets taxed during life and then just 'cause you die it gets taxed again. is the reason why it has been easier to get public support for lowering estate taxes. however, the ability to create generational wealth is not helping the US. is so many ways the system is rigged in favor o' living wealthy people, we not need give their kids special advantages. yeah, pass on the family home and/or farm needs be considered. as we mentioned earlier, the small family farm is actual typical representing a large lump sum o' money. assume tn owns even a smallish avocado farm or ranch in a place such as california, a place which has been in the family for generations. at death you wanna pass to kids, but any kinda inheritance tax crude targeting +$X million is gonna disproportionate affect family ranchers and farmers. whenever we try and do simple tax, it doesn't work so well 'cause it disproportionate hurts somebody we do not wish it to, like dairy farmers and ranchers. 

flat taxes on income, btw, is missing the core problems bill gates identified in the earlier hurlshot post. need get at the hedge fund exceptions, inheritance and most significant, capital gains. make flat tax o' 15% on capital gains will make situation worse and not better. 15% is also a significant increase on taxes o' those current living in poverty, which is unlikely what gd or anybody else advocating a flat tax wishes.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 13, 2020 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

11 hours ago, Skarpen said:

So your solution to your problem with buying a house is to tax those homeowners more? Hmm, I wonder how the market would react. Maybe by raising the prices to compensate? But that's ok, right? Because it seems you would be ok to be worse yourself just to tax those pesky 1% ☺

This is a simplistic response to a complex issue, and has zero connection to what I said. 

[Gfted1]

Booker drops out.

[Hurlshort]

Hey, I'd be happy to put Bill Gates in charge. But to be fair, anyone who is smart enough to do the job well is probably too smart to take the job. 

As I said, I don't really have much interest in taxation of the wealthy because I'm not wealthy. We should be voting in our own interests. People seem to just vote for their team instead of who represents their interests. It's weird.

[Amentep]

23 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Hey, I'd be happy to put Bill Gates in charge. But to be fair, anyone who is smart enough to do the job well is probably too smart to take the job. 

As I said, I don't really have much interest in taxation of the wealthy because I'm not wealthy. We should be voting in our own interests. People seem to just vote for their team instead of who represents their interests. It's weird.

Doesn't seem weird to me.  Didn't Washington pretty much call it in his Farewell Address?

 

Quote

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-rounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Hey, I'd be happy to put Bill Gates in charge. But to be fair, anyone who is smart enough to do the job well is probably too smart to take the job. 

As I said, I don't really have much interest in taxation of the wealthy because I'm not wealthy. We should be voting in our own interests. People seem to just vote for their team instead of who represents their interests. It's weird.

 

determining what is in your best interest is a problem.

am baffled by american farmers who continue to vote trump in spite o' how they has suffered, but many o' them believe trump will make things better for 'em in spite o' all expert evidence and three years personal experience to the contrary. these folks helped vote obama into office, so is not just a party-line kinda thing. 

more complicated is the rich folks who vote trump. last year, with extreme conservative investing now that we is on a fixed income, we saw ~14% roi from non real estate, and our real estate equity growth were better than we coulda hoped. from march to november, our ira alone brought in just under 300k. 

the thing is, am recognizing income disparity and national (and personal) debt is out of control. current we got worst of both worlds with insane washington spending, which has been demonized by conservatives for more than a generation, and the middle class is not growing at all while ranks o' the poor is swelling and incomes relative to inflation has been stagnant for a long time.  

look at personal bottom line, the most obvious indicator o' our own interest, is myopic. 

look at the folks on this board who moan and groan 'bout immigration and support the idiotic wall trump is spending billions o' US dollars to finally start building. new rule were passed which allows cities and counties to reject acceptance o' immigrants, sorta a response to sanctuary city stuff. no takers... anywhere. in spite o' all the stoopid rallies, local governments recognize what a boon is immigrants for the economy.  nevertheless, immigration has been staked out like the goat in jurassic park. is an easy target to blame the woes o' the middle class (particular in the manufacturing sector) on illegal border crossers... although folks who overstay their legal visas is actual the largest % o' illegal immigrant population and would be complete unaffected by a wall or any other border measures. regardless, can show how immigrants is not responsible for taking American jobs and that immigrants commit less crime, but none o' that matters 'cause 30% o' Americans, including d-bags like stephen miller, thinks calvin coolidge were the bestest President evar and they are trying to bring back the glory days o' the 1920s. self interest?

first step needs be education. always. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 13, 2020 by Gromnir