U.S. Politics

[Jumbo]

Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated incumbent Dem. Joe Crowley in the Dem primary. The district is heavy blue so she's basically a lock for Congress in November.

smh

[bojanglesman]

I think it's not a bad thing to have some variety in Congress regarding viewpoints that are a little more on the extreme end.  I can't say I agree with a good chunk of her platform, especially wanting to abolish ICE.  I can see wanting to modify it's role from what it is now some, but ICE has a vital function in this country.

While I certainly want people to have a livable wage, affordable health care, housing, food and a good life in general, no one ever addresses how it gets paid for.  In simple terms, you either have to bring in more taxes, spend less in government, or grow the GDP.  Probably not just one of those.  I'm totally fine with paying more in taxes if it actually goes to help the situation and isn't being wasted. I'm fine with cutting wastage in government or redundant expenditures as long as we aren't cutting programs that are truly needed by people that aren't able to help themselves. 

One side wants to cut taxes, cut government spending and turn a blind eye to the people below the middle class.  While it pisses me off that there are people out there gaming the system by being useless on purpose and getting welfare, you can't throw away everything because of these people, especially the ones that have children that don't have a choice in the matter.

The other side wants to give everyone affordable or free insurance, education, housing, etc., which is wonderful but they aren't honest and upfront about what happens when the bill comes due for it (big tax increases or further increases to national debt, or both).

Neither side is honest about the down side of their ideas.  To be honest, there is no perfect answer.  Someone will get shafted no matter what happens.  I hate to see lazy people that choose not to work getting by just as well or better on the government teat than people who work 40 hrs a week trying to provide for themselves.  I hate even more seeing children and disabled people suffering and struggling in a country that should be doing more. 

I think other countries do some things in a much better way than the United States, but I also think the opposite is true, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten where we are today.  I know this is rambling, but I really wish things weren't so polarized.   

[SixFeetDeep]

I think it's not a bad thing to have some variety in Congress regarding viewpoints that are a little more on the extreme end.  I can't say I agree with a good chunk of her platform, especially wanting to abolish ICE.  I can see wanting to modify it's role from what it is now some, but ICE has a vital function in this country.

While I certainly want people to have a livable wage, affordable health care, housing, food and a good life in general, no one ever addresses how it gets paid for.  In simple terms, you either have to bring in more taxes, spend less in government, or grow the GDP.  Probably not just one of those.  I'm totally fine with paying more in taxes if it actually goes to help the situation and isn't being wasted. I'm fine with cutting wastage in government or redundant expenditures as long as we aren't cutting programs that are truly needed by people that aren't able to help themselves. 

One side wants to cut taxes, cut government spending and turn a blind eye to the people below the middle class.  While it pisses me off that there are people out there gaming the system by being useless on purpose and getting welfare, you can't throw away everything because of these people, especially the ones that have children that don't have a choice in the matter.

The other side wants to give everyone affordable or free insurance, education, housing, etc., which is wonderful but they aren't honest and upfront about what happens when the bill comes due for it (big tax increases or further increases to national debt, or both).

Neither side is honest about the down side of their ideas.  To be honest, there is no perfect answer.  Someone will get shafted no matter what happens.  I hate to see lazy people that choose not to work getting by just as well or better on the government teat than people who work 40 hrs a week trying to provide for themselves.  I hate even more seeing children and disabled people suffering and struggling in a country that should be doing more. 

I think other countries do some things in a much better way than the United States, but I also think the opposite is true, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten where we are today.  I know this is rambling, but I really wish things weren't so polarized.   

^Alt right fracist alert

[AlioTheFool]

For me, the problem with the whole "Do you want to pay more taxes to fund all your socialist programs" comes down to "Why do you and I have to pay more taxes?"

Why does Jeff Bezos get to sit on $144 billion dollars? Why does Apple get to have $158 billion in cash offshore?

Trump and his cronies gave a tax break to people like Bezos and to companies like Apple. And what are they doing with it? Bezos is building the world's largest underground clock. Apple is buying back its stock. None of their employees are getting anything from it.

Yeah, yeah. I'm a "socialist" who just wants to redistribute wealth like a communist. It's funny how redistributing money up didn't outrage anyone on the right.

If trickle-down economics was at all a realistic thing, I'd be all for it. I'm not a communist-minded person. I, like conservatives, want to keep more of my own money. But I'm not, and it's at the expense of making a guy like Bezos a couple extra million this year.

No human being is worth a billion dollars unless every human being is worth a billion dollars. Call me whatever names you want, I'm never going to waver from that.

[AlioTheFool]

Heh, I just did a little exercise.

Jeff Bezos is worth $158 billion. There are 7.5 billion people on the planet.

If Bezos gave every single person $21 each, that would be $157.5 billion.

He'd still have half a billion dollars left all to himself.

[SixFeetDeep]

How much more money are you cool with paying in taxes, %-wise?

[SixFeetDeep]

Need someone to run on an “Abolish IRS!” Platform tbh.

Taxation is Theft!

[Jumbo]

Heh, I just did a little exercise.

Jeff Bezos is worth $158 billion. There are 7.5 billion people on the planet.

If Bezos gave every single person $21 each, that would be $157.5 billion.

He'd still have half a billion dollars left all to himself.

How much of Bezos' net worth is liquid? It's significantly lower. And if he tried to sell off the stock that most of his worth is tied up in it would go significantly down in value too. excrement ain't that simple.

[SixFeetDeep]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/anthony-kennedy-retires/index.html

[AlioTheFool]

How much more money are you cool with paying in taxes, %-wise?

Is that a question for me? Because I'm cool with paying about negative 10% more.
I don't agree with the idea that there should be a flat tax, or that people who make above certain thresholds shouldn't be responsible for a higher percentage of their income.

If person A makes $30k/year, and person B makes $300k/year, and both pay 10% of their income in taxes, person A has to live on $27k, but person B is going to live on $270k.  One of those people is going to have a far nicer Christmas than the other.

Need someone to run on an “Abolish IRS!” Platform tbh.

Taxation is Theft!

Nobody wants to pay taxes. But nobody wants to drive on unpaved roads, with no street lights either. No one is particularly keen on living without police or firefighters to keep them safe.

Like them or not, taxes are a necessary evil. Unless you actually believe the private sector would fill those roles in a manner that would be beneficial to the public.

How much of Bezos' net worth is liquid? It's significantly lower. And if he tried to sell off the stock that most of his worth is tied up in it would go significantly down in value too. excrement ain't that simple.

So I shouldn't have demanded Jeff Bezos hand every human on the planet $21?

Come on. Of course, his worth isn't liquid. And I'm sure all of us are well aware of that fact. This tactic is overused whenever the discussion of taxation is breached. It's always "You can't say Apple should pay taxes on $158B because not all of it was made in the US!" or "You can't say Jeff Bezos has to pay taxes on $158B because it's not all this year's income."

Yeah, we all know this. The point really boils down to: why isn't the top paying a "fair share?" Not equal, but fair. As in the example above, two people on opposite ends of the income spectrum shouldn't be expected to contribute an "equal share", but both are responsible for their own "fair share."
Instead, the billionaires and megacorps got a tax break this year, and Congress is trying to pay for it with people's Social Security. All under the laughable guise of "trickle-down economics" and in the face of all of them saying they wouldn't share anything if they got it.

[Jumbo]

So I shouldn't have demanded Jeff Bezos hand every human on the planet $21?

Come on. Of course, his worth isn't liquid. And I'm sure all of us are well aware of that fact. This tactic is overused whenever the discussion of taxation is breached. It's always "You can't say Apple should pay taxes on $158B because not all of it was made in the US!" or "You can't say Jeff Bezos has to pay taxes on $158B because it's not all this year's income."

Yeah, we all know this. The point really boils down to: why isn't the top paying a "fair share?" Not equal, but fair. As in the example above, two people on opposite ends of the income spectrum shouldn't be expected to contribute an "equal share", but both are responsible for their own "fair share."
Instead, the billionaires and megacorps got a tax break this year, and Congress is trying to pay for it with people's Social Security. All under the laughable guise of "trickle-down economics" and in the face of all of them saying they wouldn't share anything if they got it.

And what exactly defines a "fair share"? At what level of tax would you be satisfied that whomever has paid their fair share?

[AlioTheFool]

And what exactly defines a "fair share"? At what level of tax would you be satisfied that whomever has paid their fair share?

Well, that's a whole different discussion isn't it? And it's not one you can have on a simple internet message board, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Here is where it becomes a matter of political opinion, and where the conversation takes it biggest divergence, but I don't believe it's at all reasonable for any person to have immense wealth--let's just say one billion dollars for sake of the argument--while there are people living below the poverty line.

Yes, I would forcibly redistribute that wealth via taxation and redistribution. I wouldn't make both groups "equal" in wealth, the billionaire could still be fantastically rich, but there's no reason for someone to have to go hungry to make sure their kids eat while a guy builds an underground clock because he has nothing else to do with his money.

But let's not either of us pretend that this is a simple matter that can be solved here. But it's reasonable to believe that the problem of extreme poverty could be solved. I think we could reasonably assume a group could be formed to determine what the tax scale should be from the poorest American to the richest, where the rich remain rich, and the destitute live above the poverty line.

[AlioTheFool]

And what exactly defines a "fair share"? At what level of tax would you be satisfied that whomever has paid their fair share?

Just FTR, I'm "okay" with what I personally pay in taxes. Obviously, I'd love to pay less, who wouldn't, but I'm okay with paying what I do, under the assumption that the money goes to things like education, police and fire departments, and safe roads. Again, I believe taxes to be a necessary evil for a civilized society.

[Johnny English]

The essential problem is the failure to understand that global wealth is a finite resource. As such, when a greater amount is held by the small number of people at the top, by definition it has to be taken from those elsewhere. Greater poverty is the essential, inevitable and unavoidable consequence of the harbouring of wealth.

[reuben]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/anthony-kennedy-retires/index.html