If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

just don't get how you can consider fed tax cuts OK while ignoring spending

Gorsuch i'd have to hear his position on something controversial. He had Mattis and Tillerson ( from what I could tell) and that was it. Everything else seemed to be an absolute garbage hire.

 

[Dak]

just don't get how you can consider fed tax cuts OK while ignoring spending

Well there is apparently zero political will on either side of the aisle to address rampant spending, so I can't lay that on Trump. We're stuck with continued inflation regardless.

Gorsuch i'd have to hear his position on something controversial. He had Mattis and Tillerson ( from what I could tell) and that was it. Everything else seemed to be an absolute garbage hire.

The important positions had solid or stellar appointments. Hamstringing the DoEducation and the EPA aren't exactly a bad thing in my mind. It's two steps removed from eliminating them (fucking half measures), which would definitely be preferable but likely politically impossible. But then, that's supposedly what moving the US Israeli embassy was, but it's already just about fallen out of the newscycle.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

French author claims feminists want 'contract before sex'

She said several victims, including Samantha Geimer, who was raped by film director Roman Polanski when she was 13, have since signed their letter warning it had gone too far.

Geimer said she "agreed entirely" with Deneuve and the other signatories, tweeting that "women need equality, respect and sexual freedom.

"We get that by standing up for ourselves and each other. Not by asking others to protect us and define what is 'allowed' for ladies," said the Hawaii-based writer, who wants the charges against Polanski to be dropped so she can get on with her life.

She said #MeToo was being "used against men rather than for women... to glamorize victimhood rather than to show recovery and strength."

 

[Dak]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. That’s according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income.

It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients.

The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.

The rest of the article talks about how various other elite and liberal policies contribute to poverty, to include land use restrictions and environmental regulations.

 

[Einherjar86]

You know what else contributes to poverty? Taxing poor people more heavily than wealthy people.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You know what else contributes to poverty? Taxing poor people more heavily than wealthy people.

Good thing we have a progressive tax policy then.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

The rest of the article talks about how various other elite and liberal policies contribute to poverty, to include land use restrictions and environmental regulations.

tbh there are important considerations not mentioned including

1) Free travel between states meaning welfare acts as a magnet for the poor of other states, something well-known to occur when other states bus their homeless to California
2) Illegals moving to California are often funneled into sub-minimum wage jobs; that is their purpose to big-business
3) Same illegals are still less poor living in California than in their Latin American shitholes

Also, welfare states have significantly reduced poverty in much of Western and Northern Europe.

 

[Dak]

Also, welfare states have significantly reduced poverty in much of Western and Northern Europe.

Well, it's definitely arguable it was in spite of the welfare. Something about homogeneous populations too.

 

[arg]

You know what else contributes to poverty? Taxing poor people more heavily than wealthy people.

That’s fucking dumb coming from you. Poor people pay nothing, they get checks that came out of rich and middle class people’s salaries.

What claim do they have on our wealth? What did they do to deserve it? Exist, breathe and shit? Fuck them and fuck lefties

 

[arg]

Would I get mad if I pay $2000 less tax while a rich guy pays $2000000 less? No! That’s his money and he gets to keep more of it! I’m not an entitled envious lefty like you

 

[Einherjar86]

Good thing we have a progressive tax policy then.

The Republican tax plan is "progressive"? Please.

That’s fucking dumb coming from you. Poor people pay nothing, they get checks that came out of rich and middle class people’s salaries.

I never quote you because you're predictably insane; but you should do your research about the Republican tax bill.

 

[Matt]

I got a $1500 one time bonus from my employer because of the tax bill (it ended up being around 800 after taxes). I work for a fortune 500 company that is going to save billions because of the bill which they're probably going to use on stock buybacks and dividends. But Republicans think that a small one time payoff is worth increasing the deficit in a huge way. Yeah okay.

 

[Matt]

That’s fucking dumb coming from you. Poor people pay nothing, they get checks that came out of rich and middle class people’s salaries.

What claim do they have on our wealth? What did they do to deserve it? Exist, breathe and shit? Fuck them and fuck lefties

What are these so called 'checks' the poor receive? Last year I was incredibly broke and practically homeless, and I couldn't get a damn thing besides food stamps which amounted to like 90 bucks per month.

 

[CiG]

Holy shit welcome back.

Oh and Arg thinks he lives in a social democracy rather than America. American welfare sounds bare-bones.

 

[arg]

The Republican tax plan is "progressive"? Please.



I never quote you because you're predictably insane; but you should do your research about the Republican tax bill.

So lefties want the middle class to pay 10% tax and the rich to pay 70% tax, is that right?

How is that fair?

I think 19% for the middle to 29% for the rich is fair. Then cut the military, social programs and foreign aid.

I got a $1500 one time bonus from my employer because of the tax bill (it ended up being around 800 after taxes). I work for a fortune 500 company that is going to save billions because of the bill which they're probably going to use on stock buybacks and dividends. But Republicans think that a small one time payoff is worth increasing the deficit in a huge way. Yeah okay.

You should be happy with your bonus and happy your employer saves money that may allow them to keep your ass hired. Did you donate your check to a black baby momma?

What are these so called 'checks' the poor receive? Last year I was incredibly broke and practically homeless, and I couldn't get a damn thing besides food stamps which amounted to like 90 bucks per month.

Good. You haven’t learned to scam the system. You must have gotten a check when you filed taxes. I hope it was small

Holy shit welcome back.

Oh and Arg thinks he lives in a social democracy rather than America. American welfare sounds bare-bones.

The fuck? It should be barer bones such that they’re almost dead and can’t reproduce. You want welfare recipients to get more?

 

[Dak]

The Republican tax plan is "progressive"? Please.

A married couple with 2 children, under the poverty line (24,600 in 2018) will pay increased, negative taxes once you include the (increased) child tax credit. The entire tax bracket is still progressive, as in rich persons pay more than poor persons. The biggest tax breaks are on business/investment, which will encourage business/investment. Other countries have already taken note:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/business/tax-bill-global-profits.html

It all starts with the corporate tax rate.

The new rate — down to 21 percent, from 35 percent — takes the United States from the top of the global tax spectrum to the lower end. Countries like Australia, France, Germany and Japan, all of which have effective corporate tax rates of at least 30 percent, will be under pressure to follow.

“It’s a huge incentive to governments around the world who want to see more investment to be part of that,” said Andrew Mackenzie, the chief executive of the mining giant BHP, which has its headquarters in Australia and major operations in North and South America. “They will have to follow suit.”

Corporate rates were already on a downward trajectory. Many countries have used low taxes as an advantage over the United States, which offers a huge domestic market, plentiful venture capital and relatively light workplace regulation.

“There will be pressure for a new round of lowering corporate taxes,” said Stefano Micossi, the director general of Assonime, an Italian association of publicly listed companies.

China, a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s over its trade practices, may also be forced to play the tax game.

It's funny Matt is suddenly concerned about the deficit. Liberals are never concerned about the deficit when it comes to increasing spending (military excluded), only when reducing taxation.

 

[CiG]

The fuck? It should be barer bones such that they’re almost dead and can’t reproduce. You want welfare recipients to get more?

Not in Australia no, I like where we're at here though some cuts wouldn't hurt.

 

[Einherjar86]

A married couple with 2 children, under the poverty line (24,600 in 2018) will pay increased, negative taxes once you include the (increased) child tax credit. The entire tax bracket is still progressive, as in rich persons pay more than poor persons. The biggest tax breaks are on business/investment, which will encourage business/investment. Other countries have already taken note:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/business/tax-bill-global-profits.html



It's funny Matt is suddenly concerned about the deficit. Liberals are never concerned about the deficit when it comes to increasing spending (military excluded), only when reducing taxation.

Do poor people get a tax break under the new plan? Yes they do, on paper; but you're delusional if you think that constitutes the extent of the tax plan, or if you think poor people are getting a better deal than the wealthy.

In the long run, the deficit will spike and monies for lower-income families (in the form of various programs) will be the first thing to go. The tax breaks for the wealthy are far greater than the tax cuts for the poor, and the Republicans have already said that programs to aid lower-income families will be cut. This isn't "progressive," it's practically draconian.

So lefties want the middle class to pay 10% tax and the rich to pay 70% tax, is that right?

How is that fair?

It's about what someone can survive on versus what someone can't. You think that economic prosperity syncs up with some kind of innate aptitude for survival and that poverty warrants nonexistence, making you the worst kind of social Darwinist. This is why I usually ignore you. All your comments boil down to "but it's not fair for rich people!" Fuck off.

 

[Dak]

Do poor people get a tax break under the new plan? Yes they do, on paper; but you're delusional if you think that constitutes the extent of the tax plan, or if you think poor people are getting a better deal than the wealthy.

When you already pay little to no income tax, in comparison with those who were paying a lot, of course across-the-board reductions are going to aid those who were being affected the most. You can't cut nothing (but the working poor will receive a larger return). The middle class will in fact be helped the most though, because 2% of $50k, although less in total dollars, is more economically impactful for persons in that strata, in addition to affecting more people.

The bigger break, again, for the middle class and to a greater degree, the wealthy, is related to stockmarket gains due to increased business investment.

In the long run, the deficit will spike and monies for lower-income families (in the form of various programs) will be the first thing to go...... This isn't "progressive," it's practically draconian.

The deficit and the debt have been out of control for decades, and sure attempts to handle it through inflation are likely to have the worst impact across the board, as opposed to potential program cuts. The estimated increase in the deficit from the CBO is 1.4 trillion combined across ten years, which is to say 1.4 trillion more added to the national debt in addition to what would already be added.

The US added that much in only 1 year in 2009, 1.2 in 2010, 1.3 in 2011, and 1.1 in 2012. I think the deficit concerns over ten years over tax cuts for everyone, rather than absurd bailouts for banks and bridges to nowhere, are overblown. If cuts have to occur to programs, those seeds have been sown persistently under every President but Clinton's second term for the last 90+ years, and most egregiously under the Obama administration. A projected ~5% increase in the deficit per year isn't going to be the sudden cause for cuts.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

 

[Einherjar86]

The bigger break, again, for the middle class and to a greater degree, the wealthy, is related to stockmarket gains due to increased business investment.

I don't care what it's related to. I'm not sure you understand that this is almost meaningless in this conversation.

You're basically just saying that because the wealthy have earned more they get a bigger tax break. This is a hopelessly tautological point, and speaks little to the actual concern, which is that the Republicans are targeting programs that will make it harder for poor people to get by while also giving them a minimal tax break to soften the blow.

As I've already said, the point has to do with what people can manage to survive on and live a life that isn't absolutely miserable. Even with this break, poor families have practically nothing left to invest when needs are met. The super wealthy don't need the tax cut they're getting; in fact, they can still reinvest and grow their companies with a much smaller tax break. They've been doing it already. This isn't a project to grow businesses and expand industry for everyone, it's a thank-you to Republican donors. You're apologizing for politics at its most vile. It's pretty funny that you think this is some kind of move in the direction of individual liberty via market freedom.

The deficit and the debt have been out of control for decades, and sure attempts to handle it through inflation are likely to have the worst impact across the board, as opposed to potential program cuts. The estimated increase in the deficit from the CBO is 1.4 trillion combined across ten years, which is to say 1.4 trillion more added to the national debt in addition to what would already be added.

The US added that much in only 1 year in 2009, 1.2 in 2010, 1.3 in 2011, and 1.1 in 2012. I think the deficit concerns over ten years over tax cuts for everyone, rather than absurd bailouts for banks and bridges to nowhere, are overblown. If cuts have to occur to programs, those seeds have been sown persistently under every President but Clinton's second term for the last 90+ years, and most egregiously under the Obama administration. A projected ~5% increase in the deficit per year isn't going to be the sudden cause for cuts.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Now you're just apologizing for a shitty plan by backpedaling to lob criticism as past presidents. I think you like this plan mainly because lower-income families are being told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps while the Republicans are taking away all their boots.