Biden says no tax increases for incomes under $400k- It's not true.

Your last statement reveals your wrongheaded thinking. In 1776 and prior, a slight majority of Americans viewed themselves as loyalists. You do understand Great Britain was our government. Do you think those Colonists were a "tad paranoid" that would take up arms against their government?

So you can't imagine a scenario where those in power could subvert our Constitution, impress our citizens, and steal our God given Liberties? I'd say packing the court would be one way. Of course taking away our right to bear arms would be a step to the process. We already see our freedom of expression being denied by those that monopolize cyber space. Call me paranoid as were our Founding Fathers but aren't you being Naive? Do we have Liberty through entitlement?

 

The "fix" for this...



... isn't primarily about redoing tax brackets.

You've been suggesting we create money and put it in folks' bank accounts. Where's the debt you're talking about?

So, how do we do this? Give unemployed people money? What about workers braving the virus to teach school, take care of the sick, work in supermarkets, ride transit to a job--do we give them money, too? How does it all work?

Ah, you're going to scapegoat economists. You can get a twofer if you turn the bile on immigrant economists.

The Fed can't guarantee "all necessary payments" (whatever that means).

Greed.

 

Your error is to assume that Biden will implement a tax change by simply repealing the specific tax law that Trump signed. That's not the way tax changes are made. There's no reason why he can't meet the terms he is stating.

 

The 3rd US Infantry regiment has been in regular US Army service since 1784.
And thus, the US did have a standing army during the ratification of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

Nothing here addresses what I said:
You stated:
Gun ownership is not an inalienable right.
It is, however, a fundamental right of the people, specifically protected by the constitution.
Soundly explain the difference between the two - that is, an "inalienable right" and a "fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution".

The 2nd protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms", including whatever you think you mean by your statement, above.

You have not, and can not demonstrate the "obsolescence" of the 2nd.[/quote][/quote]

 

Biden said he will get rid of Trump's tax cuts. The statement is plenary, w/ no exceptions.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-joe-biden-say-he-would-repeal-trump-tax-cuts-1537294

 

Except he has said, MANY times, that a total repeal is what he is planning, and even when specifically asked the question I posed in the beginning of this thread, he had the chance to say what you just did, but did not do so.

 

So it's about returning a greater share of profits from capital back to workers?

How does the orthodox economist do this? (....while ignoring involuntary unemployment of course)

I am talking about workers unable to pay food and rent, because wages have been destroyed by the pandemic. The government can create the money to fund those workers' essential living expenses.

The government takes control of the entire economy during the pandemic, because....guess what.... free markets don't work in a pandemic.

1. Treasury/reserve changes the digits in the bank accounts of unemployed workers, sufficient to allow them to buy essential food items and housing costs/utilities.

2. Workers in essential industries already have an advantage in that they can continue to grow their wealth at the same rate as before the pandemic. Everyone else is 'treading water' as far as personal wealth creation is concerned, during the pandemic.

Orthodox economists are criminals whenever/wherever involuntary unemployment exists, even if it's a case of "forgive them for they know not what they do".....

Explained above (point 1.) .......by taking over the money creation role from private banks, during the pandemic.

Yes, protecting the privileges of private banksters.

 

Yes, they are opinions, not facts, because you seem to be unaware that Biden may perfectly propose the same rate of tax cuts for those who make less than $400,000 and increase the rate for those who make more, provided that it can pass both chambers of Congress. See, it would be a new law. He'd repeal Trump's tax cuts then immediately propose a new law with a tax structure with the exact same cuts for those making less than $400,000, plus the increases for those above this threshold.

Me, I don't care. I make way more than $400,000 so for me Trump is more beneficial (and did save me a lot of money this year), but it didn't stop me from voting for Biden. Unlike Trump, I don't mind paying taxes. I can afford them. I hope they are put to good use if Biden wins.

 

"On June 21, 1788, the Constitution became the official framework of the government of the United States of America when New Hampshire became the ninth of 13 states to ratify it. The journey to ratification, however, was a long and arduous process."

I'll bet it was "a long and arduous process", with 'individual freedom' ideologues running around blocking every attempt to establish an efficient national government. Hence the insane 2nd Amendment in 1791, to protect citizens from their own national government. Quite an expression of national solidarity, there.....

https://www.worldblaze.in/countries... occurred as a result of gun-related violence.

"Apart from the countries listed above, there are other countries such as the United States, Mexico, Swaziland, Uruguay, etc. which have over the years recorded a high rate of crime owing to gun violence. Recent governments have started to recognize the threats caused by the owning of arms and appropriate steps are being taken towards that direction.

Nice company, there....

Yeh..a 'fundamental' (but not inalienable) right introduced into the constitution as a result of paranoia about "oppressive" government.
Geez, you would think a people could create a constitution for a government to provide for the general welfare of the federation, without enabling everyone to maintain muskets in their own homes, given a national standing army.

The 'fundamental' right in this case relates to excessive concern for individual freedom above community well-being, as noted above.

A dangerous 'right', providing for all citizens to be armed in the manner of a "well-regulated militia".

Certainly not to an <individual freedom, survival of the fittest, every man for himself> ideologue, that is true.

 

I do!

Because like me, you did the hard yards (for years, if you're like me and come from the working classes) of being a tight-@ss and working your behind off, so that you could one day make some extra money from investments. Those who don't care about that stuff - presumably because they're rich enough to not need extra money - don't bother. Or perhaps they felt they'd rather do the hard yards later, and have fun now. For every person who chooses not to plan ahead, there's a reason they didn't.

 

I am aware that he COULD make such a proposal. But time and time again he's been given a chance to say so, including a to the point question during one of the debates, and he has flat out refused to do so, leaving me to conclude he has no intention of doing so.

Now, see, I don't get that. The government is taking 35% of your income and you're somehow actually OK with that. And that's JUST federal income taxes, there's a lot more that comes after that. Or to use a different math formula, for every after tax $1.00 you "get to" keep, the government is getting $0.53, again before property taxes, sales taxes, state and local income taxes, your share of "corporate taxes", gas taxes, "sin" taxes, etc., etc..

That just seems straight up immoral to me.

But since you don't seem to have a problem paying the bills of total strangers, how about you take care of mine while you're at it? Just let me know where to send the invoices to.

 

Refreshing to hear your view. And LangleyMan would probably appreciate your view as well.

However, we have a problem; Trump's 'charisma' extends well beyond policy, and in our blind-leading-the-blind*, two-party, adversarial democracies, charisma will win.

(A danger for the globe, owing to Trump's definite 'survival of the fittest' mentality).

* heard on TV, a Trump supporter saying: "if Biden wins, we will all be oppressed like in China"(.... .surely disproving Churchill's comment about democracy.....)

And despite the polls, there is NO WAY I would bet good money on a Biden win....

[That's why I've got my eye on China; in the coming decade, it will be intriguing to see what a highly productive one-party meritocracy can achieve, with its proven and successful five year plans to eradicate poverty AND create billionaires, thus gaining the support of all its citizens. ]

 

You simply can't support so many people to the degree that First Worlders demand (the same standard of living they previously enjoyed). You're talking about potentially hundreds of millions of people. The ONLY way you can save them all is to do it the way more pragmatic nations do it. Absolute basics of survival, and that's it. No $3k a month - just basic shared accommodation wherever it can be found, basic healthy meals, free healthcare. No money, no 'choices or preferences'. If you try to cater to the preferences of so many millions AND pay them $3k a month, you'll go broke in a week - and in so doing ensure that many will starve. It's utterly delusional to even think it possible, much less demand it.

Sh!t always happens, eventually. This year should be a lesson to those who live in capitalist democracies .. make the damned most of that blessing while times are good, because sure as eggs you're going to need it one day. The sane among us have always thought that way (and made choices accordingly), but a huge percentage chose to believe the lies of those invested in the downfall of the middle and working classes, and opted for nil self-determination.

 

We were living in democracies prior to 2020, and so were free to choose whether we worked in 'essential' industries, or not. None of it is mysterious, either .. even less so since the advent of mass communication. As a consequence of our ready access to this kind of information, non-wealthy people are easily able to identify bullet-proof industries. We always know well ahead what kinds of things are on the way in and out, and we even know that large scale challenges (like wars and pandemics) tend to favour specific industries.

 

Of course that's what he'll do. It's the only way to do it. If you haven't realized, Congress needs to initiate any tax bill. He'll submit a proposal, the House will work on it, vote on it, pass it on to the Senate, if it survives it will go to his desk for signature. It will contain a full tax structure with levels of taxation by income, like ALL these laws have. Do you seriously ignore it?

Do you like having roads to go places? Do you like knowing that if there is a gas leak or fire the firemen will show up if you call them? Do you like having schools to send your kids to? Do you like having an agency that stops salmonella outbreaks so that you don't die? Do you like having a thing called National Institutes of Health that is responsible for most grants that make cutting edge research that allows you to have efficient and safe medications to treat all your conditions (and if you are young and healthy, your future conditions)? Do you like having a military to defend us from foreign aggression or terrorism, and a National Guard to assist us in domestic emergencies? Do you like having drinking water in your faucets at home that you can drink safely without getting sick? I could go on and on. If you say yes, then you like taxes because none of this would be possible without them.

See, the taxes are not just paying the bills of total strangers, buddy. They are paying yours, too.

 

China is impressive and the next dominant superpower. Singapore is impressive too (with no such aspirations given the small size) and is under an authoritarian de facto single party for decades (with a recent change).

I still prefer a true multi-party system and actually a parliamentary system.

Our de facto two party system is the worst of the worst as it leads to political paralysis (one party always blocks/undoes what the other party proposes/does).

 

Shows what a one-party authoritarian state can achieve (creating the longest high-speed rail network in the world):

 

He also says that he will repeal The “Trump tax cuts”’. So, either he’s lying or he doesn’t understand what the latest round of tax reforms accomplished.

This is why it’s critical to not allow Democrats to control the congress. If that happens, we’re screwed.

 

I understand completely how bills and spending work in our system, or if not completely, more than 95% of the population. I also realize that Presidents and wanna-be Presidents make promises about things they're "going to do if elected" that they do not have the authority to do without the cooperation of Congress. Biden himself is powerless to make any changes to the Trump tax cuts without a passed bill landing on his desk from them. Same is true for Trump if he wins, plus whomever will come after them, as Trump is term limited out if he wins, and Biden himself has said he won't run for a second term if he does. I'm not convinced that's true, but I'm also not convinced he'll actually live long enough to complete even a first term, but that's a whole other conversation.

Yes. But they should be paid for via a weight/mile tax that is used exclusively for road construction and maintenance, and pays for it completely, without needing funds from other forms of taxation. Which is to say fair user fees based on actual use patterns. Today's technology makes implementing that extremely easily, and there are several ways to do so that I can come up with off the top of my head, and probably even more that I haven't thought about.

But a flat per gallon gas tax doesn't account for actual usage due to differences in fuel efficiency and vehicle weight, and it doesn't fully pay for roads as it is subsidized by other forms of taxation. And a shitload of borrowing.

Again, the answer is obviously yes. But I think responsibility for such things ought to be left to the insurance companies who are the parties that actually suffer the losses when they happen. And you should have the right to opt out, but that means they won't put your burning house fire out, instead they'll just be onsite to protect people who have not chosen to self-insure. And it should be a cooperative effort between all insurance companies in any given market, not company by company, and fully funded through our premiums. That would obviously cause premiums to rise, but it would (or at least SHOULD) cause taxes to lower. But governments get addicted to taxes.

Just look at the insane taxes put on tobacco products, that were originally intended to provide a financial disincentive to smoke, and cause people to quit. But it hasn't really worked that way, and now the government is so addicted to those taxes that if tomorrow every smoker on the planet quit (or let's just say in the US to keep it more topical), governments of all levels would be broke in a week or two, even though that was the stated intent when the over taxation policies started.

That's also the reason government continues to try to kill vaping. It's an excellent way to quit smoking (I myself haven't had a cigarette since 4/29/12 because I switched, and don't think I even could if I tried one now), and from a health perspective is no worse for a vaper than a morning cup of joe. Because of that, they can't extract the same taxes from smokers turned vapers, and they know that. And my costs have been reduced from maybe $500 a month as a smoker to probably about $75 a month as a vaper, most of which is reflective of paying only sales taxes on the product, instead of sales taxes on top of the completely ridiculous "sin taxes" associated with actual tobacco combustion products.

I don't have kids, and I resent like hell the fact that I am paying the costs associated with educating the kids of people I don't even know. If I DID have kids (and I suppose it's not anywhere near biologically too late), I would expect to pay for their expenses out of my own pocket, and not for a moment expect my neighbors to help with the bill.

All of those are Federal expenses, and should be funded by a federal sales tax, user fees where appropriate (say to enter a national park, fish on federal land, or travel via Amtrak, though it would probably be best if those fees were used only to properly fund Amtrak and not for subsidizing other things.), and perhaps tariffs. I'm not a huge fan of tariffs, but at least they provide a disincentive for companies, especially American companies (ahem, Apple, I'm looking at you) to NOT offshore their manufacturing where they can pay 12-year-olds $0.25/day to assemble iPhones. If you use tariffs strategically to make their manufacturing costs the same as they would otherwise be if they were paying prevailing wages to Americans here at home, there would be no reason not to do precisely that.

This is a local issue, and ought to be funded by the water bill you receive every month in the mail. If those bills are not high enough to properly fund the entire system, then they need to go up until they are. But they need to be based on how much water you actually USE, not what your income and/or net worth is. Again, user fees.

So could I, but I think my point is made.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be that way, as I explained with multiple examples above. In fact, I'll give you another example of something you didn't bring up- garbage collection. For some reason, where I live, that's built into your property taxes. But there's no reason for that to be that way. Rather, they could send you a monthly bill to pick up your garbage like every other utility you use. And with our current technologies, it could actually be based on the weight of your refuse, which is more fair to someone who has very little compared to a flat rate for everyone. And here is the important part- You have the option to opt out, as long as you can find an alternative way to dispose of your garbage without turning your home into a landfill. If someone was really smart about it, they may be able to completely zero out their bill, if they combine it with aggressive recycling practices that actually pay THEM, thus offsetting the price of non-recyclable garbage. I'm not saying that would be easy, or even possible for most people, but at least doing it that way gives the consumer the right to choose, rather than paying for a service they may not want or need.

Your turn...

 

It's also about increasing worker leverage in salary negotiations (for example, repeal right-to-work laws); improving worker skills; tougher regulation of business labor practices.

How much? Who gets it for how long? How do you maintain stable prices?

This is a really bad idea.

How much?

Another really bad idea.

Criminals? Egads. It's like you're going to break out into a "Lock him/her up" chant.

Hoooohhh-Kaayyyyyy....

You seem more like a socialist than anything else.

 

Exactly. Needs saying.

 

None of this change the fact the US had a standing army during the ratification of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment
This nullifies your claim to the contrary and dismantles that aspect of your argument for the "obsolescence" of the 2nd Amendment

And thus, your admission that you cannot meet the challenge put to you and demonstrate the difference between an inalienable right and a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution, a
As such, your claim that the right to keep and bear arm is not an inalienable right holds no water.

So, again:
At this point its clear - you're long on regurgitation, and vacant on understanding -- while you can repeat your dogma over and over you do not understand it well enough to address valid points made against it.
Someone has made you into a good little monkey, and you;re happy to be in their service.


And I thank you for making ti clear I need waste no more time on you.

 

I had enough money when I was young (no one gave me a dime, btw) that I didn't have to work, so I cashed out and decided to teach school.

There's something wrong with me making more in one day in the market than a worker makes working full-time for a year.

 

Biden will give those folks an even bigger permanent tax cut to replace Trump smaller temporary tax cut

 

Biden has been quite clear in promising not to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year. If he's lying, he'll pay a huge political price.