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

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by DentalFloss, Oct 13, 2020.

  1. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope so. We need to take a number of steps to fix this...

    33772D06-F3D1-4500-8C00-EB74F8C73F9D.jpeg
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  2. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fact. Repealing the Trump Tax Cuts would result in a huge tax increase on the middle and working class.
     
  3. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you honestly believe that?
     
  4. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if he has the votes in congress... absolutely, if not then Republican may be able to stop him
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  5. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He’s only proposed tax increases. Democrat presidents don’t deliver tax cuts. There are times they promise tax cuts, but once they get in office they say “I’ve never worked harder in my life to find the money to cut your taxes, but it’s not there”. Then we get an increase in our federal income tax rate.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020
  6. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You guys are clutching at straws. He made it clear he won't raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  7. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And he's also said he won't raise taxes on people making <$400K. I see no reason why he'd renege on that - it would be extremely politically damaging, and it would be unnecessary.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  8. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sure they do, just not tax cuts for the rich, but the right always demands tax cuts for the rich or they won't agree to a tax cut for the working class
     
  9. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When has a Democrat president combined with a Democrat congress ever cut taxes on the middle and working classes?
     
  10. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He said that he'll repeal the Trump tax cuts. That would raise taxes on the middle class.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No because your argument still relies on "the general welfare" for the citizens.

    Federal highways are included in postal roads and make up a mere fraction most are state and local which have nothing to do with the Constitution.


    Yours has no meaning at all in the Constitution especially where it explains how the Federal Government, the United States, will be able to maintain it's welfare and pays debts and obligation.
    Surely you don't believe the United States so suppose to or has an obligationt to pay the debts of the citizens.

    There is a constitutional right for than now does the government have an obligation to proved that gun to the citizens?

    A distinction without merit and pursuit of happiness includes property and a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, a basic right and mentioned twice in the Constitution protecting it so you claims it is not a right are specious.

    Our justice here is far different from justice in Cuba or China or NK or Russia, you know exactly what I mean by our system of justice.


    More so than any other but we can't force people can we?

    I told you I don't care about theories of reptiles, I care about reality in our economic systems and our rights and liberties.

    It can enforce contracts and business law and other laws as we as a society deem it should and that includes protecting the rights we are born with including the right to free speech, to self defense, to our own religious/philosphoical beliefs, to be secure with our property and papers, to be secure in having our peers judge us in grand juries for felony and capital crimes and a right to jury trial and habious corpus and from cruel and unusual punish.

    You DON'T have a right to your personal success that's up for you to achieve and no better place to do than here under an as free as possible market in a capitalistic system including as much competition as possible.




    It's not me and your loss


    You think socialism is? How about the ruling class in China, the former USSR, NK, the former Eastern Europe countries? How'd that do unto others thing work out?

    In a free market competitive capitalistic society it is the best self interest to provide the products and services your customers demand at the level of quality and service they demand and the best price you can offer. If you don't someone else will and take your business. Business 101. It is in the consumers best self interest to seek out the products of higher quality and the best price and in our competitive market we get lots of choices and the best rise to the top and the worst fade away. Not in a socialist centrally planned government, they always fail.


    Stop with the psychoanalyzing for which you are totally unqualified and in particular about ME. It refutes nothing.

    No he knew that but he thought that should be at the favor of higher party officials and not by the person's own abilities and drives.


    Yet he never learned that people to that best when they do it in THEIR own self interest and not the government.


    He brought BOTH down including the LFPR. Full employment is considered between 4.5% and 6% depending on which economist you talk too. There is always some because of people changing jobs voluntarily, just entering the workforce and business closings. Now if you want to go to a system where the government tells you where you will work and your are required to work there for the pay they set you might on paper do a little better, but do you want to live in that society?

    And minorities and lower class did better than anyone. AND wages were rising because at those low rates labor becomes more competitive in the free market.

    No the requirements are better than and hours worked were as good as they had every been. We had GLUT of jobs, over 7,000,000 going unfilled along with that record low unemployment and why the LFPR was growing again and wages and salaries were rising.

    Obama and Biden tried the government as the answer to the 2008 recession and recovery. They promised their HUGE stimulus would keep unemployment to just 8% and then a rapid fall. At the same time increasing taxes and business regulation and announcing they would be taking over a HUGE chunk of the economy with their healthcare plan. The results were a disaster and unemployment soared to 10% and stayed over 8% for the next three years.

    Why would you want a repeat of that?


    I make no distinction and guaranteed by statute, it has no bearing here.


    Again you're making a specious argument, they are GUARANTIED rights that yes come under the Preambles inalienable rights, the Bill of RIGHTS protects those rights and insure government must pass laws complying with them and not stepping on them.

    So you are saying government has an obligation to provide us the means to enact our rights? And where does the Constitution say that abortion is a inalienable right but free speech isn't, right to self defense isn't?

    If they are willing.


    Can and should are two different matters and what successful economy has done so? What country has just continued to inflate it's economy in order to pay for these things and NOT wrecked their economy?


    We need as LITTLE public sector as is need to run the PROPER functions of the government, that's all.

    See above it WAS being repaired until COVID.

    Social amenity needs to be taken into account. You keep saying how or economic system and government system don't work for us, how has it not worked for you?


    Free will, I am diabetic and it is genetic and lifestyle, as I said elsewhere our poor eat themselves to death and many because they are too lazy to purchase raw healthy foods and prepare them themselves. How did it work for the USSR and China and NK in their central planning of food?

    Yeah he turned fascist. And there was a HUGE gap in the government class and the people,

    So you are saying Fascist/Socialist/Communist is the better system. Where has that born out?

    There's other systems, alternatives to ours, they are all just much worse for human society


    Oh yeah those legitimate elections in Venezuela....:roflol:



    Not when we can enforce better trade deals and no I don't take Chinese economic reports simply on their face nor would EVER trade living here with living in China and under that system.
     
  12. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, we've established that your opposition to Biden, calling him a liar, etc., and implying that it is impossible to repeal the Trump tax code without increasing taxes to people who make less than $400,000 wasn't very well thought of... as you now acknowledge that the process is the usual one and can PERFECTLY accomplish what Biden has indicated he will propose. By the way, after we exchanged these posts, in a campaign stop he explained in detail that this is exactly what he intends to do. Anyway, I think we've dealt with it. It could be /thread.
    -----------
    But you brought up a number of ideas about replacement ways to deal with taxes. Some of them are ingenuous, some are far-fetched, some are feasible, some are too complicated. Sorry, I won't go through the trouble of analyzing one by one. But I'll say this: if we were to look into every single way to engage in all of the above without having taxes, we'd simply make a monstrous 100-headed snake that would be extremely complicated and people would most likely end up paying more, not less. I introduced examples that touched several taxes, federal, state, municipal, property (as in, funding local schools, etc.) exactly to show you how pervasive they are.

    Not only that, but you have forgotten in your examples, the highest expenses of them all, which I did mention but you didn't comment on.

    You are for quantifying exactly how much someone uses a road, or the weight of someone's garbage, etc., for fair taxes or self-funded invoices. But what about the less tangible, more diffuse needs that benefit society as a whole? How do you plan to fund the military in your system? Say, if a terrorist attack hits your city (like NYC on 9/11), then the inhabitants of your city pay a higher amount to send out soldiers to Afghanistan to chase the masterminds of the terrorists who did it, while citizens who live in an area that hasn't been attacked pay nothing? How much do you think is YOUR fair share for the defense of the homeland? So, the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor. Should only the inhabitants of Hawaii pay taxes to fund the military that fought back?

    Similarly, how do you fund medical research, like I mentioned in regards to the National Institutes of Health, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Food and Drug Administration? Should healthy people pay no share of taxes to fund these things and only the sick should be burdened? But wait, how do you know a healthy person who doesn't contribute to this, won't need it in the future???

    And then, there are other aspects too. You say, you don't have kids, so you resent that part of your taxes goes to schools. I can't believe how short-sighed this is. Look, you live in a complex society. Say, there aren't good schools around because they are insufficiently funded since people without kids don't contribute. Great, then, youth gets idle, turns to drugs and crime and next thing, crime is rampant in your neighborhood (hey, don't call the cops, they are tax-funded, too). People don't get educated, and do not get to prop up American innovation and creativity. American companies then lose competitive edge regarding those in other countries. Companies struggle to hire qualified people. The economy goes down (which will affect you, too). We don't educate the future doctors, engineers, IT experts, scientists, etc., that we need for our physical and economic health and quality of life. Great, just great. Since you don't have kids you couldn't care less, but you don't realize how a well-educated population results in gains for everybody.

    Also, you are mixing up maintenance of infrastructure with building the infrastructure. Sure, we can measure highway use and make taxation fairer this way, which in a way is already done through toll roads. But if you were to actually rely on this to BUILD the American highway system, that would be grossly insufficient. Then again, how would you measure it?

    You'd say, "I don't own a car so I don't want to pay zip towards the construction of highways." Beautiful but what if in the future, you decided to buy a car once the highway has already been built? Wouldn't you be unfairly partaking in what other people paid for, while you haven't contributed to it? And what if you simply want to hop on a Greyhound bus and go visit a friend in another city? Well, you're using that highway that you didn't help paying for (and even if you say your bus ticket could have a share of it destined to pay for circulation on that road, you still didn't pay to build it). And have you stopped to think that if you order something online, it's delivered to your home by a truck that travels on that highway? That the grocery you get to cook your food has also travelled through it?

    Sorry, buddy, but all this libertarian, survivalist mentality is old news, and people who think like you, often do not think through it deep enough to realize all the aspects of the problem, which aren't so apparent at first.

    No, we live in a complex society, interdependent in its various sectors, and we just can't make it work without us all tipping in. By the way, that's a concept that exists everywhere in all countries, because that's how a society works.

    If you want to exist without paying taxes, then go to some survivalist bunker off the grid and be entirely self-sufficient, harvesting your own food and building up your own solar panel energy or something, and capturing rain water (although you'd still need raw materials that travel through roads, etc.). Now God forbid if you get a case of excruciating tooth ache. Don't leave your bunker to go see a dentist, because you'd have to travel on roads to get to the dentist's office; the dentist needs the electricity to power his drill to work on your tooth, and the dentist graduated from the schools you don't want to contribute to. So I recommend that you just get a plier and roughly extract the tooth yourself, without leaving your bunker (oh wait, the factory that made the plier also purchased materials that came through roads, used electricity to power the machinery that made the plier etc., so, forget about it, just let your tooth rotten and fall off on its own after 3 months of unbearable pain). Uh oh, if instead of a tooth ache you get a bad and painful cancer, then you're in more trouble... you didn't want to pay taxes to fund the research that found how to cure or at least control your particular kind of cancer, huh?
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    democrats do all the time, when have republicans passed a middle class tax cut without the rich getting a huge tax cut
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  14. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK. But your graph proves the political process has not been able to deal with flat-lining workers wages in the last four decades.

    A problem with the political system?

    In my book it's a problem with the economic system....

    1. Sufficient for a basic healthy diet.

    2. Those (non-essential) unemployed, for the duration of the pandemic.

    3. By limiting non-essential consumption for the entire population.

    To a free marketeer, who places ideology above life.

    The 'dismal science' does have some criminal characteristics as preached by orthodox economists; in a world of plenty (in normal times) NO-ONE need exist without above-poverty employment.

    I'm proud to promote Bernie Sanders' concept of "an economy that works for all".
     
  15. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. ... Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government."

    Citizens don't need muskets to protect themselves from their own government. They need to exercise their right to vote.

    Nor do they need muskets to protect themselves from their own neighbours. They need to institute just economic arrangements.

    Rejected above.

    Mere assertion.


    You have no insight into the basal ganglia's influence on the cortex's ability to analyze, like all survival-of-the-fittest ideologues (or believers in protection by possession of the biggest gun...a reflection of the evolutionary 'arms race' seen in the animal kingdom eg those out-sized deer antlers)
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already conceded your understanding of the term "general welfare", as it is written in the US constitution.

    My point is a constitution ALSO needs to provide for an economy that works for all.

    and railways, airports I hope...and civil rights, which took 200 years to achieve, given states-rights opposition.

    The US ought to have been able to prevent the development of ghettos: ("You are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones...")

    Misplaced priorities. Get rid of the ghettos, via an economy that works for all, then you won't need guns.


    Fortunately it IS possible to rent and pursue happiness, though no doubt most would RATHER own.

    Your system of justice? You mean the 'justice' that tolerates the existence of ghettos?

    An economy that works for all does not require force, it requires intelligence and planning.

    But you can't care about the latter without being aware of the influence of the basal ganglia on the cortex.

    [Note: "Our" in the sense that Thomas Paine would have recognized: "The world is my country, all men are my brethren, to do good is my religion"].

    Note the underlined; Paine would not be pleased with your "own philosophical beliefs" that merely reinforce a reptilian, survival-of-the-fittest mentality.

    Mere obsolete classical economic ideology.

    That old supply-sider Friedman? No thanks.

    TINA? Note, China has adopted positive aspects of free markets, while maintaining socialist ideals of prosperity for all.
    This year will see the elimination of poverty in China. The next decade with its upcoming 5-year plans will prove very interesting...

    Meanwhile the US with its two party system will waste time reversing the policies of the last party in power.....

    More TINA fallacy. China has introduced free markets.

    The basal ganglia explains the human condition.

    Marx knew that self-interest alone will never create an economy that works for all.

    Note the underlined. Add on U6 plus hidden unemployed (in variable LFPR) and we always have >10% full time equivalent unemployment, fodder for the ghettos.
    I want to live in a society with an economy that that works for all.

    Yet the ghettos remain, you CAN bulldoze them, China can show you how; and meanwhile workers wages continued to flat-line (as shown in LangleyMan's chart).

    And yet as I said, real unemployment (full-time equivalent) was greater than 10%. (Were those jobs for computer programmers?)

    And the next three years achieved the higher growth that set up the growth continuing in Trump's three years pre-pandemic. Of course YOUR policy for dealing with the GFC - keep the government out - would have made the GD look like a picnic....and with GM gone forever...)

    ...self interested basal ganglia influencing cortex......inalienable rights differ from derived rights.

    Government is required to institute rule of law, establish justice, yes.

    ...notice the appeal to YOUR rights, again....as opposed to the inalienable rights of all.

    It doesn't, and it isn't; I'm just pointing out the implications of denial of abortion to a woman, depending on her financial circumstances.

    Unlike inalienable rights, these need qualification, bearing in mind the principle of harm minimization.

    "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"; don't load too many burdens like existing poverty and entrenched/systemic disadvantage onto people.

    TINA? Surely not, in a world of plenty....

    Neoliberal ideology. Btw, we may in fact need the IMF to buy the fossil industry, forget the FED.......let's see if the climate science is correct...

    Discussed above. It has worked for me, because I had a secure job all my working life, and avoided the junk-consumer aspect of the economy like the plague...

    Genetic? Mostly an avoidable disease for the general population.

    Unfortunately the Chinese have adopted the junk-food franchises of the West. Hopefully their public education system will waylay too much damage, going forward.

    He promoted healthy-life choices (to breed a superior Aryan race...) and built national autobahns enjoyed by everyone.

    "The German people had suffered terribly during both the First World War and the Depression and a huge part of the Nazis’ appeal was that they promised to make Germany’s economy strong again. Hitler aimed for full employment and by 1939 there was virtually no official unemployment in Germany. "


    TINA fallacy.

    https://www.britannica.com/place/Venezuela/The-Hugo-Chavez-presidency

    The Hugo Chávez presidency
    "By the 1998 elections more than half the Venezuelan populace was below the poverty line, while annual inflation exceeded 30 percent and oil prices were in steep decline. The voters rejected the traditional political parties of Democratic Action and COPEI and elected Chávez as president. "

    Your "traditional politics" didn't do too good, that's why Chavez got elected in the first place.

    (..a bit similar to why Hillary was beaten by Trump in 2016); the Dems under Obama proved a disappointment for the casualties of the "rust belt", and those in the ghettos).

    You of course are not living in a "rust belt" or an inner city ghetto, which neither Biden - nor Trump in his three years - dealt with when they were in office.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  17. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The political system controls the economic system.
    You would wreck the economy
    No, it's a bad idea. I take no backseat to you about caring--I taught school for more than three decades when I already had enough money that I didn't need to work.
    That's fine, but many of his ideas are unworkable.
     
  19. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well either way we have a systemic problem; take your pick.

    The TINA fallacy.

    It's easy for those like us who have a job/are comfortable, to pontificate about "caring", and then fail to implement real full employment as if its against a law of nature or religion or ...whatever.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  20. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can't back away from your insult?
     
  21. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but I think that's taking his words too literally. If you want scare me out of voting for Biden, you're going to have to do better than that.
     
  22. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I take him for his word when it comes to advocating tax increases. He clearly said that he would repeal the Trump tax cuts. They would mean a substantial tax increase on the middle class
     
  23. Tahuyaman

    Tahuyaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    12,905
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just watched a Biden rally. It was demoralizing and depressing. It was nothing but doom, gloom and despair.

    He has no idea how to instill confidence and optimism in the future. You leave a Biden rally thinking, what’s the pint in going on. There’s no hope for the future.

    I’m wondering if some commit suicide after attending a Biden rally.
     
  24. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Economic orthodoxy is worthy of insult.

    First principles.

    1. There is no shortage of resources and productive capacity that would preclude implementation of above-poverty employment for all able-bodied working-age citizens.

    Therefore you can stick your inflation BS where the sun doesn't shine.

    2. Free markets need to be regulated on behalf of the public welfare.

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=46226&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+economicoutlook/FYvo+(billy+blog%9

    Given we are in the midst of a dangerous pandemic, which has really undermined our societies, the study published in – Public Health Research and Practice (September 25, 2019) – The revolving door between government and the alcohol food and gambling industries in Australia – was rather prescient.

    The paper was interested in studying:

    … the ‘revolving door’ phenomenon, whereby individuals move between positions in government and positions in the Australian alcohol, food and gambling industries.

    While we need “strong, evidence-based public health policy”....... it become obvious that that need “runs counter to the interests of companies in the alcohol, food and gambling industries”, and those industries are continually trying to distort policy to advance their own interests, even if that compromises the general well-being of society.

    That is the nature of capitalism".

    "For years, we have been assailed by spivs (politicians, corporate lobbyists, etc) telling us that privatization, outsourcing, public-private partnerships and deregulation (the self-regulation myth) would transfer decision-making to market-disciplined corporations who would deliver the best service at the lowest cost".

    And Biden will be useless in dealing with it.

    As for Trump, he will be forced to subsidize American workers (like US farmers at present, whose markets in China Trump has destroyed), in his futile attempt to maintain US global hegemony.....
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  25. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You suffering from short term memory loss?

    That has already been explained to you.

    {even allowing for the fact that Conservatives generally can't read the spirit of the word, only the letter.....)
     

Share This Page