• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Trump vs. Bernie

Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
The effective tax rate in Illinois is one of the highest in the nation if you include property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. Meanwhile, population is declining because the tax environment doesn't support job creation. This all leads to lower housing values - and higher taxes because there are fewer people to tax.

Study: Illinois state tax burden ‘least-friendly’ in nation

So sure. Increase taxes more. That will fix things.

Hmmm, you're obscuring things a bit. Yes, it is high for lower income people, and that's because when everything is added together, it's actually a regressive tax. Either you don't know what the Fair Tax is or you are being purposefully misleading.

From Fair Tax Now! (SEIU):


A minimum wage worker shouldn’t have to pay more taxes than a millionaire. In Illinois, when factoring in all local, state, and federal taxes a minimum wage worker actually PAY MORE as a percentage of his or her income than a millionaire.

Currently, everyone in Illinois pays the same income tax rate, regardless of their income. This is fundamentally unfair because when other taxes such as sales taxes are added, middle and working-class families pay significantly more in taxes as a percent of their income than the wealthy.

Illinois ranks as the eighth-most-regressive taxing state in the nation, meaning it is among the worst offenders of state tax systems that make incomes more unequal after taxes than before.

I've seen the math on this, and it's correct.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
I'm not advocating it. How about increasing the capital gains tax to that of normal income? It might be a lot more effective than a wealth tax and might generate a lot more revenue.

How much money do you think the government wastes? How much inefficiency do you think there is? Ever work with a government agency?


A wealth tax needs to happen. Not just because of the economic disparity it causes and the fact that it is a major reason why poverty is so rampant in this country (which effects everyone, negatively), but because the extremely wealthy hold far too much authority, social power, sway, and ultimately are able to get away with white collar (and sometimes) regular crime far too easily. Our government regulations on who can influence what and to what effect is far too weak, and because the government is filled with far too many people that bow to it in one way or another. We can't change our politicans quickly enough, so its regulation that needs to change. Overturn citizens united is one of the first major things that needs to happen. Lobbying as a practice needs to either be heavily regulated and monitored with significant public transparency, or be abolished entirely. While it would be great if current politicans were honest and responsible, too few aren't, either by ignorance or authoritarian values. Unless stuff changes changes, nothing in politics will globally change.

You also seem to come from the standpoint that governance and government can't change. Our current system is broken because it relies far too heavily on hand-shake style agreements and rules. So much in government is archaic and maintained simply because it's a tradition and been done for decades or centuries, without any consideration into modern contexts with how much more we know. It's currently largely an honor system when it comes to influence, and it's far too easily exploited. If we simply changed our economic style from trickle down to bubble up (just an example) with the current legal systems and people we have, the corruption would simply shift from the private sphere to the public sphere. If we want trickle down economics to work, we would need wide sweeping regulatory oversight over all kinds of organizations that in current form would be crippled. So, to answer your question, there is a shitton of archaic inefficiency and waste, so it needs to change significantly. Republicans won't do it because the current party is fascist, democrats won't do it as a bulk because they simply like to maintain the illusion of function (and a large portion of the party is firmly right wing, which opposes regulation) and cling far too strongly to tradition and very slow change (which opens them up to GOP exploitation). However, there is an increasing number of democrats who actually have identified the problems we face and will work to overhaul our government over the ensuing years and generations. In order for them to do that, the opaque money and corporate interests need to be taken out of politics.

One of my largest concerns with bernie if he wins is if the private sphere covertly tanks everything in protest; "if I can't have my way... then no one can have their way!". Corporations have a vested interest in keeping the economic system as it currently is, and emotional immaturity is RIFE at the C-suite level. At this point though, we have no choice but to try. If just for the fact that him and Warren are the only people we got at the moment to actually make the needed changes. I should be clear, I like them for a lot of reasons, but I don't think either of them will acomplish nearly as much as they claim to aim for. Despite supporting him, I find the rabid fandom of him to be nauseating at times, but I also sour to fandom in general. These things will take years and generations of persistence, and it's going to be bumpy for a while, but at this point we have to.

Also, we all need to be realistic. There IS going to be an economic downswing, the quality of life for a lot of people is going to have to take a hit, but it's certiainly not going to send people into ruin as we change. We're pretty much at peak global productivity and growth. It can't go on forever, particularly now that climate change needs to be dealt with. All of us are going to have to make a sacrifice in some way or another, but those who are at the bottom need support, because if they fall any further it means misery or death.

And yes, all of us have worked with government agencies in adulthood. A lot of them suck, but they can be improved. I'd rather deal with that though instead of corporate overloads.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
When you are prepared to respond to a post with anything relevant to mine, send me a memo.

I was wondering if maybe that's why you don't like Trump and if you'd feel differently if you'd actually gotten the tax cut. If you supported Dubya's re-election, I'd have to wonder.

I suspect, when it comes to "free stuff" your objection is only to free health care, and you are fine with free tax cuts. If balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility were really so important to you, I would expect you to vote for someone other than Dubya in 2004. Republicans kicked off the War on Terror (which would require significant government spending) with massive tax cuts, thus helping to create the current deficit. I recall there was actually a budget surplus before Dubya took office.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Obama's positions cost me millions. He was my favorite president. You sound like a filthy troll.

You haven't denied voting for Dubya's reelection who turned the federal budget from a surplus into a deficit, in part through massive tax cuts. Interesting.

If you voted for him after his approach to "fiscal responsibility" (which included the VP proclaiming that deficits don't matter), I think your concerns about how we will pay for all of Bernie's "free stuff" are a bit hollow.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I'm not voting for more trash. But you can.

Ok.. your silence speaks volumes. You definitely voted for the reelection of the administration that kicked off our current budget issues and proclaimed "deficits don't matter." (Not to mention all the torture, but that's a separate issue.) I think we can safely discard your concerns about how to pay for "free stuff", because it's obvious that the deficit can't be something you care about that much.
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,153
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
549
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Even I hated Bush, I voted for Obama. What a mistake that was. Then I was on the Ron Paul/Rand Paul train for a while. Then I realized true Libertarianism is impractical.

Civility is for losers in this generation defined by "Okay Boomer".
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Even I hated Bush, I voted for Obama. What a mistake that was. Then I was on the Ron Paul/Rand Paul train for a while. Then I realized true Libertarianism is impractical.

Civility is for losers in this generation defined by "Okay Boomer".

but where would we be without norms
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,153
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
549
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
but where would we be without norms

What norms? You mean staying the course in stagnation? Wasn't someone just lecturing me on taking risks or something, to get things done. Nice people finish last applies to politics.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
What norms? You mean staying the course in stagnation? Wasn't someone just lecturing me on taking risks or something, to get things done. Nice people finish last applies to politics.

No, I actually agree. My talk of norms and civillity is sarcastic. It's probably the thing I care the least about.

Civility is even kind of ahistorical. People in Congress were getting into physical fights in the 19th century. It's less a time-honored tradition of the way things have been done in this country then people think. But that's true of many things, including the colors "red" for Republicans and "blue" for Democrats.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
The only real fiscal conservatives are conservative "third-way" Clinton-esque Democrats (who are loathed by Republicans). Republicans care more about trickle-down economics than balanced budgets. Concerns about how we will pay for all that "free stuff" from people who happily voted for the reelection of the guy who transformed the budget surplus into a deficit can be safely disregarded as disingenuous. They never cared about how we would pay for their tax cuts. The VP they re-elected proclaimed that deficits don't matter, and that it was patron Saint Reagan who proved that.

It would be more accurate to think of Republicans as the party of trickle-down "supply-side" economics than as the party of sensible-balanced budgets. That's not spin, that's the actual record of how they've governed. The last president to balance the budget was Bill Clinton, whom Republicans despised.

Anyone who voted for Dubya to be re-elected has no business calling themselves a "fiscal conservative" who cares about balanced budgets. Dubya's the guy that first gave us a deficit.
 
Top