US Politics Megathread

[Amsel_]

I genuinely believe that anyone who works for a company should have a share in it, before a shareholder.

So... buy stock with your salary?

I think ultimately this socialism nonsense will end up favoring Sanders. Democrat voters will vote for him anyways, because they're afraid of Trump (and they should be). Diehard republicans don't care about what you say or who you are and will find any reason to dislike the democrat candidate, so that they can justify voting for Trump (I must say, it's impressive mental gymnastics to do so). It's all about the group of voters that is willing to consider the candidates and listen to what they have to say. If you convince those guys to vote for you, that's what you will need to win.

Now at the moment the socialism stuff is probably not positive for the image of Bernie Sanders. But if he wins the democratic nomination, he's going to get a lot of exposure. At that point I'm convinced that the reasonable voters will start to realize that socialism basically means doing the right things for the people. Then the socialism narrative will backfire, as it will discredit those campaigning against him and will strengthen his anti-establishment points.

But suppose how much stronger the pejorative "Socialist" would be if Sanders won the nomination but lost the general election? Democrats have tried going progressive in the past, and those candidates lost in practical landslides; the democrats quickly shifted right after that. Remember that none of this stuff is actually new or foreign to us. We've had people like Ted Kennedy (and John Kennedy for that matter) talking about things like universal healthcare.

Also I think you're conflating socialism with socialist. Trump himself has been in favor of a lot of "progressive" policies like social security, infrastructure, tax cuts with progressive taxation, etc. He's also been in favor of interventionism such as tariffs and helping farmers. And in the past we had "conservatives" like Nixon who proposed a negative income tax, and who established SSI. It's not so much that Americans dislike the government doing stuff on the basis that it's "socialism." It's that we look at what socialists have done in history, and it's a disaster. And there's no reason to think that the democrats will be any different, because virtually every time they've implemented some sort of reform they've dropped the ball.

[Cometk]

What’s unelectable about him

The S word

at least he doesn't mack on his granddaughter

[gibson]

What’s unelectable about him

The S word

at least he doesn't mack on his granddaughter

So does Tom Brady and no one cares

[RefluxSemantic]

@amsel

First things first: nobody is conflating any definition. Socialism doesnt have a singular definition. It can range from wanting a communist state to simply not wanting the government to empower the rich.

Secondly: the first argument you make is ridiculous. You're saying "What if he loses, then the chances another socialist wins become smaller". By that logic we should never vote for anything we believe in, because of boy they might lose.

At the moment America is basically at war with big corporations. Those corporations control the wealth, the means of production and through lobbying and donating large sums to favorable candidates they control the means of production. Right now you have the perfect candidate and the perfect opportunity to fight this and give the power back to the working class. It might take years or decade before a candidate as perfect for this as Sanders runs again, and by then the rich will be even richer and control your country even more. And you're saying the American people should not grab thus opportunity because 'wHaT iF hE lOsEs???'. Beyond ridiculous.

[fightinfrenchman]

A 78 year old man who recently had a heart attack is not a "perfect candidate"

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[n0el]

Age is over rated.

[deleted_user]

This is humorous

[wardyb1]

Trump himself has been in favor of a lot of "progressive" policies like social security, infrastructure, tax cuts with progressive taxation, etc.

How could anyone take this take seriously, the day Trump drops his federal budget making swathing cuts to Medicaid, student loan assistance, affordable housing efforts and food stamps. Plus making it harder to enroll in some programs. Also not sure how you can put "tax cuts with progressive taxation" when the overwhelming majority beneficiaries from his tax cuts were big business and the extremely wealthy. Also I can already see the retort, "but the tax cuts affected most lower income earners". Yes they did, but they will reap a much lower benefit, while being the ones most affected when Trump has to somehow pay for the cuts.

[Amsel_]

First things first: nobody is conflating any definition. Socialism doesnt have a singular definition. It can range from wanting a communist state to simply not wanting the government to empower the rich..

You're right, there are different definitions of socialism. The point I'm trying to make is that most Americans aren't actually opposed to government programs solely on the basis that they're government programs i.e. "socialist." They're clearly willing to drop that sort of argument whenever it's convenient.

Secondly: the first argument you make is ridiculous. You're saying "What if he loses, then the chances another socialist wins become smaller". By that logic we should never vote for anything we believe in, because of boy they might lose.

I was trying to offer an alternative to what you suggested. You suggested that Bernie could get the nomination, and people would realize that "socialism" isn't a big deal. It's just "the government helping people." I wanted to point out that there was a very strong likelihood that anything "socialist" would be considered electoral poison if Bernie got the nomination, but lost in the general election. I wasn't actually using this as an argument against Sanders.

Although this is a very fickle position for progressives. I've said in that past that their best timeline would be for a Biden or a Buttigieg to win the nomination, lose the general election; in 2022 democrats win the Senate; and then in 2024 a progressive becomes president with full control of the congress. Meanwhile, a progressive winning both the nomination and presidency in 2020 would face a republican Senate, and republicans would likely flip the house in 2022, or a neoliberal could become president and and basically block the progressives out of power until he finishes his term and a republican follows him.

At the moment America is basically at war with big corporations. Those corporations control the wealth, the means of production and through lobbying and donating large sums to favorable candidates they control the means of production. Right now you have the perfect candidate and the perfect opportunity to fight this and give the power back to the working class. It might take years or decade before a candidate as perfect for this as Sanders runs again, and by then the rich will be even richer and control your country even more. And you're saying the American people should not grab thus opportunity because 'wHaT iF hE lOsEs???'. Beyond ridiculous.

I would suggest that you develop your abilities to analyze a situation strategically and objectively, and not base everything on morality and ideology. One election isn't going to change everything. Both parties are going to have to work together to govern, no matter who wins the election.

[n0el]

bUt wHAt aBoUT tHe iNDePeDenTs

[Amsel_]

How could anyone take this take seriously, the day Trump drops his federal budget making swathing cuts to Medicaid, student loan assistance, affordable housing efforts and food stamps. Plus making it harder to enroll in some programs.

Some of our welfare programs are perfectly fine to cut; they're garbage. But I should point out that Trump uses a certain negotiation tactic like this a lot, and democrats don't seem to pick up one it. What he does is he takes a "settled issue" then challenges it, placing himself in the opposition role. Then in order to drop his challenges, he demands something in return as a "compromise." Notice how he wasn't too upset with the status quo, but ended up getting something for free out of it. He does this a lot with trade; he did it with NATO; and there's a good chance that he's doing it here. A democrat controlled house isn't going to be keen on cutting actually important entitlements.

not sure how you can put "tax cuts with progressive taxation" when the overwhelming majority beneficiaries from his tax cuts were big business and the extremely wealthy. Also I can already see the retort, "but the tax cuts affected most lower income earners". Yes they did, but they will reap a much lower benefit, while being the ones most affected when Trump has to somehow pay for the cuts.

Hold on, let me try and make sense of this.

Premise 1: Progressive taxation is good, because the rich are able to afford to pay more.
Premise 2: Tax cuts for the rich also benefit them more than the non-wealthy, because they're saving a larger amount of money, even though most low-income people got tax cuts.
Conclusion: The rich benefit more from tax cuts.

I don't understand why you selectively apply proportions here. Because the non-wealthy, virtually by definition, have a lower income, it should take a lesser amount of saved tax money to benefit them, in the same way that a rich person would need to save a larger dollar figure for it to effect them. Let me try and explain this better. Saving $1,000 for a person making $50,000 a year is going to mean more than a person who makes $100,000 a year saving $2,000, despite both saving the same 1/50th of income. Why is that? Because the person making six-figures is able to afford to pay a larger amount of money, but at the lower level, money is more precious. If we were to raise taxes on both of these people by 1%, the person making $50k would be hurt more by it. So, simply reverse the process, and say that both get their taxes cut by 1%. The person making $50k would benefit more, even if the person making $100k is technically saving a larger total dollar amount.

Progressive taxation works both ways. If tax hikes on the rich are fair because they can afford to pay more, tax cuts on the poor are more valuable than for the rich because they couldn't afford to pay as much. Just apply the logic to others things to build intuition. If the government provided $20k a year to college students, people who couldn't afford to go to college would benefit more than people who inherited a million dollars. Likewise, if the government canceled that program, people who couldn't afford to go to college independently would be hurt more by it than the millionaire. If one day everyone had all their net worth halved, a person living paycheck-to-paycheck would suffer more than a billionaire. Similarly, the person living paycheck-to-paycheck would benefit more from doubling all their money than a billionaire who doubles his money. It's no different with taxes. Money means more to people who don't have it.

I'm not even necessarily defending his tax cuts. I prefer that they happened than had they not happened, but it could've been done better; and there are valid complaints to be made against the TCAJA. It's just that your logic is rather peculiar.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[lejend]

@n0el

Bernie hasn't been vetted yet, his numbers will drop quite a bit once we get to the general election. Did you see my last post about this? So many of Bernie's supporters don't even know that he's a socialist

[n0el]

Your posts are of the quality of the ear without the fun trolling parts. So no

[Amsel_]

I genuinely do not understand why lejend peeves so many people. I've never seen him post anything mean-spirited or irrational.

[lejend]

The ear's posts are pretty top-quality though

[deleted_user]

I genuinely do not understand why lejend peeves so many people. I've never seen him post anything mean-spirited or irrational.

the war on Christians

[wardyb1]

How could anyone take this take seriously, the day Trump drops his federal budget making swathing cuts to Medicaid, student loan assistance, affordable housing efforts and food stamps. Plus making it harder to enroll in some programs.

Some of our welfare programs are perfectly fine to cut; they're garbage. But I should point out that Trump uses a certain negotiation tactic like this a lot, and democrats don't seem to pick up one it. What he does is he takes a "settled issue" then challenges it, placing himself in the opposition role. Then in order to drop his challenges, he demands something in return as a "compromise." Notice how he wasn't too upset with the status quo, but ended up getting something for free out of it. He does this a lot with trade; he did it with NATO; and there's a good chance that he's doing it here. A democrat controlled house isn't going to be keen on cutting actually important entitlements.

not sure how you can put "tax cuts with progressive taxation" when the overwhelming majority beneficiaries from his tax cuts were big business and the extremely wealthy. Also I can already see the retort, "but the tax cuts affected most lower income earners". Yes they did, but they will reap a much lower benefit, while being the ones most affected when Trump has to somehow pay for the cuts.

Hold on, let me try and make sense of this.

Premise 1: Progressive taxation is good, because the rich are able to afford to pay more.
Premise 2: Tax cuts for the rich also benefit them more than the non-wealthy, because they're saving a larger amount of money, even though most low-income people got tax cuts.
Conclusion: The rich benefit more from tax cuts.

I don't understand why you selectively apply proportions here. Because the non-wealthy, virtually by definition, have a lower income, it should take a lesser amount of saved tax money to benefit them, in the same way that a rich person would need to save a larger dollar figure for it to effect them. Let me try and explain this better. Saving $1,000 for a person making $50,000 a year is going to mean more than a person who makes $100,000 a year saving $2,000, despite both saving the same 1/50th of income. Why is that? Because the person making six-figures is able to afford to pay a larger amount of money, but at the lower level, money is more precious. If we were to raise taxes on both of these people by 1%, the person making $50k would be hurt more by it. So, simply reverse the process, and say that both get their taxes cut by 1%. The person making $50k would benefit more, even if the person making $100k is technically saving a larger total dollar amount.

Progressive taxation works both ways. If tax hikes on the rich are fair because they can afford to pay more, tax cuts on the poor are more valuable than for the rich because they couldn't afford to pay as much. Just apply the logic to others things to build intuition. If the government provided $20k a year to college students, people who couldn't afford to go to college would benefit more than people who inherited a million dollars. Likewise, if the government canceled that program, people who couldn't afford to go to college independently would be hurt more by it than the millionaire. If one day everyone had all their net worth halved, a person living paycheck-to-paycheck would suffer more than a billionaire. Similarly, the person living paycheck-to-paycheck would benefit more from doubling all their money than a billionaire who doubles his money. It's no different with taxes. Money means more to people who don't have it.

I'm not even necessarily defending his tax cuts. I prefer that they happened than had they not happened, but it could've been done better; and there are valid complaints to be made against the TCAJA. It's just that your logic is rather peculiar.

Ok I think we are just coming at this from 2 different perspectives of progressive. The premise that I am arguing from is that for it to be progressive, the poor have to benefit significantly more than the rich. That would be a progressive position as it would be an attempt to reduce inequality. Using that, I argue that poor people have got the much shorter end of the stick with this tax cut, as they will be the ones most affected by the cutting of social programs in order to pay for this tax cut that is completely unaffordable. Not to mention that the individual tax cuts expire in 2025. These tax cuts make no attempt to reduce inequality, they almost go out of their way to increase it. Oh wait they do go out of their way to increase it because that is who the GOP serve, the rich.

If your argument that it is progressive because he is cutting from a progressive taxation system, that just seems like a completely semantic argument and is rather pointless.

[Amsel_]

Ok I think we are just coming at this from 2 different perspectives of progressive. The premise that I am arguing from is that for it to be progressive, the poor have to benefit significantly more than the rich. That would be a progressive position as it would be an attempt to reduce inequality. Using that, I argue that poor people have got the much shorter end of the stick with this tax cut, as they will be the ones most affected by the cutting of social programs in order to pay for this tax cut that is completely unaffordable. Not to mention that the individual tax cuts expire in 2025. These tax cuts make no attempt to reduce inequality, they almost go out of their way to increase it. Oh wait they do go out of their way to increase it because that is who the GOP serve, the rich.

If your argument that it is progressive because he is cutting from a progressive taxation system, that just seems like a completely semantic argument and is rather pointless.

Oh I see what's happening. I said "tax cuts with progressive taxation." You understandably read that as "progressive tax cuts." What I meant is that he supported a progressive tax structure (unlike many other people who contested him for the republican nomination), and that he cut taxes while in office. I would argue that tax cuts are progressive; but "progressive tax cuts" does seem to imply changing tax brackets to be much more favorable to lower incomes.

But if you look at the tax cuts and jobs act, the changes don't necessarily seem regressive as some seem to be implying.

Alternative Minimum Tax Exemptions Increased
The bill also eases the burden of the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) by raising the income exempted from $84,500 (adjusted for inflation) to $111,700 married filing jointly and from $54,300 (adjusted for inflation) to $71,700 for single taxpayers, so fewer taxpayers will pay it in 2019.

Tax Relief for Individuals and Families
Increased standard deduction:
The new tax law nearly doubles the standard deduction amount. Single taxpayers will see their standard deductions jump from $6,350 for 2017 taxes to $12,200 for 2019 taxes (the ones you file in 2020).

Married couples filing jointly see an increase from $12,700 to $24,400 for 2019. These increases mean that fewer people will have to itemize. Today, roughly 30% of taxpayers itemize. Under the new law, this percentage is expected to decrease.

Increased Child Tax Credit:

For, families with children the Child Tax Credit is doubled from $1,000 per child to $2,000. In addition, the amount that is refundable grows from $1,100 to $1,400. The bill also adds a new, non-refundable credit of $500 for dependents other than children. Finally, it raises the income threshold at which these benefits phase out from $110,000 for a married couple to $400,000.

Eliminations or Reductions in Deductions
Personal and dependent exemptions:

The bill eliminates the personal and dependent exemptions for 2019, which was $4,050 for 2017.


State and local taxes/Home mortgages:

The bill limits the amount of state and local property, income, and sales taxes that can be deducted to $10,000. In the past, these taxes have generally been fully tax deductible.

The bill also caps the amount of mortgage indebtedness on new home purchases on which interest can be deducted at $750,000 down from $1,000,000 in current law.

Health care:

The bill eliminates the tax penalty for not having health insurance after December 31, 2018. It also temporarily lowers the floor above which out-of-pocket medical expenses can be deducted from the current law floor of 10% to 7.5% for 2017 and 2018. In 2019, a separate tax extender bill kept the 7.5% of AGI rate for 2019. In 2020, the percentage is set to increase to 10% of AGI.

So for 2019, you can deduct medical expenses that are more than 7.5% of your adjusted gross income.

Self-employed (contractors, freelancers, sole proprietors) and small businesses:
The bill has a myriad of changes for business. The biggest includes a reduction in the top corporate rate to 21%, a new 20% deduction for incomes from certain type of “pass-through” entities (partnerships, S Corps, sole proprietorships), limits on expensing of interest from borrowing, almost doubling of the amount small businesses can expense from the 2017 Section 179 amount of $510,000 to $1,000,000, and eliminates the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT).

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/ir ... /L96aFuPhc

[evilcheadar]

Just vote for someone random in 2020 tbh

[wardyb1]

Your tax brackets still baffle me. How you guys don't have a tax free threshold just seems so bizarre.

[Amsel_]

Just vote for someone random in 2020 tbh

(left=heads, right=tails)

Who are you voting for, ESOC?

[deleted_user]

heads, heads, 3, I'm voting for Butti

[Amsel_]

Heads, heads, 2. I got Biden. I did it with one of those giant-ass half-dollar coins, so you know it's got good mojo.

Here's an online dice for you non-gambling addicts: https://rolladie.net/