Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I look at it this way, its a messed up society when the top 1% of people are paying about 70-90% of the taxes, and probably use a miniscule fraction of where those taxes go to, while those who use and abuse the system, use the most of the tax money and yet pay nothing, this idea of government cannot survive, our unemployment is thru the roof and government (especially here in California) is making it tougher for jobs to exist, already a few states have made laws to raise minimum wage up to $15 an hour, and already companies are closing down or employees are being replaced by Robots/Computers, so while all the minimum wage workers or those just above minimum wage were screaming they can't survive on $10 an hour, how will they now survive on $0 an hour? this country in its current stance is headed for a meltdown just like Russia and will not do very good.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw a sanders commercial where he says the rich should pay their fair share, and I keep thinking the Rich are paying more of the taxs collected.
You are correct that the rich pay more tax, because of course they do, they have more money. But paying more doesn't mean you pay a fair amount of tax... because if a system allocates one person many millions of dollars, and another person just a few thousand, it isn't fair that they both 20% of their income. The first person is obviously benefiting a lot more from the system than the second person.
Exactly how much is fair is, of course, a complex and very subjective question, that could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately no-one ever tries to have that conversation, and that's why both Sanders' ad and your response are so terrible. You both talk past the actual point, Sanders merely assumes he is correct, that fair is some number more than what is paid, and you assume that fair is any amount more than an event amount per person.
"The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
"The system" as in society in general. Rich people benefit a lot more from a stable society than poor people, because without a stable society the poor people would put the rich people's heads on poles and take their stuff. There's also the part where roads, schools, plumbing, the fire department and so on give these rich people the possibility to get rich in the first place. The myth of the self-made man is just that: a myth. As I believe some dude once said: You didn't build that. As evident from the response to that quote, though, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear...
So you think that poor people are bloodthirsty homicidal lynch mobs that are only held in check by "society" and would otherwise murder a whole bunch of people who have more stuff than they do? That's an odd perception of them. I've been poor and it's never made me feel murderous.
"Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
This really isn't a hard concept to understand: if you have 1 million, you stand to lose more from the state collapsing than if you have nothing. You are thus gaining more from society than someone that is poor, and should thus contribute more.
You claimed that "the system" is the only thing keeping murderous "poor" people from going all French Revolution on the "rich" people, murdering them and taking their stuff. I disputed your hyperbolic characterization of poor people being homicidal. You now seem to be misconstruing my post as one that argues against a progressive income tax. I'm not sure what your point is anymore.
Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
Well, they had homes to mortgage and the credit ratings and history to get those credit cards. So that is already some huge advantages over lots of other people. It is much easier to "risk it all" for your business when you actually have stuff to put on the line.
You control your own credit rating with your own spending habits. It's not like credit scores are just handed out to people with random values. Income levels don't dictate good or bad credit scores.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 14:24:44
Western society has always struggled to get the wealthy to pay their fair share. It goes back to British kings, for crying out loud. Long story short- it is easier to force compliance on those with fewer resources to resist. In the US, the wealthy have created the whole "job creators" narrative to try to insulate themselves and whine about taxation, despite top level taxation being at a historic low and wealth concentration approaching historic highs. In other words the very top have more than ever and yet pay less in taxes. You would think with stagnant and declining wages, the average citizen would be very upset, but a big enough group buys into the crony capitalist story to keep it going. The fact that these people naively believe that we have anything even remotely resembling free markets and yet point to major market failures where there has been government involvement to buttress their argument would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Of course government is involved in major business issues- business pays loads of money to make sure that happens! They just want the protections and bail outs though, not the oversight and limits.
Part of the problem is the legal fiction of corporations as people and the free flow of money and influence into the political process. It undermines the whole concept of individual democracy and substitutes a bizarre collectivism for the wealthy. What it ignores is that those at the top are very few actual people and not the primary drivers of economic activity. Rather, they are largely the beneficiaries of it. While one can point to individual exceptions who innovate something new that does create wealth, by and large most just sit atop existing systems and are more or less interchangeable. Heck, get rid of them all and it would make much less of a difference than if you eliminated half of the people under them. It's why ensuring that generated wealth flows back into the systems for further improvement and expansion is so important. Otherwise you just end up with a quasi-feudal wealth extraction and collection system.
Efficient tax systems should adequately cover necessary government functions as well as encourage sound economic practices. Arguably current US tax systems focus too much on income and encourage hoarding at high levels. Encouraging more fair systems is in the best interests of everyone over the long term as it encourages greater overall growth and stability.
As to societal revolution, it is always messy. But when it starts people are usually so upset and miserable, even death becomes a limited deterrent, so pointing out that "the poor die too" is kind of a nonpoint. Such revolutions are bloody and rarely make things more equitable as it is easy for military strongmen to take advantage of the chaos. It doesn't change the fact that if things grow too desperate, people tend to revolt. Such actors are primarily motivated by immediate concerns. Agitating for change or deposal of current authorities is not the same as a call for violent revolution. Though the former may become the latter.
Asterios wrote: I look at it this way, its a messed up society when the top 1% of people are paying about 70-90% of the taxes, and probably use a miniscule fraction of where those taxes go to, while those who use and abuse the system, use the most of the tax money and yet pay nothing, this idea of government cannot survive, our unemployment is thru the roof and government (especially here in California) is making it tougher for jobs to exist, already a few states have made laws to raise minimum wage up to $15 an hour, and already companies are closing down or employees are being replaced by Robots/Computers, so while all the minimum wage workers or those just above minimum wage were screaming they can't survive on $10 an hour, how will they now survive on $0 an hour? this country in its current stance is headed for a meltdown just like Russia and will not do very good.
There are numerous issues to deal with in our present economic circumstances. Having a progressive income tax and a minimum wage don't inherently prohibit a strong economy or high employment but when they are politicized and handled as social programs rather than economic ones they can become problematic. Especially when politicians don't take into account all of the market forces at work like globalization, automation and technological progress. We have a lot of domestic labor policies that are overly protectionist and counter productive because they end up incentivizing the very things that we want less of and penalizing the things we want more of. Unfortunately that's an issue that isn't going to be solved anytime soon given our current political climate.
but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
jmurph wrote: Western society has always struggled to get the wealthy to pay their fair share. It goes back to British kings, for crying out loud. Long story short- it is easier to force compliance on those with fewer resources to resist. In the US, the wealthy have created the whole "job creators" narrative to try to insulate themselves and whine about taxation, despite top level taxation being at a historic low and wealth concentration approaching historic highs. In other words the very top have more than ever and yet pay less in taxes. You would think with stagnant and declining wages, the average citizen would be very upset, but a big enough group buys into the crony capitalist story to keep it going. The fact that these people naively believe that we have anything even remotely resembling free markets and yet point to major market failures where there has been government involvement to buttress their argument would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Of course government is involved in major business issues- business pays loads of money to make sure that happens! They just want the protections and bail outs though, not the oversight and limits.
Part of the problem is the legal fiction of corporations as people and the free flow of money and influence into the political process. It undermines the whole concept of individual democracy and substitutes a bizarre collectivism for the wealthy. What it ignores is that those at the top are very few actual people and not the primary drivers of economic activity. Rather, they are largely the beneficiaries of it. While one can point to individual exceptions who innovate something new that does create wealth, by and large most just sit atop existing systems and are more or less interchangeable. Heck, get rid of them all and it would make much less of a difference than if you eliminated half of the people under them. It's why ensuring that generated wealth flows back into the systems for further improvement and expansion is so important. Otherwise you just end up with a quasi-feudal wealth extraction and collection system.
Efficient tax systems should adequately cover necessary government functions as well as encourage sound economic practices. Arguably current US tax systems focus too much on income and encourage hoarding at high levels. Encouraging more fair systems is in the best interests of everyone over the long term as it encourages greater overall growth and stability.
As to societal revolution, it is always messy. But when it starts people are usually so upset and miserable, even death becomes a limited deterrent, so pointing out that "the poor die too" is kind of a nonpoint. Such revolutions are bloody and rarely make things more equitable as it is easy for military strongmen to take advantage of the chaos. It doesn't change the fact that if things grow too desperate, people tend to revolt. Such actors are primarily motivated by immediate concerns. Agitating for change or deposal of current authorities is not the same as a call for violent revolution. Though the former may become the latter.
Even the "poor" people in the US enjoy a standard of living that prevents the risk/reward equation of violent revolution balanced in favor of continuing to sit on the couch watching reality television. Things would have to get apocalyptically worse than they are now for nominally sane normal people to believe that murdering hedge fund managers or blowing up Wall St would improve their standard of living.
whembly wrote: Yes, it's a big deal... especially when the FBI recommends indictments. It's not something that'll be ignored and for sure, the GOP will hammer it.
If the FBI recommends indictment.
And you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if the GOP was going to make a big deal out of this - of course they're going to do that. Even when the investigations turn up nothing (PP, Benghazi) the GOP just holds more investigations. It's pretty much what they do these days.
Anyhow, you didn't answer the question I actually asked. Have you seen any interest in the issue from people who didn't already hate Clinton? That should tell you how much this issue is impacting the presidential race.
Of course, if there's an indictment everything changes.
No... the OIG report changed the conversation, as the media enmass can't ignore/spin this.
The real big whammy is when the FBI recommends indictment. Only the DoJ can actually indict, but we know it's a political creature and I've firmly stated that Obama's DoJ won't indict. When that happens, the FBI/DoJ *will* suffer a fallout. It remains to be seen how that'll manifest and how it impacts the General Election.
It certainly adds into Trump's meme of 'Crooked Hillary'.
So, to answer to your question: Yes. I've seen that while most don't believe Trump would ever be a "Good President", they simply abhor the idea of HRC in the WH. These folks are traditional Democrat voters mind you. (I'm still not voting for Trump anyways as I'm on Calvinball mode).
Even those traditionally-favorable Clinton news site are reporting this: ANDREA MITCHELL!!
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
Additionally, we need to reign in crony capitalism and address the tax code so that the tax payers can't mitigate their tax liabilties via deductions and such.
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
yes but what about the small business owner, who now has to pay his employees more money then he/she makes themselves? I have a friend who has had a McDonald's franchise for over 30 years, he is going to have to close it down why? because it is not worth running it because he estimates he will be making less then $8 an hour himself thanks to the "Government" telling him he has to pay unskilled laborers a skilled wage, i'm already seeing the effects of minimum wage raising to $10 an hour this year with small businesses and franchises closing up because there is no benefit to owning them, the American dream is falling to the way side to make way for a socialist state, this is why it will be a cold day in hell when I will vote for Sander in the election.
The democrat party used to be for the poor and the middle class, now its all about no one, they are only hurting those they say they represent, already our Social Security system is dying, all those Americans who are now currently giving into Social Security for their retirement will not be able to collect it when they are old enough too, is this fair?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
Additionally, we need to reign in crony capitalism and address the tax code so that the tax payers can't mitigate their tax liabilties via deductions and such.
Yes. The whole reason we have deductions is to lower the effective rates because the rates are set too high in order to score political points and help politicians win elections. Set high rates to show how the "rich" are being forced to pay their fair share, then allow a whole host of deductions and modifiers to lower the higher rate to placate the people that would have had to pay it to avoid upsetting the voters and donors in those brackets. We even created the Earned Income Tax Credit to replace deductions but then decided to just use both simultaneously instead. That'swhat happens when political pandering usurps the basic math of how much do we need to collect to fund the government's essential responsibilities?
Asterios wrote: but what is an efficient tax system? like the European VAT tax system? sorry it sounds nice but if brought to the US it would screw over the poor more then anything and help the rich.
so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made? most people here in the US deride the rich, but they should be thanking god for them since it is the rich that employs them and keeps the money flowing and penalizing the rich with higher taxs and such is only going to hurt the low income people.
You can have an effective progressive income tax the government just needs to set the rates and brackets in reasonable and informed manner. It's an economic issue not a matter of social engineering or politicking. The very wealthy can pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than low income earners without feeling any pain. There's a big difference between paying 5% an 20% but people earning millions of dollars annually aren't going to be negatively impacted by paying 20% whereas people earning tens of thousands of dollars would be. The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set. Taxes aren't about "fairness" and they should never be punitive, they are a means for govt to collect funds to pay for essential services that benefit society as a whole. That's it.
yes but what about the small business owner, who now has to pay his employees more money then he/she makes themselves? I have a friend who has had a McDonald's franchise for over 30 years, he is going to have to close it down why? because it is not worth running it because he estimates he will be making less then $8 an hour himself thanks to the "Government" telling him he has to pay unskilled laborers a skilled wage, i'm already seeing the effects of minimum wage raising to $10 an hour this year with small businesses and franchises closing up because there is no benefit to owning them, the American dream is falling to the way side to make way for a socialist state, this is why it will be a cold day in hell when I will vote for Sander in the election.
The democrat party used to be for the poor and the middle class, now its all about no one, they are only hurting those they say they represent, already our Social Security system is dying, all those Americans who are now currently giving into Social Security for their retirement will not be able to collect it when they are old enough too, is this fair?
That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 14:59:28
Asterios wrote: I look at it this way, its a messed up society when the top 1% of people are paying about 70-90% of the taxes, and probably use a miniscule fraction of where those taxes go to, while those who use and abuse the system, use the most of the tax money and yet pay nothing, this idea of government cannot survive, our unemployment is thru the roof and government (especially here in California) is making it tougher for jobs to exist, already a few states have made laws to raise minimum wage up to $15 an hour, and already companies are closing down or employees are being replaced by Robots/Computers, so while all the minimum wage workers or those just above minimum wage were screaming they can't survive on $10 an hour, how will they now survive on $0 an hour? this country in its current stance is headed for a meltdown just like Russia and will not do very good.
The problem, realistically, is on the business side of it.
I saw a thing the other day talking about Eisenhower's tax policies, and what happened. He had an effective 90% tax rate on businesses in the country. And we fething flourished. See, what happened was, companies seek to lower their tax liabilitiy, so what many places did, was improve and expand facilities incurring costs which were completely tax deductible. In that way the economy was boosted, companies did well, and American people did well.
Since then, we've had a conga line of "Trickle downers" in office, and we've seen wage stagnation, astronomical tuition increases, businesses aren't *really* improving on anything, except where absolutely required (such as for safety, and even then a few of my friends work in industrial environments that have had the same safety violation for 10 years running... so clearly there are instances where even required work isnt done), we're seeing massive amounts of out-sourcing of jobs, and all the while it is us plebs who are expected to foot the bill for everything.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
The problem, realistically, is on the business side of it.
I saw a thing the other day talking about Eisenhower's tax policies, and what happened. He had an effective 90% tax rate on businesses in the country. And we fething flourished. See, what happened was, companies seek to lower their tax liabilitiy, so what many places did, was improve and expand facilities incurring costs which were completely tax deductible. In that way the economy was boosted, companies did well, and American people did well.
Since then, we've had a conga line of "Trickle downers" in office, and we've seen wage stagnation, astronomical tuition increases, businesses aren't *really* improving on anything, except where absolutely required (such as for safety, and even then a few of my friends work in industrial environments that have had the same safety violation for 10 years running... so clearly there are instances where even required work isnt done), we're seeing massive amounts of out-sourcing of jobs, and all the while it is us plebs who are expected to foot the bill for everything.
I would love to see the facts about this cause the only thing that boomed the American economy during Eisenhower's term was the Korean war.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 15:10:29
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
I would love to see the facts about this cause the only thing that boomed the American economy during Eisenhower's term was the Korean war.
You're kidding right??? The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were the most economically prosperous for the US in our history, and that didn't lead directly to a crash of the proportions of the 1929 crash. It was during the 50s and 60s that a household could literally be the nuclear ideal family on one blue-collar income.
I would love to see the facts about this cause the only thing that boomed the American economy during Eisenhower's term was the Korean war.
You're kidding right??? The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were the most economically prosperous for the US in our history, and that didn't lead directly to a crash of the proportions of the 1929 crash. It was during the 50s and 60s that a household could literally be the nuclear ideal family on one blue-collar income.
Well just checked it wasn't business tax rates but income tax rates that were as high as 91% and even the poor had to pay taxs too. but I digress the income tax bracket for the rich was as high as 91% during Eisenhower's administration but it was higher before that.
you have to remember that during the 50's and 60's the minimum wage went from .40 to $1.60 an hour things were cheaper, there wasn't many things to buy like these days, so yes, the American dream could exist, but these days we have new gadgets and doohickey's and the 50's, 60's model could not exist now. (heck you could buy a nice house for like $2K)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 15:27:18
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
I would love to see the facts about this cause the only thing that boomed the American economy during Eisenhower's term was the Korean war.
You're kidding right??? The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were the most economically prosperous for the US in our history, and that didn't lead directly to a crash of the proportions of the 1929 crash. It was during the 50s and 60s that a household could literally be the nuclear ideal family on one blue-collar income.
Well us bombing the crap out of all of the industrial areas in Europe and Asia certainly didn't hurt our manufacturing boom. We created a vacuum and filled it so we prospered. When the rest of the world finished recovering from WWII and our growth started stalling we had to lower those tax rates because businesses like GM were shrinking.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 15:25:47
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
But Trump is right though, we have a major security gap in our southern border, awww hell all our borders, and if we do not plug them up it is only a matter of time till some terrorist smuggles in a nuclear bomb or infects illegal immigrants with a deadly virus trying to destroy us. but by then it will be too late.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 15:32:35
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
Ya know, once upon a time it could have been dealt with "properly"
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
Ya know, once upon a time it could have been dealt with "properly"
meh my philosophy is make Mexico part of the US and invade Canada, solves our border issues right there
but seriously the issue is this country does not uphold the laws it created, those laws were not created willy nilly, they were created with purpose and design. and because of those laws being ignored this country is not doing so well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 15:37:07
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
But Trump is right though, we have a major security gap in our southern border, awww hell all our borders, and if we do not plug them up it is only a matter of time till some terrorist smuggles in a nuclear bomb or infects illegal immigrants with a deadly virus trying to destroy us. but by then it will be too late.
Even if Trump got the wall built it wouldn't fix the illegal immigration and labor problem. The wall does nothing to all the incentives that encourage people to immigrant illegally and for everyone to profit from illegal labor. Trump knows that, at least he should, and he still touts his wall building plan because it's just empty pandering to win votes because Trump lies just like every other politician.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
But Trump is right though, we have a major security gap in our southern border, awww hell all our borders, and if we do not plug them up it is only a matter of time till some terrorist smuggles in a nuclear bomb or infects illegal immigrants with a deadly virus trying to destroy us. but by then it will be too late.
setting aside the overexaggerated WMD threat, there's no way to "secure" US borders so tight that bad things getting through by small cell or lone wolf actors would be implausible. There's just too much traffic and too many miles of border, unless we want to drastically increase the federal budget to militarize the border and maintain several million militarized border guards over thousands of miles of borders for a vague and theoretical threat.
There's also very little being done to address the internal drivers of illegal immigration and cross border illegal trade, nobody wants to put a stop to migrant labor or crack down on cheap illegal industrial workers or decriminalize drugs to cease the need for foreign importation.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Prestor Jon wrote: That all relates to what I stated about the government making bad protectionist policies that incentivize what we don't want and disincentivize what we do. A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
which comes to my point if the poor and middle class realized what the Democrats were essentially doing to them they would be voting for Trump in hope of a change, i'm on the poor end of the spectrum me and my wife survive on about $1.5K a month this includes our mortgage, food and what not, we don't own a car and only have one cell phone, we don't live like kings but we survive, and yet there are people who say they cannot survive with a whole lot more then this. and I have seen the lie that is the democrat party and all the BS that comes with it, I am essentially out of work because of democrats, this is why I'm voting Trump this year. why? you ask, because he cannot do worse then the Democrats who set a very low bar.
Trump's immigration rants have shown him to either be willfully ignorant or wilfully lying about how our domestic labor policies impact illegal immigration and illegal labor.
Trumps desires to build a wall are just that, desires, you and I both know congress will not allow it, but it is because of his anti-immigration rants both parties do not like him. republicans want the cheap labor and democrats want the votes, this is why immigration will never be dealt with properly.
But Trump is right though, we have a major security gap in our southern border, awww hell all our borders, and if we do not plug them up it is only a matter of time till some terrorist smuggles in a nuclear bomb or infects illegal immigrants with a deadly virus trying to destroy us. but by then it will be too late.
Even if Trump got the wall built it wouldn't fix the illegal immigration and labor problem. The wall does nothing to all the incentives that encourage people to immigrant illegally and for everyone to profit from illegal labor. Trump knows that, at least he should, and he still touts his wall building plan because it's just empty pandering to win votes because Trump lies just like every other politician.
hence my solution, illegals come here not because its better, but because they make more money which they send home(this hurts our economy more then anything, heck the Government should put a high tax on money transfers over country borders, that is where the real money is) and because things are so messed up in mexico, they can survive pretty damn well on a couple bucks an hour, but if the US made Mexico part of it, then that would reduce our southern border drastically and give no incentive for illegals to come to the US from Mexico, if anything they would be moving south of border to live cheaper, as to invading Canada, well what can I say, its Canada.
as to the threat of a nuclear bomb or a virus coming thru the illegal train from down south its a very real threat, but do you think the government will mention it? no because it would cause a major threat to their cheap labor and free votes. All it would take is for a few groups of Illegals entering this country to be given tainted bottles of water with a very nasty virus with a 1-2 week (at most) incubation period (which is very easy with todays technology) and it could be spread all across the US and stretch our infrastructure beyond holding.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 16:15:53
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: The only way to stop illegal immigration is to make our own country such a Gak-hole that no one wants to come here anyway. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
Do any of us really want to go that far?
instead, we need to focus on how we are going to use these incoming resources to build our country and make it stronger.
Oh we are already going down that path, with "Actual" unemployment on the rise and more and more businesses shuttering their doors, its just a matter of time till this country implodes.
But on the other hand Trump might be onto something, building a wall would put people to work give jobs and so forth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 16:22:21
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
The US has economic problems and is experiencing major social changes, but we're still wayyy ahead of most of the rest of the planet and almost all of US history. The economic issues the US faces are not unique either. We're not on the brink of an implosion anymore than we were in 2008, 2001, the early 90's, the 80's S&L collapze, 70's stagflation, 30's depression, etc.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: The US has economic problems and is experiencing major social changes, but we're still wayyy ahead of most of the rest of the planet and almost all of US history. The economic issues the US faces are not unique either. We're not on the brink of an implosion anymore than we were in 2008, 2001, the early 90's, the 80's S&L collapze, 70's stagflation, 30's depression, etc.
I disagree our "Actual" unemployment rate is exceedingly high and expected to get higher, this country is running out of jobs and the unskilled demanding higher wages is forceing companies to look at other avenues, already Carl's Jr, Wendy's and Mcdonalds and so forth plan on placing robotic/computerized units in their establishments and thereby removing jobs from the market, already a Chinese business has replaced 50K jobs with Robotics, we are not far behind doing that, yes this country is ready to implode.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Yes, we have major labor and economic equality issues. Big ones. No argument there.
However, the US has been through far worse. We have nothing near the labor and wealth gaps we did say, pre WW1 or during the 30's. Other nations currently have the same issues, only worse, and have had them for much longer, and they arent imploding or collapsing. If Japan, France, Italy, Spain, and ither such nations havent imploded, the US wont.
The US will *change*, nobody can argue that. But implosion? Collapse? Unlikely.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: Yes, we have major labor and economic equality issues. Big ones. No argument there.
However, the US has been through far worse. We have nothing near the labor and wealth gaps we did say, pre WW1 or during the 30's. Other nations currently have the same issues, only worse, and have had them for much longer, and they arent imploding or collapsing. If Japan, France, Italy, Spain, and ither such nations havent imploded, the US wont.
The US will *change*, nobody can argue that. But implosion? Collapse? Unlikely.
have you seen what is going on in France and Greece lately? also think our definitions of implosion differ greatly, I did not say a total collapse, but at our core we are eating ourselves up and this country cannot survive the way it has been going, look at our Social Security system, as it stands it will be gone in 10-15 years, those who are putting into it now will get nothing when they retire since there will be nothing, the government debt is at its highest it has ever been, in the 30's? we had no national debt to speak of, the reason why this country hasn't gone into another depression is because the government spends more money then we could ever hope to cover. if a normal household was ran the way the government is, we would be on the streets now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 16:53:30
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Even the "poor" people in the US enjoy a standard of living that prevents the risk/reward equation of violent revolution balanced in favor of continuing to sit on the couch watching reality television. Things would have to get apocalyptically worse than they are now for nominally sane normal people to believe that murdering hedge fund managers or blowing up Wall St would improve their standard of living.
No doubt. Usually revolution occurs when things get so bad that basic needs aren't being met (food shortages, lack of sanitation, lack of public safety, etc.). Of course, were things to get to that level, history indicates that some Wall Streeters may end their own lives (see the Great Depression)! But that doesn't make for as good rhetoric, I guess, even if does indicate how wide reaching such conditions can become.
Or we could just lose sanity altogether and make it all a reality show....
Even the "poor" people in the US enjoy a standard of living that prevents the risk/reward equation of violent revolution balanced in favor of continuing to sit on the couch watching reality television. Things would have to get apocalyptically worse than they are now for nominally sane normal people to believe that murdering hedge fund managers or blowing up Wall St would improve their standard of living.
No doubt. Usually revolution occurs when things get so bad that basic needs aren't being met (food shortages, lack of sanitation, lack of public safety, etc.). Of course, were things to get to that level, history indicates that some Wall Streeters may end their own lives (see the Great Depression)! But that doesn't make for as good rhetoric, I guess, even if does indicate how wide reaching such conditions can become.
Or we could just lose sanity altogether and make it all a reality show....
Wallstreeters jumping out of windows committing suicide during the depression is a myth plain and simple, as to lack of public safety if you go by the Black lives matter movement all police forces would be removed.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
