So... you disagree.


So... progressive values.


LOL - you can wonder all you want about whether or not I post another another name. It's your imagination after all, right?

I'm not sure what you think I'm denying though... You're suggesting that my arguments amount to the same "reasoning" one gets from an anti-capitalism, pro-big government, nanny state con job.

Well, I wouldn't say that's ALL my arguments amount to but yeah, there are some common points because everything has its pros and cons.

I'm a free thinker, Seth... (or, at least I try to be.) So, I don't have to back off any arguments someone else may have made because it's "off-limits". And to be blunt... some anti-capitalist arguments do make sense. Trust me, a lot of people would have considered that comment you made about the Federal Reserve as being "anti-capitalist" (whether you agree with that assessment or not).

As for big government (I assume you mean more social programs) yes, for some things, NOT for everything! Some services are life-critical, which means one way or another we need the service. Now, I think it makes logical sense to assume a business will NOT invest in such a service if it isn't profitable. (That's not the argument of an anti-capitalist, that's the argument of a capitalist that knows how to invest.)

In those cases, I don't see why we can't socialize the services by giving it to the republic (public sector) in order to insure our general welfare as stated in the Constitution. For everything else, I like capitalism. Capitalism can still give me all those things I add to my life to make it even better. You know what I mean, the things you WANT to be working for.

So... if you're trying to put me in a box, you're wasting your time. Try to focus on the argument.

It's nice that we agree on something for a change

Which founders? Hamilton may have wanted a federally managed central bank but Jefferson sure as hell didn't. I think people forget how much our founders disagreed with each other.

But what they did agree upon was that the entire purpose of the Constitution is form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

And then they had the foresight to give us a flexible constitution designed to adapt to the changing needs so we can continue to meet the objectives.

I think a lot of people share your opinion but unless a clear majority of Americans feel that way, it's not going to happen that way. That's because the rules of our government is shaped by the will of the people.

It might surprise you that I share a similar view in that I prefer to see more power delegated to the states. In fact, I consider myself an anti-federalist.

As for the local churches... they never handled welfare in the first place. Churches deal with charity which is not the same thing.

Let me try to explain the difference...

With charity, activity is limited to getting whatever money you can and then distributing in any way you can. If it's enough to take care of the needy, great! If not... well, there isn't much that can be done.

With welfare the needs are actually assessed and the amount needed is established, THEN the government sets up a tax policy that will collect the amount needed.

So while charity is a wonderful thing, it's effectiveness is left to chance. Welfare is a much stronger guarantee that Americans won't starve.

The unemployment rate has been falling at a consistent rate for the last ten years so there really isn't any basis for crediting the 2017 tax cuts. The same can be said for the upward rate of change for wages.

Feel free to introduce any evidence or rationale that might make a stronger argument.

I tend not to put too much emphasis on the unemployment rate because it only counts the number of people claiming unemployment benefits. It is not an accurate reflection of joblessness because many people lose their jobs and don't qualify for benefits, such as independent contractors. The unemployment rate doesn't account for those who have exhausted their claims and still haven't found a job either. I was saying the same thing when Obama kept touting the unemployment rate. It seems to be what presidents do.

And regarding the pandemic, 5% of the our population over 70 is 17 million. 1% of the rest of the population is 29.4 million. So... 'we just gonna tell 'em to f-off?

Seth... It's not like I haven't heard this before. The only new information you're giving me is that you are one of the people who believe it.

I understand the theory... less taxes leaves more money to shift into payroll. So, while I agree that lower business tax can give a business a better opportunity to create jobs, there seems to be very little evidence that it actually happens. The problem is that there is so many other things a business can do with that money, especially if they don't really NEED to create new jobs.

Try to remember that private sector businesses don't create jobs just because they have the money to do it. There has to be a need and we are currently entering a new era of automation which is decreasing that need at an alarming rate.

I'll give you an example from personal experience...

In 2015-2016 I was involved with the development of a system for AT&T that automates 80% of the work typically done by linemen in the field. I feel kind of bad because that system led to significant job loss but at the same time, it gave me a close up look at a huge national problem that I see Obama, Clinton and Biden discussing while Trump ignores it completely.

Trump keeps talking about bringing jobs back from offshore as if we are still living in the 80's, but the fact of the matter is, those jobs only account for a small fraction of the jobs lost in recent years, 60% of which were lost to automation.

Think about it... If I'm running a business and I have 20 employees but there's an automated system on sale that can do the job of 12 of them at 10% of the cost. What do you think I'm going to do with the money I get from a tax cut?

We also have two years of data to study since the 2017 tax cut and the studies are finding that those tax cuts did NOT create anywhere near the number of jobs that was promised. Of course, I'm not surprised.

2020 Seth... we live in 2020, not 1950.


Which useless bureaucracy are you talking about? The social security trust fund that most of the old conservatives on this site depend on? Medicare, which most of the old conservatives on this site also depend on? The Postal Service? The Armed Forces? The USDA that inspects our food supply so we don't get Salmonella every time we buy food? Tell me Seth, what are these useless bureaucracies that you know SO much about? Can you name one?


That's an easy one to explain... Employees tend to be better compensated in the public sector because the interests of the worker isn't competing with the interest of the stockholder.

As for your second statement, I don't think ANYONE can prove that one way or another. But I think there is a fundamental difference between expectations driven by a need to provide a service and expectations driven by the need for a service to be profitable (which usually translates to "more work for less money").

What I don't understand is why you think paying workers a decent wage is so horrible. Who's side are you on Seth?


Get real Seth... the government's role is whatever the democracy want's it to be. Even the Constitution itself is subject to the manipulations of our democracy... That's what amendments are for. That makes your statement nothing more than a personal opinion.


I would hardly call a welfare check "high-dollar". And I hardly think the terms, "non-productive" or "unemployable" applies to the hundreds of thousands of children that benefit from welfare. But let me ask you something...

What do YOU think we should do with a family that loses its breadwinner to cancer or a car accident? Let's say the mother goes to work but doesn't have the skills the father had and therefore can't support the surviving family in the same way? Do we just ignore them? Is that the American way Seth? Fck anyone that isn't me?


It might help if you knew how to reason in the first place.


This question keeps coming up, it must be a popular parrot point. The short answer is cost of living. It has nothing to with taxes. Blue states attract people with higher levels of education looking for better paying jobs and that results in more purchasing power per capita which drives up the cost of living. The people who are leaving aren't running away from excessive tax, they are the low-income people getting displaced by high-income people. It's called gentrification. Look it up.


I don't think tax increases make all that much difference to the size of a company. I think there are a lot of other reasons why a company downsizes, with automation being one of the biggest. Outsourcing is another one, which itself has more to do with actual wages than taxes. Just because a tax hike happens while a company restructures itself to minimize payroll doesn't mean the tax hike is the reason for the downsize.


Well, now that you've seen my responses that point out all the causes and effects you missed, it seems your statement doesn't hold water. It seems all you know is the same antiquated parrot points that I've been hearing for years which leaves me wondering if you even bother to look at causes and effects.


I don't see Democrats making any such assumptions. Strawman much?


Well, it's clear that you think slave wages are better and you have already shown that you have no clue what defunding the police even means.


Well, that's pretty obvious in more ways than one. Let's start by looking at the most affordable health insurance policy in history... Obama's public option, designed for any American that can't afford private sector insurance. Boy, did that make the insurance industry angry. Why? Because how is the insurance industry going to rip people off if they can just opt for the public option? The insurance industry paid billions for the Republicans to cancel it and of course they did with the support of all their useful idiots.

The market side of the ACA which still survives uses exchanges governed by a rule that basically says, "only charge what they can afford". This has been a resounding success in states like California and New York where strong politicians stand up to corporate monopolies and the exchanges remain competitive. But in the red states where politicians are weak and allow corporations to do what they want, there are only a few companies in control of state monopolies so the exchanges don't work so well for them.


Think what you want Seth. I'm more interested in the topic at hand than I am in character assaults.


LOL - I really don't have any interest or need to add a pseudonym to my already anonymous profile. It's very possible someone else with the intellect to break down a post and analyze it could also join the discussions. There's plenty of smart people out there.

Just not in the red states...

LOL - 'kidding...

...sort of.

I do like the simplicity of that solution and given how so much of the population hasn't the time to figure out the more complex issues, maybe it's the best option to put through the ballot.

But at the moment, neither candidate is supporting that option anyway. Both appear to support a graduated tax system, So the pressing question for the 2020 election is should we let Biden shift more of the burden on those who can afford it or should we let the 2017 tax policy continue to push us further into debt?

That being said, let me explain what I mean by the more complex issues... With a flat tax, the rate would have to be determined by the lowest denominator. That's because we can't expect people to pay a percentage that doesn't leave enough to afford a minimal cost of living.

So if the annual cost of living is $20K (which it is, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics) and a worker only makes $25K, the highest percentage he could afford while surviving the cost of living is 20%.

And that might be fine if all we want to do is insure no one gets the life taxed out of him.

But there's another issue... America is operating on a deficit. In other words, we are spending more than we have. We could cut spending but none of the Democrats want to cut their programs and none of the Republicans want to cut there's, so there's a partisan impasse on that. So, now what?

Well, if we can't (or won't) cut spending then the only other option is to increase revenue but if we tax everyone at a flat 20% it will never happen.


If we do that then you will NEVER see a flat tax proposal - LOL

Seriously though, I realize it sounds extreme to suggest an execution for a president. But I'm really not joking about it. I have never made any such suggestion about any previous president before, not even Bush Jr. But I honestly do think Trump, more than any president in history, has lied to the American people, abused our laws, incited violence and chaos and put our nation at risk for personal gain. I do think there is abundant evidence to suggest he is guilty of treason, which according to our laws can be punishable by death.

I would like to Trump given a fair trial for this and if he is found guilty, I do think he should be executed as an example to any potential candidate with similar designs on our republic.

Will, it happen? Probably not, but that doesn't mean the American people can't demand it.

BigMike, are you going to answer that?


Not sure anyone knows the answer to that but the point is clear. There is no disputing the fact that Trump has a long record of blowing off people that he owes money too and I agree that does make him a thief... But all those payoffs and settlements suggest he's is not a particularly good one.


Not sure anyone knows that off-hand either, but again your point is made. Trump has filed bankruptcy several times which is one way to NOT pay your debts.


I hope he sticks to that. Joe doesn't need to bring up details on what a POS Trump is because he is appealing to a more intelligent base that can figure that out on their own. Joe needs to stick to discussions about what he can do for America, so that we have at least one candidate that actually concerns his campaign with the challenges of the next four years. Trump sure as hell isn't... I don't even think he knows what the challenges are.


Candidates have been digging up dirt since Hoover and it often works in swaying the weaker minds sharing our democracy where the challenges that we should be measuring candidates up to are not really understood.

The Biden/Harris campaign really doesn't need to do that. Trump's flaws and failures are already more than abundantly visible to everyone.

But it's worth pointing out that the 2016 Trump campaign actually set a new precedent by fabricating stories out of nothing and pretending to have "dug them up". Since Fox News won that lawsuit where it was ruled that the news presented in the media does NOT have to be true, the effectiveness of lies on the influence of the lesser-educated and the emotionally driven have become obvious and that's what Trump tapped into in 2016 and he's continuing the practice now and again, it's working... mostly on the same people it did in 2016.

Unfortunately for Trump, the minority of the voters that in 2016 gave him a chance in the EC won't be enough in 2020 if the Democrats unite this time, which it looks like they are doing.

What's the matter? You don't like all those jobs the Democrats create with those public sector payrolls?

Look, you can't get away from bureaucracy Seth. You can push them out of the public sector but they will just reappear in the private sector as corporate bureaucracy. A service exists when there's a demand for it and as long as there is a demand the associated bureaucracy will be there whether it's public sector or private sector.

The difference is the public sector is nonprofit so it's actually more cost effective, which is why the insurance industry hated Obama's public option so much. They can't compete with a nonprofit public service.

Another reason why Democrats like putting services in the public sector is that human critical services won't be limited to the highest bidders.


I'm just going to answer this with an excerpt from my OP, which you probably didn't actually read.

Now, the reason why people *think* Democrats spend more is because the approach Democrats take is transparent by virtue of the fact that they submit spending bills to our elected representatives who vote on the bill and the taxes required to fund it. This puts their spending in full view where we can watch our representatives argue about it.

Republican leaders on the other hand don't even talk to Congress, they prefer to use the office of the president to borrow money through the U.S.Treasury so there is no obligation to seek our approval or to even inform us that it's happening.

And THAT's why it "appears" as if the Democrats spend more. In reality they're just being more transparent.


A lot of those people are just moving out there because you can get a mansion for next to nothing, but feel free to imagine anything you want. One thing I will point out is that more people are running toward the blues cities and states that the other way around and that's because the blue cities and states are where all the good jobs are. Who cares if your tax rate goes up 5% when your wages go up 40%?


That's another inescapable problem Seth... The reason why those cities are biting their nails is because they are committed to the problem. Private sector pensions also get over committed but you don't see them biting their nails because they don't care, they know they can just cut you off and they will and they have.


Good. It's about time America takes responsibility.


I wouldn't be laughing so hard right now if the 2017 tax cuts actually created any jobs in the first place.


Even if that were true, I would be fine with it. More room for smarter people to create new business. Watching fools run away from blue regions to avoid taxes is like flushing the toilet.

I never said I was happy about the taxes... I'm just being matter of fact about them. I guess hard reality something you folks can't deal with.

Feel free to elaborate.


When I signed up on OPP, I WAS in California and I will be again as soon as I get my mother in a better living arrangement here in PA. I just never updated my OPP profile.

Actually, I already thought about that but sometimes I just have to wait for people to respond with all those patent arguments and answer as they come in, otherwise my OP would be a mile long.

So first, I'll point out that my entire post was concerned with individual income tax and that the vast majority of American workers don't get paid out of anyone's individual income.

So there goes your argument, but I got something to say about this brainwash garbage that we are so incredibly dependent on the wealthy for our livelihoods...

It's bull5hit that only works on people who can't see far enough ahead to notice that ultimately, it's the middle-class consumers that create the demand without which your fat cat sugar daddy would choke and die.

In fact, the U.S. economy known for being the largest on the planet, is almost entirely consumer driven. So it's absurd to sit there thinking everything depends on the supply side.

The only reason Republicans keep programming you with that impression is that their golfing buddies don't want to lose their supply-side benefits so they need YOU to vote against those that threaten to take them away.

Will it raise taxes on all of us?

According to Kayleigh McEnany it will, but I really don't find the cute little bimbo all that convincing. I need an rational argument not just the opinion of someone who looks and acts like she just graduated high school.

Biden himself says it won't. He says it will only raise taxes on those making over $400,000. The difference here is that I can actually see his proposal and that is exactly what it says.

Do we need to raise taxes at all?

I would say that depends on few variables... First, does our government have the money to cover its expenses? If not, can we cut those expenses? If not, can we get the money to cover those expenses without raising taxes?

The fact that our national deficit is continuing to rise tells me that the first answer is no, our government does NOT have the money to cover its expenses. The experience with post-recession budgets has shown a partisan impasse on cutting expenses where Democrats want to keep their spending programs and Republicans want to keep theirs, so I'm going to say the second answer is also no. That leaves the third question... can we get the money to cover those expenses without raising taxes? And the answer there is yes, we can.

Having said that, I want to explain something to my Republican friends. The government's ONLY source of revenue is tax. That is, unless we start allowing the government to run profit-driven services, but do we really want the government competing in the market? Isn't that what all the fuss over Obama's public option was about? Isn't that basically a step toward socialism? Let's just not even get into that.

So... if the only source of revenue is tax, then how else can we get money to cover expenses? Well, if we don't HAVE it we have to BORROW it and our colossal national debt indicates that we do in fact borrow a LOT of money.

Now I'm going to explain these two options in the context of our partisan history. Some of my Republican friends might get a little agitated but please hear me out.

A fundamental difference between parties is in the way each side spends money and another is in the way each side funds their spending. There's a common perception that Democrats just spend more money, so they need more money and that's why they are always raising taxes. But this perception will be corrected in the course of my explanation.

Indeed, Republicans actually spend as much as Democrats do, just on different things. The difference is Republicans promise lower taxes to get the votes then borrow whatever they need to make up the difference and that's why we have such a colossal national debt. If we funded all our spending with taxes we wouldn't even HAVE a national debt.

Now, the reason why people *think* Democrats spend more is because the approach Democrats take is transparent by virtue of the fact that they submit spending bills to our elected representatives who vote on the bill and the taxes required to fund it. This puts their spending in full view where we can watch our representatives argue about it.

Republican leaders on the other hand don't even talk to Congress, they prefer to use the office of the president to borrow money through the U.S.Treasury so there is no obligation to seek our approval or to even inform us that it's happening.

And THAT's why it "appears" as if the Democrats spend more. In reality they're just being more transparent.

Of course, both approaches are provisioned in the Constitution but raising taxes, a power given to Congress, is meant to be the standard practice and borrowing through the Treasury is supposed to be for emergencies only, not the standard practice that Republicans have turned it into.

But to give the Republicans credit, their approach has been very successful at keeping them in power, because nothing says "vote for me" like "No new taxes!"

But there's more to consider...

Not only are Republicans covertly spending borrowed money, the debts they incur from all that borrowing HAVE to be paid off eventually and since the government's only source of revenue is taxes that means the debt, sooner or later, has to be paid WITH taxes... So, not only are Republicans simply deferring the taxes for our children to pay, but they are actually increasing the taxes required to fund their spending because of added interest.

Sorry kids!

So, getting back to the main question... I think it's pretty clear... Yes, we can borrow but it's infinitely better to raise taxes to fund out expenses than it is to borrow. The last thing we want to do is force our children into debt servitude to the communists in Beijing, which is exactly what Republicans have been doing since Reagan and Trump... is NOT changing that.

But wait, there is another trick up the Republican sleeve; it's an interesting idea.

Can we raise revenue by lowering taxes?

Now, I *do* understand the theory that we can increase revenue by lowering taxes. The idea being that lower taxes allows business to divert the money they save to payrolls for more jobs, which means more incomes to tax. It's a neat idea that comes with fancy diagrams like the Laffer Curve. The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work anywhere but on paper.

The Laffer Curve depends on very strict parameters that can be illustrated on paper but they can't be guaranteed in the reality of a free economy. When Reagan implemented this theory in his supply-side economics many other factors came into play and economists to this day can't really determine the isolated impact of supply-side economic policies.

But the kitchen table math doesn't really support the theory either... If a company saves $200,000 in taxes and diverts that to payroll to support four $50,000 jobs. Each of those salaries would be taxed at around 20%, which means the revenue decreases from $200,000 to $40,000.

Sorry folks, but when I see Republicans with a handful of beans, I'm not expecting a beanstalk to lift us up to the clouds where geese lay golden eggs.

The last attempt to push supply-side magic into law was the 2017 tax cuts, which promised more jobs but failed to actually do it. I know Republicans will jump up and down about the jobs Trump created, but they will also ignore the greater number of jobs lost. And there isn't much evidence to suggest that the jobs that were created came from the tax cuts. Actually, we can SEE where a lot of the tax savings went. Millions of it went to stock buybacks which is great for stockholders but it doesn't leave much for those promised payrolls.

So, unless someone can show me what I'm missing, I'm just going to write that whole theory off as a fantasy. Which leaves me with the sobering conclusion that we DO need to raise taxes to increase the government revenue to fund our spending without indebting our children to those communists in China.

So...

Is it fair to tax the wealthy?

Let me ask you this... Is it fair that golf tees for women are closer to the hole? Is it fair that parking spots closest to the entrance are reserved for the disabled? Why would the question about taxing wealthy people more than poor people be any different?

In simple terms... wealthy people can afford bigger tax bills, most people in the middle class can't. That doesn't mean we want to take all the advantages of being wealthy away. We aren't trying to punish people for being rich or equalize people to benefit the lazy. There is a LOT of bandwidth between extremes here. A person with $100 in his pocket can give a starving person $5 to by lunch and STILL have $95 in his pocket and that's about all Biden's tax plan calls for. All he is really proposing with respect to individual income tax is that we repeal the 2017 tax cut for the wealthy who were doing just fine BEFORE the tax cut.

Besides wealth distribution is so extreme by this point that it's ridiculous to think the government can continue squeezing money out of the poorest people to pay for it's spending.

I mean, why tax the worker with a high school diploma at 22% leaving him with barely enough to pay rent and basic provisions for a measly $3,000 when we can tax the NFL athlete at 40%, giving us $800,000 and STILL leaving him with millions in spendable cash? It certainly doesn't take away MY incentive to work hard and make millions.

So in conclusion... I don't think there is ANYTHING wrong with Biden's tax plan. In fact, if anything I would say it's not enough. But then again, I'm a geolibertarian who thinks we shouldn't be taxing income at all. I think it's better to tax profits made from the ownership of property. In other words, don't tax the $10 wage earned by the worker laboring in the fields. Tax the $500,000 profit earned by the landlord sipping mojitos on his porch.

But alas, America isn't ready for something that logical. In the meantime, I think Biden's plan to fix the deficit caused by the 2017 cuts is a move in the right direction.

Actually to be fair, McConnell who is refusing to accept either the Pelosi bill OR the Trump bill, did say something about vetting the recipients instead of just issuing checks to everyone. My questions there is how expensive will the vetting process be and how long will it take and will the process be transparent so we know we aren't getting screwed?

(Nothing personal but I really don't trust McConnell any further than I could throw him).


LOL - I want to call that an understatement. It took Obama his entire first term to pull America out of the mess Bush left us with. I think it will be critical that Joe get a solid staff under him... with people that actually know what they are doing. That means he needs to "drain the swamp" of incompetent loyalists that Trump gathered together.