The Political Discussion Thread

[Chaka-Z0]

Yet Trump gave credits to Corps
Yet Trump passed the bill to the working stiff
Yet Trump fiscal reform wasn't enough to keep Amazon

All things you disagree with. Why do you support him? Just for the Wall?

And FYI, the rich people Exodus bc of taxation is a myth in the most part. Fiscal shenanigans can and are used, especially by rich people, to lower their taxable income significantly. If they do business in the states they will have to pay taxes no matter what and the US is too big of a market to just let go.

[SoulReaver]

Yet Trump passed the bill to the working stiff

apparently Annoyed's one of the exceptions (commoners who gained from the GOP tax scam)

assuming of course he speaks true & isn't just trying to save face

[Chaka-Z0]

apparently Annoyed's one of the exceptions (commoners who gained from the GOP tax scam)

assuming of course he speaks true & isn't just trying to save face

It's only a scam for those that didn't look further than ''we're getting lower taxes, noishe''. History tells us politicians that get elected on that premise always end up digging the govt further in a pit of debts. Donald doesn't listen to economists though.

As for specific cases, in this instance Annoyed, I think it's much simpler than that. He did say he pays his taxes in advances, it's not uncommon to have paid too much at the end of the year and collect a small return.

I'm convinced many Americans among the trolls who voted Trump now very much resent their choices. They voted in clear conscience that they would actually get more money in their pocket but instead had their butts turned upside down. Sad really.

[Gatefan1976]

It's only a scam for those that didn't look further than ''we're getting lower taxes, noishe''. History tells us politicians that get elected on that premise always end up digging the govt further in a pit of debts. Donald doesn't listen to economists though.

As for specific cases, in this instance Annoyed, I think it's much simpler than that. He did say he pays his taxes in advances, it's not uncommon to have paid too much at the end of the year and collect a small return.

I'm convinced many Americans among the trolls who voted Trump now very much resent their choices. They voted in clear conscience that they would actually get more money in their pocket but instead had their butts turned upside down. Sad really.

Break that down some more.
Annoyed's generation got handed everything on a platter, and I don't mean him specifically, but his GENERATION.
Education was handled by Pell Grants for the less fortunate, Jobs were created in the manufacturing industry then the service industry. Companies (not corps) ensured that their workers got a fair days pay for a fair days work and families, not just individuals could live on a single wage. They also provided healthcare for their workers, which they never should have done, but they did, and the US is paying for it now.
What the mega-corps and "MAGA" style regimes around the world are doing is quite simple "the industrial revolution is bad for you", except this time it's the service to tech revolution. They want you to still be picking up horse crap because those "automobiles" are dangerous. They want all the benefits of a golden age while putting the average person into the dark age.

[Gatefan1976]

I agree. And capitalism is the best way to do that.

How would you know?
I mean, you have said I don't live in your world in NYS, so I can't comment, but you have never lived in a "socialist state" with things like public access healthcare and pay security.

In a socialist / communist system, the "top" is defined by how close your connections to the party are, as opposed to your earning power in a capitalist system.

What makes either of those things different?
It's not what you know but who you know is a capitalism catchphrase.
The power of the individual Vs the government?
Please, that's a joke for most people on the planet.

The only difference is what defines the top from the middle and lower classes.

What exactly is that difference?

But have you ever notices that under socialist regimes, the only "top" is the party bosses and well-connected, everyone else is in the peon or poverty class; there is rarely a middle class of any size.

I love seeing you destroy your own arguments and not realizing it.

Whereas with capitalism, there is a fairly large middle class, and then the bottom class.

Yet, your middle class is shrinking, Hmmm.

And importantly, it is possible for one to improve one's lot in capitalism by working hard, and yes, having some luck plays a part as well.

Are you serious here?

I don't care what system you're under, if you don't have at least some good luck, you might as well not even play, just accept that your circumstances suck.

Always some excuse.

[Annoyed]

Yet Trump gave credits to Corps
Yet Trump passed the bill to the working stiff
Yet Trump fiscal reform wasn't enough to keep Amazon

All things you disagree with. Why do you support him? Just for the Wall?

And FYI, the rich people Exodus bc of taxation is a myth in the most part. Fiscal shenanigans can and are used, especially by rich people, to lower their taxable income significantly. If they do business in the states they will have to pay taxes no matter what and the US is too big of a market to just let go.

You've been listening to GF & the MSM too much. How many times have I said that Amazon chose to cancel its plans in NYC due to STATE & local demands and taxation. The Feds (meaning Trump's tax reform) had nothing to do with it, this was state only.

Trump's tax reform plan DOES benefit working class people, I'm an example of where it does. It also does benefit corporations, but the point is that it benefits working class folks too. But the MSM won't tell you that.

[Chaka-Z0]

Kay. Time to set things straight, enough with the suppositions and assumptions. It's facts time.

1- The corporate cuts are permanent, while the individual changes expire at the end of 2025.

The impact on individuals & couples
2-Trump's tax plan doubles the standard deduction. A single filer's deduction increases from $6,350 to $12,000. The deduction for married and joint filers increases from $12,700 to $24,000. It reverts back to the current level in 2026.

Chaka's comment: This might seem good at first glance, but one must dig further to get a clear picture. (see #3)

3- It eliminates personal exemptions. Before the Act, taxpayers subtracted $4,150 from income for each person claimed. As a result, some families with many children will pay higher taxes despite the Act's increased standard deductions.

Unas voiceover: The flat deduction is great for single individuals, but families are the big losers in this endeavor.

Real-estate market
4- As more taxpayers take a standard deduction, fewer would take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction. That could lower housing prices.

Chaka's 2 cent: Good time to buy real estate, although one must be very careful due to the possibility of a bubble in the household market.

Annoyed's world
5-Taxpayers can deduct up to $10,000 in state and local taxes. They must choose between property taxes and income or sales taxes. This will harm taxpayers in high-tax states like New York and California.

Chaka's input: Your high-tax states you keep lamenting about are the most affected by this, don't praise Trump too quickly.

Conclusion: Business owners, wealthy people and those with a lot of real-estate properties will benefit the most since the real-estate deductions have been increased significantly and the flat tax rate lowered.

The removal of standard deductions affect negatively families, more specifically families with many children.

High-tax states residents are the biggest losers, since there is only the one deduction up to 10k and must choose between income, state or property taxes. But again, wealthy folks won't care about that.

Source: https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-t...ts-you-4113968

[Annoyed]

Kay. Time to set things straight, enough with the suppositions and assumptions. It's facts time.

1- The corporate cuts are permanent, while the individual changes expire at the end of 2025.


The impact on individuals & couples
2-Trump's tax plan doubles the standard deduction. A single filer's deduction increases from $6,350 to $12,000. The deduction for married and joint filers increases from $12,700 to $24,000. It reverts back to the current level in 2026.

Chaka's comment: This might seem good at first glance, but one must dig further to get a clear picture. (see #3)

And if you don't think Congress is going to make that permanent, you are a sadly mistaken Lizard.

3- It eliminates personal exemptions. Before the Act, taxpayers subtracted $4,150 from income for each person claimed. As a result, some families with many children will pay higher taxes despite the Act's increased standard deductions.

Unas voiceover: The flat deduction is great for single individuals, but families are the big losers in this endeavor.

Single (mostly male) taxpayers have been far more heavily taxed than other groups for a very long time. It's about time someone tried to rectify that. Why on earth should a person who didn't have kids be taxed more heavily that someone who does? Or is this more of the "to each according to his needs" Karl Marx mentality?

Real-estate market
4- As more taxpayers take a standard deduction, fewer would take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction. That could lower housing prices.

Chaka's 2 cent: Good time to buy real estate, although one must be very careful due to the possibility of a bubble in the household market.

Isn't this good for people trying to attain the "American Dream" of home ownership? Usually, these folks are on the lower end of the income scale.

Annoyed's world
5-Taxpayers can deduct up to $10,000 in state and local taxes. They must choose between property taxes and income or sales taxes. This will harm taxpayers in high-tax states like New York and California.

Chaka's input: Your high-tax states you keep lamenting about are the most affected by this, don't praise Trump too quickly.

Of course it harms taxpayers in tax hellholes. That effect was intentional. When the taxpayers in these states have to bear the full brunt of the exorbitant tax rates, without dulling the pain with federal deductions, those taxpayers will start to pressure their state governments to lower tax rates (or move out of the state in the case of lost causes like NY). Again, that's a GOOD thing, not a bad one.

Conclusion: Business owners, wealthy people and those with a lot of real-estate properties will benefit the most since the real-estate deductions have been increased significantly and the flat tax rate lowered.

The removal of standard deductions affect negatively families, more specifically families with many children.

High-tax states residents are the biggest losers, since there is only the one deduction up to 10k and must choose between income, state or property taxes. But again, wealthy folks won't care about that.

Source: https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-t...ts-you-4113968

Those may be your conclusions, but in my opinion, they are the wrong conclusions.

[Chaka-Z0]

And if you don't think Congress is going to make that permanent, you are a sadly mistaken Lizard.

Until the next guy comes up and changes everything again.

Single (mostly male) taxpayers have been far more heavily taxed than other groups for a very long time. It's about time someone tried to rectify that. Why on earth should a person who didn't have kids be taxed more heavily that someone who does? Or is this more of the "to each according to his needs" Karl Marx mentality?

Correction: His reform indirectly benefits single males, not intended to. And that is the case here as well in Canada, single ppl are taxed the most. Tax credits are given to families in order to promote having kids, which in turn will pay taxes. Simply put Annoyed, you're not profitable enough for the State to get tax candies.

Isn't this good for people trying to attain the "American Dream" of home ownership? Usually, these folks are on the lower end of the income scale.

Just to be clear, all the stuff above my comments are copy paste from the website, not my personal input (Except the conclusion part). Not sure how this is relevant but yea sure I agree. I only wanted to point out that the real estate market will most likely be an interesting area to invest in the following years.

Of course it harms taxpayers in tax hellholes. That effect was intentional. When the taxpayers in these states have to bear the full brunt of the exorbitant tax rates, without dulling the pain with federal deductions, those taxpayers will start to pressure their state governments to lower tax rates (or move out of the state in the case of lost causes like NY). Again, that's a GOOD thing, not a bad one.

Yes it was intentional, and you know damn well why. They didn't vote Trump. He's been quite open about his disgust to those states, and he totally is the kind of man to ''punish'' those that didn't vote for him.

Those may be your conclusions, but in my opinion, they are the wrong conclusions.

What are yours, based on the facts proposed here? I didn't see any disagreement with my conclusions in your post, only vague comments about other stuff.

[aretood2]

Single (mostly male) taxpayers have been far more heavily taxed than other groups for a very long time. It's about time someone tried to rectify that. Why on earth should a person who didn't have kids be taxed more heavily that someone who does? Or is this more of the "to each according to his needs" Karl Marx mentality?

That's easy to answer actually. It's basic pragmatism, fact based logic. Because if birth rates continue to decline they will hit the point of no return. Society will collapse. That is just a fact. Families are the basic foundation of any society and anything that supports families ultimately overrides many other considerations. The basic fact is that if you do not provide for the propagation of our species then you are bound to facilitate those who do. In this society, that means paying slightly higher taxes, paying for education, paying for all of those things. Because if we regulate child rearing only to a minority of people who are financially secure enough to not need any such assistance then we would be unable to produce enough children to maintain our society. It is a matter of societal survival and you benefit from society's survival therefore it only makes sense that you pull your own weight.

It astonishes me how you can continue to remain willfully ignorant of a concept that is inherently conservative in its very nature.

Isn't this good for people trying to attain the "American Dream" of home ownership? Usually, these folks are on the lower end of the income scale.

You mean the people who depend on things like home subsidies, FARM programs, and well financed public education?

Of course it harms taxpayers in tax hellholes. That effect was intentional. When the taxpayers in these states have to bear the full brunt of the exorbitant tax rates, without dulling the pain with federal deductions, those taxpayers will start to pressure their state governments to lower tax rates (or move out of the state in the case of lost causes like NY). Again, that's a GOOD thing, not a bad one.

And yet you continue to live in NY which undercuts your point.

Those may be your conclusions, but in my opinion, they are the wrong conclusions.

There's nothing wrong with differing opinions. However, claiming fact based opinions wrong in favor of "feeling" based opinions as you do is quite dangerous considering the ideas such opinions propagate such as removing the incentive for people to have kids, for crying out loud. The fact you can't see just how fundamentally suicidal that is on a societal level is mind boggling.

[Gatefan1976]

That's easy to answer actually. It's basic pragmatism, fact based logic. Because if birth rates continue to decline they will hit the point of no return. Society will collapse. That is just a fact. Families are the basic foundation of any society and anything that supports families ultimately overrides many other considerations. The basic fact is that if you do not provide for the propagation of our species then you are bound to facilitate those who do. In this society, that means paying slightly higher taxes, paying for education, paying for all of those things. Because if we regulate child rearing only to a minority of people who are financially secure enough to not need any such assistance then we would be unable to produce enough children to maintain our society. It is a matter of societal survival and you benefit from society's survival therefore it only makes sense that you pull your own weight.

Your assessment is ignoring some of the listeners predispositions, like ignoring simple fact based evidence. Immigrants bad. Even if Annoyed wants to claim "only illegals", the simple fact of the matter is the white "conservative base" is not having kids at a rate just to maintain white population just as you said, let alone restore it to dominance. Merit based immigration will eventually change the basic demographics of the US either way because most other "white cultures" are far more socially advanced than the US in terms of pay and social services such as education and healthcare. People immigrate to advance, not to go backwards, why would anyone from the "white basket" WANT to move to the US? The only reason I can think is for fame or a pre-determined paycheque. Even tourism is being affected by US policy. Travel insurance agencies out here sell their services to tourists to the US based on just how BAD it would be to have an accident in the US and have to pay the ridiculous costs of healthcare over there.

It astonishes me how you can continue to remain willfully ignorant of a concept that is inherently conservative in its very nature.

He's not conservative, it's that simple. It's like the Tea Party was not conservative either, nor is the "Freedom Caucus"

You mean the people who depend on things like home subsidies, FARM programs, and well financed public education?

Yeah, people who will have their homes repossessed if the bubble bursts, it's good for them as annoyed says

And yet you continue to live in NY which undercuts your point.

Actually, he has made a good case as to why he cannot move, so I'll let him skate on that particular fact. Although, if he sold his house he could probably outright buy a house in a low tax state like WVA and have enough spare change to live on for quite some time.

There's nothing wrong with differing opinions. However, claiming fact based opinions wrong in favor of "feeling" based opinions as you do is quite dangerous considering the ideas such opinions propagate such as removing the incentive for people to have kids, for crying out loud. The fact you can't see just how fundamentally suicidal that is on a societal level is mind boggling.

He does not care about society, simple as that.

[Womble]

…..And for the third time, I am agreeing with you. You understand not just Geopolitics, but macro-economics.
When I suggest pulling US troops out of the M-E, it's not some kind of dig at you, it's to show how damaging unilaterally pulling US troops out of an area can be, not just for the nation(s) being aided, but for the US itself. YOU just happened to be the one bringing it up, so I used the M-E.
Israel is a stabilizing force in the M-E, it also happens to be an influence MANY religiously minded republicans pay attention to, so while they may be willing to pull troops out of SoKo, or Europe, they are far less enthused with the idea of pulling them out of the M-E., or specifically anywhere that would immediately damage Israel.
Once more, Israel is getting used, this time for political leverage.

Are you suggesting that USA forces in the Middle East are there to defend Israel? As opposed to Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other places where they are actually stationed?

[Gatefan1976]

Are you suggesting that USA forces in the Middle East are there to defend Israel? As opposed to Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other places where they are actually stationed?

I am suggesting that some in the US are more happy to accept the excuse of being there for Israel than any actual reality Womble.
I am stating that by placing troops in some states, it stops troops in other states from acting. Are the troops in SoKo there for stopping China?
No, but they do.
Are the troops in Germany there to stop German neighbours, or to stop Russian advances?
Stop looking for everything I say to be anti-Jewish or Anti-Semetic.
You think I have a hard on for abusing your nation and religion, and I don't.
I could claim you have a persecution complex, but I don't because Judaism actually has a history of being persecuted, but I do wonder if that history, just like my own religion colours your perception.
I'll freely admit that the sustained, century (to Millenia) spanning destruction of everything associated with not just my religion, but all pagan/heathen religious sites, priests, priestesses and followers from your basic belief system and it's successors does not rub me the wrong way, because it does.

Sigh.
To get back on topic however, no, the troops are not there to specifically defend Israel.
Would they be there if Israel was not?

[Gatefan1976]

Here is a better question, if the M-E had no oil, would the US be there at all?

[Coco Pops]

Here is a better question, if the M-E had no oil, would the US be there at all?

Oh come on Gatefan. Blind Freddy can answer that one. "NO"

If there was never any oil there the USA WOULDN'T be there at all. They would not care.

They would be exploiting whatever other country has all the oil.