The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
04-29-2021, 12:05 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
I would prefer that loopholes were sealed up.
As for what should the specific tax rates should be, I dont know. Nobody actually knows, although lots of people think they know.
Depending on how elastic demand is, raising taxes on certain goods would absolutely decrease demand enough to decrease overall tax revenue, but this elasticity of demand varies with different commodities and industries. Its a difficult thing to optimize, made more so difficult when the decision is made political, and influenced by lobbyist.
Personal income tax, as much as I find it distasteful, is necessary to some extent, regardless of whether you separate medicare / social security taxes out as an independent group or not. (The fact is that there is no actual separation of these monies after they are collected.)
If theyre not paying corporate taxes and not paying income tax, their tax burden is low, especially when compared to how massive their wealth is.
Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen For The Top One Percent Since World War II
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...t-world-war-ii
I also think the wastefulness is an issue that extends way beyond just the government. Goods that should be considered "durable", in the sense that they are not traditional consumables, are being treated like consumable, throw away products. All this **** is a waste of resources, and is bad for long term sustainability, but in our culture it is seen as a good thing because it drives market growth.
This is where there is a big break down in what has the best utility for society, and what is best for the economy. Businesses have a lot of incentive to market wasteful, consumerism to the masses.
A true fiscal conservative knows the parable of the broken window, but thats not what you see advocated by Republican politicians now (any politicians to be fair). To me, it looks more like crony capitalism.
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 03:01 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 356
Total Cats: 93
CDC: Here are our nuanced guidelines for those who are vaccinated (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...-guidance.html)
Smooth Brain: bUt YoU sAiD sOmEtHiNg DiFfErEnT lAsT yEaR
Smooth Brain: bUt YoU sAiD sOmEtHiNg DiFfErEnT lAsT yEaR
Reply
1
1
04-29-2021, 03:35 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
New York Post reporter quits citing pressure to write incorrect story about Kamala Harris
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/28/new-york-post-reporter-quits-over-incorrect-story-about-kamala-harris-book
The New York Post published an article on 23 April headlined “Kam on in”, which claimed migrant children were being given welcome packs that contained copies of the US vice-president’s 2019 children’s picture book, Superheroes Are Everywhere. A follow-up article claimed thousands of copies had been distributed.
In reality, officials said a single copy of the book had been donated by a member of the public as part of a call for presents to give to unaccompanied child migrants.
Despite this, the story was followed up by several rightwing media outlets including Fox News. One of the cable channel’s reporters even asked the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, about the supposed mass distribution of Harris’s book by the government, while Republican politicians suggested it was part of a plot to direct government funds into Harris’s pocket.
In reality, officials said a single copy of the book had been donated by a member of the public as part of a call for presents to give to unaccompanied child migrants.
Despite this, the story was followed up by several rightwing media outlets including Fox News. One of the cable channel’s reporters even asked the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, about the supposed mass distribution of Harris’s book by the government, while Republican politicians suggested it was part of a plot to direct government funds into Harris’s pocket.
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 03:46 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
why didnt psaki just tell foxnews this fact? because she never has an answer?
Are WP's sources better than psaki's?
Q: There was a report in the last couple of days in the New York Post that every migrant child being brought to a shelter is being given a copy of her children’s book, “Superheroes are Everywhere.” Do you know why that is and if she is making any money off of that?
MS. PSAKI: Of the President — of the Vice President’s —
Q The Vice President’s book. Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check with our Health and Human Services team if — you’re talking about if they go to shelters or if they go —
Q Yeah. In the welcome kit, apparently, there’s a copy of her 2019 children’s book, “Superheroes are Everywhere.”
MS. PSAKI: I’d have to certainly check on that. I hear it’s a good book.
MS. PSAKI: Of the President — of the Vice President’s —
Q The Vice President’s book. Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check with our Health and Human Services team if — you’re talking about if they go to shelters or if they go —
Q Yeah. In the welcome kit, apparently, there’s a copy of her 2019 children’s book, “Superheroes are Everywhere.”
MS. PSAKI: I’d have to certainly check on that. I hear it’s a good book.
Are WP's sources better than psaki's?
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 04:13 PM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
Many Republican voters agree with Biden - 'trickle-down economics' has failed
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/many-republican-voters-agree-with-biden-trickle-down-economics-has-failed-2021-04-29/
A 2020 study by the London School of Economics of 50 years of data from 18 countries showed that the only significant effect of significant tax cuts to the rich was to increase income inequality with little benefit to unemployment or economic growth.
Among Republicans, four in 10 agreed that it was a failed theory, while three in 10 disagreed. Among Democrats, seven in 10 agreed that trickle-down economics never worked, while two in 10 disagreed.
The Ipsos poll was conducted online, in English, throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 1,000 adults, including 290 Republicans and 360 Democrats. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 5 percentage points.
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 06:44 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,038
Total Cats: 6,604
The same problem with companies avoiding taxes exists with individuals as well, and similarly to how big corporations have the means while small businesses do not, rich people have the means to avoid income taxes, while the lower and middle classes do not. If your rich enough, you dont have to pay yourself any salary because all of your accommodations are filled by your business, even if it is just a series of shell companies. So it doesnt matter how high or low their income taxes are, theyre not paying it.
If theyre not paying corporate taxes and not paying income tax, their tax burden is low, especially when compared to how massive their wealth is.
Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen For The Top One Percent Since World War II
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...t-world-war-ii
If theyre not paying corporate taxes and not paying income tax, their tax burden is low, especially when compared to how massive their wealth is.
Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen For The Top One Percent Since World War II
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...t-world-war-ii
How much of my own personal income do you feel entitled to? Because that's really what this is about. We rich folk pay a lot more in absolute tax dollars than we receive in value. And unlike the economy as a whole, the disbursement of tax dollars genuinely is a zero-sum game*. Last year, I paid about $37,500 in income taxes. I'm pretty sure I didn't receive $37,500 in value.
Why is this?
Well, back in the "old days" as you're fond of remembering, the state & federal governments really didn't do much. They pretty much stuck to their constitutionally-mandated roles of having a court system, resolving disputes, providing for the national defense (not being the world police, which is very different), and... not a whole lot else.
Over the decades, the government has assumed all sorts of new responsibilities. Providing education, providing income assistance, providing healthcare, providing pensions and other retirement assistance, subsidizing businesses, and so on.
Why is this?
Easy: because promising to give people free stuff is an easy way to get votes. And creating government agencies is an easy way to accrue power and influence. Which, at the end of the day, is really the end-goal of all political careers.
* = assumes a balanced budget and no deficit spending, which of course is not the case at the Federal level.
Reply
0
0
04-29-2021, 08:44 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
Is that why they asked for an explanation? did you even read the Q/A or watch the video of the exchange? Seems to me they are seeking answers and the WH won't set the story straight.
NYT shouldnt have run the story it seems. But this is 2021, we fact check after publishing stories. you should be well aware of the lack of journalistic integrity in the main stream media.
Russia comes to mind... We are old enough to remember.
NYT shouldnt have run the story it seems. But this is 2021, we fact check after publishing stories. you should be well aware of the lack of journalistic integrity in the main stream media.
Russia comes to mind... We are old enough to remember.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2021, 02:04 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 189
Total Cats: 35
The same problem with companies avoiding taxes exists with individuals as well, and similarly to how big corporations have the means while small businesses do not, rich people have the means to avoid income taxes, while the lower and middle classes do not. If your rich enough, you dont have to pay yourself any salary because all of your accommodations are filled by your business, even if it is just a series of shell companies. So it doesnt matter how high or low their income taxes are, theyre not paying it.
You took the bait. They want you chasing "the rich". Reality is, their paycheck doesn't impact you at all and they most likely consume the same or less than you. So how does it make sense that you pay taxes on $75K but somehow they just need to pay more for their person while they make $400K or more?
Reply
0
0
04-30-2021, 02:12 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 189
Total Cats: 35
Isnt that the American dream? or did that never happen?
I havent done much research, but maybe everybody that capitalized on the resources of north america were already wealthy. If anything I would think that is only further supporting the idea that capitalism favors property owners.
[
I havent done much research, but maybe everybody that capitalized on the resources of north america were already wealthy. If anything I would think that is only further supporting the idea that capitalism favors property owners.
[
The American Dream is that you have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It is not an American Guarantee - in spite of what the Liberals will tell you.
Also, have you ever been gambling and played blackjack? I have. used to live in Lake Tahoe and work in a casino as well. If you bet $5 and you win, the dealer gives you your $5 plus another $5. Takes a LOOOONG time to make $5,000 that way. If you bet $100 a hand, you get there faster. But after 5 losing hands at $100, you're out significantly more than if you played 5 losing hands of $5. That's capitalism. Low risk ($5 hands) leads to low reward. Those that take the big risk (either because they're stupid or smart or greedy) are the ones that get the chance at big rewards - and that kids is how casinos are built.
Reply
1
1
04-30-2021, 06:23 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 807
Total Cats: 163
Would you be so kind as to give an example of the loopholes?
Would you also be so kind as to give an example of this?
Also, an example of how much does one save paying a tax lawyer or other person to avoid paying taxes than paying taxes. I mean, if it's a zero-sum game, why bother. Or are the rich so clever they do this by themselves and don't even have to pay someone to do it?
Now, I'm not doubting you. I'm positive there is quite a bit of creating accounting going on to take advantage of the system of rules in place. I know plenty of non-wealthy people that do it, so I'm sure the wealthy do too. But this statement can easily be construed as a fallacy without any source to back it up.
And a question for you or anyone that cares to answer: what are your feelings about someone getting paid "under the table" to avoid taxes or to collect unemployment/disability/retirement/subsidies/etc. so that they can make ends meet? Is this acceptable or at least condonable? Does it make it ok if it's only temporary to get out of the hole? Or is it only bad if it's a serial offense? This is a serious question if anyone cares to answer. It may not be as sexy as coming after the wealthy but cheating is cheating. Or is it?
The same problem with companies avoiding taxes exists with individuals as well, and similarly to how big corporations have the means while small businesses do not, rich people have the means to avoid income taxes, while the lower and middle classes do not. If your rich enough, you dont have to pay yourself any salary because all of your accommodations are filled by your business, even if it is just a series of shell companies. So it doesnt matter how high or low their income taxes are, theyre not paying it.
If theyre not paying corporate taxes and not paying income tax, their tax burden is low, especially when compared to how massive their wealth is.
If theyre not paying corporate taxes and not paying income tax, their tax burden is low, especially when compared to how massive their wealth is.
Also, an example of how much does one save paying a tax lawyer or other person to avoid paying taxes than paying taxes. I mean, if it's a zero-sum game, why bother. Or are the rich so clever they do this by themselves and don't even have to pay someone to do it?
Now, I'm not doubting you. I'm positive there is quite a bit of creating accounting going on to take advantage of the system of rules in place. I know plenty of non-wealthy people that do it, so I'm sure the wealthy do too. But this statement can easily be construed as a fallacy without any source to back it up.
And a question for you or anyone that cares to answer: what are your feelings about someone getting paid "under the table" to avoid taxes or to collect unemployment/disability/retirement/subsidies/etc. so that they can make ends meet? Is this acceptable or at least condonable? Does it make it ok if it's only temporary to get out of the hole? Or is it only bad if it's a serial offense? This is a serious question if anyone cares to answer. It may not be as sexy as coming after the wealthy but cheating is cheating. Or is it?
Reply
0
0
04-30-2021, 08:11 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
What I picture when I see Full_Tilt's posts:
Have you ever thought about being less concerned with how Chad got his ice cream, and more concerned with how you are going to get your own? No one is stopping you but yourself.
I highly recommend this read:
bonus points:
I'm just throwing this out there, you need to read to know. Here's an example of the books in my household:
Have you ever thought about being less concerned with how Chad got his ice cream, and more concerned with how you are going to get your own? No one is stopping you but yourself.
I highly recommend this read:
The foundations of capitalism are being battered by a flood of altruism, which is the cause of the modern world's collapse. This is the view of Ayn Rand, a view so radically opposed to prevailing attitudes that it constitutes a major philosophic revolution. Here is a challenging new look at modern society by one of the most provocative intellectuals on the American scene.
The major social problems of the United States—deteriorating education, lawlessness and crime, homelessness, the collapse of family values, the crisis in medical care—have been produced by well-intended actions of government. That is easy to document. The difficult task is understanding why government is the problem. The power of special interests arising from the concentrated benefits of most government actions and their dispersed costs is only part of the answer. A more fundamental part is the difference between the self-interest of individuals when they are engaged in the private sector and the self-interest of the same individuals when they are engaged in the government sector. The result is a government system that is no longer controlled by "we, the people." Instead of Lincoln's government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," we now have a government "of the people, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats," including the elected representatives who have become bureaucrats. At the moment, term limits apear to be the reform that promises to be most effective in curbing Leviathan.
I'm just throwing this out there, you need to read to know. Here's an example of the books in my household:
Last edited by Braineack; 04-30-2021 at 08:30 AM.
Reply
0
0
04-30-2021, 08:36 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,499
Total Cats: 4,080
This is a fun game.
https://www.revolver.news/2021/04/cn...george-tanios/
Notice that CNN was ALSO piggybacking off a BS NYT fairy tale...
https://www.revolver.news/2021/04/cn...george-tanios/
One Month Later CNN Finally Admits What Revolver Reported All Along: No Bear Spray Stream in NYT Sicknick Video
April 29, 2021 (9h ago)The Brian Sicknick saga — why and how the fallen U.S. Capitol Police officer died in the aftermath of 1/6 — has gone through many twists and turns. It has been nothing short of a masterclass in how our Regime Media will tell lie after lie to launder fake narratives and avoid informing the public about basic, important truths.
The latest thread to unravel is the entire “bear spray” narrative. This past Tuesday, 27 days after Revolver News first identified using digital forensics that the New York Times had committed fraud about a “bear spray” attack, our Regime Media has finally admitted what our investigative team definitively proved from the start: no bear spray was actually deployed in the fake “bombshell” New York Times videos from March 24:
...
First, the Regime Media unanimously reported that Sicknick was bashed in the head with a fire extinguisher. Revolver News and other outlets immediately detailed the impossibilities of that narrative being remotely true.Subsequently, the Regime Media was forced to retract that narrative and try to recalibrate their lies.
Then, they moved on to a new theory: Sicknick died of inhaling bear spray from the canister of two Trump supporters, George Tanios and Julian Khater. Tanios and Khater were later charged with assaulting Sicknick by the Biden Justice Department. On March 24, a so-called “bombshell” set of videos by the New York Times purported to show the exact moment that Khater allegedly sprayed Sicknick to death.
...
The New York Times had literally just drawn a white box around an empty strip of air and said there was bear spray inside it. And CNN and the rest of Regime Media had simply, squawkingly, unthinkingly, amplified the New York Times lie.
April 29, 2021 (9h ago)The Brian Sicknick saga — why and how the fallen U.S. Capitol Police officer died in the aftermath of 1/6 — has gone through many twists and turns. It has been nothing short of a masterclass in how our Regime Media will tell lie after lie to launder fake narratives and avoid informing the public about basic, important truths.
The latest thread to unravel is the entire “bear spray” narrative. This past Tuesday, 27 days after Revolver News first identified using digital forensics that the New York Times had committed fraud about a “bear spray” attack, our Regime Media has finally admitted what our investigative team definitively proved from the start: no bear spray was actually deployed in the fake “bombshell” New York Times videos from March 24:
...
First, the Regime Media unanimously reported that Sicknick was bashed in the head with a fire extinguisher. Revolver News and other outlets immediately detailed the impossibilities of that narrative being remotely true.Subsequently, the Regime Media was forced to retract that narrative and try to recalibrate their lies.
Then, they moved on to a new theory: Sicknick died of inhaling bear spray from the canister of two Trump supporters, George Tanios and Julian Khater. Tanios and Khater were later charged with assaulting Sicknick by the Biden Justice Department. On March 24, a so-called “bombshell” set of videos by the New York Times purported to show the exact moment that Khater allegedly sprayed Sicknick to death.
...
The New York Times had literally just drawn a white box around an empty strip of air and said there was bear spray inside it. And CNN and the rest of Regime Media had simply, squawkingly, unthinkingly, amplified the New York Times lie.
Notice that CNN was ALSO piggybacking off a BS NYT fairy tale...
Reply
0
0
04-30-2021, 09:41 AM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
Im not poor now, and I never have been. I grew up much better off than most people, my parents are pretty conservative, and I studied business with professors that thought Ronald Regan was a god.
A lot of what I believe is rooted in truefiscal conservatism. I could lecture all day on the Efficient Market Hypothesis, Hayek, Mises, Adam Smith, etc. But, Im also open minded enough to understand that these economic theories are only a theoretical model that require many assumptions to function. For example, you have to assume that the market operates with perfect information, and that nobody is cheating by rigging prices. These models also only seek to optimize surplus, not necessarily other important things that are needed for long term sustainability. Those are issues that have to be overcome. One way is through government regulation, but I am open to exploring other ways. I believe that in the near future cryptocurrency will help create more efficient markets by decentralizing control.
As of right now, we do not have anything remotely like a laissez fair capitalism, and we have not for a very long time. The "wild west" was probably the closest we've come to that kind of economic system. Our country is somewhere between regulatory capitalism, and a full blown kleptocracy. I would prefer it moved towards the prior.
Just out of curiosity. Were any of you upset when Trump imposed a tarriff on imports? That is protectionism, and increases the prices of consumer goods, and creates an overall decrease in surplus. If you truly believe in the invisible hand, you would think this was a bad idea.
If you can be critical at people for collecting welfare and not working, you should also be able to be critical of those who conspire to do the same thing from the top.
Im glad you read books, Brain.
This is a good one imo
Reply
0
0
04-30-2021, 09:57 AM
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
https://www.accounting-degree.org/accounting-tricks/
Tax evasion through offshore havens occurs on a huge scale. A recent study by the Tax Justice Network found that approximately $21 trillion is currently being hidden in offshore tax havens. One of the most prolific offenders is the Cayman Islands, which is home to more than 85,000 companies – making it one of the few territories with more registered organizations than people.
Which rolls into the next part...
And a question for you or anyone that cares to answer: what are your feelings about someone getting paid "under the table" to avoid taxes or to collect unemployment/disability/retirement/subsidies/etc. so that they can make ends meet? Is this acceptable or at least condonable? Does it make it ok if it's only temporary to get out of the hole? Or is it only bad if it's a serial offense? This is a serious question if anyone cares to answer. It may not be as sexy as coming after the wealthy but cheating is cheating. Or is it?
In a perfect world, social safety nets would mean that people wouldnt need to resort to theft in any way to make ends meet. But as we have seen with how welfare has worked in our country, there are some serious unintended side effects.
Reply
0
0
