The debate "In a time of record corporate profits and prosperity only among wealthiest is the tax bill treason" was started by
December 21, 2017, 9:26 am.
31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 26 arguments to the agreers part.
Brynn posted 6 arguments, MrShine posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
ttsacin2, bernie2020, Nemiroff and 28 visitors agree.
Kulu, Brynn, historybuff and 8 visitors disagree.
The purpose for businesses choosing richer communities may be to ensure a return. You can't open a car dealership where the population can only afford bicycles.
Stock and real estate returns only get bigger with wealth, penny investments lead to penny returns. I did acknowledge there were some, and you do acknowledge the scaling, so let's be realistic about what investments give better returns.A bad investment spoils the savings. Portfolios sometimes need to be drawn from to take a direction, sitting on money does very little for it, and is helpful in rainy day situations, and not only portfolios are doing better, but expectedly they are.
Gentrification, for it's failings has proven that businesses at least want to invest into their own or other communities other than the wealthy or gated communities. The relevance is there because business wants customers, and while the consumers may be limited in purchasing power, bringing job stability into underdeveloped communities can bring a net good.
I agree that businesses need people buying their products. I don't follow the 'robbing us blind' reasoning, businesses are encouraged to invest overseas when they are allowed to keep their Chinese and Indian generated profits and not American.
Money could convince anyone, buying politicians isn't a new idea. Yet selling out isn't a fact, and money is required for many service announcements, publications, campaigns. If I don't have time to physically walk house to house or stay somewhere, how can I show my support? Planned Parenthood and the NRA do this, would you argue they own politicians?
And yes, reality does come before a textbook. Except you need to know the rules before they're broken, and textbooks use true and tried experience with citations. I'm not sure how that's nonsense, but I'm open to listen.
as for the proportionality argument. that would be valid if we had a proportional cut, but much of the rewards weren't personal rewards but portfolio gains.
except for the estate "death" tax change. that was horrifying.
and stock ownership has always been tipped (obviously) but it is consolidating rapidly now. cause the "pity the over taxed rich guy" have nothing better to do with their ever filling coffers except trade digital certificates. their stake has flourished in recent decades
businesses only have potential where people have money to spend on them. like china and India. we are losing while they robbing us blind and then leaving. wake up. it's not a conspiracy. it's just people seperately doing logical things in their self interest. money is very convincing to politicians.
that's why money = speech is dangerous, especially coupled with income inequality. "ethics, philosophy, ideology, yap, yap" your ontlogically justifying yourself into an empirical disaster. reality comes before a textbook.
"The focus on richer communities has also been with the government, not exclusive or strategic. Difficulties with personal investments involve getting a return on the investments."
I don't understand what your saying here. yes they are all true, how are they relevant? tbh I don't understand the first sentence at all.
the wealthy are raking in the returns at ever increasing rates while the majority, lower, middle, lower upper even maybe, languish.
"Unfortunately there are very few markets that the poor can invest a return into, but that isn't to say it is non-existent."
there are tons of things the poor can invest in. stocks. real estate. education. their children. a business. their business.
the problem isnt what to invest in, its capital to invest with. and the massive tax cut that will balloon the debt we all share equally, gave them nothing to work with in return.
I'm not sure how gentrification, franchises, and ceo raises (sans bonuses, stock options, and already exaggerated base salary) have to do with the treasonous formulation of the tax cuts.
also the little they got is temporary.
The focus on richer communities has also been with the government, not exclusive or strategic. Difficulties with personal investments involve getting a return on the investments. Unfortunately there are very few markets that the poor can invest a return into, but that isn't to say it is non-existent. There is clearly a need, and if it can be fulfilled better than a restraining factor, then a successful idea can be done.
And yet "gentrification" proves there are investments. The word has a bad reputation, higher investments leading to higher property taxes, but price demands will change faster than the average citizen can save money and move classes. Balance in all things, and community improvement happens.
Small businesses can go very small, but community impactwise individual franchise owners have the largest impact. They get a name brand with service that can be directly compared to other same name businesses, and they manage money directly. If their business tanks, another franchise owner can take over with very minimal risk to the employees. The phrase "under new management" is applicable here. Not only that there are bottlenecks, half survive after five years and a third after 10 in sole proprietors. I suppose it is correct to say the poor can pay the poor, but the quality and period will be vastly different.
Admittedly the franchise owners calculated worth with all investments will be at least 300,000 which may be closer to the 1% but the question of profit and individual pay is much less affected by the CEO, only the stability of the business. Investments in other countries makes a global, stronger grip.
For example, the CEO of McDonald's got a 1.3 million dollar raise a year. That is a bit, but is it unfair for McDonald's doing well? Let's divide that by all ~375,000 employees. That's roughly $3.47 a year, rounded up a cent.
"I believe I've stated investment into local or self owned businesses are the end goals, and that wealth scales. Imposing the taxes because they can afford it doesnt encourage business or investment"
and I believe i responded with if local investment is the goal why is all the money going to communities that are already oversaturated with investment? while neglecting the ones that need more investment?....
forgive me for neglecting the rest of the post but this seems pretty central. also this is not about imposing taxes but how they are cut.
"the institutional change should not be geared toward changing demand, but supply. Certainly the wealthier will experience because they are the supply. Can the poor pay the poor?"
I would give this credit if the wealthy were starving for investment capital, but as I said, they are doing spectacular. most big companies are looking to expand to the lucrative markets of developing economies like India and china. because....
*supply follows demand, not the other way around*
the whole point of this nation is that industrious poor people can rise up and pay other poor people. small businesses are supposed to be the hallmark of this nation. yet this gives the wealthy few and massive corporations a disproportionate advantage as they hoard wealth and invest elsewhere. we are being robbed!
You were wrong. I started with geography and claimed it was the most likely reason, wouldn't georgaphy be institutional? Loans allowed to certain income levels are institutional, crime is always a choice but often times the result of an abnormal condition and lowers development rates. I will admit that personal level responsibilities exist in poverty, but there is a bigger picture that can be managed. Policy should reflect this.
Its only a tangent if the cause is not a factor in deciding responses. Proactive steps are much better than reactive steps, and short of imposing cost limits to products there is no controlling the price. You brought up the inflation issue, which has been occuring for longer than this previous administration, so I must assume the cause is necessary to examine. It isn't simple enough to use one program to balance out the losses in another if we do not know why.
I believe I've stated investment into local or self owned businesses are the end goals, and that wealth scales. Imposing the taxes because they can afford it doesnt encourage business or investment, wages are only possible when there is an investor willing to pay a wage or salary employee. Otherwise it is a measure of equity, not equal opportunity.
Specifically, the money paid to workers comes from individual franchise owners, who qualify as a part of the tax break and are the main source for other workers. These franchise owners are better off, but they must be able to turn a profit or pay their employees. If a franchise has a lower turnover rate or less bankruptcy, they can secure jobs. Therefore, the jobs now have value without risk, which allows for higher value work. Ever try to get a job without experience? More risk in the whole market drives up higher requirements for experience, and minimum wage jobs are entry level positions to gain experience or skills that are deemed valuable.
Therefore, the institutional change should not be geared toward changing demand, but supply. Certainly the wealthier will experience because they are the supply. Can the poor pay the poor? Even with programs intended to lower expenses of things like insurance, the demand is changed with pumped up policies to cover the costs of everyone, which adds unnecessary costs to those that require a coverage plan fitted to their own needs.
And yet it is still everyone paying less taxes, it's only expected that the investors would have 1. more lump sum per same % and 2. More to invest in
no, you did not bring up laziness. but you were stearing the conversation towards the ideological talking points involving crime and essentially the poor taking responsibility for their failings, implying directly that they were being lazy. similarly the crime issue is to highlight reluctance to work. I was assuming that's where you were going, and I'm not not convinced I was wrong, however heres the key point:
I was dismissing the argument. not based on its merit, but on its relevance. it is irrelevant. and chasing down technicalities within my dismissal doesn't make it any more relevant.
quality of life improvements always happen, new tech is always expensive. crazy numbers need to be adjusted for inflation. basic things like food and rent grow too. the majority of the issue is unexplained. I'm also not sure what this has to do with how the tax cuts were distributed. this is examining cause. I'm examining our response to the effects. I feel that by addressing your questions encourages the tangent to persist.
"but because the conditions and factors may not justify wealth disparity at higher rates. Again, you're giving me very little to go on, but you have given me a source now which I will look into"
I must be just as lost as you.
"may not justify wealth disparity"
direct evidence you are referring to the cause of disparity instead of how the tax plan was structured in light of that disparity.
if you are saying that the reasons behind the disparity justify giving minsicule temporary relief to the (round number) 80%+ of America who are not "wealthy," and who have not seen any of the growth our GDP seems to show, please tell me how. if you said it before and I missed it I'm sorry but please address this specific question in a separate post if need be. I want to understand.
The mere definition of common Sense is noting what others are doing, and doing the same thing. By definition, you are wrong.
I did not describe the poor as lazy, it's funny you would call it bait when you use a word I never said which is also used in bad faith, and poverty is indisputible while middle class general information is easier to play with in terms of biases. It's impossible to dispute the poor, to say the least.
There are plenty of quality improvements to medecine and technology that justify inflation, and since it goes so far back it cannot be the new administration but likely technology. Comparing the cost of a smartphone and an early satalite phone for example would not be possible to calculate with the inflation estimates. Wouldn't you pay a little bit more for a safer, higher quality service? Of course in 1973 hospitals would have said to some niche disease like Guilane Barre "whoops, no use spending money, you'll die." Now the cost is higher with treatments, and medical expenses as a whole applies to more people.
Admittedly the use of need is a recent wording, sure, and the relative need is obvious. But again, justifying with a middle class is not entirely obvious and I think we can try for something more certain. Not to say what your stance is, but because the conditions and factors may not justify wealth disparity at higher rates. Again, you're giving me very little to go on, but you have given me a source now which I will look into. But if it isn't relevant to the current situation based on the link name I would suggest maybe the problem didn't originate in the current administration or tax breaks.
"No, I don't. I used the application of factors to describe poverty, which is an indicator and not our overall measure or goal. It very much applies to everyone because poverty cannot be denied"
not only "yes you did" but also "yes you are continuing to do so". the point isnt how you describe poverty, but the fact that you were the only one talking about poverty. and yes it exists, that doesn't mean their situation accurately describes the situation of those not impoverished. heck I dont even agree with your description of impoverished, they are not lazy, many of them work really hard in a society that simply doesn't value manual labor. but that is yet another tangent your baiting me with that has nothing to do with this debate. please stop.
"And if I followed a common knowledge premise, I would use my experience as an American in the lower class, not poverty but certainly still lacking mind you. Cite your source."
no, your personal experience of life in a select circumstance is not "common" sense. common sense is the USA is 200 years old, the sun rises in the east, and wages have been stagnant for a long time. things that are indisputable.
"After adjusting for inflation, wages are only 10 percent higher in 2017 than they were in 1973, with annual real wage growth just below 0.2 percent."
"And lastly, stating "the people in most need" and applying it to everyone but the super wealthy certainly implies the poor."
please don't use my latest phrasing to justify assumptions you made well before it. I have repeatedly used "the rest of us" and "everyone else" in relation to the wealthy. at this point the very presence of so many rephrasing should be a sign there is something wrong with the discussion.
need is relative, but here I'm using it relative to relief. so once again your spinning ontological concerns when the relativity of the need was made clear, relative to the relief given. whatever the definition of need is, the ones who need the relief got jack shit, the ones prospering actively and NEED no relief in any logical sense, get all the relief.
No, I don't. I used the application of factors to describe poverty, which is an indicator and not our overall measure or goal. It very much applies to everyone because poverty cannot be denied, in the same way class mobility cannot either. Relative measures of wealth within the middle class can.
And if I followed a common knowledge prenise, I would use my experience as an American in the lower class, not poverty but certainly still lacking mind you. Cite your source.
"the people in most need of relief is given essentially nothing in this massive cut" is certainly a better phrasing, but it still assumes itself. Need is a relative statement and those who are considered to have nothing by hyperbole are in need. This automatically assumes a graph with a long left tail and a cluster toward the wealthy, but is it accurate? If we consider how wealth is accumulated the values will give larger lump sum returns, but does not assume essentially nothing. So accuracy is not established.
And lastly, stating "the people in most need" and applying it to everyone but the super wealthy certainly implies the poor. I would suggest rephrasing if that is not what you mean. I can certainly establish a larger need for poverty over the middle class, and I'm sure you would too.
I clarified the question a dozen times already, every time it was misread. do you really believe the "VAST majority" of this nation are in crime ridden poverty, because that is a term I used repeatedly. I was being clear, you were fuzzing it up with every post. it helped that I reduced it down to a concrete question, otherwise this would have turned into into one of our endless circles.
define middle class however you want. if you weren't wealthy you got pennies. and I didn't say that as an unverified fact, I said it as a common knowledge premise making sure everyone accepted it. you do realize we have accurate wage data, so are you making the claim that wages haven't been stagnant?
let me try a new phrasing:
why were the people in most need of relief given essentially nothing in this massive cut?
The statement did not make it clear that everyone but the rich were referred to, and treachery is highly dependent on the context of the facts. Though, I did use the class with the clearest implications of factors that when combined or divided are deciding factors in wealth for almost everyone. I wouldn't need to pretend the statement only applies to a few, I would need to reply it was lacking and show real life applications of factors. The list I provided is useful, and with a few factors we can gain an opinion based on good knowledge, a change in perspective if that is fair.
The middle class is difficult to analyze, and often references the other classes in terms of progress that might or might not exist. Nobody is arguing that the well off are doing well, so when arguing if the stagnant are stagnant how exactly can I disagree with a unverified fact that assumes itself with statements that direct the condition? Therefore the 'perspective' contained within these conditions would be lacking. My arguments could be their own thread, but it certainly leads into the 'why' for All Classes considering how cosmetic the help it provides (taxes as a way to gain funds, the original articles against our current constitution there is some truth to taxes), the absence catalyst (investment and class mobility), and scaling for wealth(measuring class wealth) as a whole.
my conclusion was layed out in the opening. the tax plan was treasonous.
"I would like to say that it is entirely possible to blur a topic by radically simplifying the issue. "
I agree. like countering an argument about the vast majority of Americans with reasons that ignore the majority of them pretending that I'm only referring to the poor to whom I didn't even reference here, except maybe in response to one of these tangents.
if you wish to discuss the efficacy of morality of taxes start a new thread. or I can bump a thread I made regarding libertarian governance in general. but this isnt about whether taxes should or shouldn't be cut but why the struggling got such minuscule and temporary cuts.
I did not catch the smaller portion posted, to address it I would like to say that it is entirely possible to blur a topic by radically simplifying the issue. Rhetoric, as bad of a rap as the word has, also allows a conversation to explore multifaceted issues. If an obese person refuses to talk about exercise in favor of diet and vice versa they will never properly address their poor condition.
I would have an easier time agreeing with you if there was a conclusion. By disregarding rhetoric there is no way to conclude morally, because the moral factors exist outside of facts. It is not splitting hairs or partisanship because I am not disputing a mechanic, I am disputing facts being treated as mechanics.
Also, the tax breaks are not giving relief, it is allowing all citizens more of their money, which scales, and the rich should not be punished for being rich. I can make this interpretation because it converts a fact with a mechanic. I hope we can talk about the general consequences that create poverty in detail, because it requires a change.
But my format is not a series of facts strung along to a final conclusion, it is the application of a fact. If I am unable to bring a fact to application and must observe it as a fact in itself, no morality or solution can be applied. I believe that is something you want, it isn't a matter of right or wrong but method.
Understanding poverty is fundamental to understanding money management. Single parent households, geography, admitting loans, job stability, dependents, crime, and investment are a few factors to consider, and are the least vague. Vague concepts are city damages and development because the effects are obvious but the degree is not. For example I will cite the famous Chicago Fire and Eminent Domain.
Certainly everyone could do better, but I must conclude that you are referring to class mobility- being able to make money to keep up with a growing 1% I suppose. Growth is clearly in investment and being safe on investments. Say Delta airlines loses 16 million, does the business go under? No, though a board may manage the costs they can calculate a net gain or adapt to the market, which supports the 1% position. Say a family man loses $5,000. Even if he is well off that's a significant hit in a different way. This stuff will always scale.
But I'm sure you want details of institutions. When it comes to the middle class in America options are much more available to them than the poor, that would be marginalizing and ignore a shaking and dropping lower class. Let's returm to the poor.
Growing inner cities are the largest poverty maker, because the poor population get trapped like a roach motel (I know you wouldn't misconstrue my analogy). The poor move in, are unable to sell, save, or leave, and when future residents move in they are also unable to do so.
I was fortunate with my circumstances, my family found cheap rent after my dad bought our house on a ballon mortgage. We moved into a small house, pay much lower rent than the city rates, and we are finally saving money and getting through college. If the location was different, I would have been forced into a low income housing unit. Isn't it strange that the poor when obligated to pay much less still stay poor?
Yet I believe geography is the biggest factor. If we want to make it partisan look at how cities vote, the individual in an inner city is less likely to invest or hold a job, so they must rely on collective support to stay afloat. It's a Faustian deal.
let's say they are all criminal or lazy, all 80+% of the USA population. what then?
we aren't talking about earned income but government relief.
do you target relief at the small minority that was nearly exclusive in their prosperity? what's the point of giving relief to someone raking it in?
this issue is a very simple betrayal.
throw in all the factors you want, it's still screwed up and senseless. I await your relevant factors.
"Is it possible to say "The rich are paying less" without the statement "the poor are struggling"? I believe so, don't take this the wrong way but it is double barelled because the facts exist by themselves with no relation to treason unless specified."
this is what I mean. I would agree with your connections if they were correct.
it's not "the rich pay less therefore the poor are struggling" here.
"while the poor are struggling, the rich (who could in a different scenario be also struggling, *but aren't*) get a bonus break, *AND* the rest of us, not just the poverty, everyone else who is struggling to hold on to what they have at best, get essentially nothing. and that only for a short while."
my complaint isnt limited to the impoverished. I never even mentioned them. there is no connection.
"You see when I say I will reframe the conversation it's not because I believe your point is moot, it's because I believe it exists in a vacuum. You may not care about these other factors, but feasibility does have a hand in morality."
can you give me a short list of these factors? the poverty factor didn't hold up to the fact I wasnt talking about or limiting the discussion to the impoverished. what about the middle class?
You know, I don't think we'll be able to agree. You see when I say I will reframe the conversation it's not because I believe your point is moot, it's because I believe it exists in a vacuum. You may not care about these other factors, but feasibility does have a hand in morality.
Therefore, my position does not relied on tired talking points while it may exist within a simpler theme. I can point to criminal reasons for poverty, and I do not rely on the relationship between statements. A fact is a fact, a policy is not.
This isn't to say your observations could be correct or that it does rely on the relationship between statements. But if they are and have no connection to one another there's a bit of trouble stringing morality to it. Is it possible to say "The rich are paying less" without the statement "the poor are struggling"? I believe so, don't take this the wrong way but it is double barelled because the facts exist by themselves with no relation to treason unless specified. I also believe it is hard to say "the rich are paying less, and that's immoral" because if the conjoined statement is no supporting this conclusion... what am I supposed to get the evidence from?
This is why I the video lacks perspective, because it isn't moving goalposts or distracting from the real issues to make conclusions. However I don't see how the facts connect alone and I am not confronted with a resulting problem based on the cuts.
it is no different than what many people do, because most people routinely and unconsciously commit endless fallacies. that doesn't mean we should strive to emulate fallacious thinking. just because someone jumps off a bridge doesn't mean you should too.
"I am not moving away from a problem, I am merely moving away from "talking points".
to the contrary I will assert that you are avoiding the issue AND moving toward default talking points. specifically the grand daddy of liberitraian talking points: "taxes are immoral and/or inefficient"
AGAIN I shall clarify.
I am not asking if the idea of the cut is good or bad.
I am not asking if the cuts were too much or not enough.
I am not asking about how the inequality happened or who is to blame.
I am ONLY asking if the allocation of the cuts was sensible, or treasonous.
thus, for the 6th time:
***in a situation where only small group of people are doing amazing, why are the people doing amazing getting the most help?***
***in a situation where the vast majority is struggling, why do they only get a minuscule and temporary help from a massive tax break?***
I am aware that I reframe the conversation, but it isn't any different about what anyone else does, because that is what perspective is! If the link provided is related to this conversation, it neglects Perspective, because I am not moving away from a problem, I am merely moving away from "talking points".
I could concede if it was solely restricted to the moral obligation of paying taxes being infringed on while the working class suffers in a separate condition not directly to the 1%, but nevertheless marginalized. But I do not see it that way because it is not a duty and cannot resolve the poor. A moral argument on taking income needs a bit more than moral confirmation, so how can I agree on a premise if I believe it confirms itself? A mechanism would help, so I could imagine the solution which probably leads to our disagreement.
So to have us agree on something, I need a setup. You did say it was a good idea for the wealthy to invest in their community, but that they do not. So long as the poor do not carry a burden placed by this break, and is not a solution either way, then why is a higher tax considered? Allow me to suggest why government is not suited to fix the poor problem with the rich, and thereby immoral.
My college has debts from their parking lots. It is constantly under construction too. Parking pass costs are rising, and to pay off their bills, double the parking passes to spaces are sold. (Overselling as a method, understandable, but double?)
Our parking pass funds are passing $5/600 and going to public funding for other universities. My college continues to spend money it anticipates, not money it has. There is no itemized cost, only individual sums for the totals in each field. This makes accountability much harder. I pay into a service, that is funneled into other service, and all services suffer from this model, but funding continues nevertheless.
my accusation against you seems like a big one but it really isnt. I meant it with respect. most people I deal with here resort to the far dumber fallacy of giving short, quiby, responses and inability to explain their position in detail. you absolutely can go into detail and explain yourself which is great!
however you do try to steer the conversation and I came with 2 theories why, one is intentional (comfortable topics) and the other (more likely) is unintentional seeing of the world view as a battle of ideologies which relate to every partisan conflict.
however, I was not referencing any ideology or causes. I stated 2 facts that made no connection to each other but were both independently affected by the same tax bill. and the effect the tax bill had on the 2 groups mentioned in those facts made no sense. so I will separate the 2 facts for you.
***in a situation where only small group of people are doing amazing, why are the people doing amazing getting the most help?****
completely separate from the other fact/group. no mention of them even. likewise
***in a situation where the vast majority is struggling, why do they only get a minuscule and temporary help from a massive tax break?***
the 2 facts are now in 2 different points. in 2 different questions. they do not reference each other. I draw no conclusions, no ideology. how does this make ANY sense? how is it not treason?
give more back to the people who are struggling so that they can invest in their communities which need the development.
that sounds like a great idea!
did they do that? NO!
"When people are able to keep more money to themselves, they can make the choice to invest in their community"
except all the money back went to the wealthy who will invest in THEIR community. or since their community already has everything, theyll throw it in the bank or market.
once again, all the $$ and all the choice goes to the few and we can choose how to invest our chump change on all of nothing. continuing the grind.
please dont reply to this because this idealist theory is an irrelevant tangent to the question you refuse to answer as you insist on leading the conversation elsewhere.
"But it certainly is a suggestion, by placing two facts together it implies the commection is through a suggested problem."
your imagining that I am talking about how this inequality happened. I am not. I am talking about the effect the tax bill had on these 2 groups, in light of those 2 facts.
the question is entirely on the framing and prioritizing of the bill. the question is not the economic systems that lead to the issues that bill should have addressed.
***why did the people doing great get the vast majority of (and permanent) relief***
***why did the people who are struggling get chump change that is also temporary***
But it certainly is a suggestion, by placing two facts together it implies the commection is through a suggested problem. The second fact is questionable, because you did admit that families were getting relief but that it was temporary. However, we are currently still in the relief so it cannot be said how temporary if we assume it is.
Raises go with inflation, sure, but the relationship here can be suggested the other way around and that raises would encourage a raise in costs. The cost of living is increasing, but other factors that allow people to live much better are also in effect... and being taxed. I'm not saying it's natural, but you aren't proposing anything new either. Inflation is unnatural in many markets and can be associated with different causes in each, not always due to the Rich businesses withholding or raising prices for the sake of. It's also not a recent trend either, plenty of services over the past 20 years have been rising when taxes were rising not too recently.
But I suppose the major divide could be in the income gap. A person with more money would naturally keep a larger sum of their money. A rich person has more money, so their returns will naturally be higher at the same percent, 1/5 of 100,000 is 20,000 while 1/5 of 10,000 is 2,000. If we look at these returns and claim the average person is getting crumbs because their percentage leaves them with less, of course we'd be hard pressed to say they are doing much better. 2,000 more certainly wouldn't raise my class... but it would help, even if that is considered stagnant.
When people are able to keep more money to themselves, they can make the choice to invest in their community, it isn't just a have or have not quality. Taxes don't raise people out of poverty or change class mobility, and I'm hard pressed to find taxes keep classes stable when they aren't properly used (neighborhood theory)
"Your model suggests the majority and unwealthy are struggling under the majority to hold up the Rich."
I made no such suggestion. there is no model. I am simply stating 2 facts.
1. a small minority of wealthy people are and have been doing spectacularly.
2. the rest of us are and have been going thru troubles varying from stagnation to losing their home and lifesavings.
and a third fact that no, this is not normal, people typically get raises to at least keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. that was the standard throughout our history before the recent recession.
Ignoring all aspects of dependency or victim culture on either side, ***why did the people doing great get the vast majority of (and permanent) relief*** and ***the people who are struggling get chump change that is also temporary***
while stripping the government of money that generally helps the people who got chump change in exchange.
how is that action in favor of we the people?
The clusters are arranged differently, and we can examine that the Zone of Transition suffers from things such as lower development, higher traffic rates, higher property costs, which all contribute to a lower collective efficacy and lower quality of living, eventually unable to leave by poverty. And the cities are growing, leading to growing inner cities, mismanagement of the five concentric circles causes crime and poverty.
Workers are necessary, that is true, but to move in class you will need to invest, which may come at a loss. Not every should do it, and not everyone has the money to do it unless money is saved even if it takes time. Winners and losers shouldn't be guaranteed, right?
Your model suggests the majority and unwealthy are struggling under the majority to hold up the Rich. That is a bit inaccurate, because it already suggests that struggles are connected at a uneven distribution from above rather than the franchise relationship that most businesses have. Most people do not get their paychecks from the "big business" half, instead it is calculated in store on the smaller end with their budget, not the whole company's.
A majority of workers in a big business are paid by a franchise owner or small business, the CEO can only set a minimum wage. You may consider the CEO as the main beneficiary of tax cuts, but wouldn't the owner of a single franchise also benefit? It wouldn't just be the multimillionaires and billionaires with the tax model, it'd be anyone down to the owner of a single Great Clips salon, which doesn't always "turn a profit". When a few do, it is enough to support the big business, which makes big business a secure model.
To give the average worker more class mobility, the model must be changed, but a change would introduce more risk to the business and job security. Taxes are a quality of life portion which does not affect class mobility directly, but does make allowances given strategic not potluck. Which is why I also cite the concentric circles model.
people are clustered in cities because thats where jobs are. and no, not everyone can own a business, that's not how an economy can work. workers are necessary.
I believe you missed a question I was hoping you would answer.
why is it ok that in a time when most people are struggling and only a small portion (the wealthiest) are prospering, only a minuscule and temporary part of this tax plan helped the struggling majority?
that is treason.
and seeing as you moved on from the treason subject, I can assume that if I establish that this does undermine we the people and was intentional, you agree it was treason?
Saving money to invest in a business, or to leave stagnation doesn't happen overnight. In most first world civilizations this is still true, people never leaving their own bracket. But job security certainly makes it easier, and it is at an all time high.
I would suggest one of the reasons our lower class continues to suffer is because a dense part of our population is located in inner cities, and following the Chicago school of criminology there is a perpetual, structural disadvantage created by location, not our economy in general. Unfortunately, a lot of public rejuvenation projects have caused trouble (Little Pink House, houses being taken by eminent domain which never get construction again).
Government overhead tends to be under checked, because consequences of mismanagement are slim to none, which is why I cite Flint and Little Pink House. More money in the pot means less accountability and less individual investments in the community. Effective charities happen to have a minimum overhead cost, and while I'll admit not every charity or donation service is effective a charity that is toward one local cause is more accountable than multiple national causes.
I am certain that no definition of prosperity includes stagnation or "not losing out"
overhead is necessary in any organization, private or public
absolutely risk deserves reward, which is why I said "certainly I am no advocate of equal outcomes. investors/owners/innovators should take a larger chunk of the profits". however to not allow your employees to grow at all is not a working economic model. costs continue to grow. without "entitlements" we would be in chaos. work would not be worth it for large portions of our population. this stagnation is the cause of many of our problems, including out of control "entitlements"
they were not wrong to hoard legally, I'm not demanding penalty. however in light of this, why are the ones who by your admiration already took home all the economic gains, getting further help with the VAST BULK, of the tax break?
Depends on the prosperity defined. Middle and lower class families aren't shifting, they aren't rising to higher class either, but they certainly aren't losing out. The reason why the employers are noticeably richer is because they are risking for reward. The middle and lower class are not taking a risk in exchange for stable employment. Employment may lead to self employment, but not everyone wants that risk and it is much less riskier now.
As for the gains so far, they were not predicted previously and it is too early to say how temporary that is. The taxes sound like they are doing good when proposed, but one of the greatest contributes to wasteful spending is "overhead" costs. It's the same overhead and management cost that undid the donation of $100 million toward Flint, Michigan. I would even say embezzled, but I'm sure there's a legitimate proposition that appropriated money. If a community wants to invest in itself, taxes appropriate the funds to different projects, employment, and managent fees as well. If a private donation to a business project was done, the projected costs are covered! Less taxes puts more into everyone's pockets for willing donations.
if we are mid widespread prosperity by all means, widespread cuts, or perhaps increase spending, like race musk to Mars or even a few of jupiters moons.
but we are not. we are recovering from the recession and while most people getting the burn, the ones doing more then great get most of the cut....
I dont get it.
I can dispute the no extra burden with the mounting debt and cuts to services that the wealthy certainly dont need, but many mid and low income people benefit from greatly. however that is not the key concern of mine.
let's lay down 2 facts.
as you stated america as a whole has been continually prosperous even through the recession. but most (vast majority) Americans have not seen any of that prosperity. I hope there is no dispute on these 2.
doesn't that seem suspicious? certainly I am no advocate of equal outcomes. investors/owners/innovators should take a larger chunk of the profits, but shouldn't the workers see some of that prosperity that the country as a whole is seeing? I would say that the equation was screwed well before the tax plan.
so we have 1 small section of society that has been doing amazing, and most citizens seemingly robbed of any gains from our nations continued prosperity. so my question to you is: why wouldn't it make sense we leave the taxes on those who clearly are doing great as is, and focus our cuts on those who really need the help. and by those I mean the vast majority of our nation.
as for overspending, I would see that as being more valid if the prosperity sharing / cost of living increase equation was different. also if poor people didn't pay nearly 50% of their income in rent. I think that's a red herring point shaming people for getting any enjoyment out of their labors. one shouldn't need to work constantly and never enjoy anything to break even.
also the fact that all of the permanent cuts help the wealthy while the gains we saw are temporary.
I'll admit that I make long posts, and use auxiliary statements because I find it easier to define ideas, even to the point of splitting hairs because terms can get thrown around without being defined.
If I and to make one point in one paragraph, three sentences really it would be - Why does it matter that the upper class aren't being taxed as much if the middle and lower class aren't being left with an extra burden to pay? The rich pay most lump sum and overall in taxes so they are keeping more of their own money like anyone else is. Excessive spending, not insufficient taxes are the issue.
if you wish retribution, I will welcome any criticism and even made a thread dedicated to that end.
what does America relative to the world have to do with inter american issues? if anything the continued prosperity of America is a nation leads to more questions regarding the stagnation of much of its population. only making my point stronger.
no duh both sides are using money! do you expect unilateral disarmament of the strongest tool? I may advocate for elimination of eye gouging in boxing, but I sure as hell wont avoid using it in a fight when my opponents keep aiming for it! there's a difference between hypocrisy and stupidity. Democrats continue to change the rules, but they aren't about to kick out their own shins.
you are one of the more intelligent of my counterparts in this site, but you are also very long winded which is compounded by numerous marginally relevant tangents such as those 2, the inexplicable Sanders mention previously, semantics of the term trickle down, and many others. all of these are legitamete auxiliary points but only after we handle the key issues, such as your treason question and whether or not the appropriations were fair.
I've been making it a habit of giving you short, targeted responses and refraining from saying this for a very long time but I just end up abandoning our debates in frustration. I simply do not have the time or patients to continue like this. I hope you see this as a critique and not an insult. let me repeat that I consider you one of my more intelligent opponents here.
America has been prospering, American is the 1% globally speaking and that standard has not fallen!
Money is important in speech because the only money devoid of speech is nonprofit use of advertisements. If a person owns money, and is allowed to make a transaction with a willing party, wouldn't stopping them interfere with a desired consequence? In the end, money does not dictate legislation but I will concede talking points get bumped up with money.
Of course, this isn't considering that it isn't just Republicans using money, it's only hot button issues that give a salient situation. I would need to know in which context you are referring to, because the ones that come to mind might lead the debate stray from what you're thinking.
The big question isn't unaddressed either. The wealthy are the ones who pay the most in taxes, so if they pay less and there is no new strains on the middle class, there is less of an issue than you are portraying.
If the wealthy keep more of their paycheck it's because everyone is, the lump sum changes much more than the percentage, and they pay more than the middle class in lump sum too. Why should the middle class worry if everyone is doing better?
it is treason indeed, especially when put in context of the money = speech that the same party pushed.
by increasing wealth consolidation in a money = speech world you are consolidating speech, particularly in the context of political influence. these acts weaken the power of we the people and give it to the few. if done by those who were supposed to represent the interests of we the people, that is betrayal.
furthermore, making the biggest beneficiary the only part of society prospering for a while now has remained unaddressed here.
Sanders, someone who is very outspoken about taxes, has payed 13.5% so 15% isn't unusual. We could argue what percent is fair share, but the majority of tax money gained is from the upper class. I would argue that spedign more money than what is available is more of an issue than people paying less.
The tax returns predicted for this year were lower than what actually happened, and while I can't speak on the future of a current, recent event there is no reason to believe tax returns are just as small or being shifted to the middle class.
Treason is treachery applied against a nation, so it would require "betrayal". Getting voted on with a platform, and changing stances is nothing new. It would need to be overstepping legal processes in direct conflict with the nation. With the expansion of political power over Obama's term, that would be difficult to prove unless it included war and it regarded another country.
Trickle down economics is a buzzword to dumb down the idea of supply side economics. While we could argue how well that works ,America at every time was still better off than any other country.
New deal acts such as the AAA inflated prices by destroying crops, the government's direct intervention into the economy was not rejuvinating. Private sector businesses pay for their wrong predictions and mishandling money, while Americans pay for the government's in taxes or private property.
Muslim ban is a common term, but it is against specific countries, not because they are Muslim but because they have been identified by Obama's administration as unsecured in terms of immigration. Why is this a thing? It's not like I wouldn't be upset that Sky Harbor had to miss some shows due to validating a work permit, but a country's security is important.
The border is unsecured, ~40% of illegal immigrants use the border, and coyotes take advantage of illegal immigrants in their business. Illegal immigration is unfair for legal immigrants, unsafe to travel, costs America money, building the wall will work for these reasons.
And the government would have to pick "winners and losers" as I believe it was once said. I wouldn't say that I am against regulations, but they are often times loosely defined and can be justified with enough conditionals to 'security'. Obviously regulations are needed as seen in the book 'the jungle', but there were also things such as 'unsafe at any speed' against cars.
people on the right support the Muslim ban and the wall. I am against both of those, but neither is treason. the social aspects of the Republican platform are disagreements we must tackle, but the economic side is the treason that I believe can unite us if a member of the right cares to listen.
European nations are also tackling these social issues, but economically they know that the private sector should not be left to faith and self regulation.
Not to be a Debby downer but Trump supporters didn't care when he called for a ban in Muslims. He hasn't been impeached yet although he has numerous impeachable offenses. Also some people don't understand that trickle down economics don't work. Some people were lied to by Trump when he literally said this tax "cut" would hurt him and help them. Getting them to think this is treason is a very big task. If you are seriously considering doing this I'd suggest working on convincing them of what I mentioned. Then the real debates can happen.
to unify the people against it, including the citizens on the right. And to show them the trend of their party to divide us on social issues in order to betray us on economics.
Right say this is a form of treason. Who cares? What can be done.. What's the point of debating whether this is treason or not?
no, the winning party taking power is not treason, it is the intended process of our government.... the ultimate rulers are still we the people. I don't understand this analogy.
undermining the power of we the people is treason.
Perhaps but my next question to whomever stated that this tax bill is treason. Why? What goal is accomplished by proving that this is treason.
treason is a very loosely defined term. for example this is from the Cambridge dictionary.
(the crime of) showing no loyalty to your country, especially by helping its enemies or trying to defeat its government
destroying the finances of your government to enrich a tiny minority of the population could be seen as showing no loyalty to your country. and helping that tiny minority gain more money and influence to control the elected officials of your country could be seen as trying to undermine the legitimacy of the government.
Also my definition came right from the internet. I didn't fit it to a form that I could use. This isn't treason. The country can still defend itself with our massive military. The country isn't fighting itself because of this bill. The country will be worse off. It wasn't considered treason the last time this happened so it shouldn't be considered treason now.
Treason is changing who has power in the government? So everytime the parties switch control that's treason?
treason is often about destroying when your talking about foreign actors... but are you saying an internal coup d'etat is not treason? and who wants to take control of a destroyed nation!
your definition is too limited. treason is anything that tries to undermine an existing power structure so another group can seize control. destruction or not. And this bill neuters our governments ability to protect the citizens from private sector abuses and the encroachment of money into politics by bankrupting the government and handing out the money to only the wealthiest amongst us. It seeks to undermine we the people to allow the few to seize even more power from the many.
Treason is fighting to destroy your own country or to bring its downfall. Whilst this tax bill is detrimental to those below the richest of the rich it does not fit the definition of treason.
so I don't get it. we have the highest base rates, but Romney's return only showed 15% tax payed, which is way lower then anyone in the middle class. Soros claims to pay a lower % then his secretary, and many of our large corporations pay near 0 effective taxes.
I agree we need to simplify our tax code, but the Republican tax bill did none of that. it lowered the rate while not touching the loopholes....
i believe we misunderstood what he meant by "drain the swamp". We on the left assumed he meant corrupt politicians and their corporate lobbists. it seems he meant the "corrupt" politicians catering to special interest groups like BLM, gays, etc and the "excessive" regulations or "handouts" they demand.
it is definitely broken promises. trump ran on a message of standing up for the people and "draining the swamp". instead he gives them a few small temporary cuts while cutting trillions for the richest people in the country.