-->
@Death23
One far more than the other
That is absurdly false. It’s about even
Does anyone on this site support reparations?
Posts
Total:
61
-->
@ILikePie5
Skepticism intensifies
-->
@ILikePie5
The most obvious example that comes to mind of the republicans bending over for the rich was the 2017 tax bill. What are some examples from the democratic side that roughly equate to this?
-->
@Death23
You mean the GoP?
Why don't you check the states with the highest GDP to homeless ratios and see who has been in charge of those states for the past 50 years and get back to me on how that inequality is improving somehow.
-->
@Death23
Skepticism intensifies
All one has to do is see who rich people donated to. People like Wall Street backed Biden. Wealthy areas voted for Biden. It’s pretty obvious
-->
@dustryder
The most obvious example that comes to mind of the republicans bending over for the rich was the 2017 tax bill. What are some examples from the democratic side that roughly equate to this?
I don’t think you realize what he did lol. You can’t raise taxes on the wealthy and think you’ll get more revenue. You won’t. He did the next best thing, lower it for both. All the rich liberals in Hollywood should pay their 50% taxes if they want. Oh wait.
-->
@Greyparrot
Why don't you check the states with the highest GDP to homeless ratios and see who has been in charge of those states for the past 50 years and get back to me on how that inequality is improving somehow.
NY and NJ are shitholes while Texas and Florida are chillin. I wonder why. Rich people in NY and NJ use their connections in the state legislatures to get loopholes written and then pay next to nothing.
-->
@ILikePie5
I should have said, "circle-back to me." That's liberal dogwhistle for "don't bother"
-->
@ILikePie5
If I understand the tax bill correctly, taxes were lowered for the majority of the population, but the tax cuts will expire for a majority of the beneficiaries in the future. They will not expire for corporations (at least pre-biden). Hence this is an example of republicans bending over for the rich at the expense of the less wealthy.
You can’t raise taxes on the wealthy and think you’ll get more revenue. You won’t.
What evidence supports this conclusion?
He did the next best thing, lower it for both.
Why not leave the tax brackets as they are for corporations and lower them for the less wealthy?
What examples come to mind of democratic leadership doing similar things for the rich?
-->
@dustryder
If I understand the tax bill correctly, taxes were lowered for the majority of the population, but the tax cuts will expire for a majority of the beneficiaries in the future. They will not expire for corporations (at least pre-biden). Hence this is an example of republicans bending over for the rich at the expense of the less wealthy.
The bill expires some time later this decade unless renewed if I remember correctly. If it isn’t renewed then it leads to like 3-4x the budget deficit or something if I remember correctly.
What evidence supports this conclusion?
Just look at NY, NJ, CA. Everyone’s moving away. Those that are staying are rich enough to avoid paying taxes due to business loopholes written in the tax code. They’re not going away because the politicians will lose the funding they need to campaign in major media markets. It’s pretty much a slush fund if you think about it.
Why not leave the tax brackets as they are for corporations and lower them for the less wealthy?
The bill fails if that happens. Why would rich people ever risk the status quo if it was working well for them lol. Giving them what’s equivalent to crumbs in exchange for large sums to the people that matter is a no brainer. Hell even a small reduction would make people lazy and not go through the effort of not paying taxes.
What examples come to mind of democratic leadership doing similar things for the rich?
Where do you think Schumer and Pelosi get all their PAC money from? Amazon, Google, MSM, Wall Street. If they were really for taxing the rich, Jeff Bezos wouldn’t be a multimillionaire in Liberal Washington State. You forget that Wall Street funded Obama in 2008 too, and nothing happened to the tax code
-->
@Greyparrot
I should have said, "circle-back to me." That's liberal dogwhistle for "don't bother"
She’s such a clown dude. It’s sad to see people my age can’t see the double standard
-->
@ILikePie5
Just look at NY, NJ, CA. Everyone’s moving away. Those that are staying are rich enough to avoid paying taxes due to business loopholes written in the tax code. They’re not going away because the politicians will lose the funding they need to campaign in major media markets. It’s pretty much a slush fund if you think about it.
But you're not escaping a federal tax increase without renunciation. While I'm sure there's a tax rate that the wealthy would want to escape from, clearly it isn't the values before the tax cut.
The bill fails if that happens. Why would rich people ever risk the status quo if it was working well for them lol. Giving them what’s equivalent to crumbs in exchange for large sums to the people that matter is a no brainer. Hell even a small reduction would make people lazy and not go through the effort of not paying taxes.
Ok, in that case why not have expiring tax breaks for corporations?
The tax bill as it is is a losing situation for the masses. You might keep more money temporarily, but ultimately the loss of tax dollars from corporations harms everyone.
Where do you think Schumer and Pelosi get all their PAC money from? Amazon, Google, MSM, Wall Street. If they were really for taxing the rich, Jeff Bezos wouldn’t be a multimillionaire in Liberal Washington State. You forget that Wall Street funded Obama in 2008 too, and nothing happened to the tax code
The argument isn't for democrats actively wishing to raise taxes on the rich. The argument is for democrats actively pushing benefits for the wealthy. Maintaining the status quo lacks any sort of active intent to push benefits towards the wealthy, and is hardly on the level of tax breaks for the wealthy.
-->
@ILikePie5
All one has to do is see who rich people donated to. People like Wall Street backed Biden. Wealthy areas voted for Biden. It’s pretty obvious
No, one would have to look at who made the loopholes and then who voted for them, which presidents signed the bills with them, etc. It’d be rather exhaustivng, especially since what is or isnt a loophole is rather difficult to definitively spell out. In light of that, the only evidence I have is the GoP’s historical support for tax cuts for the rich,’without anything else, makes it more probably that the GoP would be responsible for the lions share of tax loopholes benefitting the rich.
-->
@Death23
which presidents signed the bills
Why would you give a fuck about that? Lobbies influence the Congress, not the president. State lobbies the State legislatures, not the Governors. California has had the richest people there for the longest time because Democrats there could stay bought for 50 years. The only reason why a few of the ultra-rich have had to move recently is that there isn't enough middle class to fill the rank and file left in California. The mecca of inequality has always been New York and California for 50 years.
You're not one of those idiots that really think the Ultra-Rich lived in California for the past 50 years because the weather is nice, do you?
-->
@Greyparrot
Smells like nitpicking and changing the subject to California. Presidents are involved in the legislative process. Whether or not a President signed a bill would be a factor, however slight. Recall that I did say "etc."
-->
@Death23
Yeah, I guess maybe. The thing is that you can absolutely see the effects of crony capitalism and the ruling party in California and New York for the past 50 years and see what it has done to create the monumental levels of inequality there. Once the cronyism is codified into law by the legislatures, it really makes absolutely no difference who is the governor OR the president afterwards. They don't have the power alone to fix corruption created in the past.
California and New York can only get back on a path of less corruption and more equality when the legislatures are reformed. Same at the Federal level. Electing new executives is just playing a shell game with the same corruption winning every time by default.
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah well, you'll like this loophole then. Start a business in California, build it up for many years, then move to a state with no state income tax and sell the business. You'll pay no state income on the appreciation of the business because interests in business are generally intangible personal property which is subject to the income tax based on the owner's state of residency at the time of the sale. Better yet, start your business in one of those "opportunity zones" and pay no federal tax on the appreciation as well. https://www.wellsfargo.com/the-private-bank/insights/planning/wpu-qualified-opportunity-zones/
If you're a worker though, make sure you're paying your flat taxes on your wages. Double it if you file schedule C.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Any one claim regarding BLM's intentions is a generalization. Have fun with that.
-->
@Death23
Why bother when you can just pay the crony legislatures of California for subsidies for 50 years?
California has a 50-year track record of staying bought by the ultra-rich. Why risk it?
-->
@Greyparrot
Hehe well then you'd have to pay.
-->
@Death23
pay to play is the only way.
One hand washes the other, and the middle class takes a bath.
50 years of inequality in California.
-->
@Alec
Does anyone on this site support reparations?
The best cases for reparations are not for the descendants of slaves, trafficking victims, illegal aliens etc... There might be some people who are conceptually interested in it, but I doubt anyone goes out and supports a cause of this nature.
Curious to what extent the contemporary racial wealth disparity is directly attributable to the slavery as opposed to racism and other factors in the intervening time period.
I don't disagree at all with where you're going with this but something financial has to be done to even the odds and make it a fair system. The unfair disadvantage has to be fully acknowledged, and not attributed to bullshit like racial supremacy but attributed to unfair start in life etc.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why do people think because you worked hard to give to your children when you die your kids should suffer and give up almost half of what their parents worked for.
I’ve never heard of anyone refer to receiving half of what their parents attained as “suffering”.
But I am always curious why it is that the side claiming to be all about hard work and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps remains so protective of trust fund babies being handed a free hand at life.
No one is advocating for the guy who left behind his $200k house pay half of its worth to government. The federal exemption used to be $5 million per individual. That wasn’t enough so republicans made it $10 million ($20 million for a married couple). So the kids of rich parents get their first $20 million entirely free of taxes, and only begin to pay taxes on the money they receive after that. So let me get this straight... I work for $50k and have to pay something like 15% of it to the government, but you get handed $20 million and pay nothing? How does that make sense?
But the most important reason to increase estate taxes is to provide opportunity to everyone. The wealth gap in this country is not an accident, nor is it a measure of how hard Americans work. Wealth begets wealth. That’s how unfettered capitalism works.
-->
@Double_R
Unfettered. Yes, good word, but you apply it poorly. My father taught me three lessons; ambition, planning, and execution. You skip over ambition, which is rarely taught. A common argument today is minimum wage. You might take a read of where that phrase was introduced, in the Fair Labor Act of 1938. It [min wage] was never meant to support a family; only an individual. The essence of that law has never changed. it's a beginning wage of the unskilled. Not now. To me, min wage is a low-ball goal. If that's all Democrats have ambition for, it's no wonder many never have ambition for more. When there is no limit to the money supply - and there is not, contrary to Oba'a - why have such an unworthy goal? How to make more money? Be better educated, and acquire the skills necessary to be of greater worth than min wage. Working for money should be a minimum goal. putting money to work for you is how it's done. You want to be rich? Who's holding you back? Look in the mirror. Be ambitious, make a plan, and execute. Do it again. And again. I taught the people who worked for me how to calculate what they were worth, and justify their wage. Those who did received higher pay than those who chose to let me value their worth. I gaded for personal ambition. Some never got that point.
-->
@RationalMadman
something financial has to be done to even the odds and make it a fair system.
Could you be more specific?
-->
@fauxlaw
I don’t see what this has to do with my post. I never mentioned minimum wage, and I agree that ambition is important. It’s not about equality of outcome, it’s about equality of opportunity. And while we understand that the latter is still not realistic, right now we’re not even close, and that’s not an accident.
-->
@Double_R
Inheritance isn't just at trust funds. If I want my kids to have my property and house when I die they should get it without the government getting half since I pay out of my income and property taxes.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Inheritance isn't just at trust funds. If I want my kids to have my property and house when I die they should get it without the government getting half since I pay out of my income and property taxes.
You are forming an opinion based on the false belief that America is a land where private property rights are cherished. This is not the America you may have read about in history books.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Being able to own what you produce and decide what you want to do with the fruits of your labor is the lie of Marxism. In reality, the Oligarchal state gets to decide what you can keep.