Total posts: 1,201
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
all I have to do is post a credible source that says they are effective, then point out that you don't have any credible sources that say the opposite. case closed, right? that's usually where anti vaxxers get it twisted. they don't know how to tell if a source Is credible... and they rely on random websites and YouTube videos that no one has ever heard of, or that are obvious misinformation, instead of the experts.
Created:
Posted in:
Kennedy begrudgingly said in passing that the MMR vaccine was the most effective defense against the measles and he got attacked as a Judas online by his anti-vax fam
Make it make sense
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I wouldn't do fair tax. It's gotta be progressive sales tax or it's not fair or too feasible. I didn't know fair tax has stipends for the lower class so it's not all bad
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It'd be good to tax the guy eating wasteful food, but it's too hard to micromanage the tax system so what chatgpt said is better. Maybe we can have a few special categories that have higher tax, just no micromanaging.
Also the progressive part of this is a feature but it almost looks like u treat it like a bug. Rich dudes ain't gotta buy yachts, it's their choice. And if a poor dude saves his money for a yacht, he's subject to the tax too. Fair
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Would u support this instead of income tax?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You did defect from the opening post, tho. U have to admit it's not hard to get our deficit under control with our current system with no radical policy
Created:
If we only applied the tax on new products and services, the used goods market would explode. Buy it'd be hard to monitor used goods to tax so maybe that's how it should be?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
When money is printed it only benefits institutions and the people getting paid. The poor would be the hardest hit by thus new massive inflation
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can't just throw out u want to get rid of our progressive income tax system with a consumption tax, and list no nuances to your policy, and expect people to take it seriously
I wouldn't be against a progressive sales tax. I made a thread on that.
Created:
Here is a system designed by chatgpt
Designing a **progressive sales tax** to replace the U.S. income tax is ambitious but possible. The key idea is to **scale tax rates based on purchase price tiers**, protecting low-income consumers while ensuring high-value luxury purchases fund government revenue. Here's a conceptual design:---### **Progressive National Sales Tax (PNST)**#### **Purpose:**Replace federal income tax with a tiered consumption-based tax that is **fair**, **simple**, and **revenue-generating**, while minimizing the burden on the working class.---### **1. Tax Rate by Purchase Price Tier**| Purchase Price (per item or per transaction) | Tax Rate ||---------------------------------------------|----------|| $0 – $25 | 0% || $25.01 – $100 | 2% || $100.01 – $500 | 5% || $500.01 – $1,000 | 8% || $1,000.01 – $10,000 | 12% || $10,000.01 – $100,000 | 18% || $100,000.01 – $1,000,000 | 24% || $1,000,000.01+ | 30% |- Rates apply **only to the portion within each bracket** (like marginal income tax).- **Basic needs** like food, rent, healthcare, and education could be **exempt or zero-rated**.---### **2. Optional Features for Fairness**- **Prebate system**: Every citizen receives a monthly prebate (e.g., $300/month) to offset the tax on essentials—modeled after the FairTax concept.- **Luxury surcharge**: Extra 5-10% on luxury items (e.g., yachts, private jets, supercars).- **Exemption card for low-income individuals** (means-tested) for specific categories.---### **3. Revenue Goal**- Target revenue: ~$4.5 trillion/year (current federal tax revenue).- Sales tax base would cover **all new goods and services**, including digital products, financial services, etc.- Assumes a large base and **robust enforcement** with digital tracking.---### **4. Advantages**- Incentivizes saving over spending (good for capital formation).- Simple compliance: tax is collected at point-of-sale.- Reduces tax avoidance/evasion related to income hiding.- Makes taxation **visible**, encouraging democratic accountability.---### **5. Challenges**- Regressivity if poorly designed: mitigated through prebates and exemptions.- Transition impact: must phase in while phasing out income tax.- States would need coordination or integration.---Would you like a version that also includes carbon taxes, wealth surcharges, or digital transaction fees for additional fairness and sustainability?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Choosing not to consume is literally a death wish. To live is to consume. To live even modestly is to consume even more. You r playing games to ignore the regressive nature of the tax. A sales tax that increases with the purchase price might not be so bad
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Property tax exemptions for lower class or personal residence is a good idea, as I said
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Printing money causes inflation which is regressive hurting lower classes the most
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Consumption taxes are regressive, they tax the upper middle class most, lower classes next, and rich the least
Property taxes instead of income could be ok, both liberal and conservative economists like property taxes. People own land of the commons so they should be taxed for common good. Homestead exemptions would be ok for lower classes
Created:
The increase in income tax thing is especially modest. Instead of an effective tax rate of 22 percent, it'd be a 24.2 percent rate instead
Created:
Here is a quick rundown of some proposals, calculated by chatgptHere’s a breakdown of the **estimated annual revenue gains or savings** from each of your listed policy options:---### **Wealth Taxes****Top 1% of Wealth: approx. $50 trillion****Top 2% of Wealth: approx. $70 trillion**| Policy | Revenue Gain (Annually) ||--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|| 1% tax on top 1% wealth | $500 billion || 2% tax on top 1% wealth | $1.0 trillion || 1% tax on top 2% wealth | $700 billion || 2% tax on top 2% wealth | $1.4 trillion |---### **Income Taxes****Top 10% earners: ~$6.5 trillion annual income****Top 20% earners: ~$9.5 trillion annual income**| Policy | Revenue Gain (Annually) ||--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|| 10% increase on top 10% income | $143 billion || 10% increase on top 20% income | ~$209 billion |*Note: These are based on a ~10% relative increase in effective federal income tax, not a flat 10% income tax.*---### **Spending Cuts****Federal spending (excluding Social Security): ~$5.1 trillion**| Policy | Savings (Annually) ||--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|| 10% cut to all non-Social Security spending| ~$510 billion |---### **Quick Summary Table**| Policy | Revenue/Savings (Annual) ||--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|| 1% tax on top 1% wealth | $500 billion || 2% tax on top 1% wealth | $1.0 trillion || 1% tax on top 2% wealth | $700 billion || 2% tax on top 2% wealth | $1.4 trillion || 10% tax increase on top 10% income earners | $143 billion || 10% tax increase on top 20% income earners | $209 billion || 10% cut to non-Social Security spending | $510 billion |---Let me know if you want any combos totaled or modeled over a decade!
The current usa deficit is 1.8 trillion
The real question is do we want to balance it, run a surplus, or just grow debt with inflation. The inflation thing is smartest
Created:
Posted in:
I think the solution is to promote smart policy. Politicians have lost the policy is politics. We shouldn't go full retard libertarian and have no policies and a wild west. But we should be selective of what policies we allow to be passed and work to promote what are essentially just 'good ideas' at their core
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Or look at the infrastructure program biden passed to get high speed internet into rural areas. They barely made any progress and were already going over budget. I heard they're trying to just use funds to pay off Elon to use his starlink in remote areas. Now it's at the mercy of an autocratic oligarch.
I didn't fact check these. But I wouldn't be surprised
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Clearly you dominate at debate, while the other Korea debater clearly sucks. Amiright?
Created:
Posted in:
Here is a riddle that's also hard to wrap your mind around
Created:
Posted in:
I've heard of the issue and I can't wrap my mind around it at all, and I even got all As in my college math classes even through advanced math and graduate statistics.
Created:
I must have been going through an anti libertarians phase
Created:
Posted in:
this was a good debate from my old account. I still like to say that libertarians are clowns. in the rest of civilized society, social safety nets are standard. there are no libertarians developed countries. libertarians want us to get rid of government... but they can't show one successful libertarian country. they are radicals. they are clowns. socialists are bad, but so is the other extreme... libertarians.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm not gonna watch a whole video to narrow down what maybe your point is. It looks like you just don't want to call prices going up as inflation? What you call it is irrelevant so your point is irrelevant. Tariffs cause prices to go up, bottom line. As a libertarian yourself, you should be supporting my defense of the free market
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
As of my last knowledge update in October 2023, imports accounted for about 15% to 20% of the U.S. GDP. This percentage can fluctuate based on various factors, including trade policies, global economic conditions, and changes in consumer demand.For the most accurate and current statistics, I recommend checking sources like the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) or the U.S. Census Bureau, which provide up-to-date trade data.
It's not just a direct effect on our economy. Even shaking consumer and business confidence can cause these things. Plus our export market will be out of whack. Trade wars r a double edge sword
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Looks like you have your libertarian blinders on and r only worrying about things that libertarians typically worry about. Anything that increases or limits supply and demand will cause the effects I'm talking about. Inflation and stimulating economy is the whole point. To Make businesses in the usa have more demand. I don't know a single economist who would say tariffs don't cause inflation. Can you find a single credible source that backs up your claim?
Created:
Which is economic stagnation plus inflation. Reckless tariffs causes both, they dampen economic activity and cause things to become more expensive.
Raising or lowering interest rates, neither r a good option. If economy is bad, raising them is bad. If inflation is bad, lowering them is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If biden did the exact same thing, u would be calling it the dem war on the free market
Created:
They've lost the policy in politics as I like to say
But how do you win elections? A lot of it is branding and name recognition. Trump had both, that's why he won twice
Are more or less policy details better for branding?
None of us like it but branding with platitudes is half the battle. The average person is pretty stupid and half of people are even stupider. That's just right off rip. There's a time and place for substance but I'm not convinced being heavy on that is what wins elections. Devilish details can alienate more people than it helps attract. Gotta be ambiguous enough to let people project their own ideals onto you
Created:
-->
@Savant
Neither of us like it but branding with platitudes is half the battle. The average person is pretty stupid and half of people are even stupider. That's just right off rip. There's a time and place for substance but I'm not convinced being heavy on that is what wins elections. Devilish details can alienate more people than it helps attract. Gotta be ambiguous enough to let people project their own ideals onto you
Created:
-->
@Savant
That's all campaign rallies are meant to be. You shouldn't pretend he should be offering more than that in this context. Politics is half branding and he's got the skill down pat. He's also good at adult discussions on complex issues so he's good beyond a rally too
Created:
Posted in:
Trump is above average intelligence but he's unsophisticated and ignorant and has a lot of stupid ideas. He's good at making pitches to gullible people. His business returns on investment are below average and he has lots of failed businesses and bankruptcies. It takes a special type of stupid to bankrupt a casino after everyone was trying to talk sense into his reckless policies. He started his business when younger with millions from his dad and credit lines from his dad's connections. And he eventually got an inheritance of hundreds of millions.
Created:
Here is one of my favorite new politicians, Jon ossoff, a young senator from Georgia. Hes educated and articulate and passionate, with an Obama esque style. This is a short 20 minute rally that's good as an introduction. He shines best discuss8ng substantive issues, unlike certain current presidents that will go unmentioned
Created:
-->
@Savant
ive noticed the 'female' and 'woman' distinction in the trans community. female, sex. woman, gender and sex. but i just thought of this. does that mean there's male women and female women? and male men and female men? would the trans people be okay with being called a female man if they are a woman that identified as a man?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
so who is your favorite, vance or don junior? do you want them both eventually? is vance alpha enough to put an asterisks in the trump dynasty?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Free will is like God and the afterlife, you can't prove em but they r common sense. Just look at humans common sensical. We make our own decisions and me typing ! Is totally a free agent move. You only have a point that we might not have free will, we might be elaborate flesh robots. Is that seriously what you think, humans are nothing but elaborate flesh robots? Totally idiotic stance, if so
Created:
Posted in:
The constitution says a person can't be elected to two full terms as president. Trumps loop hole is that vance could run as president and Trump as vice president, then vance can eventually resign and Trump take over without technically being elected more than twice.
Trump is exactly the type with the sort of gumption to do such a thing. Don't you agree? Trump is the type to make the unthinkable into an option, often an option to half the population
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I tend to think taking over Greenland and the Panama canal is crazy talk, but u definitely make a decent argument about it. Trump is the king at moving Overton windows. What was once unthinkable is now an option worth considering and debating. Trumps cult will move in any direction he says plus if his ideas r good ideas he can peel off a good bit of independent voters
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Great points about bleeding russia out
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
im pretty progressive and even I can see dismantling the department of education
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Artificial intelligence doesn't get into partisan polemics, which your point is. Ai looks just at facts as they r
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
"private equity" is a step in the right direction. 'everyone investing in an index fund' or 'every man for himself' type investing, are not good ideas or roads to go down. i'm not saying i'm opposed to the money being invested, it just needs to be explained how it'll work and how it'll offer benefits that exceed what social security already offers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
do you not read articles about policy? it's a fact, the worse case scenario is that social security will only be able to pay out 87 percent of benefits in eight years. that's not perfect but it's hardly a failure, given there's no credible alternatives to consider and you refuse to list any. also you say worse case scenario is hyperinflation but where are you getting this? social security is funded by current workers... itll always be solvent even if it doesn't pay what we'd hope for. your hyper inflation argument doesn't seem tethered to a rational thought, and the rest of what you are arguing seems too emotion driven and devoid of facts to bother responding to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
there are a couple things wrong with the way you look at what i said. if everyone just invests indexes and hopes future genrations do too, that'd be more of a ponzi scheme than what people currently call social security. eventually people would stop putting money it it. stocks are limited to how profitable they are, based on the stocks earnings. if everyone keep funneling money into indexes or certain stocks, the price of the stock would be super inflated and not tethered to the acutal earnings. it's like a ponzi scheme if it is divorced from fundamentals like profit, as investment advisors talk about. the other problem with your view, is instead of funnelling it into four o one k's or indexes as you say, we could just keep the current pay as you go system. that's the same difference, only it's a guarantee, and its not subject to the whims of people's voluntarily or not investing into a ponzi scheme stock market.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
you say a lot, but as the AI bot said, your responses are emotion driven, not fact driven. i pointed out to you that the worst case scenario for social security is that in eight years it will only be able to pay 87 percent of benefits. that's hardly the carnage and mountain of theft you make it out to be. it didn't live up to expectations but that dont mean it's a failure. you didn't respond to this simple but essential fact but rather drove into emotional fact free ideology. sure you dont have to provide a solution when criticizing someone else's system, but it makes your argument all that much weaker, cause social security is doing what it's suppose to do almost while achieving a lot of objectives that would be hard if not impossible to do elsewhere. that's the elephant in the room, and you refuse to address it. what's your alternative? also you dont seem to realize that most investors not only dont beat the market, they lose money. so if you simply let every man for himself, most people would be destitutue in retirement and we'd have the problem that had us make social security to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
social security is pay as you go. it's not carnage what happened to it. yes polititicians borrowed from it, but they have to pay it back. worse case scenario, is that in eight years they will have to trim all benefits by fifteen percent. as the ai bot said, it's pay as you go, it's funded by current workers. also, you say we can find a way to do it privatized, but you dont say how that can be done while acheieving all the guarantees that currently exists with all the objectives currently acheieved by social security. as with most libertarians, you are full of criticism but light on solutions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
id also add, as with most libertarians, you are good at criticizing, but poor on providing alternative systems. you say we can invest in the economy, somehow. if you can detail how that can be done while providing guaranteed income and achieving all the objectives of social security, i'm open to listening to it. but that would require more than just criticism from u but rather a constructive policy proposal that's open to its own criticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
artificial intelligence doesn't make all my arguments, but most of my arguments are argued better by AI on my behalf.
This response is full of emotional rhetoric, but it lacks substantive economic arguments. Let’s break down the key flaws in their response:### **1. "The government stole Social Security money"**- **Misconception**: Social Security funds aren’t “stolen.” The program is pay-as-you-go, meaning current workers' taxes fund current retirees. This has always been the system since Social Security's inception in 1935.- **Reality**: While surplus Social Security funds are held in government bonds (which critics call IOUs), those bonds are backed by the U.S. government—just like Treasury securities held by private investors and foreign governments. If they are worthless, so is the entire U.S. financial system.### **2. "Government causes inflation, so Social Security's COLA is meaningless"**- **False equivalence**: Inflation is influenced by multiple factors—monetary policy, supply chains, global markets—not simply government spending.- **Convenient dismissal**: Even if inflation exists, Social Security’s Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA) help retirees keep up with inflation. The alternative would be **no COLA at all**, which would devastate retirees dependent on fixed incomes.### **3. "The stock market is a better alternative"**- **Misrepresentation**: While it’s true that private investment can generate wealth, **most individuals do not have the skill, time, or risk tolerance to manage long-term stock investments effectively**. Studies show that individual investors underperform index funds due to poor timing, panic selling, and lack of diversification.- **Risk factor**: Private retirement plans rely on the market, which has **no guaranteed minimum benefit**. Social Security provides a floor that prevents elderly poverty, which the stock market cannot guarantee.### **4. "Most people don’t lose money in stocks"**- **Cherry-picked logic**: Yes, stocks generally grow over time, but **individual investors routinely lose money** by making poor investment decisions. The success of broad market indexes does not mean every person will benefit equally, nor does it address market crashes that could wipe out retirement savings at the wrong time.- **Longevity risk**: Unlike Social Security, **private accounts don’t guarantee lifetime income**—you can outlive your savings, whereas Social Security lasts as long as you do.### **5. "Overvaluation of stocks doesn’t harm earnings"**- **Oversimplified**: While stock overvaluation doesn’t necessarily reduce earnings, it does lead to **lower future returns** when valuations are high. If a privatized Social Security system led to massive stock purchases, prices would inflate, making new investments less profitable.- **Historical evidence**: The 2008 financial crisis showed what happens when financial bubbles pop—workers near retirement saw their 401(k)s drop by **40% or more**. Social Security prevented those retirees from falling into complete destitution.### **6. "Social Security is guaranteed to be stolen"**- **Defeatist argument**: Social Security has been paying benefits for nearly 90 years. If it were a “scam,” it would have collapsed long ago.- **Sustainability solutions**: While reforms (such as adjusting the payroll tax cap) may be needed, **abolishing Social Security doesn’t solve the problem—it creates a bigger one** by leaving millions of retirees without guaranteed income.### **7. "We need to stop the bloodletting"**- **Fear-based rhetoric**: This statement is purely ideological and doesn’t engage with actual financial realities.- **Lack of alternatives**: The response offers **no viable replacement** for Social Security. If it were abolished, what would happen to the millions who depend on it? Most private plans don’t provide guaranteed lifelong income, and a full shift to private investments would **disproportionately harm lower-income and less financially literate Americans**.---### **Conclusion: A Weak, Emotion-Driven Rebuttal**This person’s response is **heavy on ideological outrage and light on practical solutions**. They ignore that:✅ Social Security is sustainable with proper adjustments.✅ The stock market is risky for retirees who don’t have decades to recover from downturns.✅ Inflation affects all investments, but Social Security adjusts for it.✅ There’s no viable replacement proposed—just anger at the current system.It’s easy to complain, but without a real plan, their argument collapses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
you are missing the point. if everyone invests in the s and p 500 it would get overinflated and the market would get dysfunctional. i'm sure there are individuals who would do better with their own money if they had more control over their funds, but most would suck, and it wouldn't work on a mass scale. if your bottom line is that it's every man for himself, we just have a fundamental difference in opinion.
Created: