Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Kaleredar]

Yes, sorry you've just described both parties for the last few decades. Pull up your public debt past 50 years, but particularly one without political parties. Show me me the times that we know who was in control of the government, because it swaps from "spending money with all the self control of a toddler on a sugar high" to "build infrastructure."

I don't know if people have rose-colored glasses for the Democrats or what, but this is pretty abysmal for the history. I say this even if you don't like what Reagan did.

You can just say cutting taxes. We all know the rich pay the disproportionate majority of all taxes paid, well in excess of their share of income earned. Any tax cut will hit people that pay taxes more than people who don't pay taxes.

But Democrats love their talking points, and the party would sooner die than drop that one.

You could tax rich people more, poor and middle class people less, and bring in more income while those rich people remain rich.

In fact I’d say that’s the right thing to do. both morally and… sensibly. Literally the only thing stopping this from happening is rich people just not wanting to have slightly less money. And people like you carrying water for the extremely wealthy because… well who knows why, frankly.

Nobody in US history has ever been taxed so much that they would have been immensely wealthy “if not for the taxes” and now they’re struggling to make ends meet. That was not happening under the previous far, far, FAR higher upper tax rates of the 50s and 60s that supported robust government programs, and it doesn’t happen now. Not under Clinton, not under Obama, not under Biden.

And Like I said “oh but it would be unfair to tax rich people more (even if they would stay comfortably rich) because you’re targeting them, so a system with gross wealth inequality is fine so long as all the taxation is equal” is utterly meaningless garbage. What’s right is what produces the better good for the majority of people, not what makes already privileged people feel like they’re not being “unfairly targeted.”

I care far more about children being fed and educated and people who are down on their luck getting a leg up in life than the whining of the idle rich on a yacht or a second mansion somewhere complaining that their line isn’t going up as much as they’d like.

[tehdang]

2) This statistic also ignores overall wealth disparity, which is larger than, and arguably more important than, income disparity

It's appropriate to talk about "tax cuts for the rich" in the sense of income taxes. The US doesn't have a wealth tax.

3) Depending on your cutoff, and how you define "the rich," this statistic can also include high-paid professionals like doctors and lawyers, which pulls the focus away from the super-rich who often don't- legally speaking- take an 'income' to even be taxed, and live off of loans borrowed against their net worth.

I haven't seen a good statistical breakdown of how many filers can be classified as "super-rich" in the manner you describe. Especially compared to the top 0.1% of income earners (the top 0.1% pay a rate of roughly 33% according to the treasury).

You could tax rich people more, poor and middle class people less, and bring in more income while those rich people remain rich... ... ...

You could do all of the following which you describe, and also make the admission that the "tax cuts for the rich" is a stupid slogan believed by stupid people. The honest view is that they already pay the majority of taxes, and well above their share of incomes. Those are the simple facts. I say this because you haven't acknowledged them, but you really ought to. Anybody that says the right thing to do is tax them even more should not be such cowards in describing the real nature of the existing rates of taxation and what that means for tax cuts.

The top 1% earn 22% of the collection of incomes, but pay 40% of the taxes. This should expose the folly of "tax cuts for the rich" at the first part. It's just tax cuts. The rich are already the most affected, so any reduction would obviously affect them more. If you think the 1% who pay 40% ought to pay even more, then good luck with that pitch. Seriously, you should have an uphill battle proving that such a disproportionate burden should be made even worse. You're in favor of certain inequal systems, so sell it in an honest manner.

[DarkTZeratul]

The honest view is that they already pay the majority of taxes, and well above their share of incomes. Those are the simple facts. I say this because you haven't acknowledged them, but you really ought to. Anybody that says the right thing to do is tax them even more should not be such cowards in describing the real nature of the existing rates of taxation and what that means for tax cuts.

"My opinions are actually facts and you're stupid and cowardly for disagreeing."

[Mayhem]

The top 1% earn 22% of the collection of incomes, but pay 40% of the taxes.

Source or get the fuck out, because the one I am looking at right now says they earn 21% of all income and pay 24% of all taxes (that's from 2019). Now they earn 26% but I doubt they suddenly pay that much more in all taxes.

You're just looking at income tax, right? You think that's all the taxes that people pay, correct?

no idea why it showed the 2019 version but I found the stats for 2024

Top 1% total income 20%, total taxes 24%

source

[Huehuecoyotl]

Source or get the fuck out, because the one I am looking at right now says they earn 21% of all income and pay 24% of all taxes (that's from 2019). Now they earn 26% but I doubt they suddenly pay that much more in all taxes.

You're just looking at income tax, right? You think that's all the taxes that people pay, correct?

no idea why it showed the 2019 version but I found the stats for 2024

Top 1% total income 20%, total taxes 24%

source

And bear in mind that the rich now use the workaround of taking out loans against assets, which doesn't count as income and isn't taxable, rather than taking income. So any comparison of "income" to "tax" is thoroughly tainted for the rich. I'd be astounded if what is defined as "income" counts as more than a fraction of the available funds the top 0.1% generate on an annual basis.

Everything the rich do is designed to obfuscate just how rich they are, and how rigged the whole system is.

[alach]

They can also afford to have access to high-price accountants whose entire job is to find tax loopholes and save them money. Something most regular folk can not.

[Azadina]

Well, just let me know if you want to answer the question. I indulge a little too much on tangents when people simply will refuse to give comment on the main topic.

I'd be happy to answer civil questions within the limits of the forum rules. I'd like you to give an answer on a basic one involving defending everybody's rights first, but check my previous post for that.

If you have a problem with the limits that forum rules place on discussion topics, I'm not the person to ask.

I've answered the question each time. It's the woke dei purple mods, they delete the answer. They're after me, they're relentless in chasing me. I can hear them even now. They're closing in. Why do you want them to ban me Tehdang? Are you trying to get rid of me?

I wish you'd shed your fear of the deep state mods for a moment though, and answer my question even once. I asked first afterall. Gotta hide now, they're too close.

[Gorsameth]

Got fired for defending the agency he was tasked to run along with the employees of it.

He wasn't tasked to run it. He was tasked to destroy it. Hence why he was fired when he refused to do that.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Won't someone please think about the billionaires...

[Poopymonster]

Well Barbie promotes women being able to do whatever they want to do instead of being the property of men....we can't have that in MAGA-Land.

Barbie has had to raise/care for her 3 younger sisters, hold down multiple jobs across multiple fields she may or may not be qualified for just to support them, and has a unemployed boyfriend.

She's got a work hard ethic MAGA would kill for.

[Breccia]

Hey, guess who is about to run out of money? The Department of Homeland Security. Due to the fact that Congress hasn't actually passed a budget, they are looking at running out of money 2 months early which means that ICE agents won't get paid a dime.

This is going to be a bigger problem than it looks. I keep seeing articles that the GOP is struggling with the budget, and not for the usual reason. You know how the President always drafts a budget, virtue signaling what they want knowing it'll never pass? Trump is different. Trump has, at some point, figured out that Congress sets the overall budget, and every time he mishandles it, the courts stop him from arbitrarily cutting funds. He wants his budget passed. Problem is, Trump can't add, and demanding trillions in spending cuts without hitting programs people actually like is proving, well, impossible.

So, I see one of three things happening:

1) The GOP, sighing in resignation, passes Trump's budget, making significant cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, blocking tax deductions, etc. the whole thing, giving up on balancing the budget entirely, and they do it in two months. Coincidentally, two months is about when the effects of the trade war with China "trickle down" to the entire USA. America is hit with a one-two punch of losing benefits while prices increase due to Trump's willing direct actions, not even Trump supporters are happy with the results, and 2026 becomes a bloodbath when the voters blame Congress for Trump's actions while still worshipping Trump.

2) The GOP split their results, trying to either pass a version of Trump's budget that doesn't literally kill their voters, or they keep the tax cut for the rich (costing $4.5 trillion over 10 years), but not both, which seems monetarily impossible.

3) A CR, the usual, as the GOP hopes having more time will let them create free money out of thin air, and we'll have this discussion again in six months.

The problem with agreeing with someone who makes crazy, impossible shit up is that the crazy, impossible shit becomes your job. Trump has asked for some contradictory things, and DOGE provided no help at all, costing as much as it claimed to save.

I'm guessing Trump doesn't get his budget. I'm guessing people who want to keep their job, like the GOP in the House and Senate, aren't too keen on gutting Medicare and Medicaid on the orders of a fat senile retarded old man who can't run for a third term.

- - - Updated - - -

And bear in mind that the rich now use the workaround of taking out loans against assets, which doesn't count as income and isn't taxable, rather than taking income. So any comparison of "income" to "tax" is thoroughly tainted for the rich. I'd be astounded if what is defined as "income" counts as more than a fraction of the available funds the top 0.1% generate on an annual basis.

This is a disingenuous post!

...because you forgot to mention Social Security tax, which is also disproportionately put on lower-income taxpayers.

[Xath]

So, I guess this Administration has gone from "We know what the law is." to now "I don't know".

First, when Trump was asked about his duty to uphold the Constitution, he answered "I don't know".

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...d=BingNewsSerp



Second, now Patel is stating the exact same thing when asked about a legally required budget request that wasn't given and about actively investigating this Administration if it were to violate the law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...34053e81&ei=71



For Trump to state that, he should be impeached and removed from office because he is now actively stating he will not uphold the Constitution. Second, Patel should be impeached from the FBI for basically the same thing and for refusing to investigate actual instances of ignoring court orders.

- - - Updated - - -



Nobody was actively paying that 92% tax rate. Nobody. Between loopholes and deductions, most paid a far lower marginal tax rate. And mind you, that would have been 92% of any income over $400k, not the entire amount. Very few people made even that amount back then. Around 10k people.

I am aware of how tax brackets work and I consider them a positive nobody needs 100 generations of wealth.

Ceos have gone from a 17:1 pay vs the average worker to 300:1 and rising it's unsustainable without either a revolution or a fascist regime guess which one america decided on ;(

[Breccia]

I am aware of how tax brackets work and I consider them a positive nobody needs 100 generations of wealth.

Ceos have gone from a 17:1 pay vs the average worker to 300:1 and rising it's unsustainable without either a revolution or a fascist regime guess which one america decided on ;(

The usual defense is "but if you tax CEOs more, then nobody would want to make big businesses that hire tons of people!"

My response to that is many large corporations don't pay taxes, even and especially those that work overseas. Tesla, for example, is a very large portion of Musk's wealth and has paid nearly nothing on billions of income since the tax cut for the rich in 2017. Tesla, for example, paid nearly nothing 2018 to now, despite making billions upon billions in revenue and profit, and outsourcing most of its work overseas.

So, no, that's not the issue. People in the position of having power and money have a tendency to want to keep more of it, doing things like hiring illegal immigrants to pick spinach or fighting safety regulations so they can sell spoiled chicken and milk to schoolchildren.

[Woodtable]

Yes, sorry you've just described both parties for the last few decades. Pull up your public debt past 50 years, but particularly one without political parties. Show me me the times that we know who was in control of the government, because it swaps from "spending money with all the self control of a toddler on a sugar high" to "build infrastructure."

I don't know if people have rose-colored glasses for the Democrats or what, but this is pretty abysmal for the history. I say this even if you don't like what Reagan did.

You can just say cutting taxes. We all know the rich pay the disproportionate majority of all taxes paid, well in excess of their share of income earned. Any tax cut will hit people that pay taxes more than people who don't pay taxes.

But Democrats love their talking points, and the party would sooner die than drop that one.

I see this guy is still allowed to lie and spread misinformation whenever I check back in here.

[Fugus]

I see this guy is still allowed to lie and spread misinformation whenever I check back in here.

Of course, it’s not like intentionally posting unconstructively, trolling, derailing, or otherwise posting in bad faith is against the rules or anything. If that were the case he would have been gone a long time ago and countless infractions others received for interacting with him or calling him out would have never happened.


Trolling, baiting, shitposting and intentionally spreading misinformation is completely fine here, it’s only calling it out thats a problem. Unless it’s against conservative causes, we have just how far Thwart was allowed to go until addressed as evidence of that.

[Breccia]

Of course, it’s not like intentionally posting unconstructively, trolling, derailing, or otherwise posting in bad faith is against the rules or anything.

But hey, we're allowed to discuss religion too, so that's fun.

[Fugus]

But hey, we're allowed to discuss religion too, so that's fun.

Only if it helps with conservative ideals. Been infracted for mentioning a Bible verse that supports abortion last year.

Edit: while I am being sarcastic about them only allowing it to help that view, I legit did get an infraction for mentioning the Bible verse that supported abortion when a guy mentioned his religious views for why he was against it.

[Kaleredar]

It's appropriate to talk about "tax cuts for the rich" in the sense of income taxes. The US doesn't have a wealth tax.

I haven't seen a good statistical breakdown of how many filers can be classified as "super-rich" in the manner you describe. Especially compared to the top 0.1% of income earners (the top 0.1% pay a rate of roughly 33% according to the treasury).

You could do all of the following which you describe, and also make the admission that the "tax cuts for the rich" is a stupid slogan believed by stupid people. The honest view is that they already pay the majority of taxes, and well above their share of incomes. Those are the simple facts. I say this because you haven't acknowledged them, but you really ought to. Anybody that says the right thing to do is tax them even more should not be such cowards in describing the real nature of the existing rates of taxation and what that means for tax cuts.

The top 1% earn 22% of the collection of incomes, but pay 40% of the taxes. This should expose the folly of "tax cuts for the rich" at the first part. It's just tax cuts. The rich are already the most affected, so any reduction would obviously affect them more. If you think the 1% who pay 40% ought to pay even more, then good luck with that pitch. Seriously, you should have an uphill battle proving that such a disproportionate burden should be made even worse. You're in favor of certain inequal systems, so sell it in an honest manner.

And they should pay more.

Lessens the tax burden on most people. The rich don’t even have to deign to not be rich after increased taxation; those earning billions of dollars will still have… billions of dollars.

And frankly if someone would have billions of dollars and are knocked down to only having hundreds of millions of dollars, I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

[tehdang]

I've answered the question each time. It's the woke dei purple mods, they delete the answer. They're after me, they're relentless in chasing me. I can hear them even now. They're closing in. Why do you want them to ban me Tehdang? Are you trying to get rid of me?

I wish you'd shed your fear of the deep state mods for a moment though, and answer my question even once. I asked first afterall. Gotta hide now, they're too close.

I’m not getting baited into discussing banned topics. Take it up with the mods.

Of course, it’s not like intentionally posting unconstructively, trolling, derailing, or otherwise posting in bad faith is against the rules or anything. If that were the case he would have been gone a long time ago and countless infractions others received for interacting with him or calling him out would have never happened.


Trolling, baiting, shitposting and intentionally spreading misinformation is completely fine here, it’s only calling it out thats a problem. Unless it’s against conservative causes, we have just how far Thwart was allowed to go until addressed as evidence of that.

I think the argument to drop the “tax cuts for the rich” fallacy is a constructive argument, and hinges on understanding who pays the disproportionate share of taxes. I can’t force you to take up the factual basis, but I won’t let you say that the absence of constructive responses is proof of a non-constructive argument.

I think both parties are so far from each other that sincere arguments will be mistaken as bad faith. And I think there’s a certain laziness here. It’s much, much easier to attack the person saying it, than to examine the bipartisan spending graphs or the share of taxes paid by income intervals. You want to say you’re not part of a bubble, but look at your behavior to minority political viewpoints within the forum.

The Trump administration been busy pointing out that Democrats are defending violent MS-13 criminals, and forum members have been saying defending rights for all makes you, variously, a Nazi and protector of child pornographers. Well, you can’t have it both ways. You either want the scum of society to preserve their rights, or you don’t. You either think is fair to attack the protectors of all for supporting the most vile that are included in all, or not.

I’ll note that you have chosen not to weigh in on posts like
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54682682

but you can’t criticize those that do respond. And it’s obvious that a contingent of people here want to erode rights, and when they’re challenged on that object, they want to attack the people pointing it out. It’s not just a Trump thing if you support it for other groups.

[Breccia]

I won’t let you say that the absence of constructive responses is proof of a non-constructive argument

Translation: "I support a terrorist and dictator and have no defense for my words and actions."