Elizabeth Warren Drinks a Beer Runs for Pres.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure there is and a housing crisis as a result

Can you define that? Because if you mean costs are high you’re right but so are wages. $15 minimum wage. If you mean there are too many homeless junkies that’s true too but that’s their fault. There are a lot of affordable housing areas that are brand new and really nice. If you mean there are so many people moving here that there isn’t a lot of houses on the market within an easy commute to the city you’re right.

[+OverSword]

Damn it farmer I was going to stay away from this thread 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No they really dont. They would like that to be the case so they can sustain their lifestyles but no many businesses, especially corporations, could cut their profit margins. I know I know thats blasphemy

I would like to think I live in a country where no man is a slave.  When you cut into a person's profit simply out of some jealousy motive, you *right there* set a tone for the future. Being a businessman is BAD. Being a taker is NOBLE. What you suggest should happen is what Venezuela did to their business people. They FLED and up and coming young business people are nowhere to be found.. And now the country can't even feed the masses, can't repay their debts, can't gt product to market. You think that people will take that kind of treatment but it's more involved than it looks. 

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

You , and in your defense entirely too much of our society, are a victim of corporate brainwashing.

LOL. I don't think so, Farmer.

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Hell I dont even work in the area where I live and I make a very nice living for my region. So when im discussing the minimum wage and how raising prices in conjunction with raising it is screwing people im not even talking about ME.

 

Farmer, did you ever notice how democrats who want to "make things right"  never suggest that the government stop taxing poor people? It's always about taking more and more money from the rich. How the heck does that offer relief to poor people?  If you only  taxed people who earn over $100K a year, then the rich bastids will pay ALL income taxes. Isn't that a just way to do it?

But no, the dems want as much as they can grab from everyone. It's a greed/power thing.

[Aquila King]

48 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What you suggest should happen is what Venezuela did to their business people. They FLED and up and coming young business people are nowhere to be found.. And now the country can't even feed the masses, can't repay their debts, can't gt product to market.

Oh look, the Venezuela argument again. Shocker!... 

https://extranewsfeed.com/socialism-but-look-at-venezuela-debunking-anti-socialist-propaganda-w-actual-logic-de587c1a299a

[Aquila King]

51 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

did you ever notice how democrats who want to "make things right"  never suggest that the government stop taxing poor people? It's always about taking more and more money from the rich. How the heck does that offer relief to poor people?

It offers relief to poor people by:

• Insuring that they don't go bankrupt, with hold necessary medical treatment, or even die due to lack of healthcare
• Insures that those who work full time make enough money to meet their basic needs like food, water, and shelter by implementing a living wage as the minimum wage
• Allows people to climb the economic ladder by going to college tuition free, and not saddling them with loads of unpaid student loan debt

Need I go on?

See, when people have healthcare, they are then healthy and thereby able to work and contribute to society And the money that would go towards medical bills and monthly insurance premiums can instead be invested in growing small businesses or whatever else they can spend it on to help grow the economy. 

When people who work a minimum wage job are paid enough they need to pay for basic living expenses (like food, basic utilities, housing rent, transportation, basic clothes, etc.), then they are able to put more time and money into other things like school, or starting their own business, or having some side projects to make money, etc. That's what actually helps them climb the economic ladder.

When people are able to go to school and not have to worry about how they're gonna pay their student loan debt, they're then free to spend the money that would be going into monthly loan payments into things like growing their businesses or whatever else I've already mentioned before.

I mean, really the massively gigantic problem with conservative supply-side economics is that you guys just expect lower and middle class people to grow and invest in the economy with little to no money to their name. The fact is, you need money in order to make money. You can't just keep cutting things like healthcare, education, the minimum wage, etc. and expect people to be able to contribute to an economy. People can't invest in and grow the economy if all their money is constantly being sucked up to the top 1%.

And it isn't a matter of "just work harder", since they're already working their asses off to pay for these basic things, living paycheck to paycheck (many having to work 2 or 3 low paying jobs that just 1 decent paying job would do), and therefore have no more money to spend towards things that would actually help them grow the economy. The problem isn't their work ethic, it's their psss poor paycheck.

I know basically all of this will just fly right over your head, but just for the sake of seeing some common ass sense for once I felt the need to respond here.

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Can you define that? Because if you mean costs are high you’re right but so are wages. $15 minimum wage. If you mean there are too many homeless junkies that’s true too but that’s their fault. There are a lot of affordable housing areas that are brand new and really nice. If you mean there are so many people moving here that there isn’t a lot of houses on the market within an easy commute to the city you’re right.

Sorry that was kind of a drive by response, got busy at work.

I really meant all of the above. When businesses are allowed to raise their rates in conjunction with the raising of minimum wage it makes the raising of minimum wage moot. In your area you (god that sounds arrogant, not trying to tell you what you see every day) have that problem on top of the already existing silicon valley part deux AND the (after my experience in OR this is an assumption so correct me if im wrong) massive influx of people coming because of legalized marijuana.

So not only are lower income people facing competition for housing from the tech boom and the green rush theyve been given an imaginary pay raise.

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I would like to think I live in a country where no man is a slave.  When you cut into a person's profit simply out of some jealousy motive, you *right there* set a tone for the future.

Ironic how differently two people can see the world. The closest thing to slavery I see is line folks making minimum wage while CEO's take home billions.

I do confess to two pieces of jealousy regarding this conversation. Just two though and even that jealousy is almost for EVERYONE not just myself :  having access to healthcare and higher education. IDK how we became so broken as a society to deem those industries profit making centers but the mental retardation has got to stop.

 

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Being a businessman is BAD. Being a taker is NOBLE.

Not even in the least, simply pushing for a more representative balance between the workers and those who take the profits home. Whether the owners and board members want to admit it or not it is a symbiotic relationship they have with the line employee. They need each other, I simply think that truth should be represented in monetary units.

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What you suggest should happen is what Venezuela did to their business people. They FLED and up and coming young business people are nowhere to be found.. And now the country can't even feed the masses, can't repay their debts, can't gt product to market. You think that people will take that kind of treatment but it's more involved than it looks. 

Yeah youre not gonna get anywhere throwing a shallow sound bite argument about venezuela at me.

3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Farmer, did you ever notice how democrats who want to "make things right"  never suggest that the government stop taxing poor people? It's always about taking more and more money from the rich. How the heck does that offer relief to poor people?  If you only  taxed people who earn over $100K a year, then the rich bastids will pay ALL income taxes. Isn't that a just way to do it?

But no, the dems want as much as they can grab from everyone. It's a greed/power thing.

Most poor people dont pay taxes, i mean more do thanks to Trump but the majority dont. That aside though what youre proposing is entirely too close to a caste type system for my comfort. There are already many "conservatives" who argue that only land owners should be able to vote. Can you imagine the push to completely disenfranchise the poor if they dont pay taxes at all?

 

[Golden Duck]

7 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

No they really dont. They would like that to be the case so they can sustain their lifestyles but no many businesses, especially corporations, could cut their profit margins. I know I know thats blasphemy

You , and in your defense entirely too much of our society, are a victim of corporate brainwashing.

Hell I dont even work in the area where I live and I make a very nice living for my region. So when im discussing the minimum wage and how raising prices in conjunction with raising it is screwing people im not even talking about ME.

 

9

If you raise the minimum wage it's natural to expect rising costs; if that's the only change the Government makes.

Without knowing the details, I hope you can indulge my ignorance.

I assume the Government revenue increased and there was no easing of corporate tax.  This obviously put pressure on the bottom line and a burden on capital.

Kevin Hassett, when explaining Trump's Tax cuts, describes capital as a highly mobile. If you stress something with mobility it will move.  I can't know whether, or not, businesses in your area moved or even closed.

There's no accounting for human nature and that, perhaps, is the flaw with trickle-down economics.  But, trickle-down economics can't work if the Government won't let it.

Having said all that - let's take that idea on a little tangent.  I can't think of anything more mobile than imports.  Protective import duties encourage you to find a preferable source of supplies.  Discouraging people to buy Mexican is counter-productive.  And, discouraging trade with the USA will benefit China.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

If you raise the minimum wage it's natural to expect rising costs; if that's the only change the Government makes.

Without knowing the details, I hope you can indulge my ignorance.

I assume the Government revenue increased and there was no easing of corporate tax.  This obviously put pressure on the bottom line and a burden on capital.

Well there was no easing of corporate taxes on a state level, I believe the Trump tax cuts did help largely across the board.

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

There's no accounting for human nature and that, perhaps, is the flaw with trickle-down economics.  But, trickle-down economics can't work if the Government won't let it.

Yeah I am just not a subscriber to trickle down economics, at least not as the basis of a system.  The entire concept seems in such violation of human nature that I cant believe we ever fell for it.  Without being forced to do otherwise the vast majority of humans are going to do what benefits them the most the vast majority of the time.

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Kevin Hassett, when explaining Trump's Tax cuts, describes capital as a highly mobile. If you stress something with mobility it will move.  I can't know whether, or not, businesses in your area moved or even closed.

I live in a resort type area so we are mostly a service based economy which makes the fact that they raised min wage without enacting any sort of price controls that much more insulting.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

It offers relief to poor people by:

• Insuring that they don't go bankrupt, with hold necessary medical treatment, or even die due to lack of healthcare
• Insures that those who work full time make enough money to meet their basic needs like food, water, and shelter by implementing a living wage as the minimum wage
• Allows people to climb the economic ladder by going to college tuition free, and not saddling them with loads of unpaid student loan debt

Need I go on?

See, when people have healthcare, they are then healthy and thereby able to work and contribute to society And the money that would go towards medical bills and monthly insurance premiums can instead be invested in growing small businesses or whatever else they can spend it on to help grow the economy. 

<SNIP>

Stifle it, democrat, and stop taking the poor people's money.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Stifle it, democrat, and stop taking the poor people's money.

Ohh hush you, AK won't discriminate. He'll take rich people's money as well.

[Aquila King]

8 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Stifle it, democrat, and stop taking the poor people's money.

Lol. Nice way of ignoring my arguments there dude.

[Tatetopa]

18 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Farmer, did you ever notice how democrats who want to "make things right"  never suggest that the government stop taxing poor people? It's always about taking more and more money from the rich. How the heck does that offer relief to poor people?  If you only  taxed people who earn over $100K a year, then the rich bastids will pay ALL income taxes. Isn't that a just way to do it?

But no, the dems want as much as they can grab from everyone. It's a greed/power thing.

Is it greed and power or is it the right thing to do?  Should poor people also pay a share of the cost or should they ride for free?  Does that teach a good lesson to society?  Everybody pays a share.   It is not fair for the rich to pay all taxes, but they too pay a share.  I suppose we could argue about what a fair share is, but it is something.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Is it greed and power or is it the right thing to do?

I truly think it is about greed and power, yes. And IMO, it is NOT the right thing to do.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

  Should poor people also pay a share of the cost or should they ride for free?  Does that teach a good lesson to society?  Everybody pays a share.

Do welfare people "pay a share"?  Maybe the should! but they never will 'cuz they are already under control?    Should people who can't afford rent, medical, and food pay a share? IMO, no. Taking care of your own comes first. Our government is too rich to do these things to poor people. That's the greed aspect.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

   It is not fair for the rich to pay all taxes, but they too pay a share.  I suppose we could argue about what a fair share is, but it is something.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, nobody earning less than $100k pays taxes.  After that, you pay 25% on all earnings over the $100k.  This makes ALL income tax made only by those that can afford it. The working poor, many of whom have it a lot worse than a welfare recipient, are free to take care of themselves and family.

This way, the progs can never say "The rich don't pay their fair share", right??  It's a trap!!   The progs would never go for such a system because they are about controlling people as much as they getting wealthy off the backs of the people.

Anyway, that's my opinion, Tat

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Let's say for the sake of argument, nobody earning less than $100k pays taxes.  After that, you pay 25% on all earnings over the $100k.  This makes ALL income tax made only by those that can afford it.

 

[Tatetopa]

20 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 The progs would never go for such a system because they are about controlling people as much as they getting wealthy off the backs of the people.

Anyway, that's my opinion, Tat

Good enough Earl.  I can't dispute what Progs want; I stopped going to the secret meetings.   I suspect like conservatives they are a spectrum of people with different ideas on different subjects.  

[aztek]

Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax the super-rich has been tried before. Here's what happened. 

While wealth taxes aren't a new invention and a handful of developed nations currently have them in place, they are on the decline: The number nations that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with a wealth tax dropped from 12 to four from 1990 to 2017, according to a report by the organization last year.

A study of the country's tax system by Jonathan Gruber and several other economists found that for every 0.1 percent taxes on wealth went up in an area, the wealth taxpayers reported to the government dropped by 3.5 percent.

"When you tax people's wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth," Gruber told NBC News. "We don't know if it's by saving less or by hiding it."

The fear that the ultra-rich will not just lowball their fortunes, but pack up and take them to a rival country, is a significant reason the wealth tax has declined. In France, President Emmanuel Macron replaced the country's decades-old wealth tax with a narrower tax on real estate partly in response to data suggesting 60,000 millionaires had left the country since 2000.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elizabeth-warrens-plan-to-tax-the-super-rich-has-been-tried-before-heres-what-happened/ar-BBSU7v0?ocid=spartandhp

Edited January 29, 2019 by aztek

[Dark_Grey]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

The fear that the ultra-rich will not just lowball their fortunes, but pack up and take them to a rival country, is a significant reason the wealth tax has declined.

That's it. That's all that needs to be said. Unless you are going to take someone's hard earned fortune at gunpoint, there is nothing stopping them from simply relocating their wealth outside the country. That's exactly what has been happening until recently. 

You can rant and rave all day about the benefits of taxing the wealthy but what will you do when you reach in to the cookie jar and find the cookies have been hidden somewhere else? Go back to your hungry friends with your tail between your legs and a sob story. "Hey guys, remember how I said we would all get cookies? Um, I have some bad news...you guys will have to float me the money for more cookies until we find the stash. It's just temporary, I promise." 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

12 minutes ago, aztek said:

 

"When you tax people's wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth," Gruber told NBC News. "We don't know if it's by saving less or by hiding it.

                                                                                        That ^^^^