American Politics Discussion Thread

[Jowy]

Good vid from a (deranged) lawyer's pov:

[T-hawk]

I see a small minority of it where the infrastructure and services help me, and the vast majority going to bureaucracy that is bloated and inefficient and unnecessary at best and actively counterproductive at worst.

If you think taking a legal deduction is avoiding paying taxes, then shouldn't you never take any deduction on your own? Do you do that?

[Charriu]

I see a small minority of it where the infrastructure and services help me, and the vast majority going to bureaucracy that is bloated and inefficient and unnecessary at best and actively counterproductive at worst.

If you think taking a legal deduction is avoiding paying taxes, then shouldn't you never take any deduction on your own?  Do you do that?

Yes, I don't actively seek deduction. I put everything that needs to be in and let it run.

If a millionaire is only paying 750$ in taxes, I can absolutely understand if people are angry about it. Especially because we know that some of Trump's past businesses were definitely shady like Trump University

[Serdoa]

I see a small minority of it where the infrastructure and services help me, and the vast majority going to bureaucracy that is bloated and inefficient and unnecessary at best and actively counterproductive at worst.

If you think taking a legal deduction is avoiding paying taxes, then shouldn't you never take any deduction on your own?  Do you do that?

T-hawk, I'll compare it to something here in Germany: If you lose your job, you are insured for one year by the state (and you paid for that by getting some amount deducted from any job payment you've got). You get a part of what you earned paid by the state and your social security payments are done as well. That's our unemployment insurance (after a certain time of work you get it even for two years). After that, you have to apply for social care. And to be eligible for that you are not allowed to have money, capital investments, etc. You might even have to get a new flat, if your old one is deemed to big for you (and your family if you have any). Also if you are married or have an official partner his income is also pitted against what you are able to get and if s/he earns too much, you won't get anything. 

Now imagine telling someone that has lost everything because he simply is not able to get a job anymore, not because he doesn't want to work, but because his learned job doesn't exist anymore and he is deemed to old for anyone to try him in a new job, that this is necessary to keep the system running, to make sure that roads are repaired, schools are operating and so on. And then you tell him that the billionaire over there of course can keep everything, because that billionaire isn't asking for money from the state... well, in actuality the billionaire does, it was just rephrased so instead of getting money from the state, the state allows him to give less of what he would own. That leads to the same effect, the state has less money, but somehow the tax evasion of the billionaire is "his right" while the jobless 'peasant' is a parasite who should just die as he costs only money anyway. 

And just to be clear: I know why we have tax laws, what was tried to achieve with it and all that. I even know pretty well and though I wouldn't call myself a capitalist, I'm far from left-leaning or even anti-capitalist. But besides any form of economic leaning I am a staunch defender of fairness. 

Besides that, why do you always finish your replies with answers to points no one made? For example

Is the solution for the state to seize the means of production and forcibly redistribute that wealth? Yeah, that hasn't exactly worked out, has it?

No one even brought that up. You always paint everything black and white. If someone is not agreeing exactly with your point than he obviously can only want the complete opposite. That is not how life works and I am sure you know that. I don't think having everything state owned is a solution, because we have enough examples that too much bureaucracy leads to problems. But I absolutely believe that healthcare, social security and law enforcement should never be the business of private companies. And looking around the world, I feel pretty good with that belief.

I also believe that politicians work for the people. And the people are mainly not billionaires and millionaires. That does not mean to make it impossible to become a millionaire or to take everything away from those with much money but making laws for the minority while selling the majority out because instead of developing and evolving you try to keep everything as it was will only lead to Americas populace living for the most part below subsistence level. And the sole reason to do that is the futile try to stay relevant and comparable to those companies from China and Asia at large. Which you won't, there simply is too much labor available. Trying to slow down the decline (even if Trump would do that) is simply not good enough. That's part of why it makes sense to develop new technologies, especially in the energy-sector, as besides all the other positive benefits it already has for health, it also can offer a new field of work for a multitude of people. But even besides that, whatever is done, there has to be a plan for the future that is more than some blank pages in a big book...

(Also T-hawk, it is very disingenuous to call people names and when they are rightly upset tell them that they wouldn't be upset if there wasn't some truth to what you called them. If I called you pedophile I am sure you'd be upset and if I told you then that you are only upset because there is most likely some truth to it... well, I am sure that wouldn't work out swell, would it?)

[Mjmd]

I would 100% agree political bureaucracy is inefficient and wasteful. I would also argue that there are valid regulations and checks on power. The fact is though this is not where most taxes go. Big 4 are social security, medicare, military, and interest on the national debt (most of which goes to the 1st two). I would also say that there are environmental laws that are cumbersome, inefficient, and just plain stupid.. How long permitting takes is just absurd for companies in the modern business world is just the example the pops to my head. For both government and products, people expect stuff. There can be valid arguments about do we really need said stuff, but people have to realize that government can't do everything, let alone do everything and then you expect no taxes. As consumers we have to be aware how much we demand. It has to come from somewhere. Now just like government bureaucracy, for environmental regulations there is also reasonable, scientific, and ethical regulatory concerns in addition to ones created by politicians who have no clue about the topics they write laws about.

My question is do we really think Trump and the industry lobbyists he has appointed to government positions are going to discern between valid and invalid regulations for either the government or environment. That was of course one of his campaign talking points was how he knew all the abuses in the system and could fix them. Have we seen any indication of this? I certainly don't see how people still believe anything that comes out of his mouth. He's not exactly been a paragon of truth and fair dealings even since he became president (you can very much argue that before he became president, he acted according to the incentives in the systems, which is very human, if not necessarily attributes and behavior you want in a president). He certainly has stated what he thinks of scientists. I certainly don't trust his administration to decide which regulations are needed vs not for government or environmental concerns.

[Mjmd]

I did want to say one more thing. It is harder for the public to except services and goods being taken away vs them receiving them.

I mainly wrote this as a hint to Miguelito that I expect Pitboss 88 updates that he has graciously been providing out of his own time, but yet I do indeed WANT THEM!!!!

[ipecac]

My question is do we really think Trump and the industry lobbyists he has appointed to government positions are going to discern between valid and invalid regulations for either the government or environment. That was of course one of his campaign talking points was how he knew all the abuses in the system and could fix them. Have we seen any indication of this?

It's another round of 'hope and change', there is little good change and none for the long term.

[ipecac]

This is the broader reality, though. The rise of the middle class, through factory and service jobs, is a historical aberration, not the new normal. For the vast majority of human history, the vast majority of humans lived at barely subsistence levels. It so happened that for a couple centuries, we had a situation where industrial machinery allowed average unskilled workers to leverage their labor to a profit. Now that situation is dissipating as economies of scale and automation converge and the workers aren't needed.

Again, you're not connecting the dots. If a large number of workers aren't 'needed', the only way to keep things stable in a wealthy democratic system is a lot of welfare. A welfare class, what you would call a 'parasite' class, is necessary.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

There’s plenty of work for everyone. It’s just not profitable under the rules of the free market. Consider all the jobs in park management, art, beautification creates during the New Deal. Our ever declining cities need investment in these sorts of services and on my the government can do that. There’s plenty of other examples of similar kinds of work that needs to be done.

[ipecac]

There’s plenty of work for everyone. It’s just not profitable under the rules of the free market. Consider all the jobs in park management, art, beautification creates during the New Deal. Our ever declining cities need investment in these sorts of services and on my the government can do that. There’s plenty of other examples of similar kinds of work that needs to be done.

Yes, the main alternative is another type of 'parasitical' welfare, government job programs. Some of it is good or necessary, but largely such programs create another welfare class. Some of it is fine, like artists or researchers depending entirely on grants coming ultimately from the government.