[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]

/ef/ - Everfree

A general discussion board with a laxer atmosphere and fewer rules. Keep adult content or controversial issues here.
Name?

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.

Email?

Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Subject
Comment?
Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
Special
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
>>1234
Link to another board
>>>/pony/
Link to a post on another board
>>>/pony/1234
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]
File
Flag
Options
Password?

This field is for editing and deletions.


File: 1546732831202.png (499.59 KB, 1140x1050, 1544726638361.png)

fleur (ID: c5f13d)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid:   217538

(ID: ff0d83)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217539

File: 1546733117904.png (386.3 KB, 577x660, 6546546548768.png)

now this i can atleast say would never fly in senate

and i know trump wouldnt sign something this stupid into law

Hauptmann (ID: 7c4269)Country code: jp, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217546

File: 1546733579013.jpg (93.41 KB, 1200x675, Dg2vGFNUEAAqFOj.jpg)

Why would capital hill want to raise their own taxes?

fleur (ID: c5f13d)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217547

>>217538
Which will galvanize millenials even more, hoping for violent protests when the market crashes, we need violence.

Mint horse (ID: 9ea453)Country code: gb, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217548

File: 1546733848194.jpg (199.78 KB, 1564x1564, IMG_3664.JPG)

>>217538
This woman is such a meme, if she ever got in power you guys would probably have to move to Mexico to escape the poverty. Who knows trumps wall might help keep Americans immigrants out of Mexico.

>tfw you promise to build a wall to keep Mexicans out and Mexico will pay for it.

>tfw you pay for the wall and Mexico uses it to keep Americans out.

Red Cortez

Red Cortez is Not Red Enough
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: ff0d83)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217550

File: 1546734780790.png (237.85 KB, 346x549, 43243335454.png)

>>217548
as much as meme that she is

shes only one congresswoman

and i sure as hell wouldnt be going to mexico

only country id consider moving to is Switzerland

Mint horse (ID: 9ea453)Country code: gb, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217551

File: 1546734822264.jpg (354.15 KB, 700x985, IMG_3672.JPG)

>>217547
Cortez is just a meme, a funny meme but she still has no chance of actually winning an election.

We have Corbyn, who not only has a chance of winning the next election but at this point is pretty much guaranteed to get a mojority parliament. But don't worry he might actually be just a little more woke than you'd expect. "For the many not the (((few)))" am I right lads?

https://dailystormer.name/this-is-real-im-not-joking-about-endorsing-jeremy-corbyn/

Noonim (ID: 75ecfc)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  217554

>>217538
Cortez is an idiot, and it says a lot about the dems that she's anywhere.

Mint horse (ID: e96569)Country code: gb, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217560

File: 1546738155584.png (188.82 KB, 441x486, IMG_1465.PNG)

The last one died and I'm still not satisfied. Send me all your spicy memes and if I like them I'll consider not completely desolating your boipussies!

I'll try to post at least 50 a day and I expect you guys to do the same. If we can get just 5 people to go along with this then we'll all have at least 400 new meme in just 2 days, so do it!

Mint horse (ID: e96569)Country code: gb, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217561

File: 1546738237503.jpg (135.7 KB, 600x397, IMG_3683.JPG)

>>217560
This was supposed to be a thread, end my life.

Wait 5 minutes.

Whelp!tEfVeritas (ID: f4f0b5)Country code: goggles.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  217646

File: 1546747784962.png (249.1 KB, 700x703, tumblr_ozslttIlmG1u9ghu7o1_128…)

>>217561

Do you want those posts deleted?

Mint horse (ID: 9ea453)Country code: gb, country type: geoip, valid: 1  217651

File: 1546747962598.png (448.68 KB, 900x541, IMG_0899.PNG)

>>217646
No just leave them, it's funny.

Whelp!tEfVeritas (ID: f4f0b5)Country code: goggles.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  217656

File: 1546748081432.png (93.85 KB, 500x509, tumblr_p6dltrqHoR1u9ghu7o1_500…)

>>217651

Alright.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218115

File: 1546824110326.jpg (278.7 KB, 600x776, 1439666878813.jpg)

Question: what do you guys think this means? Do you know how tax brackets work?

(ID: 4362fd)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218119

File: 1546825810446.png (474.73 KB, 710x739, 76576587689.png)

>>218115
yes, the more you make the more your income is taxed going straight to the governments pocket

the issue is here you would have to tax pretty much every single bracket to afford the deficient for these programs she suggests

this is how it works with the nordic model

the major difference is here that americans dont like paying more in taxes in the same way a norwegian or a dane would like to

you would have to some serious reforms if want something like this

the problem is taxing "the tippy tops" isn't going to get you anywhere near your deficit covered
This post was edited by its author on .

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218127

File: 1546830926104.jpg (856.27 KB, 800x1131, tumblr_nqez71P3Cm1r0yamfo1_128…)

>>218119
>yes, the more you make the more your income is taxed going straight to the governments pocket
In the most simplistic terms, yes. But you're missing an important detail.

In a marginal tax system, as has historically been implemented in the US (and still is to this day, though the marginal tax rates were sharply cut by Reagan), only the income above a certain threshold is taxed at that rate.

https://www.irs.com/articles/marginal-income-tax-brackets

So if the threshold for, say, a 50% income tax rate is $1 million, and you make $1.3 million a year, you're only paying 50% on those $0.3 million, while the other $1 million are taxed the same as people who make $1 million or less.

This is what AOC means when she talks about taxing "the tippy tops". She doesn't mean taxing the wealthiest people in the country for everything they've got. They're still going to be a shitload wealthier than pretty much everyone else, and they're not going to be paying higher rates on all of their income. Just the income above the margin.

Looking at the math...if you're making $100 million a year, you're still gonna have $30 million left over even if you get taxed 70% on all of it, not just the income that's over, say, $50 million. If the 70% bracket starts at $50 million, you're still holding on to $15 million of the "top" $50m, and a larger percentage of the bottom $50m.

Personally, even $5 million/year is more money than I'd know what to do with, so I can't imagine I'd have any issue paying those tax rates even if I was fabulously wealthy, unless it got to my head and I became a greedy Scrooge. Assuming, of course, the money is actually being spent on shit that matters, like infrastructure, healthcare, science and research, environmental sustainability, dealing with the deficit, not just funding the spicy new flavor-of-the-decade proxy war. But if you don't like what the government is spending your money on and want it to go to a better cause, you can donate to charities and deduct that shit instead.

That said, if you still oppose something like that on principle...I'd consider it a bit too idealistic personally, but it's understandable. Just make sure you know the actual details of what you're opposing. I very commonly see the misconception that "the wealthy would have to give up 70% of their entire income, how is that fair?" (no doubt propagated in part by bad faith actors trying to deceive people), but that simply isn't what anyone is proposing when you look at how the system actually works.

It's worth noting that the highest marginal tax rate in our history, a whopping 94%, was implemented in the years following World War II, which proved to be a time of massive prosperity and economic growth in spite of this tax policy. Although it wasn't to last, because boomers alternated between the neolib pill and the soclib pill whenever it benefited them, without regard for sustainability or pragmatism.

Mk17 (ID: 2e8f49)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218129

File: 1546831407275.png (444.15 KB, 412x639, 15454645645546465.PNG)

>>218127
>Personally, even $5 million/year is more money than I'd know what to do with, so I can't imagine I'd have any issue paying those tax rates even if I was fabulously wealthy, unless it got to my head and I became a greedy Scrooge.
Its really not a matter of becoming a greedy scrooge, its a matter of, you did the work to earn it, so why should you give up more than half of the money you earned?

Why should your hard work and success dictate that you owe more?

(ID: 4362fd)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218131

File: 1546832271956.png (347.73 KB, 513x758, 98098879789.png)

>>218127
i dont think you seem to understand

you would have to completely reform the entire tax system for this work

these new government programs are unprecedented for the united states

you would have to form a plan closer to this like that of the nordic model

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/

>It's worth noting that the highest marginal tax rate in our history, a whopping 94%, was implemented in the years following World War II, which proved to be a time of massive prosperity and economic growth in spite of this tax policy.

i mean, when you're pretty much the only country with an industrialized economy left on the face of the earth it's pretty easy to milk everything you can get

there's nothing to compete with

it isn't that way today

lower tax rates attract investment and encourages growth

there was also a point in time during the 20's when coolige had a prosperous economy as well. he even ended a great depression in the fraction of the time two presidents did later on after him, and he even eliminated every bit of the national debt

wanna know how he did it? he didnt do anything
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous (ID: 62f0f7)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218133

File: 1546833037036.jpg (48.31 KB, 450x450, FF-Flying-Nazgul-port.jpg)

>>217538
Why don't you do yourself and others a big favor and actually shun politics like you said you would?

(ID: 4362fd)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218134

File: 1546833106432.png (228.57 KB, 305x696, 7688987098.png)

>>218127
>Personally, even $5 million/year is more money than I'd know what to do with, so I can't imagine I'd have any issue paying those tax rates even if I was fabulously wealthy
also donate it?

there's homeless shelters and all kinds of other causes that can be used for this instead of it going to the pockets of bureaucrats

maybe start your own charity or a private program to get people out of poverty?
This post was edited by its author on .

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218137

File: 1546833522052.jpg (156.5 KB, 598x653, 53256514_p0.jpg)

>>218129
>you did the work to earn it, so why should you give up more than half of the money you earned?
Doesn't that logic kind of imply taxation as a whole is wrong?

>Why should your hard work and success dictate that you owe more?

In practice, it already does anyway, doesn't it? Even a "flat tax" is a misnomer, because the rate is what's flat, not the amount. And a truly flat tax will, in fact, be a regressive tax, because it will take a higher proportion from low income earners than high income workers.

Ultimately, I think the same argument as applies to the "what can or cannot be someone's property" discussion can be applied here. Should anyone be allowed to "own" an entire ocean, or the entire state of Texas, even if they had the money to pay for it? I recall that you answered "no" to that, and noted that even if you can own a river, you shouldn't get to pour toxic chemicals in it, because that's an externality that affects more than just yourself and your own property.

I think we both agree that being able to own land is a good thing, but also that there should be some limitations on how much land we can own, and what we can do with that land. Doesn't the same apply to money? Is it economically sustainable for a very minuscule percentage of people to have a vast majority of the financial resources, and for that gap between them and everyone else to continue growing, as it consistently has since the 1970s?

It's also worth noting that the wealthy have disproportionately high access to a lot of tax loopholes, and are often the ones benefiting the most from tax cuts. The current administration's policies are actually regressive -- the ones benefiting the most are the high-income brackets. Right-wing pundits often claim "tax cuts on the rich" and "trickle-down economics" are a meme and not what's being proposed, but that's actually exactly what is not only being proposed, but implemented.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/effect-tcja-individual-income-tax-provisions-across-income-groups-and-across-states/full

>In the bottom income quintile, 27 percent will receive a tax cut and about 1 percent will have a tax increase.

>In the middle income quintile, 82 percent will receive a tax cut and 9 percent will have a tax increase.
>In the top income quintile, 90 percent will receive a tax cut and 10 percent will have a tax increase.


>>218131
>these new government programs are unprecedented for the united states
But...they're literally not. Well, some of the social programs are, yes, but the tax system itself is the same we've always had, just with different marginal rates.

>>218134
Well, yeah. I mentioned that already, noting that by doing that, you qualify for tax deductions. How big are those tax deductions? Up to 50%!

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218138

>>218129
>>218137
>you did the work to earn it, so why should you give up more than half of the money you earned?
Also, you wouldn't be giving up more than half of the money you earned, even in a system where the highest bracket's marginal rate is 50% -- because only the income above that margin is taxed at that rate.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 4362fd)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218139

File: 1546833900205.png (601.11 KB, 868x768, 34324346567.png)

>>218137
but they are though

some of the plans cortez wants is

>housing as a federal right,

>medicare for all
> federal jobs guarantee
>tuition-free public college
>canceling all student loan debt

mind you that's 40$ trillion needed in the next decade

her current plan only accounts for 2$ trillion over the next 10 years

how does she plan to pay for all of this? she cant answer that

so can you?

(ID: f7dd7c)Country code: stallman.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218140

>>218137
>Doesn't the same apply to money?
The amount of land one person owns/occupies directly decreases the amount of land another person can own. The same isn't true for money, since land is static and money isn't.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218141

File: 1546834667711.png (327.93 KB, 800x800, 1436119554494.png)

>>218139
Well, those aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the tax policy cited in the OP article, which is basically what we had before Reagan came in and neolibbed it up.

>>218140
>The same isn't true for money, since land is static and money isn't.
Money might not be static, but it sure as hell inflates. If we could print more land, that would be a positive; printing more money is not a positive.

(ID: f7dd7c)Country code: stallman.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218142

File: 1546834815672.png (55.61 KB, 180x300, char_rin.png)

>>218141
I wasn't referring to printing money, but more to using money to create (potentially) money-making opportunities.

(ID: 4362fd)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218143

File: 1546835146607.png (344.08 KB, 525x557, 87876989879879.png)

>>218141
the tax policy she is suggesting is useless anyway

why funnel more money into the government since it mostly wastes it anyway?

and tbh i dont see anything wrong with reagon's tax cuts either, hell during the economy spiked during the 80's and massive change to the economy leading for the new technological era we see today

and also allowing the private sector to grow again which is what results in cheap affordable products

i honestly think reagan sucked but when it comes to his tax changes im cool with it

an over bloated government doesnt need all the money it can get

i want the government to only be used for necessary things

not wasteful shit

Mk17 (ID: 2e8f49)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218144

File: 1546835605806.png (1.03 MB, 1227x1215, 1532461340166.png)

>>218137
>Doesn't that logic kind of imply taxation as a whole is wrong?
Not really, it just implies that such a high tax rate on people who earn more is wrong.

>>218137
>In practice, it already does anyway, doesn't it? Even a "flat tax" is a misnomer, because the rate is what's flat, not the amount.
Yes, it does, so why is that an excuse to make it worse? With a flat tax of course if you make more, you will pay more, but it will be the same percentage rate, so its at least fair, you dont get taxed more or less than anyone else just because you worked hard and earned more money.

I dont see how owning money and owning land are one in the same. Also, you can only buy what is for sale, so unless the Ocean or Texas are taking bids, its kind of hard to say thats reasonable. I mean, there are people in Texas that own ranches bigger than my entire state, and i dont see anything wrong with that.

I dont think there should be any legal limit on the amount of land you can own, though i do agree that there are circumstances where what you can do on that land should be regulated.

>Is it economically sustainable for a very minuscule percentage of people to have a vast majority of the financial resources, and for that gap between them and everyone else to continue growing, as it consistently has since the 1970s?

How is transferring that money to the government going to help the situation? The money will still be out of circulation, and possibly less likely to re enter circulation.
Rich peoples money normally isnt just sitting in a giant checking account, its largely invested in the stock market, where it does a lot more good than if it were sitting as a "surplus" in government funding.

In fact, a 401K is one of those "tax loopholes" that people take advantage of.

>The current administration's policies are actually regressive

The extra money in my check every week says otherwise. Its enough to cover a bill, so its basically like my phone is free compared to what i was being taxed before, which is a huge help. I can actually almost afford health insurance now.

>>218138
>Also, you wouldn't be giving up more than half of the money you earned, even in a system where the highest bracket's marginal rate is 50% -- because only the income above that margin is taxed at that rate.
I understand this, but i was referring to
>>218127
>Looking at the math...if you're making $100 million a year, you're still gonna have $30 million left over even if you get taxed 70% on all of it, not just the income that's over, say, $50 million.
Where it seems you are suggesting that that's okay.

I should have green texted both statements.

Whelp!tEfVeritas (ID: e8526d)Country code: goggles.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218145

File: 1546836839599.png (110.9 KB, 700x851, tumblr_ov1ydfJoZ61u9ghu7o1_128…)

>>218144

> Yes, it does, so why is that an excuse to make it worse? With a flat tax of course if you make more, you will pay more, but it will be the same percentage rate, so its at least fair, you dont get taxed more or less than anyone else just because you worked hard and earned more money.


Oh, I can answer this one.

Pragmatically speaking, the more money you make, the less you need that money, so it makes sense from a purely practical standpoint to take more out of that, rather than the money people would spend on basic necessities, or small bits of happiness. That is, the first 0-30K of one's paycheck are likely a lot more necessary than the last 70-100K. It's probably not very compatible with a lot of people's moral compasses - especially in a highly individualistic society like the US - but from an entirely logical bird's eye point of view, it makes loads of sense.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218149

File: 1546841933870.jpg (3.2 MB, 2400x3500, 57687080_p0.jpg)

>>218142
Yeah, that's supply-side economics in a nutshell. The problem is, it didn't actually work the way Reagan's advisers said it would, and instead sowed the seeds for the problem that ended up spawning the Occupy movement and turning a good portion of our generation into straight up communists in the long term, as well as tripling the national debt during his 8 years in office in the short term.

>>218143
>why funnel more money into the government since it mostly wastes it anyway?
Well, I don't know what AOC's ideal budget is, to be honest. I've only just started paying attention to her. But the government does waste a lot of money, some of it on things I find morally inadmissible -- that I agree on. I also think that, in doing so, it's failing to spend money on things that it actually should be spending money on -- also morally inadmissible. You and I can both agree that the budget needs an overhaul, no?

To finance Medicare for all, tuition-free universities, student loan forgiveness, that would take a massive budget overhaul, among other things. But some of those things are things we kind of should be overhauling anyway. The pharmaceutical industry in the US jacks up its prices like crazy, and American university tuition prices are exorbitantly high. Most of the rest of the first world doesn't have these problems, and think we're pants on head retarded for having allowed them to develop in the first place.

Is pouring government funds into all of these necessarily the solution, though? Well, only if we have those funds. Otherwise it'd just be more deficit spending. That's not sustainable, and it fucks over the post-zoomers the same way the boomers fucked us. I don't know what kind of budget AOC would propose to accommodate all of these things, so I'd have to see the math she's done before I could side with her on all of her social programs. But I do know that her tax policy is one way to increase the funds at our disposal. And as far as that tax policy's effectiveness is concerned, she knows what she's talking about.

>and tbh i dont see anything wrong with reagon's tax cuts either, hell during the economy spiked during the 80's and massive change to the economy leading for the new technological era we see today

Reagan's tax cuts were not accompanied by the drastic cuts in government spending he promised, which resulted in, as I was saying to Zeke, a tripling of the national debt. Reagan also created a lot of tax increases to compensate for the marginal tax cuts, most of which disproportionately affected the lower and middle class, and slashed social programs (keeping his promise of cutting government spending?), choosing to allocate more of that deficit spending to putting stoners in prison (...whoops, I guess not), because that was a really important issue worth fucking over the economy even harder for.

Reaganomics was not without its positives in the short term, but you can't look at only the short term, and you can't ignore the negatives.

>>218144
>Not really, it just implies that such a high tax rate on people who earn more is wrong.
It sounds pretty close to "You did the work to earn it, so why should you give up any of the money you earned". Not saying that's the argument you're making, just that the same logic applies.

And I'm not necessarily agreeing with the specific rates or cutoffs, more with progressive tax as a whole, and an increase in marginal rates for the highest brackets. There comes a certain point where you can't even physically live a lavish enough lifestyle to actually spend your money, and you're just hemorrhaging it.

>I dont see how owning money and owning land are one in the same.

Owning any two things aren't one and the same. If I owned every PS4 in the world, I'd be a greedy asshole, but that wouldn't be as harmful as if I owned every milligram of insulin in the world. But I think there comes a point where you should be limited in how much of any given thing you can have, including or perhaps especially money.

That's not to say I think the government should be aiming for equality of outcome. But the current economic trends that have accompanied the neoliberal policies implemented since the 70's and 80's are not sustainable. We're moving toward either borderline feudalism or a French Revolution-esque uprising if the gap between the absurdly wealthy and everyone else continues to grow unchecked.

>How is transferring that money to the government going to help the situation? The money will still be out of circulation, and possibly less likely to re enter circulation.

Well, the idea would be for it to fund things that we desperately need to fund, like environmental reforms, healthcare, reducing poverty, etc.

>The extra money in my check every week says otherwise. Its enough to cover a bill, so its basically like my phone is free compared to what i was being taxed before, which is a huge help. I can actually almost afford health insurance now.

It doesn't hurt you, but it benefits the top quintile even more than it benefits you, and in practice hurts all quintiles in the long run due to the national debt. But more than anyone else, it will hurt the bottom quintile. I'm gonna guess that social programs and "welfare queens" will be the first thing nu-Reagan takes aim at in his second term when he needs to offset the decreased tax revenue to pay for his wall.

And you shouldn't have to afford health insurance. That's something everybody needs, and something we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world on.

>Rich peoples money normally isnt just sitting in a giant checking account, its largely invested in the stock market, where it does a lot more good than if it were sitting as a "surplus" in government funding.

But a lot less good than if it were mitigating the national debt, funding sustainable energy solutions, resolving the healthcare crisis...

>Where it seems you are suggesting that that's okay.

Well, to me personally, if I were making $100 million a year and only got to keep $30 million, I'd be okay with that, as long as my $70 million were going to things that matter. If I didn't like what the government was spending it on, I'd make charitable donations of my own choosing and deduct it. I'd probably continue donating from my $30 million to other things that matter, until I'm left with like $1 million. A million dollars a year is still a way more luxurious lifestyle than I care to lead, but it's good to save some and have financial security. But even though I'd be okay with it myself, I don't think that people who make $100 million should be mandated to pay up 70% of the whole damn thing to Uncle Sam. In fact, I don't think I'd even change the current brackets or rates -- I'd just add more brackets. There used to be 24 income tax brackets, now there are only 8.

>>218145
Honestly, even as a highly individualistic person in most regards, I can't imagine myself pinching $100 million worth of pennies. My moral compass would not allow me to do that while there are people living in the streets, unemployed/unemployable, unable to afford medical treatment. I would feel, at that point, that I'm infringing on their rights.

(ID: 4362fd)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218150

File: 1546843457488.png (458.53 KB, 616x679, 42342354654.png)

>>218149
>Well, I don't know what AOC's ideal budget is, to be honest. I've only just started paying attention to her. But the government does waste a lot of money, some of it on things I find morally inadmissible -- that I agree on. I also think that, in doing so, it's failing to spend money on things that it actually should be spending money on -- also morally inadmissible. You and I can both agree that the budget needs an overhaul, no?
we sure do agree on that premise. this actually is something i cant stress enough on. i cant justify increasing taxes just for sake of increasing taxes. if it is shown to me that it is allocated to where it is needed to be, then it is fully justifiable. at least in my eyes and i would think yours too.

>To finance Medicare for all, tuition-free universities, student loan forgiveness, that would take a massive budget overhaul, among other things. But some of those things are things we kind of should be overhauling anyway.

agree on this as well

>The pharmaceutical industry in the US jacks up its prices like crazy, and American university tuition prices are exorbitantly high. Most of the rest of the first world doesn't have these problems, and think we're pants on head retarded for having allowed them to develop in the first place.

well, this issue dates back a long way in past. we never used to have these issues with healthcare in the past. this is mostly partly due to with government corruption and pharmaceutical AND health insurance companies. as for the student load problem. this problem was created by introducing sallie mae which was at first was a government entity that serviced federal education loans, which should have never became a thing to begin with. and not to mention bill clinton making it virtually impossible to get rid of them via bankruptcy

the only issue i have with AOC is she has zero clues on how to pay for these programs outside of "just tax the wealthy" which if you ask me is extremely lazy. it's far more complex than that. and it would take a complete and new restructure of our tax system.

which is why i point out the nordic system would be one we'd have to mirror

as whelp has pointed out the US is highly individualistic and we have always been since the start of our nation. so, something like this would take DECADES to get people on board with

honestly, i like our individualistic attitude. i actually find it sad that it's fading away, because that attitude is what caused us as nation to grow so quickly

>Reagan's tax cuts were not accompanied by the drastic cuts in government spending he promised, which resulted in, as I was saying to Zeke, a tripling of the national debt. Reagan also created a lot of tax increases to compensate for the marginal tax cuts, most of which disproportionately affected the lower and middle class, and slashed social programs (keeping his promise of cutting government spending?), choosing to allocate more of that deficit spending to putting stoners in prison (...whoops, I guess not), because that was a really important issue worth fucking over the economy even harder for.

this is true, and a very good point and one had honestly forgotten. my mistake.

if you're cut taxes you gotta cut the deficit first

if our government wasnt as bloated as it is that'd be less of an issue

i will say again, i do not like reagan

why would i? he only exasperated the war on drugs and even made it so it's illegal for people to buy full auto guns

to this day i am baffled as to why he is worshiped by conservatives

i guess it's because he set the precedent as to what conservatism is

>reducing poverty

much like the war on drugs, the war on poverty hasnt had very good results either
This post was edited by its author on .

Thauma (ID: 04f6c5)Country code: stallman.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218152

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218153

File: 1546856090612.jpg (134.29 KB, 850x1275, 1501661534999.jpg)

http://time.com/money/5484463/budget-deficit-your-investments/

>>218150
>i cant justify increasing taxes just for sake of increasing taxes. if it is shown to me that it is allocated to where it is needed to be, then it is fully justifiable. at least in my eyes and i would think yours too.
Oh yeah, there's no way I'd be down with higher taxes just for the sake of it. But we're adding another trillion dollars to the public debt this fiscal year, we're consistently increasing defense spending (which, in addition to getting involved in things we have no business being involved in, is ironically partly due to benefits enjoyed by military personnel like healthcare, college tuition, etc., which would render some of this spending obsolete if even universal healthcare was accomplished), Medicare is underfunded, Social Security is a sinking ship. Government spending is unsustainable and has been for years; they need more money going in, but they also need to use that money more effectively. A lot of the budget needs to be slashed or reallocated.

>we never used to have these issues with healthcare in the past. this is mostly partly due to with government corruption and pharmaceutical AND health insurance companies

Yes and no. Some form of government healthcare aid has been in demand since the 19th century and demand grew during the Great Depression. But historically, our attempts to implement it have always been half-measures, hindered in part by failure to adequately address the problem they intend to solve and in part by lobbying groups deliberately influencing any attempts at reform to turn out that way.

This is a pretty well-written piece on some of the many problems plaguing American healthcare:
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/423865-us-health-care-is-an-ongoing-miserable-failure

>this problem was created by introducing sallie mae which was at first was a government entity that serviced federal education loans, which should have never became a thing to begin with

Hard agree. Federal student loans were a mistake. I don't know if they were the only cause of the problem, but they certainly worsened it.

The Nordic model is definitely a fascinating socioeconomic system. Honestly, one I think the US should be moving toward if it wants to recapture "the American Dream". The American Dream isn't feasible without social mobility. But isn't that exactly what the socdems want to do? I mean, Bernie Sanders himself cites the Scandinavian countries' social policies as a prime influence on his approach.

And frankly...I don't think the existence of these welfare programs is incompatible with individualism. Every individual has certain universal needs. Ensuring that at least some of these needs are provided (something that, as demonstrated by Nordic countries, is attainable while still maintaining a market economy) results in increased, not decreased, individual freedom, opportunity, and social mobility.

>to this day i am baffled as to why he is worshiped by conservatives

>i guess it's because he set the precedent as to what conservatism is
Yeah, Reagan kind of came to be known as the face of the (old) "New Right". He also appealed a lot to the Religious Right, which was basically just the right until relatively recently, and even now I'd say they're a significant faction of it.

>the war on poverty hasnt had very good results either

Arguably due to execution. The American welfare state is a fragmented mishmash of half-measures rather than coordinated, universal approaches like the more successful welfare systems implemented elsewhere.

(ID: 33fd44)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218216

File: 1546887948653.png (405 KB, 559x668, 76867987987.png)

>>218153
>Yes and no. Some form of government healthcare aid has been in demand since the 19th century and demand grew during the Great Depression
this is true, but what i am saying believe it or not healthcare back then was semi-affordable to an extent. they actually had more charitable ways to help people out who were low on finances.

>The Nordic model is definitely a fascinating socioeconomic system. Honestly, one I think the US should be moving toward if it wants to recapture "the American Dream". The American Dream isn't feasible without social mobility. But isn't that exactly what the socdems want to do? I mean, Bernie Sanders himself cites the Scandinavian countries' social policies as a prime influence on his approach.

yeah, but here's the thing. socdems seem to think the nordic model means taxing the at most wealthy and just them alone to pay for these social programs when it doesn't work that way in these countries they praise so much. as i have pointed out here >>218131

once they come to that understanding i may take them a bit more serious and say "gee, i agree with that."

>And frankly...I don't think the existence of these welfare programs is incompatible with individualism.

i don't either, but when these days it seems people want government to do pretty much everything for them these days.

>The American welfare state is a fragmented mishmash of half-measures rather than coordinated, universal approaches like the more successful welfare systems implemented elsewhere.

see, this is huge issue i have here. i always here politicians say "oh, i have an idea to fix this or that!". it always turns out to be garbage or an entire failure

like too many presidents say "i created all these jobs!"

it shouldnt be the job of government to create jobs

this is why keeping taxes at a low rate is important. it incentives people to invest and open up new businesses which this intern creates new jobs and new products.

because if the private sector shrinks and public sector grows you eventually get state controlled socialism which is just asking for a junkyard

you mention "the american dream". the american dream isnt there anymore once government strangles the ability of the common man/woman from creating their own business or pursuing opportunities with ease

all the politicians promising this or that

i mean shit, at this rate they might as promise UBI and scrap most of these welfare programs altogether tbh
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: f7dd7c)Country code: stallman.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218247

>>218149
I'm aware that Reaganomics was a shitshow. I guess it would have been more accurate for me to say that in an ideal world, money can be used to make opportunities. This has worked in cases like technology sponsorships creating jobs for people to use said technology.
Obviously there needs to be restrictions, just like with any political or economic system.

Whelp!tEfVeritas (ID: 9216f3)Country code: goggles.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218287

File: 1546912926803.png (195.07 KB, 600x1145, tumblr_oyayh3O7FI1u9ghu7o1_128…)

>>218131
>>218216

I don't have the knowledge of Danish tax law to properly dispute that article, but one thing that stands out to me is that he doesn't even mention the high tax specifically on investments that exists in Denmark. That's something that almost exclusively affects the wealthy. Only reason I even know of it is because my dad used to complain about how unfair it was. Some of what the article says is definitely correct, like the VAT being high (It was a flat 25% last I lived there), but there's still some stuff that seems kinda misleading.

(ID: 33fd44)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218288

File: 1546913434298.png (367.44 KB, 486x612, 765789879879.png)

>>218287
i think it's because it's trying to lump all the nordic countries in a nutshell

Mk17 (ID: 2e8f49)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218515

File: 1546998532780.png (354.38 KB, 714x496, 2345324.PNG)

>>218149
>It sounds pretty close to "You did the work to earn it, so why should you give up any of the money you earned".
2+2=5 sounds pretty close too, but its not right.
How is saying people shouldnt be taxed at such a high rate the same logic as saying they shouldnt be taxed at all?
>There comes a certain point where you can't even physically live a lavish enough lifestyle to actually spend your money, and you're just hemorrhaging it.
Or you invest it, which people do, its how the economy runs. I mean, look at Bill Gates, most of his money isnt his, as in he could swipe a debit card and buy the worlds supply of gold or something, its tied up in the stock market.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/111214/where-does-bill-gates-keep-his-money.asp
> But I think there comes a point where you should be limited in how much of any given thing you can have, including or perhaps especially money.
I disagree, esp because money isnt backed by a static resource like gold, and you earn it. Putting a cap on or punishing success isnt a good idea imo.
>We're moving toward either borderline feudalism or a French Revolution-esque uprising if the gap between the absurdly wealthy and everyone else continues to grow unchecked.
The only thing preventing me from moving to the middle class, if there even is such a thing anymore, is the near 40% of my money i give up to taxes. Not just income taxes ether, property tax, sales tax, sewer tax, road tax, tolls, energy bill taxes, water usage tax on top of the bill, fire taxes... fuck.
>Well, the idea would be for it to fund things that we desperately need to fund, like environmental reforms, healthcare, reducing poverty, etc.
Its a nice idea, when has it ever been done? Esp reducing poverty, thats the favorite voting block of the people who want higher taxes. Poverty reduction that comes from the government sure seems like a carrot in front of a mule.
As far as enviromental reform... normally comes in the form of .. TAXES. Its not like the government is buying cleaner equipment for businesses, or designing more fuel efficient cars, or better oil tankers... they are just taxing companies and the poor people of france.
Plus, whenever there is a surplus, its simply bragged about for votes.
>It doesn't hurt you, but it benefits the top quintile even more than it benefits you
So even though I benefit, i dont benefit enough?.
>in practice hurts all quintiles in the long run due to the national debt.
Right, because the government cant keep a budget, we should give them even more money to blow? I dont see the logic.
>And you shouldn't have to afford health insurance. That's something everybody needs, and something we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world on.
Okay, this is a bit of a soar spot coming from a background in the medical feild so excuse the caps...
YOU SHOULD NEED HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
You shouldn't need to pay a privet company 100s of dollars a year just to be healthy, healthcare is a commodity and it should be affordable on its own right.
It shouldnt cost 600 bucks for a checkup, it shouldnt cost 500 to get a prescription filled... and both those numbers dont even come CLOSE to my deductible!
You saying its my RIGHT to give a privet corporation 1000s of dollars a year with nothing in return?
And before you say "but in the rest of the world you dont pay"... you do... with your taxes.
Why it costs so much in this country is a whole other thread.
>But a lot less good than if it were mitigating the national debt
This it might do, but at the rate government spending is going, it would cost a whole lot more than just some taxes on the rich, even if you took ALL their money.
USA GDP-19.39 Trillion USD
USA DEBT-16 Trillion USD
So if you took all the money made in the USA in one year, you could just pay off the debt. But even then, its still going up.
>funding sustainable energy solutions
Being spearheaded by privet enterprise that receives its money primarily from investment.
>resolving the healthcare crisis
Could be resolved if the government wasnt forcing me to fuel the insurance companies that fucked everything up in the first place.
>Well, to me personally, if I were making $100 million a year and only got to keep $30 million, I'd be okay with that, as long as my $70 million were going to things that matter.
It wont go to what you want it to go to.
>I'd probably continue donating from my $30 million to other things that matter, until I'm left with like $1 million.
That philanthropy, and it sounds like a tax loophole to me. I mean, its called that when evil rich people do it to avoid their taxes.
> A million dollars a year is still a way more luxurious lifestyle than I care to lead, but it's good to save some and have financial security.
You dont really know that till you get there. People tend to live to their means, and most tend to live beyond their means.
$1mil isnt really that much tbh. I mean, the company i helped open needed a $2mil loan.
> But even though I'd be okay with it myself, I don't think that people who make $100 million should be mandated to pay up 70% of the whole damn thing to Uncle Sam. In fact, I don't think I'd even change the current brackets or rates -- I'd just add more brackets. There used to be 24 income tax brackets, now there are only 8.
I agree with all of that.


Sorry for the delay, first week of work and im still trying to get use to my new living schedule.
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17 (p-hone) (ID: 899d9b)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  218621

File: 1547054307785.png (203.65 KB, 403x425, 564564kjkj.PNG)

>>218145
Im sorry, i completely missed your reply. My lifes been a bit hectic.

I understand what you are saying, mathematically it makes sense, but only if you take the human element out of it.

"Small bits a happiness" arnt what most people are striving for.

I would say its reasonable to tax the top 10% of someones earnings at a higher rate than the othet 90% makes sense, depending on what those rates are in the first place. Right now i think they are on the high side.

Noonim (ID: ab3851)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218623

>>218149
> I would feel, at that point, that I'm infringing on their rights
Seems strange. Why would you feel that? You are not harming anyone by keeping what you've made. Otherwise by not making that you would've harmed them, and, obviously that doesn't make much sense, as in that case, everyone has to make a large sum of money or else they're violating people's rights.

Noonim (ID: ab3851)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  218625

File: 1547057941919.png (48 KB, 1300x950, b75993f20a80db6feddc22f6b506bf…)

>>218137
>Doesn't the same apply to money?
Given that money's value is in its use, I would argue no. Where it comes to the ocean, there is only so much of said ocean. When it comes to money, it would ultimately be irrelevant if you owned all of it, as money only serves to facilitate transactions. There's no value to money, except what it can be exchanged for.

And besides that, we're talking about something someone earned, not simply purchased as is done with land. That is to say, you produce wealth, you do not produce the ocean. It exists without you. You would not have that money to be stolen of you do not produce wealth, however.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  219171

File: 1547244073449.jpg (91.23 KB, 823x1068, c268747bf954f97962827ad1d98474…)

>>218216
>socdems seem to think the nordic model means taxing the at most wealthy and just them alone to pay for these social programs when it doesn't work that way in these countries they praise so much. as i have pointed out here >>218131
Well, you've got a point there, the tax rates are flatter in the Nordic model. The problem with flattening the tax rates in the US to the same degree as those of Scandinavian countries, though, is that the US also has a significantly higher degree of income inequality than those nations. This is why American socdems are so big on progressive tax. Even in the Nordic model, the top rates only apply to those making 1.2 - 1.6 times the national average, so it's not totally flat. There's surely a way to balance the system just right for our needs.

>you mention "the american dream". the american dream isnt there anymore once government strangles the ability of the common man/woman from creating their own business or pursuing opportunities with ease

It's also not there anymore when a vast majority of people can't even afford to invest in starting their own business, though.

>i mean shit, at this rate they might as promise UBI and scrap most of these welfare programs altogether tbh

I mean honestly, yeah, they might as well. Alaska has it, everyone there loves it. It'd directly address poverty across the board, as well as resolve several of the problems with existing welfare systems. Even an Adam Smith Institute Senior Fellow is on board with the idea.

>>218515
>How is saying people shouldnt be taxed at such a high rate the same logic as saying they shouldnt be taxed at all?
How do you decide how high is too high? Why is it okay to make people give up a certain amount of the money they've earned at all?

>Or you invest it, which people do, its how the economy runs. I mean, look at Bill Gates, most of his money isnt his, as in he could swipe a debit card and buy the worlds supply of gold or something, its tied up in the stock market.

You invest it for the purpose of making money off it, though. You're not just giving it to the companies whose stock you're buying, you're putting it in there so it makes you even richer in the long run. And that's fine, nothing inherently wrong with that, but wouldn't it be nice if some of that money also went to making sure everyone has access to healthcare?

>I disagree, esp because money isnt backed by a static resource like gold, and you earn it. Putting a cap on or punishing success isnt a good idea imo.

But because of the way progressive tax works, the "cap" is still pretty damn high. You can still be the richest man in the US and own 50 private jets, even if $1 million of your $5 million are being taxed at 70%.

>The only thing preventing me from moving to the middle class, if there even is such a thing anymore, is the near 40% of my money i give up to taxes. Not just income taxes ether, property tax, sales tax, sewer tax, road tax, tolls, energy bill taxes, water usage tax on top of the bill, fire taxes... fuck.

And that's why income tax is progressive. You'd be fucked if the income tax was flat, because it would have to be higher than the rate in your bracket currently is in order to cover all our government spending.

>Its a nice idea, when has it ever been done? Esp reducing poverty, thats the favorite voting block of the people who want higher taxes. Poverty reduction that comes from the government sure seems like a carrot in front of a mule.

It could work, if we did it better than we do now.

>So even though I benefit, i dont benefit enough?.

Well, it's good that you benefit, don't get me wrong. But why are the top income brackets the ones being prioritized? They're not the ones who can't afford health insurance.

>You saying its my RIGHT to give a privet corporation 1000s of dollars a year with nothing in return?

No. I'm saying it should be your right to have your checkup paid for by the government. True, in the rest of the world you pay with your taxes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. But most of those countries don't seem to be complaining too much about that. Actually, they pride themselves on it.

>So if you took all the money made in the USA in one year, you could just pay off the debt. But even then, its still going up.

So what's to be done about it? Pray it doesn't blow up until we're already retired so the zoomers can deal with it instead?

>Being spearheaded by privet enterprise that receives its money primarily from investment.

Well, I hope those enterprises hurry up and out-compete the fossil fuel industry, things are getting kind of urgent.

>It wont go to what you want it to go to.

Then I would take advantage of the one good tax loophole, because...
>That philanthropy, and it sounds like a tax loophole to me. I mean, its called that when evil rich people do it to avoid their taxes.
...this is the one good tax loophole. It exists to make sure that even if you're not contributing to society through taxes, you're still contributing somehow, rather than just hoarding all the money for yourself.

>$1mil isnt really that much tbh. I mean, the company i helped open needed a $2mil loan.

$1 million is nothing for a company, but it's more money than most Americans make in a decade.

>>218623
They have a right to life. But they're dying. And I could stop them from dying with a tiny fraction of my $100 million. I could give away 90% of it and still live comfortably for a decade. Why is it more important for me to get to keep my $100 million and spend it all on cocaine and dominatrices more important than for them to not starve to death?

>>218625
>When it comes to money, it would ultimately be irrelevant if you owned all of it, as money only serves to facilitate transactions
It'd be irrelevant if you owned the ocean too. Inevitably, you'd be killed for it. The scenario where someone has all the money is impossible, that's certainly well-established. But what about the scenario where someone has 70% of it? 80%? 90%? At what point does that person get so rich that they fuck up the entire economy for everyone else?

>And besides that, we're talking about something someone earned, not simply purchased as is done with land

But land is purchased with money that is earned.

(ID: 02c7f7)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  219179

File: 1547245844322.png (328.67 KB, 516x579, 654654768768.png)

>>219171
>>219171
>There's surely a way to balance the system just right for our needs.
of course

i just dont think increasing the tax rate at an extremely high rate is going to anyone any good

not to mention it doesnt even cover anywhere near enough money to pay for all these new programs

>It's also not there anymore when a vast majority of people can't even afford to invest in starting their own business, though.

meh, yes and no. you can still invest in starting a business but it will certainty take a lot more work to do so

i sometimes question just how much "wealth inequality" there really is

is this because of inflation or what?

>Alaska has it, everyone there loves it.

fair enough

side question to that

you have to be resident there for a like year to get that, right?

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  219200

File: 1547249524212.png (1.96 MB, 853x1200, __patchouli_knowledge_touhou_d…)

>>218515
>You dont really know that till you get there. People tend to live to their means, and most tend to live beyond their means.
I'd spend some of that money on transition-related stuff for sure (because being trans is a rather expensive existential nightmare), and cute clothes, and my own place to live, but I doubt I'd spend more than $100k a year. I'd be more than content with that amount. And honestly, transition stuff would only be the first year, so after that's out of the way I'd probably spend even less. A top of the line gaming PC is what, $5000?

>>219179
>i just dont think increasing the tax rate at an extremely high rate is going to anyone any good
And that's another reason why American socdems endorse progressive income tax. It's less burden on the paychecks of those who are struggling to get by, and also lessens the impact even on those who are being taxed more, since that rate only applies to a fraction of their income.

>you can still invest in starting a business but it will certainty take a lot more work to do so

How can you, if you don't have any starting capital? Do banks just give out capital loans like candy? Isn't that several orders of magnitude more risky than being born rich and wasting half of your inheritance on a failed startup but still having enough for a cushy life?

>i sometimes question just how much "wealth inequality" there really is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

<The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution.

<Measured for all households, U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed countries before taxes and transfers, but is among the highest after taxes and transfers, meaning the U.S. shifts relatively less income from higher income households to lower income households. Measured for working-age households, market income inequality is comparatively high (rather than moderate) and the level of redistribution is moderate (not low)

>you have to be resident there for a like year to get that, right?

I think so, yeah. I was pretty young when we moved there though, so I don't remember if we got it the first year or not.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 02c7f7)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  219205

File: 1547250131674.png (139.12 KB, 225x413, 56465465765.png)

>>219200
you can have your "progressive income tax" but that wont cover all these programs like i pointed out here >>218139

thats why its super flawed

and again, you'd need to do a completely new tax reform

>How can you, if you don't have any starting capital? Do banks just give out capital loans like candy? Isn't that several orders of magnitude more risky than being born rich and wasting half of your inheritance on a failed startup but still having enough for a cushy life?

i mean, well yeah. starting a business is always risky and you have to take many risks to get somewhere

i mean shit, the founder of amazon started his business from borrowing money from his parents

the reason why i am so skeptical of the whole "wealth inequality" thing is because people these days dont have it so bad

i mean, your average person can get a smart phone these days

our standard of living is better than a king 100 years ago

sure, there are certainly very poor people

but i sometimes think poverty isnt as great as people make it seem to be

MIND YOU, i still believe it to be an issue

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: a9c390)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  219222

File: 1547251891196.jpg (76.31 KB, 445x650, 1496488494416.jpg)

>>219205
Well, neither you nor I have done that math. Maybe Cortez has?

In any case, the top priority for the time being is probably Medicare For All. Which, to be sure, is expensive as balls -- but, according to a study by the libertarian think tank Mercatus Center, will actually save money in the long run.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-cost-save-money-2018-7

>starting a business is always risky and you have to take many risks to get somewhere

The thing is, the risk is much higher for those who aren't starting out from an already successful family. So there's a significant inequality of opportunity at play here. High income inequality means low social mobility, which means low individual freedom.

>i mean, your average person can get a smart phone these days

Your average person practically needs a smartphone, or some kind of device with an internet connection, to be a functioning member of society, so that's not saying much.

(ID: 02c7f7)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  219226

File: 1547252151925.png (129.88 KB, 252x396, 9898709098.png)

>>219222
we havent done the math and neither has she

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tapper/index.html

>In any case, the top priority for the time being is probably Medicare For All. Which, to be sure, is expensive as balls -- but, according to a study by the libertarian think tank Mercatus Center, will actually save money in the long run.

actually you're right in this case. i think we can afford this type of thing RIGHT NOW

it's just we have to establish it first. the other stuff will take much more

>The thing is, the risk is much higher for those who aren't starting out from an already successful family. So there's a significant inequality of opportunity at play here. High income inequality means low social mobility, which means low individual freedom.

true, i can tell you right now i couldnt afford it

but i think if i saved some money i could get their eventually

but i still see what you're saying here as some people dont have the time to save

>Your average person practically needs a smartphone, or some kind of device with an internet connection, to be a functioning member of society, so that's not saying much.

hardly. you dont really need a smart phone at all

i havent had one in years and lived perfectly fine

internet connection, sure. but if its a must you can get that at a local library

(ID: 02c7f7)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  219399

File: 1547269899314.png (321.44 KB, 530x463, 5654654645654676767987988.png)

another factor id like to point out which is something i cant believe i havent pointed before

a big contributor to "wealth inequality" is purchasing power

the loss of purchasing power is mainly caused by inflation

you can increase the taxes the and minimum wage all day but inflation will eventually haunt your economy and the people living in it

this is precisely what happens in the USA today

which is why it is important to slow down inflation
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous (ID: 5508e1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  219447

>>219399
Don't you need to put caps on the population (as well as deficit spending) before you can totally nick inflation?

(ID: 04ffa2)Country code: mlpchan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  219491

File: 1547320287424.png (611.2 KB, 1650x1650, sensible_purchase.png)

>>219447

I don't think you need a cap, though a pretty stable population would probably be a huge help in any case. Really, the only way I can think to totally nick inflation is to balance it with deflation.

Mikie(phone)!GlimDubEqI (ID: 302a7e)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  219492

>>219447
I don't think it's possible to totally do away with inflation

But it is possible to slow it down with a stable currency

Anonymous (ID: 5508e1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  219937

>>219492
Inflation will go away once we abolish sonic the hedgehog. As will many other things.


Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]