United States Presidential Election, 2016

[Noirceur]

@+SpaceJesus+
I will admit that maybe I can't see the sense in it as an American would. I guess that I simply share the (perhaps unfair) view of many non-americans who view the US as a warmongerer who spends absurdly in their military, while the money could be going to finance much more productive and progressive policies. I mean, I doubt half of what they develop has been actually used. (I am also a pacifist and completely opose armed conflicts of any kind, so there's that)

 

[Kuran]

@Kuran hey bro where did you get those numbers because I know for a fact the Swedish tax rate is not that high, even so the country is doing better than we just a FYI. Plus, the tax in America won't become that high if Bernie is elected, we have the money, and if we tax the wealth or the 1% which has more money than the rest of the 99% than we can fund so many programs that have been successful in Europe and in Canada.

Not only that but the rich haven't been helping the economy, the middle class is the one that does he spending and if by chipping away at the 1% and having the money used to ease the burdens of the middle class, so they can start spending again, that is how you will fix the economy.

I've always been amused by this notion that being in "the 1%" automatically makes you an evil person, worthy only of further taxation. Every problem is a direct result of 'them' and their evil 'wealth.'

You want to know what happens when you tax the wealthy to the point where what is in many cases hard earned money (Not always, but not all of them inherited it from family) is taken hand over fist?

They move elsewhere.

Some taxation on the wealthy while they're here is better than more taxation on people in other countries.

Also, the US has no money. It's flat broke. And has been for a long time.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The reality is that most of what Bernie is asking is going to take a lot of money that the country doesn't have, and this magical idea that it can just be taken at random from the evil rich people is not far off of announcing that you're going to tax leprechauns because they've clearly got the gold, or putting a tax on unicorn horns.

Making large amounts of money isn't some sort of evil nature. Sure, some people who make millions are jerks, the same that some people making 9 bucks an hour at McDonalds are jerks. But the notion that making a lot of money is somehow wrong is itself just plain wrong. The reality is that the American Dream as a concept is what we're supposed to be shooting for, but somehow we've fallen short of that, to the point where once working hard to make a lot of money to live a more comfortable life was the goal of most people, but now is somehow something worthy only of scorn, of people scoffing and going "Damn, Frank make 200k last year, the bastard."

Taxing the rich will just destroy the rich, not make anything better for anyone else. And the notion that all of our problems will be solved if only those damn rich people paid vast percentages more of their own money is shortsighted and destructive to everyone.

 

[Green Ranger]

I've always been amused by this notion that being in "the 1%" automatically makes you an evil person, worthy only of further taxation. Every problem is a direct result of 'them' and their evil 'wealth.'

You want to know what happens when you tax the wealthy to the point where what is in many cases hard earned money (Not always, but not all of them inherited it from family) is taken hand over fist?

They move elsewhere.

Some taxation on the wealthy while they're here is better than more taxation on people in other countries.

Also, the US has no money. It's flat broke. And has been for a long time.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The reality is that most of what Bernie is asking is going to take a lot of money that the country doesn't have, and this magical idea that it can just be taken at random from the evil rich people is not far off of announcing that you're going to tax leprechauns because they've clearly got the gold, or putting a tax on unicorn horns.

Making large amounts of money isn't some sort of evil nature. Sure, some people who make millions are jerks, the same that some people making 9 bucks an hour at McDonalds are jerks. But the notion that making a lot of money is somehow wrong is itself just plain wrong. The reality is that the American Dream as a concept is what we're supposed to be shooting for, but somehow we've fallen short of that, to the point where once working hard to make a lot of money to live a more comfortable life was the goal of most people, but now is somehow something worthy only of scorn, of people scoffing and going "Damn, Frank make 200k last year, the bastard."

Taxing the rich will just destroy the rich, not make anything better for anyone else. And the notion that all of our problems will be solved if only those damn rich people paid vast percentages more of their own money is shortsighted and destructive to everyone.

You talk like this is something that's going to happen if taxes are raised for the wealthy. Problem is, it's already happened - everyone's moved their assets to countries like Ireland or other tax havens in order to avoid paying their fair share under the current system. The taxation system in the US is notorious for being full of loopholes that allow the wealthy - especially large, multinational corporations - to massively cut their tax rate, and it's only in the last year or so that the US has even begun to consider doing anything about it. Tax avoidance through offshore holdings in tax havens is a massive international problem that, if addressed correctly, would pump a hell of a lot of money back into the US economy.

The reason I bring this up is this: broadly speaking in Western economies, the wealthier one or one's assets are, the more advantages they have in order to avoid paying their tax rate. You can pay for better tax accountants. You generally have more loopholes to exploit through incentives for businesses, and the more flexibility you have in regards to restructuring your assets in a way that minimizes your taxable assets. It's why tax rises to the wealthy have a smaller impact than taxes on the middle and lower classes - the upper class has the wealth and means to insulate themselves from tax rises to a much larger extent, especially when you look at tax in terms of percentage of household income and/or total wealth, the tax burden on the rich has considerably less impact. Less wealthy individuals don't have that luxury. And unless the loopholes are closed and the system of taxation is made more fair and require people to pay their fair share of taxes, then there's always going to be that giant hole in revenue.

And yeah, the US's debt is pretty grim when you look at it in isolation, but (to use your own reference) when you compare it with other economies across the globe, it's a lot less scary. Also, keep in mind that you've also still got AAA ratings for two out of three CRAs. So confidence in the US economy's borrowing power is still really strong, and that's a strong indicator of confidence in the US economy.

Basically what I'm saying here is that the sky's not falling just yet, so don't be alarmed by the scary national debt amounts. Your economy can handle it, and with a few adjustments to the tax burden, ensuring everyone pays their fair share, and tweaking expenditure, you're capable of reversing the trend.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

How I spent my evening:

 

[Kuran]

-snip-

Quite right.

Especially for large corporations, there are tremendous loopholes that allow wealth to be redistributed in the wrong direction. The tax system is a bad one, and I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who could say with a straight face that the system of taxation in the US is a perfect one. Because it's not.

That said.

A lot of the tax incentives for things like businesses provide huge benefits to the economy. It enables people like, well, me, to open small businesses without being buried by Federal, state, and local taxes on day one. In the same way that a lot of tax breaks for individuals enable people to support organizations and groups that provide necessary or desirable services. An example off the top of my head is that near where I used to live there was a thrift store run by one of the local cancer-specific hospitals. There was a sign in the window stating that the receipt for purchases from this place can be taken off of your taxes, because the proceeds (In theory at least) go to this cancer research place.

Are all tax loopholes positive to individuals or the economy? Of course not.

Are some of them? Absolutely.

Is it a system that's abused by a lot? Hell yeah.

Is it a system that all people who are wealthy abuse because they're evil rich people? Nope.

Which is why i'm in favor personally of flat-rate taxes of the kind that Trump is proposing. It eliminates a ton of the loopholes and makes things easier for both people and businesses, while cutting down on business taxation, with no exceptions. The theory being that if every company pays 15% income tax, it's still more money going into the treasury than 50% of companies paying 0% of their taxes.

But yes, tax avoidance and creative loopholes are a huge problem. But saying "You've made a ton of money, so give us more of a % of it" is a horrendous idea. Better everyone pay, say, 20% of their income, regardless of what it is. It would still bring the country more money.

Maybe then they can fix the damn potholes. *shakes fist*

 

[Green Ranger]

Since I'm not familiar with the tax proposals of the various candidates (and researching tax proposals is...well, I can think of a really long list of things I'd rather do), I just went with a quick check. I'll reference the three candidates people are actively discussing. So, grain of salt here since I'm unfamiliar with TPC in terms of credibility or bias or anything like that, but here's what I found:

Hilldog - estimated to raise $1.1 trillion over the next decade: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-hillary-clintons-tax-proposals
Larry David - estimated to raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals
Hairpiece - estimated to reduce revenue by $9.1 trillion over the next decade: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan

Of course, with any analysis there's a lot of loopholes and stuff you have to factor in that can change the outcome - and generally any forward estimates tend to be more ambitious or optimistic than the reality. That said, it's slightly concerning that there's a nine trillion dollar hole in Trump's plan, at least based on my admittedly cursory investigation into tax policies.

That's not to say flat taxes are inherently a bad idea, just that it seems like Trump's particular proposal seems to be...well, not exactly financially sound.

 

[Noirceur]

How I spent my evening:

I am amazed at the number of young people in your photos, and the cultural diversity between them.

 

[BLADE]

Taxes are foremost a measure of social relations --How shall wealth be redistributed? What is the most efficacious method of collection (and disbursement) of said wealth?-- in this regard I can't really partake in the farandole about relative rates of tax paid out of the purse of US Taxpayers (capitalized of course, as if to say that this eidolon is in any sense a meaningful and uniform category) but a few questions persist --in addition to the above.

What is wealth? Who creates it? What aliquot of wealth does a moral tincture resolve itself into?

Without giving into so much hoary quotation perhaps this might be (Ricardian critiques --and some quite devastating-- aside) illuminating in at least its moral sentiments:

Equal quantities of labour, at all times and places, may be said to be of equal value to the labourer. In his ordinary state of health, strength and spirits; in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity, he must always lay down the same portion of his ease, his liberty, and his happiness.

And:

Labour alone, therefore, never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price...

If memory serves that was the Old Bolshevik... Adam Smith.

Matters of State and War and Peace have also been brought here and if it should tip my hand to quote warmly the words of that softhearted Jacobin:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

... Dwight Eisenhower.

Would that be a city-flattening tax rate? And if "America is broke" what exactly are we breaking first?

P.S. I realize that that to question the counterposing of Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton as the only alternatives in both ways rightly diminishes them --he a protofascist illuminated only by an oleaginous and protean sense of entitlement and rage and she... well something very nearly close but so speciously imbued with a shabby moral-political grandeur by "opposing" him. And that this objection smacks of being a poor sport in the circus that is the American electioneering duopoly but!

There are other parties you realize? As well as the option of a blank ballot?

You are voters, not a pais. Well some of you at least.

 

[Lavi]

@+SpaceJesus+
I will admit that maybe I can't see the sense in it as an American would. I guess that I simply share the (perhaps unfair) view of many non-americans who view the US as a warmongerer who spends absurdly in their military, while the money could be going to finance much more productive and progressive policies. I mean, I doubt half of what they develop has been actually used. (I am also a pacifist and completely opose armed conflicts of any kind, so there's that)

Although some non-Americans see it as warmongering, others see it as a convenient excuse to not put as money into their own military. It was incredibly embarrassing for Obama to tell the British PM upfront that if the U.K. doesn't spend a certain amount of money on their military, Obama threatens to end the "special relationship" that the two countries shared. In response, the appropriate percentage of the British GDP was relegated to their military without any objection. A lot of nations are that dependent on American military strength. As much as I agree that the American defense budget is too large, it's awkardly more than just Americans that we're protecting.

 

[Noirceur]

Although some non-Americans see it as warmongering, others see it as a convenient excuse to not put as money into their own military. It was incredibly embarrassing for Obama to tell the British PM upfront that if the U.K. doesn't spend a certain amount of money on their military, Obama threatens to end the "special relationship" that the two countries shared. In response, the appropriate percentage of the British GDP was relegated to their military without any objection. A lot of nations are that dependent on American military strength. As much as I agree that the American defense budget is too large, it's awkardly more than just Americans that we're protecting.

While I agree, I still believe a significant amount of money could be saved by cutting on the american defense budget without negatively impacting their already mighty army, nor their relations with other countries which, like you said, are somewhat dependent on their military strength.

 

[Kuran]

The reality is that for the majority of history, a nation that hasn't maintained enough of an army to deter invasion eventually is invaded. While we'd like to think that, in the Information age, we're past such barbarism, the reality is that a mere 75 years ago, Nazi Germany was busy invading and conquering any nation it could get it's hands on. The US has to maintain a standing force to compete with other world powers if it wants to remain a world power, and that means that it needs to be able to stand toe to toe with countries such as Russia and China. Both countries generally adopt a "quantity over quality" approach, with China maintaining around 2.75 Million troops and Russia keeping somewhere in the same area. The US maintains a touch over 1 million active service members.

In places like Russia and China, conscription is an established way of raising troops, and while I'm sure that people grumble, sometimes very loudly about it, it still happens. If the US instituted another draft, after what happened last time, there would very possibly be a revolution, at least in my opinion. So instead of standing toe to toe with the other world powers (And likely opponents if, god forbid, another major war were to take place), the US chooses to spend through the nose on defense spending, in an effort to out-equip, out-train, and out-gun potential opponents. In theory, anyway, this works. The reality is not always what is desired, but still.

The UK, to be fair, probably doesn't need the US, and Obama was likely just trying to find someone who would listen to him since a good chunk of the world have set him on ignore. It maintains a standing force entirely appropriate to it's size and populace (Remember, this is a country the size of Rhode Island), and while there have been some hiccups, a casual study of the UK armed forces indicates that it's in a perfectly fine position to be able to defend it's lands. And even if something out of the blue were to happen, like, say, Russia declaring war on the UK, the US still wouldn't really be all that necessary, since Germany, France, most of the Nordic countries, etc would all act in their own interests to defend Europe.

Is having a big, bad ally like the US a great thing, at least in theory? Sure. But Europe dealt with it's own wars for a long time before North America was even marked on maps, and will likely continue to do so regardless.

Unless Space-Hitler invades from his moon base. Then we're all screwed.

 

[JollySailorBold]

Can we go back to Voting For Vermin

 

[Noirceur]

a casual study of the UK armed forces indicates that it's in a perfectly fine position to be able to defend it's lands.

Exactly my point. It's completely able to defend it's lands, despite spending 549.5 billion dollars less than the US in it's defense budget, per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institue's list, which lists (pardon the redundancy) at number one in military expenditures, obviously, the US with an astounding $610 billion in 2014 alone. UK is listed at number 6, with $60.5 billion.

 

[JollySailorBold]

Exactly my point. It's completely able to defend it's lands, despite spending 549.5 billion dollars less than the US in it's defense budget, per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institue's list, which lists (pardon the redundancy) at number one in military expenditures, obviously, the US with an astounding $610 billion in 2014 alone. UK is listed at number 6, with $60.5 billion.

Isn't the U.S. like 40 times bigger than the U.K.?

 

[Noirceur]

Isn't the U.S. like 40 times bigger than the U.K.?

And it would still stand it's ground against large world potencies (with a little help, I'll grant it) despite being smaller and investing less in it's military.

 

[Richie B.]

@Jaylor but we are not surrounded by enemies plus we don't need to take away that much funding just cut the drones and other projects that have really been a real drain in our economy.

 

[Kuran]

Exactly my point. It's completely able to defend it's lands, despite spending 549.5 billion dollars less than the US in it's defense budget, per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institue's list, which lists (pardon the redundancy) at number one in military expenditures, obviously, the US with an astounding $610 billion in 2014 alone. UK is listed at number 6, with $60.5 billion.

Like I said, that's because the UK has a population and land to defend that is tiny compared to the US. But actually, the UK falls into the same boat as the US as I described in my last post.

The UK, with a small (By comparison) population, has to invest money to keep it's military able to defend the nation, as opposed to, say Russia, who expends a minimum of money, but a maximum of manpower.

A super simple way of putting it (You'll have to forgive me, military history is my thing) is that in order to defend your country, you have to expend money and manpower, in some form of balance. You can do as Russia and China do, expending as many men as possible in return for as little money as possible (This leads to a vast, generally poorly trained and less than technologically spectacular army), you can expend as much money as possible in return for having as few people as possible, as in the case of the UK and US (Leading to a small, in comparison, but generally highly trained and well equipped force), or you can do something in the middle, as you'd see in nations like Germany, France, Japan, and so on.

The reason that the UK spends 549 Billion dollars less is, quite simply, because it has to defend a tiny portion of land and people compared to the US. Actually i'd say that the UK is in a per-capita better position than the US in that regard. In fact, a quick check on the numbers indicates that, as of last years, the breakdown was like this:

The US spends an average of 1,859 USD per year per person to defend them.
The UK spends less, at just 1,066 USD per person per year.

That being said, the US isn't actually the highest spender per person, though it is close. Israel, for example, spends just over the US at an average of 1,882 USB per person per year on defense, which is hardly surprising given that it's a nation in an almost perpetual state of warfare of some sort or another, and despite the mandatory service, it's a relatively small country manpower wise.

But the short of it is this: The US spends a ton of money on the military, it is true. But it spends a lot primarily because the US is a huge country, both geographically and populace-wise.

 

[JollySailorBold]

I knew I made a mistake asking a question here. Anyways.

And it would still stand it's ground against large world potencies (with a little help, I'll grant it) despite being smaller and investing less in it's military.

I don't actually get your point here- it may be I'm too tired but I really don't get what you're saying here.

@Jaylor but we are not surrounded by enemies plus we don't need to take away that much funding just cut the drones and other projects that have really been a real drain in our economy.

Speaking as a pedantic, depending on the perspective, we are surrounded by enemies.
And I never said we didn't need to cut spending, I'm just saying, it makes sense that the more land you have the more you'll spend on defense.

Like I said, that's because the UK has a population and land to defend that is tiny compared to the US. But actually, the UK falls into the same boat as the US as I described in my last post.

The UK, with a small (By comparison) population, has to invest money to keep it's military able to defend the nation, as opposed to, say Russia, who expends a minimum of money, but a maximum of manpower.

A super simple way of putting it (You'll have to forgive me, military history is my thing) is that in order to defend your country, you have to expend money and manpower, in some form of balance. You can do as Russia and China do, expending as many men as possible in return for as little money as possible (This leads to a vast, generally poorly trained and less than technologically spectacular army), you can expend as much money as possible in return for having as few people as possible, as in the case of the UK and US (Leading to a small, in comparison, but generally highly trained and well equipped force), or you can do something in the middle, as you'd see in nations like Germany, France, Japan, and so on.

The reason that the UK spends 549 Billion dollars less is, quite simply, because it has to defend a tiny portion of land and people compared to the US. Actually i'd say that the UK is in a per-capita better position than the US in that regard. In fact, a quick check on the numbers indicates that, as of last years, the breakdown was like this:

The US spends an average of 1,859 USD per year per person to defend them.
The UK spends less, at just 1,066 USD per person per year.

That being said, the US isn't actually the highest spender per person, though it is close. Israel, for example, spends just over the US at an average of 1,882 USB per person per year on defense, which is hardly surprising given that it's a nation in an almost perpetual state of warfare of some sort or another, and despite the mandatory service, it's a relatively small country manpower wise.

But the short of it is this: The US spends a ton of money on the military, it is true. But it spends a lot primarily because the US is a huge country, both geographically and populace-wise.

The size comparison would be well and good if the U.S. didn't spend this much compared to the following countries, namely russia and china: http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

 

[Noirceur]

You are very well informed in this aspect, and I commend you. That is something I cannot claim, mainly because I have little interest in militaries and war/armed conflicts in general. Still, my point stands:

While I agree, I still believe a significant amount of money could be saved by cutting on the american defense budget without negatively impacting their already mighty army, nor their relations with other countries which, like you said, are somewhat dependent on their military strength.

EDIT: @Jaylor
I am tired and in the middle of getting ready for work, so I probably don't make much sense either. Nevertheless, take my post for a grain of slat; the comparison between the two countries is irrelevant and frankly unfair and has little to do with the current topic of the discussion: wether or not the US can/should or can't/shouldn't cut on their military expenditures to finance progressive policies and programs.

 

[JollySailorBold]

You are very well informed in this aspect, and I commend you. That is something I cannot claim, mainly because I have little interest in militaries and war/armed conflicts in general. Still, my point stands:

Thanks, I try my hardest : P