Donald Trump Sack Watch

Hapless_Hans wrote:That might have been the worst exchange of words I've ever read

even you have to admit it silly to say all politicians dont lie to cover their own ass. its how they make a living. they are as honest as a bag full of lawyers

That's true. Most politicans just care about money, like all humans do. They'll do anything to keep their mouth at the trough; lie, deceive, blackmail and whatnot.

Myesyats wrote:That's true. Most politicans just care about money, like all humans do. They'll do anything to keep their mouth at the trough; lie, deceive, blackmail and whatnot.

VivaStPauli wrote:The US also in many ways got rich with essentially socialist policies, they weathered the Great Depression with the New Deal, which was basically indistinguishable from European Social Democrat policies;
and when Bernie Sanders calls himself a Socialist he's not associating with Lenin, he's evoking Northern European Social Democracy, which at it's core still is a capitalist system, just with stronger social security and (very) mild wealth redistribution, which honestly something that would make all rich countries a lot more peaceful and resistant to crisis.

Trump is honestly just the ridiculous antithesis of this, Republicans have for so long framed extremely reasonable politics practiced to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans with little ill effect as so pants-shittingly insane that the lunacy of Trump and Pence seems reasonable to Tea Party influenced Americans by now. Which is fucking insane.

The "New Deal" had only a short term impact which created an illusion that all problems got solved. There was no long term planning in there at all. The New Deal didn't fail, not because its policies were great, but because the damage that was done prior was enormous and the Deal provided a temporary relief.

I hope Bernie doesnt win for the sake of America.

Well Bernie won't win because he's admitted that he's going to raise taxes on the middle class. I mean this country literally went to war over high taxes in order to gain its independence. They wouldn't allow a king to do it so I doubt they will ever let their own government do it.

Personally, I don't mind my taxes going up if that means I don't get saddled with massive student debt or medical bills that could force me into bankruptcy, but far too many just don't think about it this way.

That said, even Trump can stick to the playbook of "The Democrats want to raise your taxes" in order to get re-elected if we have a Sanders or Warren Dem nomination.

The working class benefits more by economic growth, not by raising taxes. And raising taxes + redistribution works against economic growth.

This idea that everything will be fine if you tax the hell out of everyone is delusional.

I would never entertain the idea of electing someone like Bernie, personally.

The problem is that not enough of the middle class is feeling this "economic growth", which the more I see it used, the more I feel it's just a catch-all, feel good term that doesn't really mean anything to regular people. It only seems to matter to politicians and political pundits as well as the media to suck people into paying attention to them.

And yet I keep reading and hearing how different ideas automatically won't work because they are apparently too "radical", but no one seems to be able to defend the current system to the people that it is failing. My entire generation are unable to buy houses or live comfortably with good jobs like our parents because of crippling student debt and medical expenses. This mythical "economic growth" we keep hearing our country is experiencing is doing nothing to solve either of those problems.

If the current system was working and the middle class (now dominated by my generation) was actually feeling this "economic growth" Bernie, AOC and other far left progressives would still fringe identities just as they were 10 years ago. The very fact that they are front and center is indicative that the current system just doesn't work as we're being told it is. So of course these "radical" ideas like healthcare for all and freedom from student debt are being rejected out of hand by those who are probably not even effected by it.

So while I will hold my nose and vote for a Biden without liking not one bit of it, it's clear he's a vast improvement on Trump, but make no mistake about it: he represents a return to where we were pre-Trump, where my generation still struggles to live comfortably like our parents did. Wanting something more than that isn't "radical". It's recognizing that the world has changed and we need to change with it. What worked in the 20th century will not work in the 21st and beyond. If this logic held, none of the technology we have today would exist.

Well, a steady, slow and barely noticeable economic growth is better than raising taxes drastically. Most people don't understand even the basics of economics, I don't know much either admittedly, but I know that heavy taxation is not the way to go. It's more likely going to harm the middle class rather than help it.

Bernie and AOC, those types provide short-term solutions. It's understandable that the common folk supports them because they want to see change here and now. But of course you can't change anything overnight.

The vast majority of people are too stupid to think on a long-term basis. Bernie and AOC are either gullible enough to believe what they're doing is right or they just want to win over the votes of the poorer part of the population by taking the easy road and promising to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Sadly, I have to admit voting Biden may be the most reasonable thing to do at this point.

Electing Biden is itself a short-term solution though. Much of his term would be spent undoing Trump policies. This would last even into a 2nd term likely. What is the plan after Biden though? That's where I'm at. That's 5-9 years from now. Realistically the president after Biden will have the first real opportunity to offer transformational policies. And if they serve 2 terms, that's up to 17 years from now. Plenty of time to change the way this country works that better reflects and answers the needs of a 21st century middle class.

Also and coming back to the here and now, what exactly would qualify as a slow and steady economic growth? How do you quantify that year over year? Unemployment rate? Wage statistics, spending habits during the holidays? I really want to unpack this "economic growth" term that just gets thrown around ubiquitously.

Again, I'm not fluent in the lingo of economics, but in this context I'd define economic growth as the increase in demand for labor which results in higher production of goods which then creates more profit for businesses which means bussines owners have more capital to invest and hire more employees.

Taxing the rich (business owners) means they have less capital to invest and hire which is bad for the economy.

Myesyats wrote:Again, I'm not fluent in the lingo of economics, but in this context I'd define economic growth as the increase in demand for labor which results in higher production of goods which then creates more profit for businesses which means bussines owners have more capital to invest and hire more employees.

Taxing the rich (business owners) means they have less capital to invest and hire which is bad for the economy.

I don't even know what taxes have been talked about in America, just thought to mention that corporate taxation is different from individual taxation. You can raise taxes on the wealthy without it affecting businesses.

Myesyats wrote:Again, I'm not fluent in the lingo of economics, but in this context I'd define economic growth as the increase in demand for labor which results in higher production of goods which then creates more profit for businesses which means bussines owners have more capital to invest and hire more employees.

Taxing the rich (business owners) means they have less capital to invest and hire which is bad for the economy.

Billionaires don't pay taxes. They hoard the money as a symbol of status really.

They don't use this money to invest at all. They invest to improve their status. The money of billionaires is essentially removed from the economy, which is why the American middle class has disappeared.

They only have to pay their fair share taxed. Which I don't find fair at all. Aren't they talking about an annual share of like 2-3% of their wealth. That's a tiny amount of taxes.

Adding onto Freeza and Art's points, Trump gave these billionaire "job creators" the perfect chance to demonstrate that ability to provide some relief to the rest of us and what did they do? Those corporations took the money saved from lower taxes and re-invested in their shareholders. Not their employees and not their customers, both groups firmly in the middle class bracket.

So that tells me that when the rich are given a chance to actually grow this economy by allowing the middle class to stimulate it with extra money saved from tax breaks, they absolutely will not do it. They will protect themselves and their interests first.

And yet we're suppose to look to them for economic growth and relief? I don't understand this attachment to such thinking. Trickle-down economics didn't work in the 80s and it damn sure isn't working now. Something else needs to be tried.

Art Morte wrote:

Myesyats wrote:Again, I'm not fluent in the lingo of economics, but in this context I'd define economic growth as the increase in demand for labor which results in higher production of goods which then creates more profit for businesses which means bussines owners have more capital to invest and hire more employees.

Taxing the rich (business owners) means they have less capital to invest and hire which is bad for the economy.

I don't even know what taxes have been talked about in America, just thought to mention that corporate taxation is different from individual taxation. You can raise taxes on the wealthy without it affecting businesses.

Has this ever been implemented successfully? 1990 Luxury Tax comes to mind but that was, unsurprisingly, a major disaster.

Ask anyone REALLY knowleadgable in economics about income tax - they'll tell you it doesn't quite make sense and some even advocate to completely scrap it.

Freeza wrote:

Myesyats wrote:Again, I'm not fluent in the lingo of economics, but in this context I'd define economic growth as the increase in demand for labor which results in higher production of goods which then creates more profit for businesses which means bussines owners have more capital to invest and hire more employees.

Taxing the rich (business owners) means they have less capital to invest and hire which is bad for the economy.

Billionaires don't pay taxes. They hoard the money as a symbol of status really.

They don't use this money to invest at all. They invest to improve their status. The money of billionaires is essentially removed from the economy, which is why the American middle class has disappeared.

They only have to pay their fair share taxed. Which I don't find fair at all. Aren't they talking about an annual share of like 2-3% of their wealth. That's a tiny amount of taxes.

So if they're avoiding taxes now, they'll keep avoiding them. So what good does raising taxes do?

Heavily taxing the rich has already been proven to be a failure...

It's easy to say - oh they have a lot of money so we'll take it and share. It doesn't work that way!

How has it proven to be a failure?

I'd say I'm living a very good life. And in my country we tax 70% on all money earned after the first $100k

In the US they're speaking about taxing 2% of the money earned after $50m

You think taking away half of your hard earned money is FAIR? Wouldn't it be more equitable if you kept the money and decided what to spend it on at your own accord?

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?_r=0

Please read this or at least skim through and tell me what you think... Follow-up question: Do you think Denmark has too many unemployed people living only off of benefits?

It's incredibly fair to me. It could be improved, sure. But I wouldn't  trade our system for anything else.

I wouldn't want the money on my own accord. At the moment I make around 21.000 dkk (pretty shit) before taxes, and I pay about 30% of that in total. I wouldn't want to keep that money, because in case anything were to happen to me, it would put me in instant debt, because I'm young and I don't have the money for surgery.

And I was actually in surgery last month. It would have cost me around two months salary before taxes in US prices. That's just medical bills. Imagine if I had to pay for my education (I have taken a 6-year degree in University).

Average tuition in the US is $35k per year. In Danish money that is 235k times six that is $210k -> 1.4 million dkk.

The amount of time it would take me to pay off that stuff That's fucking more than a house. No thanks.

You can see how that would absolutely ruin young people and poorer people? Not having education and healthcare through taxes can absolutely cripple them. I'm 26 years old and debt free. There's no way in hell I could be that in the US.
___

Just saw Joachim B. Olsen was used as the main source in that article. Guy is an absolute idiot.

We have free healthcare and education too. Tax rate is significantly lower than Denmark. Do you not feel like your money is given to people who can't be bothered to work? People living just off of welfare seems like that could be an issue, does it not?

Myesyats wrote:We have free healthcare and education too. Tax rate is significantly lower than Denmark. Do you not feel like your money is given to people who can't be bothered to work? People living just off of welfare seems like that could be an issue, does it not?

I don't feel like people not wanting to work is a problem at all. If anything there's too many people wanting to work, and not enough jobs. That's the main problem I'd fix in politics.

I wouldn't ever want a lower tax if it meant cutting from our welfare and education.

Sure there's problem with a small amount of people just living off welfare and not working. But I feel like that's not a problem with them "not wanting to work" and more like they've lost hope in finding something they want/are able to do.

__

Also integration is a serious problem in this regard. I feel like both sides in Denmark have a hard time in making refugees and immigrants be a part of society. I feel like there should be mandatory culture and sport programs for these people where they can engage with the public.

There's so many ghetto-areas where people are just put and our government forgets about them, which is sad.

Okay so consider this scenario: You're 35, no longer a student, fit as a fiddle, don't have children. You earn 30.000 and pay 12.000 of that in tax. What do you benefit from that then?

I'm trying to grasp the essence of Denmark's welfare state and I'm faced with the question: is it sustainable? I find it hard to believe that this welfare state is like a heaven for all.

I personally believe income tax should be as low as possible. Let me decide what I do with my money.

The problem of people not wanting to work and benefiting from mooching of the welfare state is minimal. You will always have more people wanting to work. Even if you don't want to believe on people having a minimal drive to do something with themselves, social benefits tend not to be free and unlimited. In most cases you have to work for a pension, you have to have been employed to receive unemployment benefits, etc. For example I can speak about Norway, where if you are not actively looking for a job you will stop receiving unemployment benefits. You must be registered at the respective employment office and be willing to take any suitable job they offer, anywhere in Norway, or you risk losing your benefits. Seems fair to me.

I'm similar to your scenario, I'm 28, no longer a student, unmarried, have no kids, fit and healthy. How do I benefit from the 35-50% income tax that I've lived through in Norway and Belgium? by living in a well-functioning society. I studied a Masters that was virtually free (only a registration fee of like 100€ was needed) in the best program in Norway thanks to the people paying those taxes, I could have also studied a Bachelors (and all levels of education) for free had I been there. Just as I studied that, I can be certain that a large part of the population studied too. I go out and I find a city of similar education level to me, which is a great feeling.

Thanks to high income tax and a well functioning government of course, I know that most people have a very real chance at a good life. In these places the outliers are the ones that don't make it, as opposed to america where the outliers are the successful ones. There is minimal poverty around me, minimal crime, I know I can walk home and be reasonably safe. I step outside and I see a well-functioning city, good roads, good infrastructure, good public transport, good opportunities, and most importantly, good quality of life.

If I as an engineer didn't pay high taxes, the artist/humanist/social scientist/laborer would have a much lower chance to study and make it.

Myesyats wrote:I'm trying to grasp the essence of Denmark's welfare state and I'm faced with the question: is it sustainable? I find it hard to believe that this welfare state is like a heaven for all.

How is anything else sustainable? an educated population that isn't burdened with debt and poverty will tend to develop much more than a leave-everyone-behind american ideal. I see it in Latin America, there you have the peak of inequality in the western world. You can make crazy amounts of money while your neighbors starve, how does that end? it always crashes. Always. In the US you have pockets of extreme success surrounded by waaaaaay lower life quality than in these welfare states cited. It's the nature of equality/inequality. It's awesome if you make a lot of money and pay minimal taxes in terms of the things you can buy, but you look around yourself and you see a lot of poverty and a lot of issues that would go a long way of being solved by a little bit of a mindset change in how we share our wealth.

Even if you are rich, living surrounded by poverty very much lowers your quality of life. I already lived in a third world country while being middle class, don't need anymore of that. Would rather take the pay-cut to make sure my society lives well.

Freeza wrote:
I wouldn't ever want a lower tax if it meant cutting from our welfare and education.

Exactly my thought. I never want to vote against denying well-being and education to people.

Myesyats wrote:Okay so consider this scenario: You're 35, no longer a student, fit as a fiddle, don't have children. You earn 30.000 and pay 12.000 of that in tax. What do you benefit from that then?

I'm trying to grasp the essence of Denmark's welfare state and I'm faced with the question: is it sustainable? I find it hard to believe that this welfare state is like a heaven for all.

I personally believe income tax should be as low as possible. Let me decide what I do with my money.

thats exactly what i think. if you are taxed £200 for the week you should choose what your money goes on. like do i want to give money to the EU. i choose fuck that no money for them. do i want money to go to health care. im like yes take £50 of it for health care. do i want to give aid to paskistan who have nukes. im like nope aint giving them shit. do i want to give money to help the homeless in britain. yes i will give £100 towards that. if they did that you would see exactly where the people want the money to go.

Years ago, I was a lot more conservative than I am now when it comes to fiscal issues. I have long since soured on this outlook as it's selfish and insular.

Under our current economic, unfettered and deregulated capitalist system, we have perfectly capable, physically fit, intelligent people saddled with thousands of dollars of debt due to an education system that didn't teach them anything about personal finance so as a result they are working shit jobs for shit pay. The answer naturally would be to become more educated, right? Well sure, but in order to do so, they must now take out thousands more in student loans as not everyone can live with their parents to save on rent money or work at their parents company in order to pay off that tuition or both. Bootstrappers (the older generations that believe that we youngsters should just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and make something of ourselves out of absolutely nothing with help from no one, like they did, even if that was bullshit) don't understand this.

So what more do they have to lose if taxes go up, but they have at least a fighting chance at better jobs that will allow them to live more comfortably and pay into those taxes like everyone else?

I truly believe that in order to be a millionaire and especially a billionaire in the current American economic system, it is impossible to achieve this while remaining ethically or morally pure. At some point, unethical or immoral practices will need to occur in order to continue to climb the income brackets. Those who have reached those heights have proven they are utterly fine with doing those unethical, immoral things in order to get to where they are. And yet it's white-washed as "hard work and long hours". All of these millionaires and billionaires have at least 1 skeleton in their closet that aided their rise to influence and power.

Why we should continue to support a system that feeds their lifestyle at the expense of everyone else's is beyond me. I don't think the wealthy should have to pay everyone else's taxes. I just think they should be made to pay their fair share, like the rest of us. I don't know how to quantify what would be considered fair as I'm neither an accountant nor an economist, but what I do know is that what they're paying (or not paying) is disgustingly lower than what everyone else is paying. If we don't have the benefit of a tax haven or shelter, they shouldn't either.

What older people in the US don't understand (except a few I've had discussions with, so not all) is the cost of education. That for them tuition was $75 a semester. Sure, there is inflation, but if someone went to University in 1960 or thereabouts, $75 a semester was $650. And I'm not pulling $75 a semester out of nowhere either, these people I've talked to have quoted numbers or numbers just like it.

So that's $1300 a year. Multiply by 4 and you're looking at $5200 to get yourself a bachelor's degree. Some of these people said they worked at an ice cream shop in the summer to pay for college.

The rising cost of education in the US has raped the middle class and the poor in America. I say that as a very very lucky individual who has had his college subsidized by parents. On my salary, I wouldn't have much money to save at the moment if I had student debt. Which would mean my ability to save aggressively early in life is diminished, which means my ability to make wealth grow FOR me with time is diminished. Which means my ability to help my own kids with college, when I get to that point, is diminished.

And so on and so forth.