Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Trump might have just accidentally declared war on China, by acknowledging the president of Taiwan in a direct phonecall, and calling him president in public. Chinese are furious. According to China, Taiwan is a rebel province, not a nation.

The president of Taiwan is a woman btw.

The Chinese are definetly making a ruckus over the fact that Trump is rocking the boat, but they aren't going to declare war over it. Definetly not a good start to Trump admin - Chinese relations however, but then, I don't think Trump intends to be particularily friendly to China.

Hmm. CHina's reaction towards Trump is surprisingly mild. They put all the blame on Taiwan. They might invade it. China's 'One-China' law allows an invasion of Taiwan at any sign of becoming an independent nation. If they do - congratulations Trump, you just got your first few million people killed.

Any news on Trumps response to China? This is the most important part.

He did try to defuse it a bit by saying that Taiwan called him, not the other way around.

May still have pissed them off a little by saying 'president of Taiwan' instead of 'president on Taiwan'. Any of us would roll our eyes at such a minor distinction, but that's the finer points (literally finer point, every word could matter) of diplomacy.

edit: More of a Philippines thing than an American (or Trump) thing, but hey:
Duterte claims that Trump said that he is doing the War on Drugs the right way. Those are Duterte's words though, not Trumps, so, without a transcript of what Trump said, we don't know if that's what he actually said or if Duterte is just embellishing. Sounds like the two are getting along pretty well though.

Also, the Trump team needs to quit letting other countries take the narrative on the conversation.

[Rockphed]

The rich tend to get bigger tax cuts under Republican tax plans because conservatives believe in flat tax schemes.

And flat taxes are inherently destructive to the wealth of the nation. It is beyond nonsensical that the tax burden be shifted towards non-income tax sources, where taxation will be placed upon the backs of those with the least money via purchasing power. The whole concept of flat tax is predicated upon the idea that it is effective and it is fair, when in reality it both slashes revenues and gives the rich a free ticket.

We are going to have to disagree on that.  In my view, it is significantly more moral and effective for everyone to pay a fixed percentage of their income than for some to pay less than nothing and others to have nearly half their income taken.  Also, if the government were not so large and powerful, we could pay for it with less taxes(another reason that Republicans push for tax cuts, they view the large federal government as problematic).

[Reelya]

They clearly don't believe their own rhetoric, because every time Republicans are in power they massively expand the government.



Or one that goes back to Reagan:

[McTraveller]

We are going to have to disagree on that.  In my view, it is significantly more moral and effective for everyone to pay a fixed percentage of their income than for some to pay less than nothing and others to have nearly half their income taken.  Also, if the government were not so large and powerful, we could pay for it with less taxes(another reason that Republicans push for tax cuts, they view the large federal government as problematic).

Flat percentage taxes are terrible; do some research into marginal utility and you'll see why.  Now, I do agree that having a tax system where the "lowest income" folks effectively have negative taxes is not great - although it's complex in the US because even if you have negative income tax, does that offset sales taxes or property taxes hidden in rent? I don't know that I've ever seen that detail (and it also depends on location).

Most people that talk about "fair" taxes really mean "equitable" taxes, which doesn't help (just look at the name of the misguided proposal for US going to national sales tax called Fair Tax).  The only "fair" tax is the same exact tax amount per person. The most "equitable" tax is the one that impacts each person the same which is what our progressive systems try to do that by having the tax rate be, well, progressive.  However, I think an equitable tax is inherently impossible, because there is no way that even a progressive tax rate will affect two individuals with the same value of assets and income the same, because of differences like geography or any number of other factors.  So, given that, a progressive tax rate based on nominal values is probably as best as we can do, but see my previous post for a system that I think is way better than either sales or income tax.

Afterthought: It's strange that taxes are based on income or wealth anyway. No other purchasable thing* is priced based on income: utility bills, food, and basically everything else you buy is priced independently of your income** - why are public programs (taxation) priced based on income?  I guess this goes back to what a "fair" tax really is - it is the same price for everyone.  And yes, I realize you'd have to figure out some alternative (like payment in kind maybe) if you have a portion of the population that does't have the currency for the fair tax.

* Public services funded by taxation are a type of "purchasable thing" even though they are kind of diffuse. The whole "I buy civilization with my taxes" idea (probably misquoted).

** Yes if you have higher income you might buy higher priced goods, or might buy more quantity of lower priced goods.  But if you earn a million dollars a year, that doesn't mean you pay $300 for a gallon of gas instead of $3.

[smjjames]

They clearly don't believe their own rhetoric, because every time Republicans are in power they massively expand the government.



Or one that goes back to Reagan:

But all of those are neocons. What are the dark bands in the second one though?

[Reelya]

It says what they are in the image.

But if all Republicans who get elected are merely neocons, then why should we elect any of them? It seems to be a "No True Scotsman" argument.

And remember Rockphed's claim was that Republicans want to shrink the government, which is why we should elect them. He didn't say "conservatives", so that would be shifting the goalposts.

[smjjames]

Derp, how did I miss that in the image itself. XD

Are there any that go back beyond Reagan (adjusted for inflation obviously)? Not sure why everybody seems to choose Reagan as the starting point. Like, what about Nixon, or Eisenhower.

I think I found one:


Then again, it may be measuring something different than the one Reelya already posted.

edit2: Found one that goes back to Kennedy, but it only shows a portion of the spending and not as a whole like Reelya's two examples.

[SalmonGod]

The Attorney General put out a statement on the Dakota Access Pipeline.  The entire 2:48 statement can be summarized as "We promise we're trying to be good."  There's seriously no other substance to add to that summary, except maybe to note that the statement is made in a way that implies importing police forces from other states to the scene was a gesture of good faith, and to avoid any indication that any violence that has taken place was at all one-sided.

[WealthyRadish]

Afterthought: It's strange that taxes are based on income or wealth anyway. No other purchasable thing* is priced based on income: utility bills, food, and basically everything else you buy is priced independently of your income** - why are public programs (taxation) priced based on income?  I guess this goes back to what a "fair" tax really is - it is the same price for everyone.  And yes, I realize you'd have to figure out some alternative (like payment in kind maybe) if you have a portion of the population that does't have the currency for the fair tax.

There was a time when this was the case, in more reasonable times. Before government bureaucracy started to rob small business owners of their property to fuel the nanny state, people would pay their dues in a lump sum (usually during harvest time), and if currency was unavailable would be able to fulfill their obligations with work the rest of the year. More successful workers who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps were not punished for the lower productivity of others, as the burden was equal and producing less did not mean paying less tax. This was particularly beneficial in areas such as Ireland, where the workers were in some years so unproductive that if landlords were instead only able to take a scaled portion of the harvest instead of seizing the entire amount if necessary, then those landlords wouldn't have even made any profit.

[Amperzand]

Super neato article about the school system:
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

[miauw62]

The landlords wouldn't have made any profit???!! What a horrifying thought! Good thing their workers starved, they really avoided a catastrophe there. Serves those lazy workers right.

[Harry Baldman]

Afterthought: It's strange that taxes are based on income or wealth anyway. No other purchasable thing* is priced based on income: utility bills, food, and basically everything else you buy is priced independently of your income** - why are public programs (taxation) priced based on income?  I guess this goes back to what a "fair" tax really is - it is the same price for everyone.  And yes, I realize you'd have to figure out some alternative (like payment in kind maybe) if you have a portion of the population that does't have the currency for the fair tax.

Basing them on income is a handy way to make them actually payable, which is important for something that you expect to be paid.

There was a time when this was the case, in more reasonable times. Before government bureaucracy started to rob small business owners of their property to fuel the nanny state, people would pay their dues in a lump sum (usually during harvest time), and if currency was unavailable would be able to fulfill their obligations with work the rest of the year. More successful workers who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps were not punished for the lower productivity of others, as the burden was equal and producing less did not mean paying less tax. This was particularly beneficial in areas such as Ireland, where the workers were in some years so unproductive that if landlords were instead only able to take a scaled portion of the harvest instead of seizing the entire amount if necessary, then those landlords wouldn't have even made any profit.

Man, mid-19th century Ireland sounds like such a nice place to live. I wonder why so many people left? Must have been that Irish laziness.

[Shadowlord]

Afterthought: It's strange that taxes are based on income or wealth anyway. No other purchasable thing* is priced based on income: utility bills, food, and basically everything else you buy is priced independently of your income** - why are public programs (taxation) priced based on income?  I guess this goes back to what a "fair" tax really is - it is the same price for everyone.  And yes, I realize you'd have to figure out some alternative (like payment in kind maybe) if you have a portion of the population that does't have the currency for the fair tax.

There was a time when this was the case, in more reasonable times. Before government bureaucracy started to rob small business owners of their property to fuel the nanny state, people would pay their dues in a lump sum (usually during harvest time), and if currency was unavailable would be able to fulfill their obligations with work the rest of the year. More successful workers who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps were not punished for the lower productivity of others, as the burden was equal and producing less did not mean paying less tax. This was particularly beneficial in areas such as Ireland, where the workers were in some years so unproductive that if landlords were instead only able to take a scaled portion of the harvest instead of seizing the entire amount if necessary, then those landlords wouldn't have even made any profit.

omg you're literally squeeing about serfdom
that's a form of slavery, mate
the un has said so
Edit: Hopefully that was parody on your part.

Also McTraveller, how could you possibly think that charging everyone the exact same tax amount would be a good idea? No matter how you do it, some people won't be able to pay it, others will be paying most of their income, and eventually you get to people to whom it makes no meaningful difference in their income, unless you make the tax so big that nobody else can even afford to pay it. This does not sound fair or workable to me at all.

P.S. This kind of bullshit and "no minimum wage, child labor, all the time" bullshit, is why Marxism was born. Do you want a class revolution on your hands? Do you?

[WealthyRadish]

There was a time when this was the case, in more reasonable times. Before government bureaucracy started to rob small business owners of their property to fuel the nanny state, people would pay their dues in a lump sum (usually during harvest time), and if currency was unavailable would be able to fulfill their obligations with work the rest of the year. More successful workers who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps were not punished for the lower productivity of others, as the burden was equal and producing less did not mean paying less tax. This was particularly beneficial in areas such as Ireland, where the workers were in some years so unproductive that if landlords were instead only able to take a scaled portion of the harvest instead of seizing the entire amount if necessary, then those landlords wouldn't have even made any profit.

Man, mid-19th century Ireland sounds like such a nice place to live. I wonder why so many people left? Must have been that Irish laziness.

I can only imagine they left out of disgust, after the food tariffs protecting property owners and jobs with high prices were repealed in a wave of unpatriotic soft-headedness. If the British were able to make some better trade deals, maybe those jobs would still be around. Weak!

[Loud Whispers]

But if all Republicans who get elected are merely neocons, then why should we elect any of them? It seems to be a "No True Scotsman" argument.

This is a legit question and is probably why Trump won the primaries vs the Neocon candidates
Look at Britpoli where leftists are asking why they should ever vote left if they can only vote neolib, same principle mirrored

And remember Rockphed's claim was that Republicans want to shrink the government, which is why we should elect them. He didn't say "conservatives", so that would be shifting the goalposts.

Libertarians would probably be more accurate, the Ron Paul kinda Republicans
So a Republican faction?