How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Mate.

... Underage references?? ... Really?

Might wanna delete that.

### Salty

Please point out any underage reference?

Sandusky is an old man just like nevergivesitathought. They probably took turns playing with each other!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Exactly. Just give the clerk $3.

Haha! Exactly. I learned that lesson a long time ago taking taxis in Latin America.

Nice chart btw. When you adjust for purchasing power, China now has the largest economy in the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I was waiting on the explanation of the difference between a VAT and a tariff before I asked why should our government make money off of something we won't, or more correctly shouldn't, purchase. Isn't a tariff or VAT more of a punishment or deterrent to the consumer, i.e. cause them to change their behavior?

Yes. I'm too lazy to dig it up but Captain Midnight pointed out in this thread that a VAT (or tariff for that matter) would discourage consumption of some of the worthless crap that people buy. The flip side is it would encourage savings and, I think, investment.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

We're on a provider board, so most should understand that size matters. The US is large enough that we don't need to wait on Canada or the UK to make purchasing decisions that impact us directly. Notwithstanding, I damn sure don't buy in to the nonsense that we need to spend more tax dollars to help fix California's port problem that they created.

I do not believe the benevolent Xi cut tariffs across the board. The trade imbalance has been astronomical and growing for a long time. Plus, Xi seems to be an ungrateful bastard. We shipped him a lot of our pollution and slave labor and what do we get in return? Cheap, single use and disposable Chinese junk.

I thought Trump was on the money for getting them to sign on the dotted line to commit to purchasing our goods and not waiting on other countries to join in. Sure Xi didn't like that, I mean being forthright and accountable.

I don't think the tariffs did any good. They didn't bring down the trade deficit that the U.S. runs with China. The bilateral deficit has gone up in fact. I've read, and I don't know if it's true, that the federal government spent as much on enhanced subsidies for farmers et al who were hit by Chinese retaliation as it realized from the tariffs. Recall the Chinese started buying soybeans and the like from Brazil and other countries instead of the USA, so subsidies were directed to farm states to compensate.

We're not targeting what's important either. The Chinese have a stranglehold on some things like rare earth elements that are essential to our security. We could get those by developing resources in the USA and Canada. And what have we done about that? Jack.

Who cares about the toys, cheap electronics and garments the Chinese send us. I'd rather we import them than make them here. The people who work in those factories are mostly women, because men don't have the dexterity or patience or whatever for the repetitive work. So, if we started making this stuff in the USA, who would do it? Probably unskilled female Cuban immigrants, who don't have any other options besides becoming strippers. And if there weren't any Cuban strippers that would severely affect the quality of my life and the lives of many of our fellow posters.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Now we can get into taxes for on and on. I view taxes as A) wealth redistribution and B) kick backs. The tax code is so complex and wonky in how it is structured to curry favor by shuffling money that you purchased with your time and effort. The point one of you made about "wealthy" being able to work around taxes is exactly the point. They have the resources to leverage the code - as designed - and are also benefactors of of the kick backs.

Maybe look at it a different way, any tax "break" given is for a reason (a bribe) and something goes somewhere or benefits someone else - and it can be taken away. I know, a crappy explanation, but I'm in a rush at the moment

Agreed, if you apply that to some of the wealthy. Others are paying far, far more than their fair share, if you compare what they're getting out of the system to what they put in.

[WTF]

I'll make this short and possibly sweet.

Two major things we spend taxes on. Defense and Entitlements.

The wealthy have more to gain from war and the vast industrial military complex than any other class. Therefore they should pay the appropriate amount of taxes to fund said military because of their enormous political influence on defense spending. They have come up woefully short the last 40 years.



The Middle class and poor fund the vast majority of entitlements. They have produced massive surpluses over the last 40 years.

Yet there is this whole class of so called economists who will lead you to believe we have a spending problem in the entitlement sector! They will not even discuss cutting the military. Crazy.

[bambino]

Trump kept us out of wars.


https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/s...688028161?s=20

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

Trump kept us out of wars.


https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/s...688028161?s=20

And he still had trillion dollar deficits!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bambino

Trump kept us out of wars.


https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/s...688028161?s=20

By starting one at home.


Gotta admire your loyalty! Maybe you’ll be the next Attorney General when JFK Jr. comes back to restore Twitler to the Reichstag.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

By starting one at home.


Gotta admire your loyalty! Maybe you’ll be the next Attorney General when JFK Jr. comes back to restore Twitler to the Reichstag.

And look at who you voted for President. A senile crook.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bambino

And look at who you voted for President. A senile crook.

Are you posting after me again, bud?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

I'll make this short and possibly sweet.

Two major things we spend taxes on. Defense and Entitlements.

The wealthy have more to gain from war and the vast industrial military complex than any other class. Therefore they should pay the appropriate amount of taxes to fund said military because of their enormous political influence on defense spending. They have come up woefully short the last 40 years.



The Middle class and poor fund the vast majority of entitlements. They have produced massive surpluses over the last 40 years.

Yet there is this whole class of so called economists who will lead you to believe we have a spending problem in the entitlement sector! They will not even discuss cutting the military. Crazy.

As you know we agree about cutting military spending. I disagree with a couple of items though. Government spending on the military is a giant slush pit, but I don't see how the wealthy as a class have much to do with it, or how they're preferentially benefitting from it. If you made a similar argument about police and our property taxes I'd probably agree with you.

As to the "massive surpluses" in social security and Medicare, they're not massive enough given the aging of America and retirement of the baby boom generation. And the "middle class and poor" have historically taken more out than they put in, after adjusting for inflation. Admittedly that may not hold in the future.

[eccieuser9500]

Four year old article.


Do the wealthy benefit more from government-provided security than the rest of us?


https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2017/...he-rest-of-us/

To be clear, none of my comments are meant to suggest that the rich should pay less taxes (because they are already caring for much of their own needs through private security); quite the opposite, I simply believe the argument for their taxation is more convincingly made when social justice and the long-term stability of the community writ large is included in the dialogue. Contending that the rich need publicly-funded security for their own, near-term personal safety more than other groups may not resonate in the way some apparently think. Indeed, such an argument may induce the wealthy to conclude that for other than some high-end, nation-state threats (and maybe not even then), they can better and more efficiently buy their security privately than to contribute to the commonweal via taxes.

The truth is we all benefit from strong, well-resourced security services, but a just and honorable society must never forget that it’s the poor and defenseless among us who are most dependent upon government to protect them.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Four year old article.


Do the wealthy benefit more from government-provided security than the rest of us?


https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2017/...he-rest-of-us/

You see a lot of this in Latin American countries. Large segments of the middle class live in gated communities with 24 hour security. And the better off pay for their own security. A couple more quotes from the article,

The Guardian reports that at “least half the world’s population lives in countries where there are more private security workers than public police officers.”

It then adds this sobering observation:

But when private security enables the rich and even the middle class to bypass the state, this can intensify a country’s inequalities. Regarding the expansion of private security in Latin America, the UN Development Programme has warned: “This phenomenon further increases inequality, as social groups have different capacities to deal with crime.”

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

You see a lot of this in Latin American countries. Large segments of the middle class live in gated communities with 24 hour security. And the better off pay for their own security.

Just lurking and adding my bullshit. As the good Captain says.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

As you know we agree about cutting military spending. I disagree with a couple of items though. Government spending on the military is a giant slush pit, but I don't see how the wealthy as a class have much to do with it, or how they're preferentially benefitting from it.

The wealthy are the one's politicians listen to. Have you ever met with the President or someone in his inner circle? Now if they knew that they were going to be the ones targeted to pay for it....instead of buying stock in defense contractors. they just may buy more influence to discourage these conflicts/expenditures. Remember what Goering said

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”


-Hermann Goering

Originally Posted by Tiny

As to the "massive surpluses" in social security and Medicare, they're not massive enough given the aging of America and retirement of the baby boom generation. And the "middle class and poor" have historically taken more out than they put in, after adjusting for inflation. Admittedly that may not hold in the future.

Yes...I have talked about this ad nauseam in the past. But it does not change the fact that we have run massive surpluses. (Which has made public debt look deceiving)

Do you think the rich are paying for the middle class and poor getting out more than they put in to date?

And here is a question:

Which part of government has contributed more to our debt? Entitlements or Defense?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Just lurking and adding my bullshit. As the good Captain says.

https://images.app.goo.gl/jajB7QtkJHmZbWgz6

Can you convert this so all can see and we can debate just where the discretionary spending went in 2015...