For the first few months of Trump's campaigns I thought he was genuine and at least meant what he said. I cannot tell if that is the case anymore or if he is just saying outlandish things because it is helping him stay on top in some inexplicable manner. I kinda think the last couple weeks have been purely political rather than reflecting his real views, but I am not sure.

Arguments for Trump:

He's making a complete mockery of the political system and is exposing it for what it is.
He's engaging people in politics and and calling out the Political Class for what they are.
The NeoCons in Washington are terrified as **** of him.
The outlandish things he's saying is pure posturing that he doesn't really think nor would have the power to enact.
He's a great dealmaker and negotiator.
His decision making will not be heavily influenced by elites that we don't really know about who have ulterior motives of self gain/hunger for power.

It may be sad and scary the kinds of people he's *resonating* with, but if he has to play them to kick out the establishment then so be it.

Party bigwigs and GOP members of Congress have been calling him out for his crazy regarding barring muslims from the country for several days now.

Meanwhile there's a new pole out indicating that 65% of GOP likely primary voters actually agree with Trump, so it'll be interesting to see if the Trump backlash on this issue actually lasts.

Right. Of course you'd prefer that. Rich people would prefer to keep as much of their wealth as possible. I understand.

It's shortsighted though.

The government on both a state and federal level HAS forced me to move. Repeatedly. So yeah, LOL America. I reject this notion that we must simply discuss who is laid out for us to choose from. I choose to fight the system, blow me.

You don't have to have all the answers and perfect solutions to point out the awfulness of the status quo and the inevitability of that status quo staying in power, especially when it will clearly lead to worse actions by the government and more restrictions on liberty. Call it potshots if you want but supporting Hillary is just so baffling ridiculous to me.

except I have not lived a single day of my life as a rich person. I didn't come from money and don't have enough money or income now that I would be subject to a redistribution in a meaningful manner in either direction outside of possible higher taxes on the middle class.

That's still a bit abstract. The concrete/pragmatic/cynical/easy connectivity between the poor and upper-middle class is that the upper-middle and the top half of the middle class are big de facto employers in this country. Small business owners, yeah, but huge consumers of mom-pop goods and services and independent contractors--child care, landscapers, home improvement, restaurants/bars/cafes, boutique stores.

All of this labor is of the lower-middle to working-poor classes. These classes have less time with their families, more anxiety, worse health, no ability to consume the goods and services in their professional fields, and even less ability to save.

One argument against easing their burden is that it raise the prices of said goods and services, but it is ignored that these a non-zero percentage of these people would then become greater consumers of these goods/services to raise demand.

The "Economics 101" argument of vulgar capitalists is actually trite microeconomics. They smugly shame rebuttal on the seen and unseen but choose to not see past the surface level effects of a policy. It's very weird.

Economic policy is always multilayered and a mixture of art and science. No one is looking to completely eliminate the invisible hand. But slash taxes and let the invisible hand save us all is just self-defeating dogma.


I can buy this. At the moment, I'm still very confused. Currently, I probably lean:

O'Malley
Sanders
Stein
Clinton

Your electability, stand alone, he won't win anyway approach in December is really weird. The media is really good at fooling people into this way of thinking, so its not your fault, but you've been led to believe its a lot deeper into the primary season than it actually is.

Don't believe me? Look at the pre-Iowa polling numbers from the last lame duck presidential elections of both parties: December of 2007, 1999, and 1991 (1st election I was eligible to vote, so these are the ones I can remember). Electability is undefined right now, so citing it is a fake, warped version at a failed realism attempt.

Regardless of Bernie's inevitable loss, kinda rooting for him to hold his lead in new Hampshire. Hillary losing their would be popcorn.jpg.

It is pretty ridiculous to force people to pay for the rest of society before they can even pay for those close to them. If I get rich I would much prefer to make sure my family members have more money than just social security to live on in old age rather than sending it off to the government. Hell, I would even be fine with being forced by law to have rich people redistribute their wealth to those in the middle or lower classes provided they can choose which people it goes to. There is no reason that someone should have family in need while paying for people across the country instead of being able to help make sure they have medical care or a place to live in old age.

This was a political masterstroke by Trump. He's moving the Overton Window to the right, but more importantly establishing frame and forcing everyone else to play into it. It also puts his opponents in the position of defending Muslim immigration, which isn't hugely popular to begin with.

Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) has had a bunch a posts about Trump (where Adams has maintained a facade of plausible deniability with regard to his s**tlording). The key takeaway is Trump isn't a bloviating, bumbling, loose cannon - he knows exactly what he's doing and he's playing his opponents like a fiddle while doing so.

good for you Spider

Of course this, he knows what he's doing, and he's doing it well.

Let's try this another way.



Would you rather have all-time high absolute wealth with yachts, basketball teams, mansions with all the technology etc; but be closer relatively to poor people, or less absolute wealth but be living better off relatively to lower classes?

Lold

The government didn't force you to do anything. The citizens of the country on both a federal and state level decided to elect politicans. The people loudly declared that they didn't care whether or not online poker was legal when they put up virtually no resistance or opposition to the politicans doing that. You then chose to leave the country rather than pursue another career, as was your right.

Where did anyone ever suggest a system like this?

Eliminating the income tax for singles under $125k and families of $250k; shifting the six brackets up to 125/250, 250/500, 500/1m, 1m/2m, etc with hikes starting at the 250/500 bracket; raising capital gains.

This isn't impossible and doesn't have to be wealth destruction or direct redistribution. Education, healthcare, infrastructure. These are all investments.

Given the same median income, economies with high inequality are better for all involved. It has been shown that that happiness and contentment have less to do with your absolute wealth then with your wealth relative to your neighbors. Thus, the rich in countries with a high level of income disparity must be happier than those in more egalitarian economies. Likewise, a big gap between the rich and poor creates a large supply of what I term "potential happiness" for the underclass.

more absolute wealth. However, your proposal includes the idea of decreasing the absolute wealth of some people to increase that of other people. I don't see why its in anyone's best interest to want their own wealth to decrease nor do I think its fair. For me the fairness issue is what I have trouble accepting.

Maybe it is simply because I don't come from money, but I see lots of people close to me who are struggling financially and want to be able to help them. I have no desire to share any wealth I accrue with the government until after I can take care of my family, friends, and people in my community.

well thats what we have and would be exacerbated if we raise taxes on the rich more than we do on the middle class. If I start getting paid a ton of money I have to pay more to the government before I can even elevate my family to an upper middle class level. Furthermore, there are gift limits of $14,000 (I believe thats current) to others before additional taxes kick in. If someone making $1mm/yr has family members living on a very tight budget why shouldn't they be allowed to give them $50k/yr to make sure they have a reasonable place to live and all their basic needs met and a little more to bring them to a comfortable level. Under the current system the gift to their siblings/kids/parents/grandparents would be taxable above that gift tax level.

I'd love to be able to help my parents and grandparents in retirement, but there are tax hurdles that make that more difficult. Sure, if I'm making $25mm/yr these hurdles will be small enough that they won't matter, but what if I am making $500k and have 4 kids? Now if I want to help provide for my parents retirement/nursing home, my spouses' parents, my kids college, and maybe some siblings or nieces or nephews there isn't a lot left. Now those additional tax dollars would have been really helpful in terms of making it easier to pass money onto my family.

There was a whole lot of unfair that went into the wealth breakdown ending up that way so why is fairness so important once it did?

The people I'm talking about taking wealth from will still be able to do this 100 times over without any issue. I'm not looking at taking future cdls network from 2 million to 500k

Let's at least acknowledge that all of these progressive proposals and movements don't actually give money to poor people and call it out for what it is. It's taking wealth from producers and giving it to the federal government even though they don't even really need to take money from people to spend money. Not only that but it disincentivizes people to improve their own standing in life while creating resentment and sense of entitlements between classes all while further empowering and benefiting the elites.

Pass laws that "force"/heavily incentivise people to donate to charities and causes of their choosing, pass laws that give people money to choose their education at all levels, pass laws that enable the lower class not having to work 60 hours a week to survive, etc. We can do all of that without taking from the producers/innovators and expanding federal programs.

Why should someone being handed $50k/year be exempt from paying taxes while someone working to earn $50k/year isn't?

I would favor a system like this. I do think education and healthcare are important.

As I get older I realize just how costly and important healthcare is. We need to help the elderly receive proper care and living conditions and this should be subsidized by all.

I also think there need to be better programs for free schooling for babies and toddlers. It is absurd how much a standard daycare costs much less ones that try to teach kids anything rather than just letting them play and meeting their basic needs. I think this should be free to all and at a much much higher standard and available for longer and more irregular hours than the current status quo. I also think its pretty obvious that public school class sizes need to shrink and that teacher evaluation needs to change. Fixing schools is difficult and expensive, but probably the best investment any country could make.

I do think social security also needs revamping and to be shuttered for future generations. Exactly where to draw the line is tricky, but I think it should be phased out based on age. Personally, I would say anyone over 50 gets 100% of what they were promised and that number gets phased out proportionally to 0 for people who are currently 18. Put the responsibility of saving for retirement on the individual and their family and use public funds to assure the elderly have basic healthcare, housing, and food.

You can fund some of this by cutting military spend and fund the rest through increased taxes applied to everyone above the poverty line.