Madison320
Member

You can tell from the flurry of "fact checks" on corporate media that the regime screwed up.

Ok, look at it this way. If harris wins and the inevitable inflationary collapse hits, it's more likely to get blamed on the establishment, the deep state, socialism, etc. I would think that's a good thing even without factoring in elections. There's a better chance for succession or some other movement towards decentralization if more people support it.

Here's something else to think about. We headed for a hyper-inflationary economic collapse based on the debt, no matter who wins. If trump is president the collapse will get blamed on capitalism and I could see us moving dangerously hard to the left. If harris is president when the collapse hits there's a chance someone who's been warning of the danger of the debt, like rand paul, can win.

As a libertarian I don't care how much a person makes thru voluntary exchange. The important thing is how much is stolen. And I'm pretty sure Jeff Bezos has had more stolen from him than most humans in history.

You don't need an equation, you just have to understand the logical concept of diminishing returns. So what's your point? That 17 year olds pay taxes? The fact is that the rich pay virtually all the tax at much higher rates than the rest of the population. You said you want higher taxes to have the effect of reducing spending. To do that you need to raise taxes on the majority of voters. And that's going to be at the lower income levels since the majority of voters are in low income brackets.

I agree that spending is the real tax but the different tax rates are not always minor shifts in who foots the bill. I'm pretty sure if we raised CaptUSA's rate to 95% you wouldn't feel it was a minor shift. Spending is the true TOTAL tax but the taxes can hit certain groups more. I despise progressive taxation. Rates should be the same for everyone as much as possible. We should have equal treatment under the law.

You're missing the point. You only have to be in the neighborhood of the peak to know that cutting tax rates is a great trade off. The curve is very shallow anywhere near the peak which means a big change in tax rates makes very little difference in tax revenue. You have any evidence? https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20bottom%20half,of%20all%20federal%20income%20taxes. According to this link the bottom 50% of taxpayers as in people who have filed taxes, not retirees and children. The number of total taxpayers is about 150 million which makes sense since there's around 330 million us citizens in total.

I agree but that's why we need some sort of flat tax. Either a flat rate on income or sales or tariffs. Something like 50% of the population are not paying any income tax at all.

70% is a joke, especially for high income earners and corporations. No entrepreneur would ever risk capital for that rate. We don't know exactly what it is but we know that we're in the ballpark where it's not even close to being proportional. By that I mean a 10% increase in rates is going to produce much less than a 10% increase in revenue. So you get a lot more freedom by cutting tax rates when you're close to the peak of the laffer curve.

The laffer curve is just an economic fact, it's not something to hate. 100% tax rates would not be a good thing comrade. Whether lower tax revenue is a good thing is complicated. It can be a bad thing if it gets replaced with inflation. Like now. If it forces government cuts it's a good thing. You could say that lower tax revenue will lead to hyperinflation faster, which may lead to cuts in government faster.

Its not an exact number, probably around 30% from what I remember. It also depends on who you're taxing. It's probably higher for lower incomes, since they can't avoid the tax. That's why countries like Sweden have a high rate on the poor but a low corporate rate for example.

Although tax revenue is not always going up when you factor in inflation. Anyway there's a point where tax rates get too high and tax revenues fall. If you disagree tell me what tax revenues would be if the rate was 100%. Lowering tax rates down to at least the peak of the laffer curve is as close to a free lunch in economics as you're going to get. Supporting the idiotic war in Ukraine may not make you a full blown neocon but it sure is a good start.

Tax revenues have gone up many times following tax rate cuts. It depends on where you are on the laffer curve. True. The increased tax revenue from cutting rates doesn't come close to closing the deficits caused by spending. I'm confused about why you're complaining about it since you're in the neocon camp.

This time is different because they're cutting rates when the threat of price inflation is at an all time high. Previously they had room to cut because inflation pressure was much lower than it is now.

I agree. At some point we're going to get high to hyperinflation from the debt and the debt will be the big story. That's when the guys who were warning about the debt will have a chance to win. Until then we'll continue to live in a fantasy world. I never actually looked up the meaning of "the great reset" but in my mind it's when the west goes bankrupt and has to live within its means. I think in 20 years they'll be studying it. And then in another 50 they'll be ignoring it.

I think they timed it pretty good for Harris (I should say, The Machine). The market will get an immediate bump but prices won't start skyrocketing until after the election. I think whoever gets elected is going to be dealing with an economic disaster. If you thought price inflation was high in 2021, just wait.

Ok, so I had a setback to my plan. Everything was going well until monday night football last night. It turns out that ESPN Plus does not carry games that are on ESPN! WTF? You would think ESPN "Plus" would include ESPN "Plus" other stuff but it doesn't. It's a separate unrelated service. The only way you can get ESPN is thru another service like fubo, youtubetv, dish, etc. So eff them. I'll just watch the games that are not on ESPN (or ABC I think). Apparently the cheapest option for espn is sling orange at 40 a month. So that's 56 a month in total but I don't think I get abc.

"tone things down" must be secret code for "support all wars".