The Republican Utopia

[Archy1221]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

What proposal are you talking about?  Biden's proposal is for 39.6%.  That is what McCarthy refuses to even consider.

That’s not Bernie and AOC’s ideas. 

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

That’s not Bernie and AOC’s ideas. 

And, they aren't the ones negotiating with McCarthy.

 

So, you're saying there isn't an actual proposal on the table for a 90% tax bracket.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Just remember that if we raise the current tax rate on the wealthy, we will be on the slippery slope to every known era of when American was Great. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

You didn’t answer the question.  Are they wealthy? 

I thought I answered this, but I'll be more direct: households McDonald's $400k per year are in the 97th percentile, and are thus high earners. 

 

I feel like you've created a narrative in your head that raising taxes on anybody is essentially telling them they make enough money, and therefore all the money they make after a set amount should be taken away. Nobody is suggesting this. 

 

Raising taxes on incomes above $400k only taxes amounts above that income - the first $400k they make, more than 97% of Americans - is still taxed at relatively low rates that exist today. I guess I don't understand why you think raising rates from 35% to 39.4% is somehow taking all their money.

 

It's a willful creation of a scenario that doesn't exist on your part to justify support of a political party that's brainwashed huge swaths of people into believing that taxing the wealthy is bad.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Remember, that tax increase would essentially return things to the Bush era, when the administration sold it as a TEMPORARY measure to spur the economy. It's now well proven that tax cuts don't really work as economic stimulators. Obama didn't let them sunset as scheduled, not wanting the legislative fight during Obamacare, and perhaps not caring that much. A modest increase to the top 3% -- still among the lowest rates in history -- shouldn't generate this much pearl clutching, but it's no longer about facts or history or building a better America.  

[Archy1221]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I thought I answered this, but I'll be more direct: households McDonald's $400k per year are in the 97th percentile, and are thus high earners. 

A high earner and being wealthy are always the same thing.  It’s why I ask the question, but you always only say high earner but don’t define someone who is wealthy. 

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

It's now well proven that tax cuts don't really work as economic stimulators

That’s not true. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

A high earner and being wealthy are always the same thing.  It’s why I ask the question, but you always only say high earner but don’t define someone who is wealthy. 

A high earner may or may not be wealthy. It's not always the case that a person makes a lot but is wealthy. I don't know why you define them the same.

 

A person can make $400k, $800k or $10 million per year but spend all their money on buying self portraits worth $0 dollars. That person is a high earner but because literally all their money is tied up into worthless investments - in this case self portraits - their wealth could be $0. That person is not exempt from a tax on their income just because they're a stupid investor. 

 

This is why income taxes are different than capital gains taxes which are different than proposed wealth taxes. Just because @Archy1221 thinks income=wealth doesn't mean the tax code is written as such.

[commando]

[Archy1221]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

59 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

A high earner may or may not be wealthy. It's not always the case that a person makes a lot but is wealthy. I don't know why you define them the same.

You have to forgive my typo as the word “not” was left out in my previous post.   So I am in full agreement with you here which is why it’s important to define what wealthy is vs a high earner and which one needs taxes more and why.

[Archy1221]

28 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

This is why income taxes are different than capital gains taxes which are different than proposed wealth taxes. Just because @Archy1221 thinks income=wealth doesn't mean the tax code is written as such.

I don’t think this…..I left a word off the post you replied to (I’m on mobile which is unfortunately easy to do).   Every single one of my other posts on the subject should have let you know I believe wealth and income are two different concepts.  

[knapplc]

24 minutes ago, commando said:

 

How many times did these clowns raise the debt limit when Orange Man Bad occupied the White House? 

[Dr. Strangelove]

18 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You have to forgive my typo as the word “not” was left out in my previous post.   So I am in full agreement with you here which is why it’s important to define what wealthy is vs a high earner and which one needs taxes more and why.

I see, typos happen to me all the time as well!

 

I guess my argument would be that the way to tax income is different than wealth. If you truly feel that taxing income above $400k because families in a high cost of living area may need that money, I disagree with you but that's fine. Make it $550k or any number. 

 

If you believe that only wealth should be taxed, this can be defined in numeric ways. Increase capital gains taxes on stock trades worth $1 million or more. This would only apply to the ultra-wealthy. Or define it however you want. 

 

The point is that Republicans refuse to consider anything that raises revenue - even if it targets only one of these proposals - which is why they're deeply unserious when it comes to reducing debt.

[knapplc]

 

 

If you're a corporate marketing officer concerned over what's happening with Target, let me make something abundantly clear: you will never appease anti-LGBTQ extremists. They don't want *some* concessions. They want all of them. But there's a colder truth at play here.

(thread) 

 

You think this is about a few items, and it's not. I promise you it's not. These are the same people who were livid that Pink Floyd used a rainbow in their 50th anniversary logo for "The Dark Side of the Moon" -- think about that for a second. They are not reasonable. 

 

When the Bud Light controversy erupted, the CEO of Anheuser-Busch made the unwise choice to cave entirely. He essentially apologized for the company recognizing that trans people exist and put the marketing execs on leave.

It didn't work. They're still boycotting Bud Light. 

 

You need to understand something about these people: their objective is not really to gain any ground but to find an outlet for their rage at the world changing around them. They are starving for outrage all the time. They would rather be perpetually angry than be mollified. 

 

They are furious that anyone would ask them to learn about others because it de-centers their experience as the unassailable, unaccountable default. And deep down, they know we're never going away. The closet has been permanently opened. 

 

These people long for an America that always catered to those who look and act like them -- that is: white, heterosexual, traditional families. They use religion as a shield for their bigotry. They don't really care about what Christ taught; he's just a convenient vehicle. 

 

But that America is long gone, and it's never coming back. We are witnessing the very long and painful *last gasp* of that world. And boy, are they furious. Enraged. They've had to keep quiet about it for so long, but in the past several years, the quiet part became very loud. 

 

If they can't get that world back, what's the next best thing? Finding community in outrage. These people go out of their way to be angry. They'll share rightwing clickbait articles they know to be false because it gives them permission to be spitting hot mad. 

 

They are angry, and beneath that, they are very, very scared. They will claim they're not scared. But they're terrified. None of this works without fear. Fear of what? Uncertainty over their place in a changing society that increasingly doesn't defer to them. 

 

For rightwing grifters, Christmas is every day right now. All they have to do is feed these people things to get irate over and rake in the cash. Click and subscribe. Buy their book. Buy their bulls#!t wellness product. "I will make you angry." It's a paid service. 

 

Target thinks this is going away, and it's not. Target could pull all their Pride merchandise and sever every relationship they have with the LGBTQ community, but anything short of a corporate statement of "Yeah, we hate LGBTQ people, too" will not end this. 

 

Companies need to understand what's happening right now. You cannot mollify bigots whose primary desire is to be angry. You've already lost them. They're gone. If you cave to them, you're sacrificing the loyalty of other consumers for a sad, small group that will never like you. 

 

On the other hand: if Target and other companies refuse to play this bulls#!t game with enraged bigots, they will solidify their loyalty with reasonable adults and their families.

Don't give in to these hateful people. You will never satisfy their craving for outrage.

/thread 

[Scarlet]

Good times ahead y'all.  "But what about the (blue) babies?"