American Politics: The Speaker's Cornered

[Tarsonis]

Are you really gonna find anyone in the party that isn't at least right of center? For example, I don't think the republican party has any communists in it.

In the 60s, I think they had socialists…

The 1860's maybe

[Thermodolia]

The White House and the GOP have reached a deal in principal regarding the debt ceiling.

Not all of the details are known, but it would raise the debt ceiling for two years while cutting and capping certain federal programs.

It is all but certain will anger the far-right, who wanted significantly steeper cuts though it's not fully known what programs will see a reduction in spending and which ones are spared. It is likely to anger Progressives and some Democrats too, who don't want any cuts to social programs. Military and veterans’ programs seem to have been spared and most domestic spending will not be hit with a big cut in spending. It is believed a work requirement is in the deal as well, which is something Democrats oppose.

Buckle up all: it's probably going to be a bumpy ride.

From what I understand green energy and healthcare specifically Medicaid will be hit the hardest. There’s also going to be some restrictions on foreign aid

[Cannot think of a name]

The White House and the GOP have reached a deal in principal regarding the debt ceiling.

Not all of the details are known, but it would raise the debt ceiling for two years while cutting and capping certain federal programs.

It is all but certain will anger the far-right, who wanted significantly steeper cuts though it's not fully known what programs will see a reduction in spending and which ones are spared. It is likely to anger Progressives and some Democrats too, who don't want any cuts to social programs. Military and veterans’ programs seem to have been spared and most domestic spending will not be hit with a big cut in spending. It is believed a work requirement is in the deal as well, which is something Democrats oppose.

Buckle up all: it's probably going to be a bumpy ride.

From what I understand green energy and healthcare specifically Medicaid will be hit the hardest. There’s also going to be some restrictions on foreign aid

I saw an ad early this morning that was the GOP declaring victory and asking people to support their changes or something...pretty sure they mean "send us money..."

[Thermodolia]

It's about an eighth of what was to be sent to the IRS: $80 billion was the original; this would cut it by $10 billion (12.5%). A sizable cut, but nowhere near what the GOP wanted, which was basically get rid of the spending entirely. Don't get me wrong, it will weakening the IRS a bit, but not too significantly I feel. Now, if it was 50% or more, than I think Democrats would balk.

The requirements aren't as bad though they will hurt people like Shrill unfortunately. In that case, Democrats better hope to win in 2024 so they can reverse some of those atrocious decisions.

A tall order indeed considering the Dems have already lost four seats just from the North Carolina mess.

Those can be made up with seats from New York, California, and Arizona. There’s two seats in AZ that could definitely be flipped to the democrats.

Then you add about three or so seats in California that could flip and the 5 seats in NY and you got a possibility of a 6+ net D gain. That gain would actually give them Dems a +1 seat majority

[Elwher]

Hilariously to me one of the actually confirmed cuts is to the IRS, something that was actually going to be revenue generating! Shows you how much the Republican party actually cares about being fiscally conservative.

Considering that the IRS was given those funds with the promise that the would go after rich tax evaders and immediately when on a shakedown of low income earners I'm not missing that money.
We need to abandon the idea that we can get the rich to pay taxes by giving the IRS more money for audits. The IRS won't use it, because they know that the rich have so many avenues for avoiding tax that proving evasion costs more money then it brings in; and so they will go after people who are working gigs, have tip income or sidehustles, who don't have the resources to fight and will just pay up.

If we want to get the rich to pay taxes fairly we need to simplify the tax code and eliminate avenues for avoidance. But that's a legislative issue, not a budgetary one.

On a per-audit basis, going after the rich is more profitable. However, the fact that there are so many more not-rich and the fact that they do not have the high-priced accountants mean that overall, it is likely that going after them will result in more money overall.

[Elwher]

The only reason it's even possible to create structures to avoid it is because of it's complexity, much of which is included, at the request of the the rich, for the purpose of lowering ther tax obligations.

Here.

Tax Owed\BMI payment=0.4*(Gross Income-46625)

Let them evade that.

Define gross income. Also why is tax owed divided by what I can only assume is “basic minimum income payment”.

Edit: never mind, you’re using the slash as an or, not as a division symbol. I understand now.

So let’s stick with defining gross income.

All money or non-cash benefits one receives during the preceding year.

[Elwher]

The total revenue generated from all sources, such as wages, salaries, interest, dividends, rental income, investment returns and any other income.

So, let’s break that down.

I buy a stock for $10 today, and sell it in six months for $20.

What is my gross income? Is it $20 (total revenue)? $10 (the net gain)? When is it recognized? When i sold it? Gradually as it rose?

$10 when you sold it. Stocks are no different from any other property; you buy them which is a cost; you sell then and the difference is revenue realized at the sale.

[Umeria]

The only reason it's even possible to create structures to avoid it is because of it's complexity, much of which is included, at the request of the the rich, for the purpose of lowering ther tax obligations.

Here.

Tax Owed\BMI payment=0.4*(Gross Income-46625)

Let them evade that.

Easily evaded by borrowing off of their assets instead of selling them.

[Elwher]

The only reason it's even possible to create structures to avoid it is because of it's complexity, much of which is included, at the request of the the rich, for the purpose of lowering ther tax obligations.

Here.

Tax Owed\BMI payment=0.4*(Gross Income-46625)

Let them evade that.

Easily evaded by borrowing off of their assets instead of selling them.

When you borrow the money, it is income. When you repay it, the principal portion is a deduction from your income.

[Umeria]

Easily evaded by borrowing off of their assets instead of selling them.

When you borrow the money, it is income. When you repay it, the principal portion is a deduction from your income.

How is a bank loan income? You aren't earning any money.

You can repay it with assets you haven't sold. So the only time you saw any cash was when you took out the loan. What's being taxed?

[Galloism]

So, let’s break that down.

I buy a stock for $10 today, and sell it in six months for $20.

What is my gross income? Is it $20 (total revenue)? $10 (the net gain)? When is it recognized? When i sold it? Gradually as it rose?

$10 when you sold it. Stocks are no different from any other property; you buy them which is a cost; you sell then and the difference is revenue realized at the sale.

Just so we're clear, you're using a definition of "gross income" along the lines of "gross profit" instead (gross income - cost of goods sold, if we were talking in a business context). But you should let Haganham answer.

[Galloism]

Easily evaded by borrowing off of their assets instead of selling them.

When you borrow the money, it is income. When you repay it, the principal portion is a deduction from your income.

Oh this could be even more fun.

So, when you go to school, and you take out student loans, you need to pay taxes on your student loans while in school, and then you get to count the whole student loan payment as a deduction from your income later?

We could structure it that way, but just want to ensure that this is your intent.

[Diopolis]

I kinda want the blue state's that pay more in taxes to just like, stop doing that.

Don't know what's bringing on these feelings, really don't.

You hate boomers that want to live in warm climates?

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

the union army had a Russian general?

[Necroghastia]

I kinda want the blue state's that pay more in taxes to just like, stop doing that.

Don't know what's bringing on these feelings, really don't.

You hate boomers that want to live in warm climates?

The Villages know what they did.

[Bienenhalde]

That was a different time. A more sane time in American politics.

Both parties being big tent was wacky, not sane.

If anything we should make it so that Democrats are only Social Liberals and that Republicans are only Neoconservatives

We kind of need to have big tent parties in a two party system, because if the two major parties are not big tents then many people will be unrepresented.

[Port Caverton]

Both parties being big tent was wacky, not sane.

If anything we should make it so that Democrats are only Social Liberals and that Republicans are only Neoconservatives

We kind of need to have big tent parties in a two party system, because if the two major parties are not big tents then many people will be unrepresented.

Do Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, Radical Centrists, Right-Libertarians and National Conservatives really need to be represented at all?

[Celritannia]

We kind of need to have big tent parties in a two party system, because if the two major parties are not big tents then many people will be unrepresented.

Do Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, Radical Centrists, Right-Libertarians and National Conservatives really need to be represented at all?

Yes.

[Port Caverton]

Do Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, Radical Centrists, Right-Libertarians and National Conservatives really need to be represented at all?

Yes.

Why? We only really need social liberals and neoconservatives

[Celritannia]

Yes.

Why? We only really need social liberals and neoconservatives

The 2 big-tent Parties do not represent the majority of the voters. Voters choose one out of necessity than ideology. This problem falls at the feet of the FPTP system.

Let's say I was a US citizen and voted for a Democrat for a congressional seat and they won. I do not know what type of person or policies this Democrat is or supports. How am I able to trust them to understand my needs and concerns?

[Spirit of Hope]

When you borrow the money, it is income. When you repay it, the principal portion is a deduction from your income.

Oh this could be even more fun.

So, when you go to school, and you take out student loans, you need to pay taxes on your student loans while in school, and then you get to count the whole student loan payment as a deduction from your income later?

We could structure it that way, but just want to ensure that this is your intent.

I was actually thinking mortgagees and how his idea would probably kill them and most peoples ability to buy a house.

[Port Caverton]

Why? We only really need social liberals and neoconservatives

The 2 big-tent Parties do not represent the majority of the voters. Voters choose one out of necessity than ideology. This problem falls at the feet of the FPTP system.

Let's say I was a US citizen and voted for a Democrat for a congressional seat and they won. I do not know what type of person or policies this Democrat is or supports. How am I able to trust them to understand my needs and concerns?

I mean in this system I'm proposing you would know that person is a social liberal

[Bienenhalde]

We kind of need to have big tent parties in a two party system, because if the two major parties are not big tents then many people will be unrepresented.

Do Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, Radical Centrists, Right-Libertarians and National Conservatives really need to be represented at all?

Well, realistically there are some extremists that shouldn't be tolerated even in a constitutional democracy, but besides libertarians and some of the more racist national conservatives, those ideologies don't necessarily sound particularly dangerous.

[Bienenhalde]

The 2 big-tent Parties do not represent the majority of the voters. Voters choose one out of necessity than ideology. This problem falls at the feet of the FPTP system.

Let's say I was a US citizen and voted for a Democrat for a congressional seat and they won. I do not know what type of person or policies this Democrat is or supports. How am I able to trust them to understand my needs and concerns?

I mean in this system I'm proposing you would know that person is a social liberal

We could also do that by getting rid of the two party system and having say, five or ten parties instead.

[Celritannia]

The 2 big-tent Parties do not represent the majority of the voters. Voters choose one out of necessity than ideology. This problem falls at the feet of the FPTP system.

Let's say I was a US citizen and voted for a Democrat for a congressional seat and they won. I do not know what type of person or policies this Democrat is or supports. How am I able to trust them to understand my needs and concerns?

I mean in this system I'm proposing you would know that person is a social liberal

And I would understand it better with multiple political parties under a proportional representative system which truly represents the wishes of the people and extends democracy.