What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Dump Term 2, 1.01: Sleep Now in the Fire

dxmnkd316 said:
It occurred to me that tariffs are just a sales tax or flat tax. This is how they're going to eliminate the income tax. They'll jack up costs but tell you they're lowering taxes to compensate.

So in the end, the rich pay a smaller portion of their income and it shifts the burden to the lowest half of the country.

Even if it's revenue-neutral this is disastrous for an economy. An economy isn't stagnant. It requires movement. The less movement, the worse the economy. The rich move the least amount of money relative to wealth. Fewer dollars are plugged into the economy and I don't think we're going to like the results.
Click to expand...

Minor quibble - the Rich’s money is still in the economy, but it’s largely in a variety of investments. Aside from the fund managers, their money tends to move around less when it’s there. This means they’re reducing the overall velocity of money, which is what tends to generate the money used to pay the vast majority of wages and salaries for the middle and lower-wage workers.
ETA: /* …their money tends to move around less than those still attempting to amass their wealth…*/

Also, a tariff works very similarly to the VAT taxes used in most other countries. I’ve never liked them as they’re just a sales tax applies to the goods at a store while sort of hiding the tax from the end consumer. (And yes, sales and VAT also do have a backwards shift in assessment, but the percentage isn’t all that much.)
 
St. Clown said:
Minor quibble - the Rich’s money is still in the economy, but it’s largely in a variety of investments. Aside from the fund managers, their money tends to move around less when it’s there. This means they’re reducing the overall velocity of money, which is what tends to generate the money used to pay the vast majority of wages and salaries for the middle and lower-wage workers.
ETA: /* …their money tends to move around less than those still attempting to amass their wealth…*/

Also, a tariff works very similarly to the VAT taxes used in most other countries. I’ve never liked them as they’re just a sales tax applies to the goods at a store while sort of hiding the tax from the end consumer. (And yes, sales and VAT also do have a backwards shift in assessment, but the percentage isn’t all that much.)
Click to expand...

Good clarification about the velocity. The point I was making is mainly that the lower income you are, the less stagnant the money you earn is. So you're almost always moving that dollar around. If wealth increases, that takes the aggregate velocity down and depending on how much wealth increases, it could mean more money is stationary than before. Though, I will concede this if you disagree considering your field. This is just a crude understanding by an engineer.

My main gripe about flat taxes and sales taxes are they're regressive.
 
Kepler said:
The principled constitutionalists who complained about Biden "weaponizing the justice department" are silent.
Click to expand...

This.



They're just happy their team won. Who gives a sh*t about anyone else, they get theirs. Until they hold out their hand looking for their share and Drumpf and Co openly shit in their hands.
 
So, I've been thinking about something since the day after the election, and I finally saw an explanation that better formed the question I had AND answered it.

The question: why did "moderates" vote more R leaning instead of the traditional D they may have voted? I saw a few social media personalities who I thought would vote Harris say they were voting for Trump, not in support of him, but for *hand waves* reasons. One posted a cartoon of a stick figure feeling "pushed out" by dems, fall across a line, and appear to have repubs offer a hand up.

The re-framing and response explained it. This is the same mentality that like minded groups use when forming. If you go to a comic-con and aren't quite sure where you fit in, you'll sort of settle with the "inclusive" group that invites you in. Urban gangs use the same technique in recruitment. Life is hard, but we'll get through it together. And they use fear to build up these groups.

The far-Right GOP has these small groups of welcoming gangs.

As for what drives off people from the Dems, that still seems to be the million dollar question that everyone is seeking. Maybe, just maybe if we make it through the next four years, eyes will be opened.

Probably not though. : (
 
What drives people off from the Dems? 20+ years of their media mouthpiece and practically every member of the Republican party demonizing and lying about them 24/7.

"They're eating the cats. They're eating the dogs"
 
rufus said:
What drives people off from the Dems? 20+ years of their media mouthpiece and practically every member of the Republican party demonizing and lying about them 24/7.

"They're eating the cats. They're eating the dogs"
Click to expand...

Bingo.

It doesn't help that Republican pundits dominate the landscape. Half of MSNBC are neocons and they are arguably the most liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top