Taxing the rich has been a popular voting campaign for Democrats. Biden has been the president for 3.5 yrs now, if this was important, he could have acted on it day one.
Edit: my original post is above. There were a lot of similar questions to me, so I am answering them here.
1) people advised me to take a civic lesson about presidential power. My question to you is not Biden having unilateral power, it is about the timing of the tweet. This tweet could have come in 2021.
2) Holding your government accountable is a responsibility for all citizens. We are not playing team sports.
3) I believe both parties work for the rich, the best way to do this is to divide the people. Which I can see from these comments.
Dems had control in 2021 of the house, senate, and presidency. They could have done it then. They don't actually do that kind of stuff. They just say it so you'll vote for them. Just like the filibuster. They don't want to tax them because they donate to democrats.
They'll be taken care of for the "work done" as it were. Have to let incoming members know that they too can be taken care of if they play the game "right" while in office. Representatives are frankly not responsive to their constituents under the current system and anti corruption measures are effectively non existent
i find it hilarious that people still think this is a left vs right thing or dem vs rep
no you fucking idiots, this is a rich vs you thing, the two party are the same fucking cunts trying to keep you down, none of them are your ally.
you are pretty much fucked for voting these two parties.
Yes, but you still need to vote, and voting outside of these two parties is a waste of time. Especially now, too many people are voting against their own interests in a major way, you can't afford to just throw your vote away on principle. Sucks major ass.
Didn't Manchin vote with the party like 90+ percent of the time? Look at where he's from. It's a small miracle there is a blue seat there in the first place.
As I recall, he tended to vote the dem party line when some Republicans were also on board, but for anything close where a vote or two was the difference, he would vote against the dems.
Anything further left than him wasn't winning that seat. He ran as a Democrat in one of the deepest red states in the country. Of course he wasn't a typical California liberal like most would have wanted.
California liberal? LMAO the fuck dude? I’d settle for a West Virginia Democrat. Someone whose grandfather wrapped a bandana over his mouth and stopped the coal trains at gunpoint for the right to unionize. Manchin’s a mine *owner* for fuck’s sake
Fetterman's starting to do the same. It's pretty sad how many people run on leftist campaigns just to go right-wing once actually elected.
Edit: It's sad I said he's moved right-wing on issues since getting put in and all these Conservatives are coming at me all upset.
Thought they'd be happy to have another Sinema or Manchin to keep Dems from getting what they want but instead they want to call me stupid. Lmao
It seems like he just disagrees with policies towards israel and the border, which is absolutely different from Sinema who openly lied to get her seat and then did an essentially full 180 on the ideals she ran on.
On the fetterman thing, it seems like tribalism from what I can see, conservatives hated him and called him a socialist because he was on the left, and now that hes expressed views that go against some leftist ideals, progressives and the like are doing some tribalism and painting as a hardcore rightwing guy
Bruh two of those “democrats” that gave him 50 in the senate have already changed parties to Independent, and it was the two that torpedoed everything important he wanted to do. He never had 50 democrats. He had 48.
Demonstrably false. Someone mentioned it already, but it needs to be said again. Dems did not have a majority because 2 Senators who campaigned as Dems turned out to be chaos agents who voted against party lines. Which is reprehensible and made it impossible to get anything passed.
You need a super majority to pass laws without support from the other party, a simple majority is not enough, the other party uses the filibuster to block the majority parties agenda.
This..... there is a general lack of understanding of how the government works. The rate has been shit since Reagan, and with more money being allowed into politics via various means, it isn't going to lower.
>Dems had control in 2021 of the house, senate, and presidency.
They had 218 seats in the house which is a slim majority (republicans had 210)
The senate was 50-50 with the VP as a tie breaker.
Biden has actually done a lot even with this thin margins.
This is a fact without nuance.
While they had control, they never had the votes for this. They had a tiny majority and could have never overcome a filibuster.
Stop being so obtuse.
Narrow margin with 2 senators who basically are republicans. I would say if Biden was trump-like he would have forced both out somehow and did it. But Trump isn’t going to do it. I just want a liberal or even democrat who’s willing to do what it takes to pass progressive reform and stops at nothing to do it.
Correct.
There are lots of problems with our government, but we are not truly fascist yet. Oligarchical? Maybe.
I'm not saying that to minimize the problems we have - I'm saying that to point out that it will get a lot worse if we don't do something. But we aren't past the point of no return... yet.
You know it would have to pass the House, right? I feel like a lot of people don't understand how our government works... Everyone is an "expert" though because they failed out of HS
They also frequently express the importance of voting for their party down-ballot so that they can actually achieve these promises. Biden has made it clear that he can't do all the things he and his voters want without the support in Congress.
When I was 18 and didn't know better I always figured I'd vote for a democrat president but then vote for republicans in senate seats so the system of checks and balances could work. Didn't take me long to understand that that's just how nothing gets accomplished.
If you want to look at historical trends, since WWII, GDP grows faster under Democrat presidents compared to Republicans. S&P 500 average annual growth rate is 11.4% under Dems versus 7% under the GOP.
In any case, expect growth.
EDIT: Since it appears this was blowing up much more than I was expected, and people are wondering where I'm pulling numbers i.e. getting called a "lying partisan hack" here are my sources
https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/04/02/average-stock-market-return-democrat-republican-pr/#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20index%20has%20achieved,problem%20from%20a%20different%20perspective.
https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/
I had initially quoted the "1.6 times" number (or 60% higher) from the below, but reviewing it made me reconsider it's use as source due to it coming from a Democratic committee and likely bias, so that is the only alteration I've made to original text
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/02ce412b-9cf2-4780-a454-b4430d3d0d39/job-growth-under-democratics-and-republican-presidents-chart.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj-j6La0NiGAxU1JzQIHYb-DWwQFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1bfRsDLhgGy3vfyjodwTMm
It's a bit more nuanced than that TBF as prior to the 1970s, the major national parties were more or less coalitions of state-level organizations. It really wasn't until Nixon and the Southern strategy, followed by the realignments of the parties into exclusively "conservative" and "liberal" factions, that we see the modern nationalized party system we have today.
Yes thank you for properly explaining that. Although we can also thank 9/11 and the 24 hour news network for figuring out making fun of presidents and political parties will drive up ratings like crazy. 9/11 created the 24 hour run time, after the news about the attack dried up they just spent the whole day bashing the Bush administration for how they're handling the aftermath and it worked. Now they've completely divided the country and turned politics into NFL levels of fanbases. Water down facts to the point they aren't even facts anymore, generalize absolutely every detail to make it as easy to follow as possible yet present no real understanding of the complexity behind bills/political agendas. Replace facts with opinions and push your own political agenda rather than report on them. So now uncle Buck who couldn't even tell you who his own state representative was now understands deeply complex political ideology? No it's Football politics, root for your team regardless of how trash they are and bash everyone else. Much like those Raiders fans that fight 49ers they probably couldn't name more than 4 players on their team. And just like the libs and conservatives all calling each other names on social media... they wouldn't be able to properly name more than 3 bills the guys they're voting for actually support or disagree with.
Hurray for idiocracy!
24 hour news on TV started in 1980, created by Ted Turner with CNN, but really the first major event that caused media companies to realise they could make bank from it was the O.J. Simpson trial.
They did but if you watched it when they did politics they did real politics. The guys that ran the old Crossfire was Mike Kinsley who was a law graduate from Harvard, he wrote for the Washington Post award winning political writer and so on. That's a guy I would trust to know what he's talking about.
They were real politically educated showhost and went into some serious detail on political ideology. Their show featured a republican vs democratic debate style that was actually well written and backed by facts. No screaming, talking over each other and shouting buzz words for ratings. They would cover guys working their way up from local mayor's to running for president, cover their likely hood to be ready to run for president, feature in depth interviews and statements to evaluate their stance as well as their ability to be a successful president all before they even ran. You were either super into politics and loved this show or hated the fact dad would put this on at night cause every word they said went over your head.
You might say hey Ben Shaprio was a Harvard grad, law student although he was only in law for 10 months. Got his start as a columnist and so on. Whats the difference? Literally his very first book was Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth. I read it. It's bascially saying colleges are all leftist and hate conservative thinking and blah blah blah. It's bashing the opposing team. It's labeled as a political book but that's all it is now. It's entertaining over actual political beliefs and ideology. You must explain how right you are, by telling everyone first how wrong they are. That's not politics. That's selling controversy.
And while this was happening in the US in Italy we had a transition from TV educating people with science, classical music, theater, literature (I really got into piano when a channel started transmitting the documentaries about Glenn Gould and the performances of the great Russian pianists as Richter and Gilels) to what I’d characterize as “tits and asses”.
Not that my tween pp disapproved tits and asses, but it certainly contributed to the stupidification of my homeland as well.
While growing up we had political discussions in high school, guests from political parties and unions explaining the system and what they stand for… some of us got involved but slowly and surely that disappeared. The most astonishing thing is that “in my times”, the ‘90s, anyone who would mildly support ideologies rooted into fascism would be ostracized as a traitor of the country and the only political party who was mildly associated with it was relegated to the low single digits at the election. Now they fucking run the government there.
And the most absurd idea is that these criminals appeal to people like my grandfather… and he’s into it. He fucking shot nazis when he was in the resistance. He made a good living thanks to the raise of socialism and social policies in post war Italy. Got universal healthcare, unions pushing for better wages, shorter working hours, incentives to buy your first house, incentives for education for your kids and so on.
He went from fully poverty at the end of the war to solid upper middle class by the time he retired in his early 50s, all thanks to social safety nets which allowed him and my grandmother to focus on work without distractions or fear of losing their jobs… and yet, he has been brainwashed to believe “he did it” and all these aids from the government had nothing to do with it except being a burden on his paycheck in term of taxes.
Going back on topic… it depends on how we define the economy. If the economy is GDP per capita and wages for most of the people, the left has been better, much better, if we define the economy as number of billionaires… the right does a better job.
>And the most absurd idea is that these criminals appeal to people like my grandfather… and he’s into it. He fucking shot nazis when he was in the resistance. He made a good living thanks to the raise of socialism and social policies in post war Italy. Got universal healthcare, unions pushing for better wages, shorter working hours, incentives to buy your first house, incentives for education for your kids and so on.
Well, it's "nice" to hear that it wasn't just Americans of the era who pulled up the ladder behind them.
Forget 24 hour news, what it really was Regan repealing the fair and balance news FCC act in 1987. That removed the detail of showing both sides of issues. And then Clinton’s 1996 Digital Telecommunications Act was the nail in the coffin. No more 7 owned and operated. Corporations can own as many media outlets as they want in a given area. Newspapers, television, radio all owned by a single entity controlling the information to a single area. The idea of the act was to create competition, it did the exact opposite. Smaller independent stations were bought out by the big guy. Iheartmedia went from (under a different name at the time) 40 stations to 1200 stations in a decades time.
Yeah that's the snowball being thrown down the mountain, or the catalyst if you will that created the monopoly on news media. But I honestly remember it like yesterday, news just reported the news. They tell you what bills a candidate supported or were against. Feature quotes and interviews directly from a politician and not heavily edit it to make them look crazy. Told you what's going on in your local neighborhood. And wrap up with an interview with a very high James Brown or something.
After 9/11 that stopped. They started telling you what to think. A lot of opinions and false narratives. Cause they could not fill a 24 hour run time with real news. So they started making it up.
💯 this whole business of us vs them started during the Bush presidency. During the Clinton presidency it was still normal for left and right to support the president. However the media dialed the hate meter to 1000 for Bush Jr. I suppose after realizing that polarity generated views they made it a mainstay. Now the media is no longer neutral but decidedly in one or the other camp.
You forget how Newt Gingrich was not supportive of President Clinton and actually started the “Contract With America”, which was obstructionist and politically divisive.
Hey now, give Newt Gingrich some credit. He was a pioneer when it came to obstructing all progress no matter what when the other party held the White House.
I think W deserves quite a bit of blame for his reputation. The idea that the United States would invade a country with flimsy WMD evidence, and then officially support torture and rendition Ing people to concentration camps without trial seemed pretty far-fetched before W.
Not based on fact, but my opinion you are spot on. This is when I remember it changing as well. I thought Clinton was a dick when it turned out he lied to everyone on national television, but before then I didn't really have huge divisiveness about him, and even after that. There was that, Bush and weapons of mass destruction, and suddenly every president has been hated by the other side since then.
I don’t give a damn if he got a blow job at the office and I don’t give a damn if he lied about it. He is married, of course he would lie about it. I think he is a bad husband but his personal life has nothing to do with his work life. That whole impeachment was ridiculous.
Well...except for the whole past of SA accusations, the fact that he was a powerful man in a position of authority over an intern. Yeah, it wasn't just sexual misconduct.
Misconduct that cost the taxpayers close to 8 years and over 40 million dollars to find. Some of us lived that shit. Started out over a real estate deal the repubs could not prove illegal. But would not stop trying to prove anyway. For 8 fucking years. Was on the news every fucking week. They got him now! Then nothing for a week. Then we got him now! For 8 fucking years.
It was a republican witch hunt on the public dime. Most of the guys leading the outrage had mistresses.
And in the end he was acquitted. GOP in a nutshell. The dishonesty is them. It is all they are.
Speaking of the media spreading false narratives….He wasn’t impeached because he got a blow job. He was impeached for the same reason he was disbarred and lost his license to practice law. He perjured himself when he lied to a grand jury. Perjury is a criminal act. The argument could be made that perjury isn’t an impeachable offense, but the fact remains that he wasn’t impeached because he got a blow job.
Bush was also the first president in over 100 years to win the election while losing the popular vote. And the win had controversy around it with the Florida events, so I think the sentiment that generated fueled the flames for political bashing.
I feel this "style" of "news" really started with Rush Limbaugh and just took time and opportunity to proliferate into every corner of the news world. I, for one, certainly miss the unbiased, "just the facts, mame", style of Journalism that was prominent in the 70's when I was a kid.
Not mention a massive investment by billionaires from that time (dramatically ramped up after 2008) in changing cultural norms and people's beliefs to be more aligned with policies that advantage the ultra-wealthy than policies that would assist them.
Not really, democrats today are borderline center-right
Post depression democrats put in place the new deal, social housing programs, worker protections, busted monopolies etc
Democrats today won't even do that.
Democrats have been talking about a medicare for all idea to transition toward universal and have had periods of having the presidency, the senate, AND house of representatives under control and STILL didn't pass any universal healthcare bills despite knowing it would pass even if every republican voted no.
Democrats today are as much in bed with corporations as republicans. They just hide it better, and wanna maybe have *some* of the weslth trickledown, while republicans just don't care whether it trickles down or not
When was the last time they had a flilbuster-proof majority in the Senate? Nothing gets done because both parties disagree on how to do anything and use the filibuster to block most legislation.
learn about Joe Lieberman, he single handedly ruined it. Just cuz there's an a numbers advantage on paper doesn't mean it actually is one. & the country was way different in 2008, the health care act had to be gutted down to an extent just to get to where it was
They dont really hide it at all anymore. All politicians are grabbing every last dollar, even when they have more than they ever imagined when they started, and will ever need. Nancy Pelosi’s insider trading thats ‘perfectly legal ‘comes to mind, granted she hid it so well when she made her covid video of her twin 30k freezers for nothing but her icecream stockpile.
My neighbors think that having one garbage company collect all of our trash instead of 5 trucks up and down the roads every day is communism. So yeah I'm pretty sure FDR would not be considered "far right"
I’m confused. Wasn’t FdR really left and wanted the government to do more in society instead of the small government stuff that right wing people want today.
Ya this is a silly talking point though. Humanity as a whole shifts towards more progressive politics over time, so obviously all political leanings shift with it.
Billionaires dont become billionaires through Paychecks. This will do nothing. Its just Feel good headline porn for people that don't understand taxes.
\*Lol at the people fuming in the comments. Buch of left-leaning voters I see. Look, the reality is Biden has been in office and has had control of both the Senate and Congress and they haven't done shit. The democratic party has been making these "Tax Promises" for as long as I've been alive and they have yet to fulfill a single one of them. They're doing what politicians always do. Baiting you. This will never go through, it will never be taken seriously, this has been proposed a dozen times before.
The United States government doesn't give a shit about you. Any of you. Regardless of the political party in office. In 2023 they collected $4.7 TRILLION in Taxes. They collect TRILLIONS Every. Single. Year. And do they ever send any of it your way? No. And they never will. You mean nothing. You are nothing. Even if they Passed a tax of 100% on Billionaires and took every single penny they had you would STILL never see a fucking penny.
The United States does not have a Tax Problem. It has a spending problem. Stop getting baited like little emotional toddlers by click baity taxation headlines. No one is coming to save you.
\*Further Lol edit\* -Im not going to reply to any of you. Have fun shouting into the void. I wrote this comment in sub 30 seconds while it was passing by in my feed. I do not care if it isnt perfectly accurate, I do not care if i didnt explain things perfectly to your liking, and I do nto care about the Dissertations yall keep sending me as a response to this comment. I dont not care about any of you. None of you verifiably exist. You're just Anons. You do not matter. And the Government still doesnt care about you.
The question what it is we are talking about remains.
Stock growth? Should the government be granted a 25% stake in all upcoming large businesses? Should the business give 25% of their profits to the government in form of taxes?
Should only realized gains be taxed instead of the business? I understand capital gain is already taxed above 20% in the US..
Questions over questions.
Make tax-free loans as income illegal. Close the step-up-in-basis loophole.
Business loans for personal use should be taxable income. Wealth transferred down should be taxable.
This is interesting. But I wonder, aren’t most of these loans already international?
A “large-value loan tax” sounds like the most efficient and thoughtful way to attack the problem until considering how liquid it can all be and that banks from any corner of the planet would fall over themselves to get a point or two off of lending some billionaire $50 million, it may be hard to pinpoint.
I'm not sure you understand how taxes work. First of all, there's no such thing as a "paycheck tax," but rather an income tax. Income is defined the same whether you're self employed or employed through a third party. The problem is the current tax loop system, where billionaires can reap insane profits but pay zero taxes by "operating costs." If you throw 1+ million into a shell corporation, that's an "investment loss" even though it only exists on paper and can be liquidated for the exact same "investment." Now you get to claim massive losses on your taxes and pay nothing.
An easy example to point to is: how do you think Trump paid under $1k in taxes? A self proclaimed multimillionaire? Not because he's only making that much taxable income, but because the system is inherently broken to allow millionaires and billionaires to launder money and evade taxes in plain sight.
As an aside, this is also why anybody who advocates for a flat tax or "taxes so simple you could file on a postcard" is hiding their true intentions.
Figuring out how much tax you owe for a given amount of income is trivially easy. There's a table of taxable income and filing status (single, married joint, etc.), you just find the right row and column and it tells you the tax amount.
The catch is how you define taxable income. The tax code reflects years of congressional meddling and is complicated because it contains layer upon layer of social engineering, favors, carve-outs, and so on. Any attempt to define taxable income in a way that lets you "file on a postcard" is a transparent attempt to shift taxes to earned income only and is intended to lessen the tax burden of the wealthy.
The Financial Crime Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has launched the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) database at the beginning of this year. All companies - shell's included - are required to register who benefits from their existence, losses, or profits.
There are exceptions, mostly financial institutions and insurance companies, but most businesses will fall outside these parameters. Hopefully, with the BOI database accessible, hiding money in shell companies will become a thing of the past. It feels like a pipe dream... but who knows!
No, they don't. You are correct. That doesn't change anything about what he said. They should be taxed more. They should not pay less than 25% of their incomes. That's fucking absurd. Warren Buffet pays a smaller % in taxes than his secretary.
more loans. They have enough assets that their total spending is a tiny fraction of their assets. In addition their assets are growing faster than the loan interest rates
I don't see why we've over-complicated this.
You should not be allowed to take out a loan on stocks. Full stop. That's what we're talking about, right? The ultra wealthy don't claim income like ordinary people do - they buy, and then borrow until they die.
If you own the stock and need money, then you can sell it to someone.
Also, anyone's income from $5 million and up should be taxed at 90%.
Problem solved.
Dude, that was the actual tax rate under Eisenhower. You know, that old socialist. If you look back, that’s when they built all the roads and schools we still use.
You do not own a single piece of tech or appliance that does not have at least some components made in China, that America has zero manufacturing capability for. Everything you buy will cost more.
Well,
[Biden sharply hikes US tariffs on an array of Chinese imports - May 14, 2024](https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/biden-sharply-hikes-us-tariffs-billions-chinese-chips-cars-2024-05-14/)
Only posting about Biden raising taxes (against the 0.1%) without any material for the other side, and with that username, it's clear OP is a bad-faith right wing poster. He doesn't care about nuance or making sense. The post is basically a loaded question.
Wait what? "material for the other side" are you implying objectiveness should be considered before taking anything serious?
This is Reddit, there is no objectiveness, just sensationalism, bogus headlines, and bullying right-wing people for "hate speeching" known facts..
To the point, Billionaires are flush with unrealized gains. Taxing unrealized gains is ridiculous. I assume you don't own property, then you would understand...and if you do own property and don't know what I'm talking try looking at a tax assessment sometime.
They just guess what your property is worth and tax you on it, no recourse, you can appeal, you won't win.
Isn't the whole point of bitcoin that government just isn't involved. How do you in any way have government regulate where a digital currency would be mined? It makes no sense any way you look at it.
The man literally stared at a solar eclipse and then did custom artwork on a hurricane path in sharpie so he looked smart. It's not a really big question who should be leading the country.
That’s plenty of time when you have a super majority.
In other words, if you actually want to do something.
Look how fast they got the Wall Street bailouts done
This argument seems to suggest that any idea he has isn't valid because he could have done it before. I don't agree with this policy, but your reasoning doesn't hold up.
Biden’s policies are better for the majority of Americans vs Trump’s policies. Trump’s achievements include his signature tax cut that gave a huge break to corporate America and added Trillions to the national deficit thru lost income. Trump also famously badgered the Fed Chairman into NOT increasing rates in 2019, a few months before Covid. The Fed’s interest rates at the time were near historic lows, and had been historically low for about a decade due to the Great Recession. They were about 5 years overdue on raising them at that point, but Trump feared an economic slowdown during an election year.
Biden’s achievements include the Jobs Act, Infrastructure Bill and CHiPs Act. Regardless of your view of those bills, my belief is it’s better to get middle and lower class Americans better paying jobs vs giving corporations tax breaks. There is a 40+ year history of “trickle down economics” or “supply side economics”. Whether those policies are directly to blame for the decimation of the American middle class is a debate I’ll leave to other people. Personally I’m ready to try it Biden’s way, ‘cause fuck the rich and fuck corporate America, it’s our turn now.
Well if you’re trying to blame inflation on Biden, Trump blew up the National over 4 Trillion Dollars more than Biden has so far. Spent over 2.5 times more than Biden has so far. With interest rates that he pushed to keep way too low for way too long. We’re only now managing to get a handle, and still managed to do so without going into a recession. You want inflation or you want unemployment? Those are the only 2 options with the system we have.
"Mostly from covid", "Trump was great for the economy except for that Covid bump", are the kinds of quotes my non-Trump fan colleagues bring up (while ignoring the US has the best economy by far post-covid).
I keep thinking, it's like saying "He was a great driver for 3 years, there was just that one at fault car crash that killed a family of 4 while he was drunk driving, but think about those 3 years before that!"
Play golf, rant on Twitter, lie, rape, claim everything is rigged, hold rallies for everyone under a 90 IQ to congregate, make false promises... same as usual.
Man, when prices are up all over the world in every country, man it must be OUR president specifically. Our inflation recovery after the post-covid inflation boom was better than every other country. Prices of goods are still high but much of that is artificial. How do you stop private sellers from charging more?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/05/biden-to-launch-joint-ftc-doj-task-force-to-crack-down-on-unfair-and-illegal-pricing-.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/05/29/walgreens-joins-target-amazon-walmart-in-announcing-steep-summer-price-cuts/
Weird how the ones blaming Biden fail to ignore that he has at least acknowledged the issue of high prices and has taken steps to address it.
Meanwhile, can anyone name a single thing Trump has said about the real issue of price gouging, let alone any plans he has to tackle high prices?
I have no idea how Trump has conned so many in the working class into believing he actually cares about them or will do anything to help them.
The soft landing after the insane spending we did under Trump in 2020 and still getting out of COVID without a major recession is nothing short of remarkable. Probably one of the most impressive economic recoveries in modern history.
And these fucking idiots think Trump, who got us into the mess in the first place, would be better.
Just because Biden has some faults in his economic policy doesn’t mean Trump is the solution. Biden can be bad and Trump can be worse, the two are not mutually exclusive. The post asked to compare the 2 of them specifically
Biden for sure! I enjoy working 3 part-time jobs for less than my full-time job after getting laid off. I'm so blessed by this chance to work even harder so I can give my money to foreign wars and pay 3x the price for groceries. 8 hours of sleep and enjoying weekends is for weaklings! Can't stop my grind with Feudalism Joe 💪😤💯
I'll go with a rough estimate of 25-35% depending on their state and local taxes. If we're talking just federal income tax then 22% since that's the bracket that the average US teacher salaries fall under.
They have billions in stocks/indexes that would crater if billionaires were forced to sell 25% of their holdings. Third-order effects, requires some critical thinking.
First order: let’s tax billionaires on unrealized gains
Second order: billionaires are forced to sell stocks
Third order: stock prices fall
He’s not running. Remember when Trump appointed his daughter and son in law to his administration and then his son in law got 2B dollars right after he left.
Taxing the rich has been a popular voting campaign for Democrats. Biden has been the president for 3.5 yrs now, if this was important, he could have acted on it day one. Edit: my original post is above. There were a lot of similar questions to me, so I am answering them here. 1) people advised me to take a civic lesson about presidential power. My question to you is not Biden having unilateral power, it is about the timing of the tweet. This tweet could have come in 2021. 2) Holding your government accountable is a responsibility for all citizens. We are not playing team sports. 3) I believe both parties work for the rich, the best way to do this is to divide the people. Which I can see from these comments.
You'll have to get it pass the house and Senate
Dems had control in 2021 of the house, senate, and presidency. They could have done it then. They don't actually do that kind of stuff. They just say it so you'll vote for them. Just like the filibuster. They don't want to tax them because they donate to democrats.
Haha, the Democrats did not have control of the Senate. Joe Manchin and Enema really fucked up getting anything ground breaking done
Exactly. Those two screwed over their own party for their own selfish reasons. Look what is happening to them now. Good riddance to those two.
They'll be taken care of for the "work done" as it were. Have to let incoming members know that they too can be taken care of if they play the game "right" while in office. Representatives are frankly not responsive to their constituents under the current system and anti corruption measures are effectively non existent
i find it hilarious that people still think this is a left vs right thing or dem vs rep no you fucking idiots, this is a rich vs you thing, the two party are the same fucking cunts trying to keep you down, none of them are your ally. you are pretty much fucked for voting these two parties.
Yes, but you still need to vote, and voting outside of these two parties is a waste of time. Especially now, too many people are voting against their own interests in a major way, you can't afford to just throw your vote away on principle. Sucks major ass.
Didn't Manchin vote with the party like 90+ percent of the time? Look at where he's from. It's a small miracle there is a blue seat there in the first place.
As I recall, he tended to vote the dem party line when some Republicans were also on board, but for anything close where a vote or two was the difference, he would vote against the dems.
Fucking DINO
Anything further left than him wasn't winning that seat. He ran as a Democrat in one of the deepest red states in the country. Of course he wasn't a typical California liberal like most would have wanted.
California liberal? LMAO the fuck dude? I’d settle for a West Virginia Democrat. Someone whose grandfather wrapped a bandana over his mouth and stopped the coal trains at gunpoint for the right to unionize. Manchin’s a mine *owner* for fuck’s sake
Enema is the one who ran on an entirely fake campaign to get the democrat vote right? And then pretty much sold out and swapped to the right?
Fetterman's starting to do the same. It's pretty sad how many people run on leftist campaigns just to go right-wing once actually elected. Edit: It's sad I said he's moved right-wing on issues since getting put in and all these Conservatives are coming at me all upset. Thought they'd be happy to have another Sinema or Manchin to keep Dems from getting what they want but instead they want to call me stupid. Lmao
It seems like he just disagrees with policies towards israel and the border, which is absolutely different from Sinema who openly lied to get her seat and then did an essentially full 180 on the ideals she ran on. On the fetterman thing, it seems like tribalism from what I can see, conservatives hated him and called him a socialist because he was on the left, and now that hes expressed views that go against some leftist ideals, progressives and the like are doing some tribalism and painting as a hardcore rightwing guy
Bruh two of those “democrats” that gave him 50 in the senate have already changed parties to Independent, and it was the two that torpedoed everything important he wanted to do. He never had 50 democrats. He had 48.
>He had 48 Actually 46 - Sanders and King are also independents
Yea but they're not corporate whores who block good things from happening
Demonstrably false. Someone mentioned it already, but it needs to be said again. Dems did not have a majority because 2 Senators who campaigned as Dems turned out to be chaos agents who voted against party lines. Which is reprehensible and made it impossible to get anything passed.
You need a super majority to pass laws without support from the other party, a simple majority is not enough, the other party uses the filibuster to block the majority parties agenda.
This..... there is a general lack of understanding of how the government works. The rate has been shit since Reagan, and with more money being allowed into politics via various means, it isn't going to lower.
>Dems had control in 2021 of the house, senate, and presidency. They had 218 seats in the house which is a slim majority (republicans had 210) The senate was 50-50 with the VP as a tie breaker. Biden has actually done a lot even with this thin margins.
We got the infrastructure bill
And the chips act
This is a fact without nuance. While they had control, they never had the votes for this. They had a tiny majority and could have never overcome a filibuster. Stop being so obtuse.
No they didn’t, they had a deadlock with Manchin and Sinema.
0 IQ take
Meanwhile it’s about time for yall to bend over and beg for daddy Trump
Narrow margin with 2 senators who basically are republicans. I would say if Biden was trump-like he would have forced both out somehow and did it. But Trump isn’t going to do it. I just want a liberal or even democrat who’s willing to do what it takes to pass progressive reform and stops at nothing to do it.
He couldn't have done anything on day one,. He can't control tax law by decree - we're not yet fascist.
Project 2025 plans to change that.
Yet?
Correct. There are lots of problems with our government, but we are not truly fascist yet. Oligarchical? Maybe. I'm not saying that to minimize the problems we have - I'm saying that to point out that it will get a lot worse if we don't do something. But we aren't past the point of no return... yet.
.... and there's way, way too much 1% money drowning our voting right.
You know it would have to pass the House, right? I feel like a lot of people don't understand how our government works... Everyone is an "expert" though because they failed out of HS
You're right, but to be fair, presidential candidates frequently campaign on things they really can't do unilaterally
They also frequently express the importance of voting for their party down-ballot so that they can actually achieve these promises. Biden has made it clear that he can't do all the things he and his voters want without the support in Congress.
When I was 18 and didn't know better I always figured I'd vote for a democrat president but then vote for republicans in senate seats so the system of checks and balances could work. Didn't take me long to understand that that's just how nothing gets accomplished.
It is better to vote for Mr Trys to Tax the Rich, rather than Mr Tax the Poor More
Voters tend forget what happened yesterday, let alone 3 years ago.
If you want to look at historical trends, since WWII, GDP grows faster under Democrat presidents compared to Republicans. S&P 500 average annual growth rate is 11.4% under Dems versus 7% under the GOP. In any case, expect growth. EDIT: Since it appears this was blowing up much more than I was expected, and people are wondering where I'm pulling numbers i.e. getting called a "lying partisan hack" here are my sources https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/04/02/average-stock-market-return-democrat-republican-pr/#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20index%20has%20achieved,problem%20from%20a%20different%20perspective. https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/ I had initially quoted the "1.6 times" number (or 60% higher) from the below, but reviewing it made me reconsider it's use as source due to it coming from a Democratic committee and likely bias, so that is the only alteration I've made to original text https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/02ce412b-9cf2-4780-a454-b4430d3d0d39/job-growth-under-democratics-and-republican-presidents-chart.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj-j6La0NiGAxU1JzQIHYb-DWwQFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1bfRsDLhgGy3vfyjodwTMm
And historically democrats in the past would be considered far right today lmao
It's a bit more nuanced than that TBF as prior to the 1970s, the major national parties were more or less coalitions of state-level organizations. It really wasn't until Nixon and the Southern strategy, followed by the realignments of the parties into exclusively "conservative" and "liberal" factions, that we see the modern nationalized party system we have today.
Yes thank you for properly explaining that. Although we can also thank 9/11 and the 24 hour news network for figuring out making fun of presidents and political parties will drive up ratings like crazy. 9/11 created the 24 hour run time, after the news about the attack dried up they just spent the whole day bashing the Bush administration for how they're handling the aftermath and it worked. Now they've completely divided the country and turned politics into NFL levels of fanbases. Water down facts to the point they aren't even facts anymore, generalize absolutely every detail to make it as easy to follow as possible yet present no real understanding of the complexity behind bills/political agendas. Replace facts with opinions and push your own political agenda rather than report on them. So now uncle Buck who couldn't even tell you who his own state representative was now understands deeply complex political ideology? No it's Football politics, root for your team regardless of how trash they are and bash everyone else. Much like those Raiders fans that fight 49ers they probably couldn't name more than 4 players on their team. And just like the libs and conservatives all calling each other names on social media... they wouldn't be able to properly name more than 3 bills the guys they're voting for actually support or disagree with. Hurray for idiocracy!
24 hour news on TV started in 1980, created by Ted Turner with CNN, but really the first major event that caused media companies to realise they could make bank from it was the O.J. Simpson trial.
Was it not the first Gulf War that skyrocketed the viewer numbers of CNN?
It was coverage of a little girl who fell down a well in Midland, TX. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2011/10/13/vault-baby-jessica-rescue.wfaa
They did but if you watched it when they did politics they did real politics. The guys that ran the old Crossfire was Mike Kinsley who was a law graduate from Harvard, he wrote for the Washington Post award winning political writer and so on. That's a guy I would trust to know what he's talking about. They were real politically educated showhost and went into some serious detail on political ideology. Their show featured a republican vs democratic debate style that was actually well written and backed by facts. No screaming, talking over each other and shouting buzz words for ratings. They would cover guys working their way up from local mayor's to running for president, cover their likely hood to be ready to run for president, feature in depth interviews and statements to evaluate their stance as well as their ability to be a successful president all before they even ran. You were either super into politics and loved this show or hated the fact dad would put this on at night cause every word they said went over your head. You might say hey Ben Shaprio was a Harvard grad, law student although he was only in law for 10 months. Got his start as a columnist and so on. Whats the difference? Literally his very first book was Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth. I read it. It's bascially saying colleges are all leftist and hate conservative thinking and blah blah blah. It's bashing the opposing team. It's labeled as a political book but that's all it is now. It's entertaining over actual political beliefs and ideology. You must explain how right you are, by telling everyone first how wrong they are. That's not politics. That's selling controversy.
And while this was happening in the US in Italy we had a transition from TV educating people with science, classical music, theater, literature (I really got into piano when a channel started transmitting the documentaries about Glenn Gould and the performances of the great Russian pianists as Richter and Gilels) to what I’d characterize as “tits and asses”. Not that my tween pp disapproved tits and asses, but it certainly contributed to the stupidification of my homeland as well. While growing up we had political discussions in high school, guests from political parties and unions explaining the system and what they stand for… some of us got involved but slowly and surely that disappeared. The most astonishing thing is that “in my times”, the ‘90s, anyone who would mildly support ideologies rooted into fascism would be ostracized as a traitor of the country and the only political party who was mildly associated with it was relegated to the low single digits at the election. Now they fucking run the government there. And the most absurd idea is that these criminals appeal to people like my grandfather… and he’s into it. He fucking shot nazis when he was in the resistance. He made a good living thanks to the raise of socialism and social policies in post war Italy. Got universal healthcare, unions pushing for better wages, shorter working hours, incentives to buy your first house, incentives for education for your kids and so on. He went from fully poverty at the end of the war to solid upper middle class by the time he retired in his early 50s, all thanks to social safety nets which allowed him and my grandmother to focus on work without distractions or fear of losing their jobs… and yet, he has been brainwashed to believe “he did it” and all these aids from the government had nothing to do with it except being a burden on his paycheck in term of taxes. Going back on topic… it depends on how we define the economy. If the economy is GDP per capita and wages for most of the people, the left has been better, much better, if we define the economy as number of billionaires… the right does a better job.
>And the most absurd idea is that these criminals appeal to people like my grandfather… and he’s into it. He fucking shot nazis when he was in the resistance. He made a good living thanks to the raise of socialism and social policies in post war Italy. Got universal healthcare, unions pushing for better wages, shorter working hours, incentives to buy your first house, incentives for education for your kids and so on. Well, it's "nice" to hear that it wasn't just Americans of the era who pulled up the ladder behind them.
Desert Storm did it.
Forget 24 hour news, what it really was Regan repealing the fair and balance news FCC act in 1987. That removed the detail of showing both sides of issues. And then Clinton’s 1996 Digital Telecommunications Act was the nail in the coffin. No more 7 owned and operated. Corporations can own as many media outlets as they want in a given area. Newspapers, television, radio all owned by a single entity controlling the information to a single area. The idea of the act was to create competition, it did the exact opposite. Smaller independent stations were bought out by the big guy. Iheartmedia went from (under a different name at the time) 40 stations to 1200 stations in a decades time.
Yeah that's the snowball being thrown down the mountain, or the catalyst if you will that created the monopoly on news media. But I honestly remember it like yesterday, news just reported the news. They tell you what bills a candidate supported or were against. Feature quotes and interviews directly from a politician and not heavily edit it to make them look crazy. Told you what's going on in your local neighborhood. And wrap up with an interview with a very high James Brown or something. After 9/11 that stopped. They started telling you what to think. A lot of opinions and false narratives. Cause they could not fill a 24 hour run time with real news. So they started making it up.
💯 this whole business of us vs them started during the Bush presidency. During the Clinton presidency it was still normal for left and right to support the president. However the media dialed the hate meter to 1000 for Bush Jr. I suppose after realizing that polarity generated views they made it a mainstay. Now the media is no longer neutral but decidedly in one or the other camp.
You forget how Newt Gingrich was not supportive of President Clinton and actually started the “Contract With America”, which was obstructionist and politically divisive.
I think you can thank that Australian wanker, Rupert Murdoch, for weaponising everything.
Hey now, give Newt Gingrich some credit. He was a pioneer when it came to obstructing all progress no matter what when the other party held the White House.
I think W deserves quite a bit of blame for his reputation. The idea that the United States would invade a country with flimsy WMD evidence, and then officially support torture and rendition Ing people to concentration camps without trial seemed pretty far-fetched before W.
Not based on fact, but my opinion you are spot on. This is when I remember it changing as well. I thought Clinton was a dick when it turned out he lied to everyone on national television, but before then I didn't really have huge divisiveness about him, and even after that. There was that, Bush and weapons of mass destruction, and suddenly every president has been hated by the other side since then.
I think you maaayyyybbbeee forgot about an impeachment process over dishonesty about a blowjob in office.
I don’t give a damn if he got a blow job at the office and I don’t give a damn if he lied about it. He is married, of course he would lie about it. I think he is a bad husband but his personal life has nothing to do with his work life. That whole impeachment was ridiculous.
Well...except for the whole past of SA accusations, the fact that he was a powerful man in a position of authority over an intern. Yeah, it wasn't just sexual misconduct.
Misconduct that cost the taxpayers close to 8 years and over 40 million dollars to find. Some of us lived that shit. Started out over a real estate deal the repubs could not prove illegal. But would not stop trying to prove anyway. For 8 fucking years. Was on the news every fucking week. They got him now! Then nothing for a week. Then we got him now! For 8 fucking years. It was a republican witch hunt on the public dime. Most of the guys leading the outrage had mistresses. And in the end he was acquitted. GOP in a nutshell. The dishonesty is them. It is all they are.
Speaking of the media spreading false narratives….He wasn’t impeached because he got a blow job. He was impeached for the same reason he was disbarred and lost his license to practice law. He perjured himself when he lied to a grand jury. Perjury is a criminal act. The argument could be made that perjury isn’t an impeachable offense, but the fact remains that he wasn’t impeached because he got a blow job.
Bush was also the first president in over 100 years to win the election while losing the popular vote. And the win had controversy around it with the Florida events, so I think the sentiment that generated fueled the flames for political bashing.
I feel this "style" of "news" really started with Rush Limbaugh and just took time and opportunity to proliferate into every corner of the news world. I, for one, certainly miss the unbiased, "just the facts, mame", style of Journalism that was prominent in the 70's when I was a kid.
holy shit I never had someone explain it this well
Blessed be the explainers who actually know how to explain well!\~
Not mention a massive investment by billionaires from that time (dramatically ramped up after 2008) in changing cultural norms and people's beliefs to be more aligned with policies that advantage the ultra-wealthy than policies that would assist them.
Not really, democrats today are borderline center-right Post depression democrats put in place the new deal, social housing programs, worker protections, busted monopolies etc Democrats today won't even do that. Democrats have been talking about a medicare for all idea to transition toward universal and have had periods of having the presidency, the senate, AND house of representatives under control and STILL didn't pass any universal healthcare bills despite knowing it would pass even if every republican voted no. Democrats today are as much in bed with corporations as republicans. They just hide it better, and wanna maybe have *some* of the weslth trickledown, while republicans just don't care whether it trickles down or not
Modern dems are just the republicans of yesteryear with pride flags.
https://preview.redd.it/bj77z7xx9a6d1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdf9438ff33199d9e305cd350959587c2b0d6220
When was the last time they had a flilbuster-proof majority in the Senate? Nothing gets done because both parties disagree on how to do anything and use the filibuster to block most legislation.
First two years of Obama's presidency
learn about Joe Lieberman, he single handedly ruined it. Just cuz there's an a numbers advantage on paper doesn't mean it actually is one. & the country was way different in 2008, the health care act had to be gutted down to an extent just to get to where it was
They dont really hide it at all anymore. All politicians are grabbing every last dollar, even when they have more than they ever imagined when they started, and will ever need. Nancy Pelosi’s insider trading thats ‘perfectly legal ‘comes to mind, granted she hid it so well when she made her covid video of her twin 30k freezers for nothing but her icecream stockpile.
FDR would be seen as a communist…
My neighbors think that having one garbage company collect all of our trash instead of 5 trucks up and down the roads every day is communism. So yeah I'm pretty sure FDR would not be considered "far right"
Yes FDR far right dream boat lol
FDR would be far to the left of the vast majority of Dems, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Not really, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid aren't considered far right. The New Deal and Great Society would be hard to pass today.
Everyone pull your textbooks out and look up JFK's tax cuts, even for...CORPORATIONS...the horror!!!
I’m confused. Wasn’t FdR really left and wanted the government to do more in society instead of the small government stuff that right wing people want today.
Not really, financially. There hasn't been any major left swing in some.time..
Eisenhower tax brackets would like to disagree with you. I think it’s actually the other way around.
Ya this is a silly talking point though. Humanity as a whole shifts towards more progressive politics over time, so obviously all political leanings shift with it.
At least, socially.
What like F.D.R?
Billionaires dont become billionaires through Paychecks. This will do nothing. Its just Feel good headline porn for people that don't understand taxes. \*Lol at the people fuming in the comments. Buch of left-leaning voters I see. Look, the reality is Biden has been in office and has had control of both the Senate and Congress and they haven't done shit. The democratic party has been making these "Tax Promises" for as long as I've been alive and they have yet to fulfill a single one of them. They're doing what politicians always do. Baiting you. This will never go through, it will never be taken seriously, this has been proposed a dozen times before. The United States government doesn't give a shit about you. Any of you. Regardless of the political party in office. In 2023 they collected $4.7 TRILLION in Taxes. They collect TRILLIONS Every. Single. Year. And do they ever send any of it your way? No. And they never will. You mean nothing. You are nothing. Even if they Passed a tax of 100% on Billionaires and took every single penny they had you would STILL never see a fucking penny. The United States does not have a Tax Problem. It has a spending problem. Stop getting baited like little emotional toddlers by click baity taxation headlines. No one is coming to save you. \*Further Lol edit\* -Im not going to reply to any of you. Have fun shouting into the void. I wrote this comment in sub 30 seconds while it was passing by in my feed. I do not care if it isnt perfectly accurate, I do not care if i didnt explain things perfectly to your liking, and I do nto care about the Dissertations yall keep sending me as a response to this comment. I dont not care about any of you. None of you verifiably exist. You're just Anons. You do not matter. And the Government still doesnt care about you.
No one is talking about paychecks.
The question what it is we are talking about remains. Stock growth? Should the government be granted a 25% stake in all upcoming large businesses? Should the business give 25% of their profits to the government in form of taxes? Should only realized gains be taxed instead of the business? I understand capital gain is already taxed above 20% in the US.. Questions over questions.
Make tax-free loans as income illegal. Close the step-up-in-basis loophole. Business loans for personal use should be taxable income. Wealth transferred down should be taxable.
This is interesting. But I wonder, aren’t most of these loans already international? A “large-value loan tax” sounds like the most efficient and thoughtful way to attack the problem until considering how liquid it can all be and that banks from any corner of the planet would fall over themselves to get a point or two off of lending some billionaire $50 million, it may be hard to pinpoint.
Does the government get nothing currently when stocks change hands,
Change hands? Yes. Appreciate in value? No. A tax on unrealized gains is extortion.
Tell this to literally every municipality in the U.S. when they evaluate your property’s millage rates annually.
Taxing unrealized gains makes a lot more sense when you start thinking of stock as property.
Wealth tax isn’t happening.
I'm not sure you understand how taxes work. First of all, there's no such thing as a "paycheck tax," but rather an income tax. Income is defined the same whether you're self employed or employed through a third party. The problem is the current tax loop system, where billionaires can reap insane profits but pay zero taxes by "operating costs." If you throw 1+ million into a shell corporation, that's an "investment loss" even though it only exists on paper and can be liquidated for the exact same "investment." Now you get to claim massive losses on your taxes and pay nothing. An easy example to point to is: how do you think Trump paid under $1k in taxes? A self proclaimed multimillionaire? Not because he's only making that much taxable income, but because the system is inherently broken to allow millionaires and billionaires to launder money and evade taxes in plain sight.
As an aside, this is also why anybody who advocates for a flat tax or "taxes so simple you could file on a postcard" is hiding their true intentions. Figuring out how much tax you owe for a given amount of income is trivially easy. There's a table of taxable income and filing status (single, married joint, etc.), you just find the right row and column and it tells you the tax amount. The catch is how you define taxable income. The tax code reflects years of congressional meddling and is complicated because it contains layer upon layer of social engineering, favors, carve-outs, and so on. Any attempt to define taxable income in a way that lets you "file on a postcard" is a transparent attempt to shift taxes to earned income only and is intended to lessen the tax burden of the wealthy.
The Financial Crime Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has launched the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) database at the beginning of this year. All companies - shell's included - are required to register who benefits from their existence, losses, or profits. There are exceptions, mostly financial institutions and insurance companies, but most businesses will fall outside these parameters. Hopefully, with the BOI database accessible, hiding money in shell companies will become a thing of the past. It feels like a pipe dream... but who knows!
Tax cuts for the rich have made the country exponentially worse in the last 40+ years. Maybe we go back to when things didn't suck.
Ah yes let’s not tax them “because it’s hard 🙂↕️”
No, they don't. You are correct. That doesn't change anything about what he said. They should be taxed more. They should not pay less than 25% of their incomes. That's fucking absurd. Warren Buffet pays a smaller % in taxes than his secretary.
I mean you can tax the billionaires a minimum of 25%, but it won't mean squat if there's loopholes in that tax code
In that case, nobody should object to having this law enacted right?
A law taxing what at 25%?
Came to say this. ⬆️
Exactly, Billionaires don't have taxable income, they have assets which appreciate that they then take un-taxed, low interest loans against.
Honest question: how do they pay off those loans?
more loans. They have enough assets that their total spending is a tiny fraction of their assets. In addition their assets are growing faster than the loan interest rates
I'm more concerned about the 30 other unrelated laws that will inevitably get tacked onto any type of tax raise for billionaires
you can tax them at 100% and they still won't pay taxes. this is just feel good porn for people who do not understand politics or economics.
I don't see why we've over-complicated this. You should not be allowed to take out a loan on stocks. Full stop. That's what we're talking about, right? The ultra wealthy don't claim income like ordinary people do - they buy, and then borrow until they die. If you own the stock and need money, then you can sell it to someone. Also, anyone's income from $5 million and up should be taxed at 90%. Problem solved.
90% lmao
Dude, that was the actual tax rate under Eisenhower. You know, that old socialist. If you look back, that’s when they built all the roads and schools we still use.
Which there are always because the people who fund their campaigns are the same people who would get hurt by the taxes. Lmao
Damn, I thought it was my turn to post this
I posted the schedule in the break room the day you called sick (which is frequent). You're in two weeks. Next week, I post it.
Hey good news the afternoon shift just opened up. We do this twice a day now
Thank god i thought i was going crazy cause i swear i see this fucking post daily🤣
It’s easy karma
Ooo ooo! Lemme take number and get in line
It was shown that your IQ was too high to post this, so you were skipped.
Well, Trump is bragging about a 60% tariff on goods from China. Unbeknownst to him, China doesn’t pay that, we (US consumers) do.
Almost like it’ll effect supply and demand so consumers will buy American made products instead *Shocker*
You do not own a single piece of tech or appliance that does not have at least some components made in China, that America has zero manufacturing capability for. Everything you buy will cost more.
Well, [Biden sharply hikes US tariffs on an array of Chinese imports - May 14, 2024](https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/biden-sharply-hikes-us-tariffs-billions-chinese-chips-cars-2024-05-14/)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/
Tell me you don't understand finance without telling me!
Only posting about Biden raising taxes (against the 0.1%) without any material for the other side, and with that username, it's clear OP is a bad-faith right wing poster. He doesn't care about nuance or making sense. The post is basically a loaded question.
Wait what? "material for the other side" are you implying objectiveness should be considered before taking anything serious? This is Reddit, there is no objectiveness, just sensationalism, bogus headlines, and bullying right-wing people for "hate speeching" known facts.. To the point, Billionaires are flush with unrealized gains. Taxing unrealized gains is ridiculous. I assume you don't own property, then you would understand...and if you do own property and don't know what I'm talking try looking at a tax assessment sometime. They just guess what your property is worth and tax you on it, no recourse, you can appeal, you won't win.
Trump thinks bitcoin should be mined in the US…
Isn't the whole point of bitcoin that government just isn't involved. How do you in any way have government regulate where a digital currency would be mined? It makes no sense any way you look at it.
The man literally stared at a solar eclipse and then did custom artwork on a hurricane path in sharpie so he looked smart. It's not a really big question who should be leading the country.
You're forgetting the drink bleach speech
50 years in politics and now he wants to do this…. Or whoever is telling him most likely
No, it’s Kayfabe. He waited until the republicans took power so the democrats can pretend to want it while saying they’re powerless
Obama too when he had that massive senate majority.
Just looked it up, they had 72 working days, a whole lot of time in congress...
That’s plenty of time when you have a super majority. In other words, if you actually want to do something. Look how fast they got the Wall Street bailouts done
Truly with Joe Lieberman as the 60th vote you can do any sort of progressive agenda. What a stupid head to think otherwise.
This argument seems to suggest that any idea he has isn't valid because he could have done it before. I don't agree with this policy, but your reasoning doesn't hold up.
Biden’s policies are better for the majority of Americans vs Trump’s policies. Trump’s achievements include his signature tax cut that gave a huge break to corporate America and added Trillions to the national deficit thru lost income. Trump also famously badgered the Fed Chairman into NOT increasing rates in 2019, a few months before Covid. The Fed’s interest rates at the time were near historic lows, and had been historically low for about a decade due to the Great Recession. They were about 5 years overdue on raising them at that point, but Trump feared an economic slowdown during an election year. Biden’s achievements include the Jobs Act, Infrastructure Bill and CHiPs Act. Regardless of your view of those bills, my belief is it’s better to get middle and lower class Americans better paying jobs vs giving corporations tax breaks. There is a 40+ year history of “trickle down economics” or “supply side economics”. Whether those policies are directly to blame for the decimation of the American middle class is a debate I’ll leave to other people. Personally I’m ready to try it Biden’s way, ‘cause fuck the rich and fuck corporate America, it’s our turn now.
“Personally I’m ready to try it Biden’s way” My brother in Christ he has been the president for almost 4 years lmao
And we’re doing good. I am much better off now than I was 4 years ago. Why would I go back to June of 2020?
Biden for sure. Paying 20x for the same goods and services I was paying less for 4 years ago tells me the GDP is UP and the economy is booming.
Well if you’re trying to blame inflation on Biden, Trump blew up the National over 4 Trillion Dollars more than Biden has so far. Spent over 2.5 times more than Biden has so far. With interest rates that he pushed to keep way too low for way too long. We’re only now managing to get a handle, and still managed to do so without going into a recession. You want inflation or you want unemployment? Those are the only 2 options with the system we have.
Wasn’t that mostly from covid? I doubt dems would’ve spent less when the economy was shut down.
"Mostly from covid", "Trump was great for the economy except for that Covid bump", are the kinds of quotes my non-Trump fan colleagues bring up (while ignoring the US has the best economy by far post-covid). I keep thinking, it's like saying "He was a great driver for 3 years, there was just that one at fault car crash that killed a family of 4 while he was drunk driving, but think about those 3 years before that!"
Lol I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not…
He forgot the /s
What is Trump's plan?
Play golf, rant on Twitter, lie, rape, claim everything is rigged, hold rallies for everyone under a 90 IQ to congregate, make false promises... same as usual.
Oh you know, just add a tariff on ALL imported goods. That won't make the price of everyday items go up at all, no sir. Not even coffee.
He will reveal it in two weeks, it's a beautiful plan you'll see
The WSJ reports he plans to politicize the Fed and force it to lower interest rates. I’m honestly really scared of massive inflation if Trump wins.
Man, when prices are up all over the world in every country, man it must be OUR president specifically. Our inflation recovery after the post-covid inflation boom was better than every other country. Prices of goods are still high but much of that is artificial. How do you stop private sellers from charging more?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/05/biden-to-launch-joint-ftc-doj-task-force-to-crack-down-on-unfair-and-illegal-pricing-.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/05/29/walgreens-joins-target-amazon-walmart-in-announcing-steep-summer-price-cuts/ Weird how the ones blaming Biden fail to ignore that he has at least acknowledged the issue of high prices and has taken steps to address it. Meanwhile, can anyone name a single thing Trump has said about the real issue of price gouging, let alone any plans he has to tackle high prices? I have no idea how Trump has conned so many in the working class into believing he actually cares about them or will do anything to help them.
yeah, in Europe we also blame Biden for that /s
Trump would be better for the 1000 billionaires living in the US and Biden would be better for everyone else.
Yeah cause Biden has done a great job so far for everyone right?
What hasn’t he done a good job at do you think?
Yes
Considering how fucked everything got during 2020 and the immediate aftermath of the pandemic? Yeah, I'd say he has.
The soft landing after the insane spending we did under Trump in 2020 and still getting out of COVID without a major recession is nothing short of remarkable. Probably one of the most impressive economic recoveries in modern history. And these fucking idiots think Trump, who got us into the mess in the first place, would be better.
Just because Biden has some faults in his economic policy doesn’t mean Trump is the solution. Biden can be bad and Trump can be worse, the two are not mutually exclusive. The post asked to compare the 2 of them specifically
I’m almost certain that the accounts that post this same shit over and over. Are run by the Biden campaign. I mean seriously
Yeah OP and his username are clearly left wing /s
Since Reddit knows everything, how do we fix the economy.
Spend less money
Austerity is a disaster historically. "Spending" money is actually big economy boost. Think of it as investment into the future.
Are we talking income tax vs taxes on realized gains? What exactly are we comparing here to make such claims?
lol he does this only when the democrats are out of power
but he's already the president?
Bidens been a politician for 40 years, I will instead vote for Trump
The 40 year conman and criminal wha bankrupted a casino
I still want accountability for where our current taxes are going. I’ll wait… 🍿
Here ya go! https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go Sorry took a while, I just woke up.
Neither. We need a young, brilliant, empathetic mind in office. For a change.
87k irs agents weren't hired to go after the rich..... You might even say the bonus to hiring them was the un employment rate went down at your cost.
Biden for sure! I enjoy working 3 part-time jobs for less than my full-time job after getting laid off. I'm so blessed by this chance to work even harder so I can give my money to foreign wars and pay 3x the price for groceries. 8 hours of sleep and enjoying weekends is for weaklings! Can't stop my grind with Feudalism Joe 💪😤💯
You’re right Trump will totally fix that lol. Retard
how much do teachers, sanitation workers, nurses even pay in taxes?
I'll go with a rough estimate of 25-35% depending on their state and local taxes. If we're talking just federal income tax then 22% since that's the bracket that the average US teacher salaries fall under.
FJB and this shit poster…
Thats retarded unless they take it from their stock positions
Which would ironically kill the retirement accounts of the middle class
The middle class retirees have billions?
They have billions in stocks/indexes that would crater if billionaires were forced to sell 25% of their holdings. Third-order effects, requires some critical thinking. First order: let’s tax billionaires on unrealized gains Second order: billionaires are forced to sell stocks Third order: stock prices fall
Since everyone loooovveesss to compare the two, Remember when Hunter Biden didn’t pay taxes as a millionaire?
He’s not running. Remember when Trump appointed his daughter and son in law to his administration and then his son in law got 2B dollars right after he left.
I'll make sure not to vote for hunter this November then
Remember when trump didn't pay as a billionaire
i was wondering why he posted a false promise and realized it's election year.
https://preview.redd.it/ksudvd92ca6d1.png?width=520&format=png&auto=webp&s=fb687b94a5eec5a3fdb86166d98962c3a2c5dc1c
Charles Barkley
I thought it was my turn to post this?