That's a possibility but at the end of the day, its fairly normal for people to want to pay less, not more taxes because they frame life through their individual experiences and interests, and less through a lens of community.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
That's a possibility but at the end of the day, its fairly normal for people to want to pay less, not more taxes because they frame life through their individual experiences and interests, and less through a lens of community.
Independents, especially in a state like Florida, represent a considerable share.
By what measure? Life expectancy? Child poverty? Stillbirths? Air quality? Water quality? Employees rights? Access to quality education? Working hours? Access to healthcare? Sure there's countries where life is currently worse, but it's hard to find another country as rich that's even comparable on most of the metrics. I guess it depends on how one defines functioning, but the reaction to the worst crisis this century, covid, at the very least was disfunctional, and the proof is in the numbers.
Agree with all your other points though.
Yes and No. I’m pro taxation and equality.
But if your job isn’t tied to a State, why would you live there when it’s cheaper elsewhere?
A mansion in California is comparable to one in Texas.
Anyone done a electoral map prediction yet?
This is what I currently have.
This is what I currently have.
The amount of government funded infrastructure that is required for anyone that earns that much is obscene. The idea they had nothing to do with generating it is beyond ridiculous. Who do you think funded the majority of their staff’s education up to the age of 18? Who maintains the roads they rely on and maintains security of the airspace’s they depend on? Who looks after the water and waste systems? Who defends their intellectual property? Subsidies their logistics? That’s before you get into any government grants that help start businesses or stimulate them when times get rough.
It’s so ignorant to think that most mega earns out there are in some way independent of government help or have got where they are without any of the benefits they provide.
no... you have registered democrats, registered republicans, and non affiliated / independents
I believe there are 44 million or so registered democrats and about 34 million republicans with a similar number of independents
therefore if over 50% of the votes returned are from registered democrats its statistically significant... (though not as significant as if the supreme court is going to chuck half of them out or not when trump asks them to)
Very true. I was still hoping that people as intelligent as Chapelle would see the bigger picture.
I don't want to pay any more taxes than I have to either. But for the same money, would you rather live in Vancouver or Cleveland? Assuming you're not a huge Rocknroll fan
I realise but once you get into their realm it is pretty much on everything they earn as the 400k is a small percentage. if you earn 30,000,000 like Lebron, you give 61% of your total earnings to the government. That's insane.
They could also remove the various loopholes as well as redirect the insane expenditure on defence.
Anyone done a electoral map prediction yet?
This is what I currently have.
From your spoiler to God's ears my friend.
Good read that - of course Trump wants to play down Covid - it's robbing his hotels of customers.
I’d switch GA due to homerism, but I will take this result in a heartbeat.Anyone done a electoral map prediction yet?
This is what I currently have.
This is not an argument against paying tax!
No more money was spent on sports stars or wealthy comedians than anyone else in the country including those who are poor. The point is if I grew up in the ghettos of Akron and my athletic ability allowed me to excel and revenue is generated by regular Joe's who pay to watch me play, as well as shirt sales, sponsorships etc, in what capacity is the government owed 60% + of my earnings?
Not true at all.
Again, the point is that the reason you are able to earn that much money as a “sports star“ is because of all those things I listed. The police ensure every game you play is secure, the courts defend your image rights and the brands you wear, the list goes on and on. If you took the government out of the picture and had to stump up the money for everything themselves 60-70% would look like great value. It’s pointless to compare that with people who earn 50k, the scope of what you are dependent on the government for goes up exponentially with what you earn.
Well the highest tax brackets in the blue parts of the US are already higher than most of Europe so raising W-2 taxes even more is not the solution to why the US can't afford healthcare or education.
Eliminating tax breaks for the extremely rich (not on a W-2), defense spending and corruption are much bigger reasons.
Raising W-2 taxes is a simplistic and incorrect approach.
Chapelle has lived in Dayton Ohio for years. He’s built aspects of the town up and become a part of it. He pays more into the town than taxation would. Bad example.
Don’t get the bold. It’s the opposite of what we’re saying?
I think we’re kind of agreeing though.
If you’re LeBron, you just move franchises into a lower taxation state.
I’d like to know what the high/low comparison was on like for like earners by state.
I thought he lived on a farm? But if he's paying more than taxation would, wouldn't he be better off if it had been done through taxation, and every other Dayton around the US would have gotten the same benefit (for less of his money) than just the one he happens to live in?
It was in response to the statement that a mansion in Texas is the same as a mansion in California. It isn't.
This really negates the importance of the infrastructure, education, economic policy and safe and secure borders that these people leveraged to become so successful.
Disagree. None of those things are even possible to quantify. Many basketball franchises have their own security for example. You haven't provided an extensive list of their possible expenditures, just claimed that 60-70% of their earnings is mostly because of their governments. No one is taking the government out of the picture in terms of removing them. I am just saying its may be perfectly possible to earn large sums of money through sports without large government influence or regulation. The British government believe football isn't even regulated properly.
Players get paid ridiculous sums in Qatar and many other countries. Is it really the US or UK government that allows players to earn a lot or the popularity of their sport? Are other European nations demanding 62%? if not then........
Last edited:
Yeah ok but I am not saying they should not pay tax altogether. most countries in Europe have all of this and are not demanding 62% tax
No, you were saying the government had nothing to do with their massive incomes, when the truth is they have a lot to do with it, just indirectly.
Anyway, tax structures are usually graded as someone mentioned above. For the parts of your income that end up in the top bracket, yes, it seems almost punitive but these people are still raking it in. It's not likely a burden for them the way that it is for people in the lower tax brackets.
Sports and music celebrities are high profile but aren't a representative example of high earners. C*O executives, major stockholders, landlords, etc. All that relies on govt infrastructure and more fundamentally govt setting and enforcing the rules of the market. Of course, none of the latter category are seriously taxed because their earnings are stocks not money.
Ok I was being hyperbolic. Obviously a person living in a wealthier stable country will most likely earn more than someone in a ruined country
True. I am looking at celebrities mainly because I was thinking of Lebron James because the intial poster mentioned him. I was also thinking Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfreys of the world (celeb billionaires) etc but yeah there are many types of wealthy people
+2.5% in popular vote is a tie in the electoral college.
Biden needs to win by +4 to clearly win on election night.
Another poll that is tightening in the last few weeks like 2016
This poll had Trump up by 2 on election day 2016 and Hillary wound up winning the popular vote by 2.9 - so a 5 point swing in accuracy, which if applied today would have Biden up by about 7 or 8 and would be completely in the range of most national polls.
Same polls also had Biden up 8 only 5 days ago.
Anyone done a electoral map prediction yet?
This is what I currently have.
I like your optimism, but this is 2020. It'll be more like this, and the SC will award Wisconsin or Pennsylvania to Trump over some shady ballot thing.
Newsmax actually has a television station?!?
I'm all for taxing the rich and good social security and public infrastructure but you don't get anything in return for paying the state tax.
Apparently it is.Please tell me that's real
Ha too good. Though i dont want to laugh too much bc I remember all the Rs comparing Obama to Hitler and distributing pics of him with the mustache even. I don't want to stoop that low.
By the way - what's up with Jorgensen pulling 3% in the polls? Spoiler candidate again?
Not a chance Trump is winning Michigan.I like your optimism, but this is 2020. It'll be more like this, and the SC will award Wisconsin or Pennsylvania to Trump over some shady ballot thing.
Don’t recall ever seeing her that high very often in the past. Might support the thought that this overall poll is a bit of an outlier. Who the hell knows?
- Status