NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

[Kurve]

Here is US Politics - Pt 1

 

[Lebbo73]

Incorrect.
I hardly post on SRP for a start, and trickle down economics is one of the most well-debunked economic theories.

Trickle down economics is when you give money to the ones at the top in the hope that it’ll make it to the bottom. Getting rid of theft via income tax is not trickle down economics.

 

[Lebbo73]

Certainly not in the US - the wealth inequality is far more pronounced than in Australia (shamefully so). Anecdotally, 1 in 7 US adults requires food stamps. I'm not sure we appreciate how lucky we are in Australia to be honest.

Even in Australia, with significant superannuation holdings, the top 20% overwhelmingly own the majority of ASX listed stocks.

As best as I can find, the bottom 90% of US households by income own roughly 11% of US listed shares.
42% of US listed stock is owned by foreign investors.

This gap keeps widening under your preferred welfare State. Why is this so?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Certainly not in the US - the wealth inequality is far more pronounced than in Australia (shamefully so). Anecdotally, 1 in 7 US adults requires food stamps. I'm not sure we appreciate how lucky we are in Australia to be honest.

Even in Australia, with significant superannuation holdings, the top 20% overwhelmingly own the majority of ASX listed stocks.

As best as I can find, the bottom 90% of US households by income own roughly 11% of US listed shares.
42% of US listed stock is owned by foreign investors.

The term 'foreign investors' is pretty scary, but a lot of those 'foreign investors' are likely funds like Australian and Canadian super funds. You'll of course have your big private wealth holders and sovereign wealth funds from Saudi and China, but those holdings (the foreign wealth ones) are actually heavily regulated and aren't as common as you think, they generally have larger holdings in less regulated areas such as Africa, the Middle East, South America, South East Asia and Eastern Europe.

So if we're to take your position that corporate tax cuts aren't good for the US as a whole, more money in the hands of shareholders as opposed to the US government is still a good thing for the world as a whole and helps the global middle class, including here in Australia.

 

[EasternTiger]

Ah Ad hominems - cult members really can't control their emotions, can they?

Trickle-down has failed.
Trump's tax cuts, when accounting for state taxes and healthcare effects (which some try to ignore to skew the data) overwhelmingly favoured the already well-off.

It also failed to deliver any sort of economic stimulus.

After Decades of Costly, Regressive, and Ineffective Tax Cuts, a New Course Is Needed | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Grassley, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this morning at this important hearing. I am Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax...

www.cbpp.org

View attachment 2055194

Lucky for the elites, the useful idiots for the 1% vote on ideology rather than facts. Hence the GOP are happy to fan the flames of CTs/misinformation.

Even after I had a word to you about dodgy sources, you’ve decided to ignore commonsense and instead doubled down with the the same ‘think tank’ links which FK has already pointed out aren’t credible.

We try to gently point you guys in the right direction but it appears our efforts are in vain.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Hunter Biden for Vice President

From what we have seen of him, is much more manly than Sleepy Don.

 

[Satan]

Hunter Biden for Vice President

From what we have seen of him, is much more manly than Sleepy Don.

If laura trump can be rnc chair why not

 

[Mofra]

This gap keeps widening under your preferred welfare State. Why is this so?

The US is not a welfare state by any means.
They have the most expensive (per capita) and the least effective healthcare system in the OECD for example. Massive, massive corporate gouiing in the supply chain to hospitals is a massive factor.

 

[Mofra]

Trickle down economics is when you give money to the ones at the top in the hope that it’ll make it to the bottom. Getting rid of theft via income tax is not trickle down economics.

The income tax cuts are overwhelmingly targeted towards high income earners (and corporate entities) so yes, removing the progressive elements of the tax system is underpinned by defunct notion of trickle down economics.

It's paid for by massive, massive deficits - it's corporate socialism that conservatives used to oppose.

 

[Mofra]

The term 'foreign investors' is pretty scary, but a lot of those 'foreign investors' are likely funds like Australian and Canadian super funds. You'll of course have your big private wealth holders and sovereign wealth funds from Saudi and China, but those holdings (the foreign wealth ones) are actually heavily regulated and aren't as common as you think, they generally have larger holdings in less regulated areas such as Africa, the Middle East, South America, South East Asia and Eastern Europe.

So if we're to take your position that corporate tax cuts aren't good for the US as a whole, more money in the hands of shareholders as opposed to the US government is still a good thing for the world as a whole and helps the global middle class, including here in Australia.

I have no problem with tax cuts being applied to the lower and middle classes - there are a lot of studies that show tax cuts provided to the people who actually spend it (rather than high income earners who invest it) do far more for economic stimulus. In the modern era, they're less inflationary than the retention of corporate profits as well. Stiglitz writes quite a lot about this is and is worth listening to.

The problem is that US tax cuts are targeted towards high income earners and it just does not provide the same benefit.
FWIW 'foreign investors' also includes large entities incorporated in tax havens as well (e.g. Caymen Islands) which will use a separate management LLC that is US domiciled (often Delaware). BlackRock seem to own 5% of everything.

There is however a long term structural issue when deficit-funding is used on tax cuts that have shown to provide no economic stimulus. The US was in bad shape before deficits exploded to 4%, 4.5% of annual GDP under Trump. Continuing to kick the can down the road is really really poor policy.

 

[EasternTiger]

Kamala would make a tremendous candidate imho

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I have no problem with tax cuts being applied to the lower and middle classes - there are a lot of studies that show tax cuts provided to the people who actually spend it (rather than high income earners who invest it) do far more for economic stimulus. In the modern era, they're less inflationary than the retention of corporate profits as well. Stiglitz writes quite a lot about this is and is worth listening to.

The problem is that US tax cuts are targeted towards high income earners and it just does not provide the same benefit.
FWIW 'foreign investors' also includes large entities incorporated in tax havens as well (e.g. Caymen Islands) which will use a separate management LLC that is US domiciled (often Delaware). BlackRock seem to own 5% of everything.

There is however a long term structural issue when deficit-funding is used on tax cuts that have shown to provide no economic stimulus. The US was in bad shape before deficits exploded to 4%, 4.5% of annual GDP under Trump. Continuing to kick the can down the road is really really poor policy.

I agree with this entirely. The US needs to drastically cut spending.

 

[MrKK]

BlackRock seem to own 5% of everything.

Uh oh, now you've done it.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Uh oh, now you've done it.

Mal to call Mofra an anti-semite in 3, 2...

 

[EasternTiger]

Mal to call Mofra an anti-semite in 3, 2...

They will only respond if you enclose nazi keywords in parentheses thus ((( )))

6 brackets is code for 666 which is the mark of the nazi devil.

 

[Malifice]

Trickle down economics is when you give money to the ones at the top in the hope that it’ll make it to the bottom. Getting rid of theft via income tax is not trickle down economics.

Trump has proposed getting rid of (Federal) income tax but simultaneously imposing tariffs (of up to 85 percent) on all imports to compensate.

In case you haven't switched on, the makers of the goods subject to the tariffs will foist that increase on the goods, resulting in stuff costing 85 percent more at the checkout.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewleahey/2024/06/14/can-trump-eliminate-the-income-tax/

When tariffs are applied broadly, as Trump appears to be suggesting, the price increase affects a similarly broad set of goods—essentially, everything that is imported. Retailers and wholesalers will pass on those added expenses to consumers, leading directly to higher prices at checkout.

Such price hikes in everyday goods disproportionately impact low and middle-income households, because they are the consumers that spend the highest percentage of their income on consumable goods. This converts a progressive income tax—higher income folks pay a higher rate—into a regressive tax, akin to a sales tax. As such, in the near term, the only groups benefiting from the elimination of a broad-based income tax and the ratcheting up of tariffs are those folks at the higher end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

Everyday necessities, like clothing, food, and household goods, as well as significant purchases like electronics, vehicles, and equipment, will immediately increase in price. Even goods entirely produced domestically, and thus not directly subject to tariffs, may see price hikes—as demand outstrips supply.

It's crazy that the Republicans (the party of Adam Smith and trade liberalization) would even consider such a proposal:

When there is no probability that any such repeal [of a tariff in a foreign country] can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them. When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class. (Bk. 4, Ch. 2)

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/adam-smith-trump-tariffs/

The above was written over 200 years ago.

The USA is the worlds number 1 importer of goods. They import 3 trillion USD per year, comprising 15 percent of their total GDP.

The cost of living would skyrocket if Trump follows through on his plan.

You do get this right?

 

[EasternTiger]

The Biden administration spent $7.5 billion dollars over 2 years for a grand total of 7 EV charging stations.

When asked for comment Karine responded with “Let me be very clear…the republicans”

 

[EasternTiger]

Trump has proposed getting rid of (Federal) income tax but simultaneously imposing tariffs (of up to 85 percent) on all imports to compensate.

In case you haven't switched on, the makers of the goods subject to the tariffs will foist that increase on the goods, resulting in stuff costing 85 percent more at the checkout.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewleahey/2024/06/14/can-trump-eliminate-the-income-tax/





It's crazy that the Republicans (the party of Adam Smith and trade liberalization) would even consider such a proposal:



https://taxfoundation.org/blog/adam-smith-trump-tariffs/

The above was written over 200 years ago.

The USA is the worlds number 1 importer of goods. They import 3 trillion USD per year, comprising 15 percent of their total GDP.

The cost of living would skyrocket if Trump follows through on his plan.

You do get this right?

The cost of living has already skyrocketed under Biden.

You don’t need to model or forecast out 10 years.

It is literally happening right in front of you!

You do get this right?

 

[Malifice]

The cost of living has already skyrocketed under Biden.

You can thank Trumps tariffs and tax cuts for the wealthy, both of which caused inflation (and prices) to spike.

Those tariffs got passed onto the consumer. This accelerated the cost of living crisis.

What economic policy of Biden do you think contributed to rising costs of living?

 

[Bostonian]

Kamala would make a tremendous candidate imho

He died 4 years ago.

 

[EasternTiger]

You can thank Trumps tariffs and tax cuts for the wealthy, both of which caused inflation (and prices) to spike.

Those tariffs got passed onto the consumer. This accelerated the cost of living crisis.

What economic policy of Biden do you think contributed to rising costs of living?

Do you think Kamala will carry on the superlative job Biden has done, or has he set the bar too high thereby setting his successor up for spectacular failure?

 

[Malifice]

Do you think Kamala

No, I asked you to point to the specific economic policy of Biden that has caused the cost of living crisis.

Don't be a coward. Tell me which policy of his it was that you think caused it.

 

[Lebbo73]

The income tax cuts are overwhelmingly targeted towards high income earners (and corporate entities) so yes, removing the progressive elements of the tax system is underpinned by defunct notion of trickle down economics.

It's paid for by massive, massive deficits - it's corporate socialism that conservatives used to oppose.

It’s backed by an insolvent banking system that creates money out of thin air and then charges interest when it floods the financial system with this fake money. No wonder inflation is so high.
This money is then given to the MIC, Ukraine, Big Pharma, etc. They don’t need income tax. That’s just stealing from the productive side of the economy.

 

[EasternTiger]

No, I asked you to point to the specific economic policy of Biden that has caused the cost of living crisis.

Don't be a coward. Tell me which policy of his it was that you think caused it.

Do you agree there is a cost of living crisis in 2024?

This is not a trick question. You don't have to look at wikipedia.

You can answer Yes or No.

 

[Malifice]

banking system that creates money out of thin air

The banks create money out of loan repayments.

Loans (like gold or silver) are assets and have value:

In recent years, some have claimed that banks create money ‘ex nihilo’. This column explains that banks do not create money out of thin air. From an economic viewpoint, commercial banks create private money by transforming an illiquid asset (the borrower’s future ability to repay) into a liquid one (bank deposits); they would quickly be insolvent otherwise. In addition to bank solvency representing a constraint on private money creation, banks require access to liquid reserves in order to be able to engage in money creation.

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/banks-do-not-create-money-out-thin-air

When a Bank deposits money in your account, they create a deficit on their own account, with this deficit backed up by the asset of 'the value of money other people owe them' (instead of simply backed up by another asset, such as 'the value of Gold').

Arguing for a 'return to the Gold standard' is just arguing to replace one social construct with no inherent value other than what we choose to place on it (the value of gold as an asset) with another social construct with no inherent value other than the one we place on it (the value of an outstanding loan as an asset)

And in any event, what on earth makes you think that 'abolishing income tax' has anything to do with banking?

 

[Malifice]

Do you agree there is a cost of living crisis in 2024?

This is not a trick question. You don't have to look at wikipedia.

You can answer Yes or No.

No, I asked you to point to the specific economic policy of Biden that has caused the cost of living crisis.

Don't be a coward. Tell me which policy of his it was that you think caused it.

Third time I've asked now.

From where I sit at present, you're either a coward for refusing to answer my question, or a lot less smart than you think you are, and cant answer my question.

I can point to two policies of Trump that directly contributed to it (tariffs on cheap overseas goods, drastically increasing the cost of commonly purchased items, coupled with tax cuts for corporations, which increase inflation).

Again - Which policy of Biden has caused the current cost of living crisis?