![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/western_bulldogs.png)
- Dec 27, 2016
- 29,289
- 61,656
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #31
Here is US Politics - Pt 1
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney Swans vs GWS Giants - 3:20PM Sat - 1st QF
Squiggle tips Swans at 63% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
LIVE: Brisbane Lions vs Carlton - 7:30PM Sat - 1st EF
Squiggle tips Lions at 73% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Incorrect.You and your SRP crew believe that welfare is the driver of prosperity for the poor. Trump and normal people believe that an economic environment that provides people with productive jobs with low taxes drives prosperity.
I'm not surprised that when pressed to do anything beyond mindless cheerleading, you fail to understand.
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.And who do you think their shareholders are mate... the middle class.
Ah Ad hominems - cult members really can't control their emotions, can they?LOL dude your 'Orange man bad' source was a John Podesta think tank.
![]()
John Podesta
www.americanprogress.org
If that is a credible source in your mind then I can't help you.
You're either trolling or just dumb.
In addition to these and other flaws,[25] recent research from economists at the Treasury and the Federal Reserve found no evidence that the deduction provided any boost in economic activity in the two years following the deduction’s enactment — no additional investment, jobs, or higher wages for employees of pass-through businesses.[26]
These voters are also more likely to support an alternative Democrat against Trump than they are to choose Biden. In hypothetical matchups, they break 47% for Harris to 34% for Trump, 42% for Newsom to 36% for Trump, and 42% for Buttigieg to 35% for Trump.
The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from June 28-30 among a random national sample of 1,274 adults drawn from a probability-based panel, including 1,045 registered voters.
Can you image Kackling Kamala as POTUS?
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.Incorrect.
I hardly post on SRP for a start, and trickle down economics is one of the most well-debunked economic theories.
This gap keeps widening under your preferred welfare State. Why is this so?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.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.
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.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.
If laura trump can be rnc chair why notHunter Biden for Vice President
From what we have seen of him, is much more manly than Sleepy Don.
The US is not a welfare state by any means.This gap keeps widening under your preferred welfare State. Why is this so?
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.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.
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 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 agree with this entirely. The US needs to drastically cut spending.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.
Uh oh, now you've done it.BlackRock seem to own 5% of everything.
Mal to call Mofra an anti-semite in 3, 2...Uh oh, now you've done it.
They will only respond if you enclose nazi keywords in parentheses thus ((( )))Mal to call Mofra an anti-semite in 3, 2...
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.
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.
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)
The cost of living has already skyrocketed under Biden.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.