The Trump Presidency 2.0

[Topkick]

think it seems like “liberal crap”

I just think it's crap to say ridiculous things. Trump may want to do it, but congress won't allow it. Reminds me of promising to pay off everyone's school loans when you know it's not going to happen.

 

[Marauder06]

I think it seems like “liberal crap” because for like the last 40 years republicans have been saying there would be no incentive to make more money if rich people just paid more taxes. I think it was something about disincentivizing high earners….

Taxing only 8% of the population sounds a lot like tyranny of the majority.

Is that what Republicans have been saying? I don't remember them saying that. Where can I read more about it?

 

[GOTWA]

I just think it's crap to say ridiculous things. Trump may want to do it, but congress won't allow it. Reminds me of promising to pay off everyone's school loans when you know it's not going to happen.

It's in America's best interest for the population to be educated. I would be okay with 0% interest in student loans if the return creates an advantage for America.

Now, is college effective? Eh...

 

[Kraut783]

It's in America's best interest for the population to be educated. I would be okay with 0% interest in student loans if the return creates an advantage for America.

Now, is college effective? Eh...

I like the Australian model for education.....Govt pays for education, once you have a job, you start paying it back. It's good for AUS, but would have to be tweaked a lot for the US....but makes sense.

 

[Topkick]

I like the Australian model for education.....Govt pays for education, once you have a job, you start paying it back. It's good for AUS, but would have to be tweaked a lot for the US....but makes sense.

I'm about trade schools. Get an AA in general ed and then a bachelors with a trade certification. That makes the country better. If you want a degree in diversity and inclusion, you pay for it 100%.

 

[Scarecrow]

I like the Australian model for education.....Govt pays for education, once you have a job, you start paying it back. It's good for AUS, but would have to be tweaked a lot for the US....but makes sense.

The minimum income before repayments kick in is around 55k. That’s getting raised to 67k in July this year.

The HECS-HELP model has been tweaked quite a bit over the past 5-10 years. How much debt you can accumulate is now capped to stop these professional students (some of these cunts have racked up over 300k in debt and never used one of their multiple degrees. Not common, but still happening). Government is trying to encourage more people to do degrees that we are facing shortages of such as nursing by increasing the subsidy, and other degrees like many in the arts have been made more expensive by removing the subsidy. Law degrees have also become more expensive. I am studying medicine, this hasn’t really changed that much but our doctor ‘shortage’ is more to do with lack of people pursuing general practice rather than the overall supply itself.

So a fair bit going on. It’s a good system. Not without its flaws but there’ll always cunts taking advantage of it and it needs overhauling every once in a while and the forever wailing of people who want everything for free.

 

[GOTWA]

The minimum income before repayments kick in is around 55k. That’s getting raised to 67k in July this year.

The HECS-HELP model has been tweaked quite a bit over the past 5-10 years. How much debt you can accumulate is now capped to stop these professional students (some of these cunts have racked up over 300k in debt and never used one of their multiple degrees. Not common, but still happening). Government is trying to encourage more people to do degrees that we are facing shortages of such as nursing by increasing the subsidy, and other degrees like many in the arts have been made more expensive by removing the subsidy. Law degrees have also become more expensive. I am studying medicine, this hasn’t really changed that much but our doctor ‘shortage’ is more to do with lack of people pursuing general practice rather than the overall supply itself.

So a fair bit going on. It’s a good system. Not without its flaws but there’ll always cunts taking advantage of it and it needs overhauling every once in a while and the forever wailing of people who want everything for free.

And I agree with this. You want something dumb then you pay for it. Electrician? Done. Medicine? Done. Engineer? Done. Art major? 100% self funded.

 

[TLDR20]

I’m

Is that what Republicans have been saying? I don't remember them saying that. Where can I read more about it?

If you google “wealth tax disincentivizes entrepreneurship” you can find conservative think tank articles about it for a whole page of google searches.

 

[Devildoc]

Our entire education system is jacked up 10 ways from Sunday, and the funding of it is just a small piece of that pie.

I totally agree of tying loans and interest rates to the probability of a degree landing an income-producing job. The more "needed" the job, the better rate.

To be honest, I don't care if someone wants to get a degree in gender studies or sociology or whatever, I think a significant reason for college education is learning for learning's sake. Just don't make me pay for it when you can't get a job.

In the bigger picture, we need to look at the way college is structured and ask if it's efficient. The short answer is, no. The bigger answer is it's bloated to be income producing for the University, most of which goes to administration. The rate of inflation for college education since the early '90s has gone nuts.

I also advocate programs in which the tuition is covered if you contract to work in that field for 'n' for years after school. We see that obviously with ROTC, also with some of the trades, nursing, etc.

 

[TLDR20]

Our entire education system is jacked up 10 ways from Sunday, and the funding of it is just a small piece of that pie.

I totally agree of tying loans and interest rates to the probability of a degree landing an income-producing job. The more "needed" the job, the better rate.

To be honest, I don't care if someone wants to get a degree in gender studies or sociology or whatever, I think a significant reason for college education is learning for learning's sake. Just don't make me pay for it when you can't get a job.

In the bigger picture, we need to look at the way college is structured and ask if it's efficient. The short answer is, no. The bigger answer is it's bloated to be income producing for the University, most of which goes to administration. The rate of inflation for college education since the early '90s has gone nuts.

I also advocate programs in which the tuition is covered if you contract to work in that field for 'n' for years after school. We see that obviously with ROTC, also with some of the trades, nursing, etc.

NC has FELS grants which many in my class took advantage of. CRNAs get their loans completely forgiven if they work in NC for 3 years after graduation. It makes sense for both sides.

 

[Marauder06]

I’m


If you google “wealth tax disincentivizes entrepreneurship” you can find conservative think tank articles about it for a whole page of google searches.

It's not up to me to substantiate your political positions. And even if it were, I'm not going to do the above, because that's not what you claimed.

You said:

like the last 40 years republicans have been saying there would be no incentive to make more money if rich people just paid more taxes.

That is nowhere near your revised position, “wealth tax disincentivizes entrepreneurship.”

This is a habit with you. You toss at a gross over-generalization or garbage hot take about the political side you don't like, like the one above, and then when you're called on it you move the goal line.

"Wealth tax disincentives entrepreneurship" is not what you claimed initially, and not what I asked you for more information about. I have never heard anyone, of any political stripe, say that there would be "no incentive to make money if rich people just paid more taxes." But I don't know everything. So please, help me learn something today, or admit that your initial claim was wrong and we can move on.

 

[GOTWA]

Our entire education system is jacked up 10 ways from Sunday, and the funding of it is just a small piece of that pie.

I totally agree of tying loans and interest rates to the probability of a degree landing an income-producing job. The more "needed" the job, the better rate.

To be honest, I don't care if someone wants to get a degree in gender studies or sociology or whatever, I think a significant reason for college education is learning for learning's sake. Just don't make me pay for it when you can't get a job.

In the bigger picture, we need to look at the way college is structured and ask if it's efficient. The short answer is, no. The bigger answer is it's bloated to be income producing for the University, most of which goes to administration. The rate of inflation for college education since the early '90s has gone nuts.

I also advocate programs in which the tuition is covered if you contract to work in that field for 'n' for years after school. We see that obviously with ROTC, also with some of the trades, nursing, etc.

And, this might be controversial, but education, or access to education, shouldn't take a back seat to college sports. If the ROI for college sports teams needs to be augmented with federal funding or higher educational expenses, it shouldn't be saved. My access to entertainment shouldn't be prioritized over an individual's access to learn, nor should my tax dollars cover the difference.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Here’s a funny video about soldiers. Everybody be cool and try to keep the back-and-forth on the issues, not on each other.

 

[Blizzard]

And, this might be controversial, but education, or access to education, shouldn't take a back seat to college sports. If the ROI for college sports teams needs to be augmented with federal funding or higher educational expenses, it shouldn't be saved. My access to entertainment shouldn't be prioritized over an individual's access to learn, nor should my tax dollars cover the difference.

I don’t think it's controversial at all and agree.

College Athletics have become just another variation of pro sports. NIL has made it even worse.

As an example, this is Purdue University, which is a great school especially for STEM, but tell me the priority (their football team last 2 years has been pathetic...there are high school teams that could beat them):

 

[Locksteady]

Adding this here, even though the cause for this more than qualifies for entry into the Government Waste and Corruption thread.

Judge orders reinstatement for most fired probationary federal workers

The Trump administration must reinstate to their jobs federal employees it has fired in the last month at six large departments after a judge on Thursday called the terminations unlawful.

The reinstatements are to take immediate effect, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for Northern California said when issuing his preliminary injunction from the bench, and agencies were directed not to make any excuse for delaying the rehirings. Roughly 24,000 federal employees in their probationary periods—typically those hired within the last one or two years, whom agencies can quickly fire for cause—will regain their jobs as a result of the decision, according to figures compiled by Government Executive.

The judge made clear the Trump administration, like any other, can engage in mass reductions of the federal workforce, but it must do so by following federal statutes and the Constitution. The Office of Personnel Management directed agencies to carry out the firings, Alsup concluded, which he said circumvented those established procedures.

“This is not ‘some wild and crazy judge in San Francisco said some administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,’” Alsup said.

He added that OPM provided a template for federal agencies to use as termination letters for the impacted staff, which suggested employees were being fired for poor performance. He cited an example of an earth science employee at the Agriculture Department being fired after receiving only outstanding performance reviews in explaining that OPM, and the Justice Department lawyers arguing the case, were being dishonest in making that assertion.

“The reason that OPM had wanted to put this based on performance was at least in my view a gimmick to avoid the [RIF laws],” the judge said.

He added: "It’s a sad, sad day when our government would fire a good employee and say it’s based on performance when they know good and well that is based on a lie."

A second judge expanded it later that day to 18 federal agencies.

Judge orders sweeping rehiring of fired workers at 18 federal agencies

 

[AWP]

Adding this here, even though the cause for this more than qualifies for entry into the Government Waste and Corruption thread.

Judge orders reinstatement for most fired probationary federal workers



A second judge expanded it later that day to 18 federal agencies.

Judge orders sweeping rehiring of fired workers at 18 federal agencies

Huh. It's as if some of us predicted this...

Anyway, here's a great recipe for those interested:
Hasenpfeffer German Wine Braised Rabbit

 

[Topkick]

And, this might be controversial, but education, or access to education, shouldn't take a back seat to college sports. If the ROI for college sports teams needs to be augmented with federal funding or higher educational expenses, it shouldn't be saved. My access to entertainment shouldn't be prioritized over an individual's access to learn, nor should my tax dollars cover the difference.

This is what made me a Notre Dame and military academy sports fan. They do both. It's changed some, but academics over athletics all day...and I am a sports fan.

 

[ThunderHorse]

It's not up to me to substantiate your political positions. And even if it were, I'm not going to do the above, because that's not what you claimed.

You said:


That is nowhere near your revised position, “wealth tax disincentivizes entrepreneurship.”

This is a habit with you. You toss at a gross over-generalization or garbage hot take about the political side you don't like, like the one above, and then when you're called on it you move the goal line.

"Wealth tax disincentives entrepreneurship" is not what you claimed initially, and not what I asked you for more information about. I have never heard anyone, of any political stripe, say that there would be "no incentive to make money if rich people just paid more taxes." But I don't know everything. So please, help me learn something today, or admit that your initial claim was wrong and we can move on.

In many ways I want to be not rich, but wealthy. I know I'm an operations executive, that's what I'm good at. I am entrepreneurial I guess, I ran a media company in rugby for five years. Made no money lol. But I think there are market factors for that too.

But there are many things that disincentivize people from trying to make money. Estate Taxes. I think the cap on what can be taxed needs to raised above the current no taxes on first 400k. We're likely to only have one kid so current assets available when we die will likely be in the low millions (hopefully more).

Capital gains taxes. Raise the threshold for total income for Roth IRAs or just eliminate taxes on things funded in IRAs. I've already paid taxes on this income. Why will I have to pay even more when I retire as I pull distributions?

The Wealthy have all their wealth tied up in other things, things that likely never get sold by them...but could be pissed away by their idiot children or grand children (see the Vanderbilts).

And, this might be controversial, but education, or access to education, shouldn't take a back seat to college sports. If the ROI for college sports teams needs to be augmented with federal funding or higher educational expenses, it shouldn't be saved. My access to entertainment shouldn't be prioritized over an individual's access to learn, nor should my tax dollars cover the difference.

What really pisses me off about all these court cases that are destroying college sports is that current system has raised up hundreds of thousands of people, providing them access to education they could not otherwise afford or qualify for. But we somehow hate that because the less than 1% who go pro didn't get a few shekels? What about all these track athletes who are on 5% scholarship who may get their roster spot cut? Which means less in the future have access?

This is what made me a Notre Dame and military academy sports fan. They do both. It's changed some, but academics over athletics all day...and I am a sports fan.

Idk fam, if the Service Academies were actually about academics over athletics they'd be in D2 or not even field football teams. I have so many things to say about service academies and how they don't live up to the image they portray. Maybe part of that is rivalry from being an SMC grad, or maybe it's because of who I served with from those institutions.

 

[TLDR20]

It's not up to me to substantiate your political positions. And even if it were, I'm not going to do the above, because that's not what you claimed.

You said:


That is nowhere near your revised position, “wealth tax disincentivizes entrepreneurship.”

This is a habit with you. You toss at a gross over-generalization or garbage hot take about the political side you don't like, like the one above, and then when you're called on it you move the goal line.

"Wealth tax disincentives entrepreneurship" is not what you claimed initially, and not what I asked you for more information about. I have never heard anyone, of any political stripe, say that there would be "no incentive to make money if rich people just paid more taxes." But I don't know everything. So please, help me learn something today, or admit that your initial claim was wrong and we can move on.

Ok.

The Laffer curve describes a point at which taxes become so high there is no incentive to work, this was used heavily by Reagan in his trickle down economics policies.

Laffer Curve: History and Critique.

I also have personal skin in this one because I believe I posted somewhere that I chose to not make more money this past year because I was personally disincentivized to by taxes. When you make a certain amount of money, it becomes disadvantageous to make more, if you are W2 and cannot hide it. I personally make enough that at a certain point the money I make isn’t worth my time to pay the taxes on the money I make. I pay 6 figures in income taxes, and making another 100 grand would be easy but it isn’t worth it because I only actually see 40 of it, and my time is worth more than the 40k. Does this make sense? This is a pretty well known phenomenon, and one that many high earners utilize.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Ok.

The Laffer curve describes a point at which taxes become so high there is no incentive to work, this was used heavily by Reagan in his trickle down economics policies.

Laffer Curve: History and Critique.

I also have personal skin in this one because I believe I posted somewhere that I chose to not make more money this past year because I was personally disincentivized to by taxes. When you make a certain amount of money, it becomes disadvantageous to make more, if you are W2 and cannot hide it. I personally make enough that at a certain point the money I make isn’t worth my time to pay the taxes on the money I make. I pay 6 figures in income taxes, and making another 100 grand would be easy but it isn’t worth it because I only actually see 40 of it, and my time is worth more than the 40k. Does this make sense? This is a pretty well known phenomenon, and one that many high earners utilize.

I've had to claw and fight for every inch I've gotten in my company because I'm not a hot chick or funny talker...I got a raise in 2023, but almost all of it was taken up in taxes. This year I got a better raise, but not as good as the funny talker who brings no value but I digress, this year's raise actually made a visible impact when I looked at my paycheck. A lot of it was absorbed by taxes...but there is a big difference from seeing $10 more to seeing $300 more a month.

At a certain threshold, right when you're below a bracket jump, you're incentivized to stay where you are unless the jump in pay compensates for what you will actually see in your checking account.