The Trump Presidency 2.0
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
I am super excited to see how this is racist, sexist, homophobic, and exactly what you would expect from a king.
No taxes if you earn less than $150k. Donald Trump's plan explained
No taxes if you earn less than $150k. Donald Trump's plan explained
Some napkin math using the household income numbers from Wikipedia place about ~20% of Americans above that. Top 25% pays roughly 75% of total income tax revenue, so for ease of maths let's say a 25% reduction. It'd take us 2.2 to 1.6 trillion. in income revenue. A big gap, but not impossible if they make cuts to the big budget items or actually get the overseas companies.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
This is the most liberal crap I've ever seen. Life is a circle.
Here I've been chanting that we need to lower the tax floor so that the majority of Americans have skin in the game.
I suppose, but as Thomas Massie said. This CR is not remotely close to the Trump agenda. It is a full funding extension of the Biden agenda for another 9 months. In reality this is just dunking on Republicans because Republicans can't get organized enough to get an actual deal done.
_____
Someone talk to me about Hegseth killing the Office of Net Assessment.
Last edited:
The real reason behind Trump's hatred of Trudeau.
Exclusive: Chinese Narco Suspect Caught in Private Meeting with Trudeau, Investigated by DEA, Linked to Panama, Caribbean, Mexico – Police Sources
BC Fentanyl Ring ‘Negotiated’ With Sinaloa Chief ‘El Mayo,’ Court Filings Allege
"Trade-Based Money Laundering is the Fentanyl Crisis": Sources expose Chinese-Mexican-Canadian Crime Convergence
Exclusive: Chinese Narco Suspect Caught in Private Meeting with Trudeau, Investigated by DEA, Linked to Panama, Caribbean, Mexico – Police Sources
BC Fentanyl Ring ‘Negotiated’ With Sinaloa Chief ‘El Mayo,’ Court Filings Allege
"Trade-Based Money Laundering is the Fentanyl Crisis": Sources expose Chinese-Mexican-Canadian Crime Convergence
Is your argument for more taxes? That's weird. And by "weird" I mean "not in line with the Constitution or the framer's intent for taxation and opposed to the baseline conservative values of small government, less taxation, less regulation and individual rights and freedoms." The 16th amdendment (some legal scholars say) was never ratified, the Supreme Court refused to rule on it, and several court cases (Eisner v Macomber) even argued that work for compensation isn't "gain or profit", it's simply an equal exchange of labor for money and therefore not taxable. The Constitution initially prohibited direct taxation except by apportionment among the states. The list goes on and on- the last thing some family making $125k needs is more taxation to feel a "skin in the game"- they need the government to tax them less and kill inflation to put real wages in their bank account.
Quick Grok/ChatGPT search yields a total percentage of Americans aged 15+ that make under $150K a year is 222.8 million Americans that would benefit- about 92%.
As for that being "liberal crap", I'd like to understand how, exactly. It's not redistribution of wealth; the only subject "harmed" by this action would be the government missing out on that "revenue", and it's exactly in line with what the forefathers intended regarding taxation (meaning, none, unless apportioned by the states). This all changed with the spurious 16th Amendment and the establishment of an income tax and the FED in 1913.
As for the CR- ok? Mike Johnson got the votes with the slimmest of wiggle room and your take is they can't get their house in order? To keep the government open? That's literally what they did- took a fractious body of lawmakers and got the best they could to pass. That's politics, baby.
For the ONA- sure, it's a think tank at the Pentagon that the SECDEF no longer needs. We have entire commands (and to some extent a branch of service) that perform the same functions as ONA- OPLANS, CONPLANS, strategy and emerging threats, AI and cyber- are all handled by the existing DoD architecture. Andrew Marshall did some great work, but apparently (like all government funded good ideas) ONA has drifted considerably from it's intended purpose and those folks will now have the opportunity to engage where my tax dollars are well spent.
Stealth War (the book) has a section on Andrew Marshall and his work before his death.
From the "republicans can't get their crap together" camp- Schumer folds. Shocked I tell you, shocked. It's almost like we all saw this one coming.
Schumer says he'll vote to keep government open as Democrats criticize GOP plan
Schumer says he'll vote to keep government open as Democrats criticize GOP plan
If they were smart they would take this space to unfuck themselves and rally the troops.
My money's on finger pointing, echo chambers, and yelling at the sun.
Side quest: if the Orange Man is so bad, do Liberals still eat Cheetos?
Nancy Pelosi urges senators to oppose key spending bill, risking shutdown
Pelosi, AOC and the radical left are eating their own. Which party can't get it together?
Pelosi, AOC and the radical left are eating their own. Which party can't get it together?
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Nope. Currently I advocate for more people paying taxes, 53% of citizens do not pay taxes, they get a full refund. So they have no skin in the game.
By moving to 150k and above, which would be a positive for me in general. You reduce the total tax paying base and more people receiving services that they don't pay for.
So unless we're going to cut like 1.5M federal employee bodies and reduce spending. I don't see how you do that? Also that is more taxes for less people. Rather than less taxes for more people...
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,699
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.
Taxing only 8% of the population sounds a lot like tyranny of the majority.
Topkick
Verified Military
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.
Is that what Republicans have been saying? I don't remember them saying that. Where can I read more about it?
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
SOF Support
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
Verified Military
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%.
Last edited:
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
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,699
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.
If you google “wealth tax disincentivizes entrepreneurship” you can find conservative think tank articles about it for a whole page of google searches.
Devildoc
Verified Military
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.
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.
Similar threads
