Let's discuss policies and issues

[SmokingFap]

Okay, now you have my apology, but when did he say he had a doctorate in accounting?

Dam. And here I am remembering how you thought my DOCTORATE wasn't good enough to prove anything.

Perhaps I should refrain from mentioning my post doctoral accounting degree. Yes? No?

There.

 

[Rightguide]

This conversation was not about income taxes. It was about tariffs, shit for brains.

So now you're signing your work?

 

[SmokingFap]

So now you're signing your work?

That was almost clever. But I guess you concede my point, as well as my assertion that Hairpie claimed to be a post-doctorate accounting genius.

 

[icanhelp1]

You forgot the part about how the extra cost is passed along to the consumers of the products as an indirect tax. But nice copy and paste job, Mr. Accounting Doctorate Man.

When a country (like China) continuously eats your lunch sometimes tariffs are a necessary evil to protect our own interests.

 

[SmokingFap]

When a country (like China) continuously eats your lunch sometimes tariffs are a necessary evil to protect our own interests.

That's a completely separate issue, and I happen to agree with your assertion. Sometimes, and sparingly, they are beneficial. But it is still a fact that they are an indirect tax on the American consumer, n'est pas?

 

[Pad_Foot]

Can someone defend Tariffs as a source for Government money not as a way to protect an exclusive market in a country ?

Let’s hear it!

T a r I f f s !
Defend them!!
Free trade believers ?? What do you think ?
Proper Capitalists? Chime in

 

[Bray123]

At least we now know Trump's clear position on affordable childcare and what legislation he'll use to advance it.

https://imgur.com/LsZuh8r

 

[Lazaran]

That was almost clever. But I guess you concede my point, as well as my assertion that Hairpie claimed to be a post-doctorate accounting genius.

I would leave the board FOREVER if I got as COMPLETELY HUMILIATED as Reichguide did by your presentation of knowledge / facts and receipts.



Reichguide

 

[bijedi]

There was no federal income tax prior to 1913. How did we get along for over 120 years without it? The answer is tariffs. The government wasn't designed to be everything to everybody.

This is incorrect. The first federal income tax in the US was imposed as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861). This was further refined with a progressive income tax of 5% in incomes greater than $10K, as well as creating the first federal inheritance tax. These income taxes remained in effect until it was repealed in 1872. The next federal income tax was included as part of the 1894 Wilson-Gorman tariff act. Portions of this act that taxed income from property (rents, dividends and interest) were determined to be equivalent to taxes on that property by the USSC in Pollock vs Farmers in 1895. As a direct tax, that portion of the income tax would be subject to apportionment.

Due to the practical and political difficulties in taxing income from wages separately from income from property, no further attempts at a federal income tax were made until the passage of the Sixteenth amendment overruled Pollock by explicitly allowing congressional taxation on income, regardless of source, without apportionment. Contrary to popular belief, the sixteenth amendment did not grant Congress the power to levy income taxes. Congress always had that power. Nor did the sixteenth amendment change anything in regards to a federal income tax on wages. The only practical effect of the 16th amendment was to remove the requirement that taxes on income from property be apportioned that was imposed by the Pollock decision.

 

[Chernosoth]

I see some basic categories: transportation, education, healthcare, energy, military, environment, food, manufacturing, law enforcement, and foreign relations. And maybe more I will remember later. I have probably posted about most of those in other threads, so I won't drag them all here into a massive TLDR. But in all of those, I would be looking for huge budget cuts. Many of those cuts could be done by firing most of the bureaucracy that takes most of the pie and moving what's left more directly to citizens. My general goal would be get the federal government out of most of what it is doing now and let states and communities decide how much they want to fund those services with their own money. One example is national parks becoming state parks or anything else the states want to do with the land.

A few interstate projects would need federal oversight, such as railroads, removing dams to open rivers for transportation, adapting the energy grid with less hydroelectricity, and relocating dam downriver citizens. That would be a brawling shitfight of a negotiation of many conflicting interests, and that may be only the warmup before wading into the water wars of states going dry.

 

[SmokingFap]

This is incorrect. The first federal income tax in the US was imposed as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861). This was further refined with a progressive income tax of 5% in incomes greater than $10K, as well as creating the first federal inheritance tax. These income taxes remained in effect until it was repealed in 1872. The next federal income tax was included as part of the 1894 Wilson-Gorman tariff act. Portions of this act that taxed income from property (rents, dividends and interest) were determined to be equivalent to taxes on that property by the USSC in Pollock vs Farmers in 1895. As a direct tax, that portion of the income tax would be subject to apportionment.

Due to the practical and political difficulties in taxing income from wages separately from income from property, no further attempts at a federal income tax were made until the passage of the Sixteenth amendment overruled Pollock by explicitly allowing congressional taxation on income, regardless of source, without apportionment. Contrary to popular belief, the sixteenth amendment did not grant Congress the power to levy income taxes. Congress always had that power. Nor did the sixteenth amendment change anything in regards to a federal income tax on wages. The only practical effect of the 16th amendment was to remove the requirement that taxes on income from property be apportioned that was imposed by the Pollock decision.

Yeah! What he said.

 

[bejjinks]

Government doesn't allow people to do that.

I have no problem with people transacting labour and services between eachother to mutual benefit.

Tell you what, if I become president, I will set aside a portion of Detroit and declare it an anarchist reservation. People who move there would not have to pay a cent in taxes. Of course they would receive absolutely no services either. You could work together all you want to build whatever you want. Let's see if you can rejuvenate Detroit.

 

[bejjinks]

Let's discuss Kamala's lack of policies and or her inability to put them into meaningful words.

This discussion is not for talking about parties or politicians. Politicians tend to say one thing and do another. Let's stick to only talking about policies and issues please.

 

[bejjinks]

I see some basic categories: transportation, education, healthcare, energy, military, environment, food, manufacturing, law enforcement, and foreign relations. And maybe more I will remember later. I have probably posted about most of those in other threads, so I won't drag them all here into a massive TLDR. But in all of those, I would be looking for huge budget cuts. Many of those cuts could be done by firing most of the bureaucracy that takes most of the pie and moving what's left more directly to citizens. My general goal would be get the federal government out of most of what it is doing now and let states and communities decide how much they want to fund those services with their own money. One example is national parks becoming state parks or anything else the states want to do with the land.

A few interstate projects would need federal oversight, such as railroads, removing dams to open rivers for transportation, adapting the energy grid with less hydroelectricity, and relocating dam downriver citizens. That would be a brawling shitfight of a negotiation of many conflicting interests, and that may be only the warmup before wading into the water wars of states going dry.

I disagree with you. If you wanted to shut down specific agencies, we might talk about those specific agencies but many of these agencies are preventing monopolies and dictatorships so I would want to keep many of them. Also, we seriously need a Department of Education in particular. This allowing parents to not teach their children is a large part of why America is falling apart. I'm not saying that everyone should go to public education but someone needs to make sure kids are getting an education.

 

[bejjinks]

Maybe she has "concepts of policies". That's good enough, right?

We do not want to talk about parties or politicians.

 

[bejjinks]

Tariffs ARE taxes on the American people, moron. I wish you and Trump would look up what tariffs are and how they work. And are you saying that our government should go back to the way it was in 1913? I highly doubt we could fund our $800+ billion dollar a year military budget...

This discussion is not for talking about parties or politicians. Please stick to only talking about policies and issues.

 

[bejjinks]

Tariffs protect domestic industries, such as agriculture and manufacturing, as well as to retaliate against other states' unfair trade practices.

Actually, if tariffs get too high, they can destroy foreign trade which can then harm domestic industries.

 

[bejjinks]

You left out voter disenfranchisement, specifically the section targeting married women. It is extremely disturbing. It is estimated that the Trump and GOP's voter identification bill will remove 90% of all married women from the voter rolls. In 2022 it there were 68.7 million married women, which meant approximately 61 million women would not be able to vote if that bill was in effect. Tens of millions of women, not allowed to vote.

Trump's proposed voter identification requirements will disenfranchise millions of women voters. it is disgusting that Trump has proposed, and supports it. It falls in line with Trump wanting to take us backwards, all the way back to a time when women were not allowed to vote. it is a chilling portent of his driving mania to win at all costs regardless of the consequences to others, in this case American women.

Without a passport, or other proof of citizenship with a woman's married name, a woman must provide a birth certificate from the state it was issued (with a full on proper state seal, no copies), and a CURRENT form of identification, both of which must have the EXACT same name on them. If a woman changed her name in the court, a copy of those court documents would be accepted, but how many women go to court to legally change their names? It could instantly disqualify 90% of all married women without passports or other proof that matches their birth certificates or proof of a legal name change.

The estimates are 90% of married women will be disenfranchised, 90 frigging percent!!! Why isn't this being discussed in the media since Trump wants to close down our country by blocking the budget unless the bill is passed? He is attempting to blackmail our county in order to win the election by disenfranchising tens of millions of women voters. How can anyone support that bill? Every congressional member and congressional candidates must be held accountable if they support that bill. Force them to admit they support voter disentrancement of millions of Americans.

It goes against everything our country stands for.

I did not leave it out. I said this was only a start because I knew we'd be adding more policies and issues to the discussion.

But please don't talk about parties or politicians. Please only talk about the policies and issues.

 

[SmokingFap]

This discussion is not for talking about parties or politicians. Please stick to only talking about policies and issues.

It's the POLITICS BOARD, but whatever. Enjoy discussing issues and policies without discussing politicians or parties.

 

[bejjinks]

This conversation was not about income taxes. It was about tariffs, shit for brains.

Actually, this discussion is about tariffs, taxes, abortion, border, healthcare, . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[bejjinks]

It's the POLITICS BOARD, but whatever. Enjoy discussing issues and policies without discussing politicians or parties.

The politics board may be about parties and politicians but this specific discussion IS NOT.

 

[bejjinks]

At least we now know Trump's clear position on affordable childcare and what legislation he'll use to advance it.

https://imgur.com/LsZuh8r

Please do not discuss parties or politicians here.

 

[SmokingFap]

The politics board may be about parties and politicians but this specific discussion IS NOT.

Fine by me. Go fuck yourself, you self-important twat.

 

[Bray123]

Please do not discuss parties or politicians here.

I will too.

 

[SevMax2]

Actually, if tariffs get too high, they can destroy foreign trade which can then harm domestic industries.

If tariffs become prohibitive, they can also fail to raise sufficient revenue.