Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Muda69 said:

 

And what is sad is the taxpayers who vote for a uni-party candidate.  They are as short-sighted as the candidates themselves, enamored with what kind of "free" stuff they can get from the federal government.    They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the future American, the country of their children and grandchildren.  Pitiful.

 

There’s no children or grandchildren coming along with the way the USA is heading.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

There’s no children or grandchildren coming along with the way the USA is heading.

Yes because people will no doubt stop having sex 😂 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Yes because people will no doubt stop having sex 😂 

It'll be too hot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/723518379/u-s-births-fell-to-a-32-year-low-in-2018-cdc-says-birthrate-is-at-record-level

Quote

The U.S. birthrate fell again in 2018, to 3,788,235 births — representing a 2% drop from 2017. It's the lowest number of births in 32 years, according to a new federal report. The numbers also sank the U.S. fertility rate to a record low.

Not since 1986 has the U.S. seen so few babies born. And it's an ongoing slump: 2018 was the fourth consecutive year of birth declines, according to the provisional birthrate report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Birthrates fell for nearly all racial and age groups, with only slight gains for women in their late 30s and early 40s, the CDC says.

The news has come as something of a surprise to demographers who say that with the U.S. economy and job market continuing a years-long growth streak, they had expected the birthrate to show signs of stabilizing, or even rising. But instead, the drop could force changes to forecasts about how the country will look — with an older population and fewer young workers to sustain key social systems.

"It's a national problem," says Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California.

....

The uni-party has to look at this trend with dismay.  Without more happy little worker drones to fund their increasingly larger tax-and-spend schemes like Medicare For All,  Free College Education, Endless Wars in the Middle East,  etc.  what are they going to do?   "Tax the rich" even more?

   

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

"Tax the rich" even more?

Wouldn't take much to be more than zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gonzoron said:

Wouldn't take much to be more than zero.

And you expect such a "tax the rich" scheme to actually pay for all these huge government entitlements?  Good luck with that.  

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

Quote

In late January, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who's in the race to become president in 2020, added a new kind of tax to the American conversation, causing anxious pacing on superyachts in every port: a wealth tax. It's a cousin of the property tax, but it encompasses all forms of wealth: cash, stocks, jewelry, thoroughbred horses, jets, everything. Warren calls the policy her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax." It would impose a 2% federal tax on every dollar of a person's net worth over $50 million and an additional 1% tax on every dollar in net worth over $1 billion. Economists estimate it would hit the 75,000 richest households and raise $2.75 trillion over ten years.

It's a direct attack on wealth inequality, and it's influenced by the work of French economist Thomas Piketty, whose book Capital in the Twenty-First Century put a spotlight on the increasing disparity of wealth in developed nations. Warren, who informally endorsed a wealth tax while at an event with Piketty in 2015, is the first U.S. presidential candidate to take up the cause.

The disparity in what Americans own is much greater than the disparity in what they earn. Jeff Bezos has a net worth of $135 billion, but his formal salary is less than $100,000 per year. Warren's proposal aims to tap the fortunes of the ultra-rich and use the proceeds to fund social programs. But a wealth tax faces serious hurdles, including lessons from a failed experiment in Europe, the need for significant bureaucratic expansion, and serious questions over whether it's even constitutional.

Euro Flop

Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.

UC Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman, whose research helped put wealth inequality back on the American policy agenda, played a part in designing Warren's wealth tax. He says it was designed explicitly with European failures in mind.

He argues the Warren plan is "very different than any wealth tax that has existed anywhere in the world." Unlike in the European Union, it's impossible to freely move to another country or state to escape national taxes. Existing U.S. law also taxes citizens wherever they are, so even if they do sail to a tax haven in the Caribbean, they're still on the hook. On top of that, Warren's plan includes an "exit tax," which would confiscate 40 percent of all a person's wealth over $50 million if they renounce their citizenship.

Warren's tax is also only limited to the super rich, whereas in Europe the threshold was low enough to also hit the sort-of rich. This higher threshold helps it avoid problems like someone having a family business that makes them look rich on paper but, in fact, they're short on the cash needed to pay the tax.

Also important, Zucman argues, the higher threshold means only a small group will be affected. And smaller groups have a harder time fighting for exemptions, which hurt European efforts. Some countries, for example, exempted artwork and antiques on the grounds they were hard to value. It's true, but it creates a huge loophole: Buy lots of art! Economists hate incentives like these because they distort markets. Warren's proposal calls for no exemptions.

Bureaucracy and the Constitution

But having no exemptions means the U.S. government will have to get very good at valuing art, diamonds, superyachts, and all the other fabulous things the super rich collect. Indeed, Warren's plan includes a call for "a significant increase in the IRS enforcement budget." It was the hefty cost of enforcement that played a big part in Austria killing their wealth tax back in 1993. It turns out it costs a lot to track and value rich people's stuff every year.

And a wealth tax may not even be legal. The ability of the federal government to tax is tightly curtailed by the U.S. Constitution. Legally imposing the first income tax in 1913 required a constitutional amendment. Legal scholars are currently debating whether a wealth tax would need another amendment. The debate, Josh Barro writes, centers on whether a wealth tax would be a "direct tax," which the Constitution makes really hard for the federal government to impose.

While the legality of a federal wealth tax is in question, the current politics of it are not. A new poll finds that even a majority of Republicans support Warren's wealth tax. It turns out President Trump himself once advocated for one too.

....

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And you expect such a "tax the rich" scheme to actually pay for all these huge government entitlements?  Good luck with that.  

I claimed nothing of the sort. Good luck with your reading comprehension course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

I claimed nothing of the sort. Good luck with your reading comprehension course.

Then what exactly are you claiming?  

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/723518379/u-s-births-fell-to-a-32-year-low-in-2018-cdc-says-birthrate-is-at-record-level

The uni-party has to look at this trend with dismay.  Without more happy little worker drones to fund their increasingly larger tax-and-spend schemes like Medicare For All,  Free College Education, Endless Wars in the Middle East,  etc.  what are they going to do?   "Tax the rich" even more?

   

So given the fact there are about 2.8 millionish deaths per year, it's still a net gain of about a million.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

So given the fact there are about 2.8 millionish deaths per year, it's still a net gain of about a million.  

US fertility rate is below level needed to replace population, study says: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/10/health/us-fertility-rate-replacement-cdc-study/index.html

Quote

The total fertility rate for the United States in 2017 continued to dip below what's needed for the population to replace itself, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

The new report also reveals some major state-by-state differences in fertility rates.

In 2017, among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, total fertility rates ranged from a rate of 2,227.5 births per 1,000 women in South Dakota to 1,421 per 1,000 women in DC, a difference of 57%, according to the report, published Thursday.

Overall, the total fertility rate for the United States in 2017 was 1,765.5 per 1,000 women, which was 16% below what is considered the level needed for a population to replace itself: 2,100 births per 1,000 women, according to the report.

....

So I expect higher immigration rates to make up the needed difference?

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

US fertility rate is below level needed to replace population

I've done my part. Can't control what others do.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gonzoron said:

I've done my part. Can't control what others do.

But, but don't we need government policy and laws that will force up the birth rate, again so we can have more happy worker drones paying taxes to fund government entitlements like your social security check?

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

But, but don't we need government policy and laws that will force up the birth rate, again so we can have more happy worker drones paying taxes to fund government entitlements like your social security check?

 

Hell no. Too many people now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

This is news? 

US population growth slowed this decade due to lower immigration rates and fewer births:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/us/us-population-growth-slow-due-to-lower-migration-fewer-births-trnd/index.html

Quote

...

Migration bottomed between 2018 and 2019, census estimates show. During that period, an estimated 595,000 people immigrated to the US, a notable drop from the 1,047,000 people who migrated to the US between 2015 and 2016.
 
Since 2010, international migration has added about 7.9 million to the US population, though that level has steadily declined since 2016.
...

 

Just now, gonzoron said:

Hell no. Too many people now. 

So again, forcing "The Rich" to pay for your entitlements is the logical course of action.  Got it.

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So again, forcing "The Rich" to pay for your entitlements is the logical course of action

What entitlements are those? I can guarantee you I've received fewer entitlements in my lifetime than you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

What entitlements are those? I can guarantee you I've received fewer entitlements in my lifetime than you have.

Haven't you acknowledged in the past on this forum that you currently receive Social Security entitlement benefits?  Or was that a lie on your part?

As for the "fewer entitlements" challenge, I seriously doubt it.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Haven't you acknowledged in the past on this forum that you currently receive Social Security entitlement benefits

No, I have not. Citation needed.

 

28 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

As for the "fewer entitlements" challenge, I seriously doubt it.

Wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

No, I have not. Citation needed.

*sigh*  Yes, you have. Numerous previous post by you,  IIRC a number of them was a discussion about your contention that Social Security was not a federal entitlement program.  A quaint that was quickly debunked. 

So you are lying.  Typical.

14 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Wrong. 

 Citation(s) needed.

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Muda69 said:

*sigh*  Yes, you have. Numerous previous post by you,  IIRC a number of them was a discussion about your contention that Social Security was not a federal entitlement program.  A quaint that was quickly debunked

Prove it. You're a liar.

 

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

Citation(s) needed.

Do you have a 4 year Degree from a Government subsidized University?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

Prove it. You're a liar.

 

Do you have a 4 year Degree from a Government subsidized University?

No, but I believe he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😀

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

Prove it. You're a liar.

*yawn*  Frankly I don't have the time nor the inclination to dig back through pages of GID OOB forum posts to prove that you are the liar, not I.   At least have the guts to admit it, Gonzo.

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

Do you have a 4 year Degree from a Government subsidized University?

Yes, I do.   And I have a good idea of where your twisted mind is trying to go. So please explain for the entertainment of us all how a public university,  this one established by an act of the Indiana General Assembly in 1865,  is an federal entitlement just like Social Security.

I'll be waiting with baited breath.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

I can’t imagine why the USA wouldn’t be attractive to immigrants.

Yea Dante...the US just sucks.

Do your homework...Thank God a child of mine was never in one of your classes....

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2018_migr_outlook-2018-en#page24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...