placeholder

5 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Sorry, I'm just have trouble wrapping my libertarian brain around this communist "fair share" nonsense, and the presumption that the government has a right to 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% or more of MY income to spend on welfare, wunderwaffles, and trans-mice.

 

We could easily cut the government by thousands of programs, hundreds of agencies, 400 foreign military bases and 3 supercarrier fleets.....and voila, saved $1 Trillion.

 

Reduce the tax code to one page, and tax returns to postcard sized forms.  Flat tax at 5%, no deductions, no exemptions.  That's fair.

 

 

 

 

The kind of government you long for worked well when economies were largely agrarian and populations were sparse. Not so much anymore.

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

How am I supposed to find evidence of something that's so fundamental that it goes without saying?  It's  like asking me for evidence that Trump is well aware that 2 + 2 =4.  Everyone who knows anything about world trade and the world reserve currency knows how it works.  For the USA to run the world reserve currency is a major benefit for the simple reason that the Central Bank can counterfeit money.  Of course, they pretend that's not the case, but the world needs the dollar, regardless, at least for now. 

 

And I'm sure Navarro knows as well.  Any undergrad economics major knows how it all works. What Navarro seems to have misjudged is the difficulty in upending the existing world order simply by way of tariffs. Theoretically, tariffs could work if all parties agree and the result is a level playing field.  But he didn't accurately judge the blowback, the embedded corruption, and the extent to which the world propaganda machine can control minds.  In other words, he was politically naive. 

How are you supposed "to find evidence of something so fundamental that it goes without saying?" Really? Remember Donald Rumsfeld's "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? But at least in that case there was not much contrary evidence. But in this case there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Trump hasn't a clue.  But that doesn't count?  Not even Rumsfeld ever said "Absence of evidence isn't evident of absence and counter-evidence doesn't count." I'll leave that kind of nonsense to you. And you claim you're not in the bag for Trump? It is to laugh.

And it's not even clear that you understand this issue. What has the US being the world's reserve currency got to do with the basic economic fact of currency flows?

56 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

In the constellation of Tesla Cars and Space X, the robots are a minor fun project really.

 

That article is interesting though. From the article:

 

 

Yah, I think the Imperial Japanese army would beg to differ.

 

 

So exactly what I've been saying then.

 

 

So Trump can wipe out 20 million Chinese jobs. That's rather interesting.

 

 

So the young Chinese got soft and used to full bellies.

 

 

Elon Musk definitely disagrees your falsehood 

And your comment about China vis a vis Japan is nonsense. The China of 80 years ago is the same as the China of today. In fact, it was the China of roughly 70 years ago that fought Americas and its allies to a standstill in Korea. 

For the rest of your cherry picking well that's what it is cherry picking. The thrust of his article is how well prepared China is to face the United States. It has years. The US has midterms.

54 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Thank you.

 

Depreciation subsidies are part of policies designed to support businesses.  Factories wear out, buildings must eventually be demolished.  If depreciation not deducted, it gets applied to the price of the product or service.

 

Loans are just loans, and allegedly must be paid back.  If not, there can be penalties for tax evasion.  Otherwise we'd have to claim credit card purchases as income.

 

Why should the government get to impose death taxes.  Families should be able to build wealth.  Why don't we rescind the tax exemption on primary residences?  Fred in the suburbs should have to pay tax when he moves to a new home?

54 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Thank you.

 

Depreciation subsidies are part of policies designed to support businesses.  Factories wear out, buildings must eventually be demolished.  If depreciation not deducted, it gets applied to the price of the product or service.

 

Loans are just loans, and allegedly must be paid back.  If not, there can be penalties for tax evasion.  Otherwise we'd have to claim credit card purchases as income.

 

Why should the government get to impose death taxes.  Families should be able to build wealth.  Why don't we rescind the tax exemption on primary residences?  Fred in the suburbs should have to pay tax when he moves to a new home?

Something's wear out a lot more slowly than others. Buildings wear out after 10 years 20 years these are absurd rates of depreciation 

Who said loan shouldn't be paid back? I just said that rich people use loans instead of  or in addition to earned income.

I pointed out the reason why the government should tax inherited wealth .  That was the founding father's reasoning. And you have no answer for why capital gains should be bumped up to a new basis with no tax consequences. 

In fact, whno less a person than Milton Friedman who pointed out that capital gains being taxed at a different rate is in effect saying that certain kinds of income are better than other kinds of income and it's a distortion of the marketplace. At this point in time it's too late to do anything about the exemptions granted for residences. But it does distort the marketplace.

6 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I'm sure both Trump and his advisors know that you can't have the world's reserve currency without having a trade deficit. Everyone should know that. It's fundamental. And it's beneficial to the USA and its central bank, which gets to print money with the resulting inflation exported to the rest of the world. 

 

What Trump is concerned with is a trade deficit that's larger than might be expected if the imbalance were simply the result of that one factor.  For example, Chinese government subsidies of manufacturers, gains made from the theft of intellectual property, gains resulting from tariffs that are excessive, currency manipulation, and so on.  That's the imbalance Trump wants to correct.  How that will be accomplished is anyone's guess, but I'm sure the Trump team aren't guided by a "crazy notion."

 

China is in trouble.  They cannot afford a long protracted cessation of trade.  Neither can the USA.  In other words, there will be a deal.  

There is absolutely no evidence of that Trump knows that at all.  He's been very clear over and over again that he thinks a trade imbalance is proof of unfairness. I'm sure that most of his advisers, with the big exception of Peter Navarro, know that this is nuts.

2 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

If you can't explain why the policies are "bad",..........

Because they're subsidies to the rich. Should buildings even be allowed depreciation? Items like cars which invariably lose value over time (unless it's a collector's item) do lost value. But real estate like building often increase in value. Why do they deserve any subsidy much less a bigger one?

As for rich people taking out a loan instead of getting paid...well for one thing it means that those income figures cited above don't really reflect all income. Just that which is technically income

And why should capital gains taxes not be applied based on the original value? Why should the wealthy be able to escape taxes on them?

And the thing is, all these deductions and a lot more like them allow for an entrenched hereditary class of the superwealthy. The founding fathers feared such a development since they saw the ills that such entrenched wealthy classes inflicted on Europe. That's why they supported strong inheritance taxes to keep that kind of thing in check.

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Of course they do. Musk's robots are just a hobby horse. 400 billion USD is 400 billion USD.

Robotics are 1 of the 2 things that Musk is pinning the future of Tesla on. Maybe you should let him know he's mistaken.

400 billion to, say, Germany isn't the same as $400 billion to China. It's less than 3% of GDP. China isn't denying that it will hurt but given the huge size of its economy and its formidable engines of propaganda and repression, it's nowhere close to dangerous. You might want to learn about that from this Wall St. Journal article.

https://archive.ph/eFLCR

1 minute ago, uncletiger said:

The simple truth is nothing changes until things get so bad in the US that martial law is declared so you can legally have honest military tribunals rather than trials by the corrupt judiciary we have today. That is what all this is heading towards. No, they aren't going to start the Epstein trials while the Epstein judges still get to decide.

 

So that's what Trump is doing. Pushing the US to the point where the globalists have no choice left but force the country into civil war. And he doesn't care if he pisses off his supporters in the process. The very real war between Trump and the globalist criminal syndicate doesn't concern itself with the collateral damage it brings to us. My guess is the US won't even make it to midterms. But since nothing is going to get fixed until the tanks are in the street, I'm just happy to finally see it all unfold.

Because military justice is honest? "Got any evidence that the courts are corrupt? You mean like ruling that a President can't be prosecuted for crimes he committed using his presidential powers? It's funny. An appeals court judge hearing this case asked incredulously if the President's lawyers could order say a Navy Seal team to assassinate a political opponent and he could never be charged with a criminal act after leaving office. The lawyers answered in the affirmative. That reply was widely ridiculed in the legal community. Until 6 right wingers on the Supreme court invented some new legal doctrine to claim that this was the case. So now we have a president who can commit crimes wholesale and never have to face prosecution. Now that's giving license to wholesale lawlessness.

5 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Those all sound perfectly fine.

 

Don't be jealous of other peoples' success.

 

Work hard, invest, and maybe you can benefit.........unless Trump crashes your 401K or tariffs your employer out of existence.

When you've got nothing make it personal. You've got nothing.

21 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

How 'bout...........ANY...........context.

 

For ezzample:

 

Bob earned $60K.  He's married with no kids.  He files jointly, and takes an IRA deduction and mortgage interest deduction.  He pays $5800 tax.

 

Fred earned $1 Billion.  He's single and owns a private jet.  He runs a casino resort...........poorly.............and lost $400 Million.  He invests in a company selling gold-colored sneakers that also did poorly.  He sold his entire holdings for a loss of $600 Million.  Fred pays no tax.

 

That, dear, is context.

How about this. A real estate provision in the tax code used to allow for depreciation over 20 years. That is to say that you could deduct from your income 5 percent of that value of that real estate each year. After 20 years the value of that real estate for tax writeoffs is nothing. So what do you do? You create an LLC that buys the property and the tax write-offs begin all over again. But wait a minute, It gets even better, Let's say you become President of the United States. And you change the tax code to allow a write-off of 10% a year...do you see where I'm going with this.

Or let's say you're a rich guy and you announce that you aren't going to take any pay for your services. How generous is that?  Instead you take out loans using as collateral shares of stock Or some other asset. You pay a lot less in interest on those loans than you would in taxes. Because loans don't count as income, so that never shows up in income figures. Which means that the actual amount of earning plus such loans is greater than the reported amount of earnings.

Let's say you're a rich person nearing the end of his life and you want to leave your wealth to your children including your stocks. Let's say you bought those stocks for $10 per share adjusted for inflation and at the time of inheritance they are worth$100. How much in capital gains does the person inheriting the stock have to pay? None except for what inheritance taxes might apply.. But get this, if the heir ever decides to sell the stock they will pay capital gains only on the value that is over $100, that being the value at the time of inheritance, instead of the $10 that was paid for it originally.

As for inheritance taxes...well, that's another story.

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I shall explain to you how this works, because I like you. See, in a relationship of course both parties want something. But one party wants something far more than the other.. In a relationship, the party that cares less about losing the relationship has the upper hand. Does the US have a 400 billion USD share of China's market?  No. So in the Chinese American relationship the US will ALWAYS have the upper hand.. 

Your claiming that China wants the money more than the US wants the products? How badly do you think manufacturers want the inputs that come from China? Not to mention the stuff that China can withhold.

Elon Musk says China wants assurances that magnets for Tesla's humanoid robot won't be used for 'military purposes'

• Elon Musk said Optimus production faces challenges due to China's rare-earth export restrictions.

• The Tesla CEO said China wants assurance that the parts won't be used for "military purposes." Musk said they wouldn't be.

• Musk said Tesla plans to solve the issue and produce thousands of Optimus robots by the end of 2025.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-says-china-wants-175700361.html

The Mao post and other messages from Beijing highlight what China sees as one of its core advantages against the U.S.: While Trump and his Republican backers are vulnerable to the whims of American voters, the party that Mao built is deeply entrenched, having maintained power through more than seven decades despite war, famine, political upheaval and financial crises...

 ...Since an earlier trade war during the first Trump administration, he has intensified his grip on the country’s leadership and spent lavishly reinforcing the authoritarian tools that underpin the party’s longevity, including enhancements of the world’s most sophisticated systems for censorship and surveillance. The Chinese leader wants to harden his country specifically for a confrontation with the U.S., urging officials to engage in what he calls “extreme scenario thinking.”

https://archive.ph/eFLCR

I guess for reasons of arrogance, lots of members of this forum think China is a paper tiger and they resent any information that might not jibe with those beliefs. The last time I can recall thinking of this kind on a major scale was the 2nd Iraq War.

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'd classify you as a terrorist.

Obviously, I couldn't classify you as a traitor because you're British.

Thank you for your double demonstration of cluelessness.

13 minutes ago, jippytum said:

 

Less than 50% is not most. 

8 years ago,  sure. Nowadays

https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It's a subtle balance to find, as it will encourage them to leave. It happened in France and lots of them moved to Switzerland.

Well what happened if France isn't comparable. Those people who left, may have moved but they were still in the EU or, in the case of Switzerland, a country that freely trades with the EU.

I posted this topic as a test to see what Trump supporters would say. First off, it's significant that so few replied to it. And what's just as significant is how Trumpist did reply to it. Cagily. Not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing but temporizing. And the reason for this is clear. They don't want to be burned again. Remember Trump's H-1B flip-flop? From being very negative to very positive? And how all the Trumpists followed suit? Well, they learned their lesson well. Don't get out ahead of Trump because you don't want to be caught out in opposition to whatever stance he assumes.

Anyway, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say I'm fo raising taxes substantially on the wealthy.

8 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You dont consider rich, multinational drug dealers that pump dope into the arms of kids, terrorists?

 

Guess that goes with the belief that a man can become a woman by slicing off his balls.

Maybe to you terrorist means "foreign really bad person." But not to me. And I can't find that definition in any directory.

And what exactly does transgenderism have to do with this?

13 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

I'm not about to disagree with anything you've said, I still think, however, that people can make choices, and not eat such food, and to reduce their calorific indicate whilst increasing their calorific output.  Governments can help by banning or putting taxes/tariffs on such foods; the list you made is excellent.  So, well done RFK for making a start, and thanks for your input.

 

For fuller disclosure, I'm 95kg (210lbs), 6' 3" (1.91m), BMI = 26.  Meaning I'm overweight (just).  Reason?  Too many beer calories in, not enough exercise calories out.  The usual signals of too much beer are not present (liver/ blood sugar etc.), so my answer is more calorific output (I like beer more than I like sitting on my ass).  I won't use a taxi to get me 1/2 a mile down the road, I won't use a moving walkway to get me up to a gym & I will walk to a bar that's 2 miles away rather than 1/2 a mile (I'll be walking past about 25 bars to get there...).  I will continue to not eat 💩 food.

But, thanks to science, it's a lot more difficult to give up.

7 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

They flip flop back n forth, post misleading headlines and opinions as facts, anything to suit their Trump bad narrative.

They're like a broken record 

I'll give Trump credit for not sounding like a broken record lately. Now he sounds more like a broken bully.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

I have zero interest in your claims of sleazy stuff. I am more than happy to take the positives from the article and leave the negatives to you.

 

 

If you have zero interest then why even comment on it? The fact remains that it's obviously sleazy.

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Yes sarcasm is dead

Good thing my sarcasm wasn't. Or was it? It was really all your comment deserved. 

Since when has a Treasury Secretary given privileged information to wealthy investors? These are people who can capitalize on that news big time. Why is that an appropriate venue? Why is that not sleazy?

Apparently, you've got nothing. Of course, you could prove me wrong but offering something substantive. But I won't hold my breath.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

 I can see that it's also really sleazy news. 

 

Yes of course it is 

We agree twice in a row. Amazing!

Just now, placeholder said:

Well, maybe they did. But maybe, like you, they mistakenly consider negotiations to be a form of surrender. The Chinese have said they're willing to negotiate. But not under threat. Surrender or victory can only be judged by the ultimate outcome of negotiations. Not the fact of negotiations themselves.  It looks to me like the Trump administration is already willing to settle for a fig leaf with other countries. I don't hear anymore threats about whoever comes first gets the best deal.

It's just a thought but i could see China be willing to have its auto companies build them in the United States like other foreign based companies. But that might be called a win-win. A concept that doesn't seem to exist in the zero-sum thinking of Trump and his fans.