The Next President is...

[17D_guy]

18 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Back to my opinion. When someone who is able to claim 100% disability can still fly a 9G jet and stands next to someone who is 100% disabled who had all four limbs blown off in AFG, I think that's a bit sick, frankly. Something is wrong with the system.

I'm 100% T&P. Some days I do great and feel like the disability is fraud; some days I can barely get out of bed and realize why it's there. Basically every joint from L4 down is jacked up.

Either way the rating is a roll of the dice. I'd hate to go on a good day and be told I've been faking it. Or get means tested and since I make so much get it cut off...then get laid-off/fired (PTO just got changed where I work) and be in the wind. Doubly worried since the wife is a DAF Civ...

That doesn't even go into the tax "benefits" of being a disabled vet and possibly losing them.

[blueingreen]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

If for nothing else to stop deficit spending every single year, but also to maintain our nation's quality of life and top dog place in world affairs.

I'm not expecting a dissertation on this, but I would like to see somebody with your ideological inclinations attempt to answer / offer a perspective on this simple question: Why has our standard of living declined in so many tangible ways? You mention things like 90% tax rates for the ultra-rich during the WWII era, but the effective tax rate for the vast majority of people, the middle income earners, was no different than it is today. As I've mentioned before, confiscating the wealth of all our billionaires wouldn't even enable us to fund our government for a year. What's going on here?

[17D_guy]

31 minutes ago, brabus said:

I think both sides can agree the tax code needs improvement, but simply continuing to increase punishing successful people is a ridiculous proposition. How about we just go flat tax, no breaks/deductions (or very little at least). Something like everyone pays 10% fed, whatever that totals to is what the fed budget is. Oh that’s not enough to fund all your bullshit pet projects? Too bad, draw the cut line like the rest of us who understand basic finances do.

Fair, I've hated the 1% saying. It's more the .1% that are "the problem." Technically I'm in the 1% as well according to some metrics. But as I said in another post, I ain't "hide my money like an oligarch rich" and my stock investments aren't ever going to make a dent in the percentage of ownership of a company. 

But, with the flat tax how is that going to work with the Bezo's, Musk's, et al who use loans on their stock as their means of acquisition/funding? Does this include a flat tax on corporations, no more R&D deductions for example?

The rich can also pay cash to avoid these taxes, a la "the greek experience" 😁.

The flat tax has been shown to hit the poor harder than the current system. I don't know everyone's experience here, but I feel like a lot of you haven't interacted with many poor people regularly. I have them in my family, and because of my political/religious leanings I deal with them regularly. The majority of them aren't lazy, do nothings. Most are working at least one job, or have a disability of some kind, or medical challenges that are just outside their control. 

Note, I say all this with a son who has rejected every leg up I could provide (Tricare/GI bill/VA ed benefits) who completely fits the bandied about poor person trope on here. But again...kid has some mental disabilities he's no longer taking meds for. SIGH....
 

[BuddhaSixFour]

I’m sure billionaires have a different mechanism at their disposal, but let’s call this the Pledged Asset Line of Credit loophole where you borrow against stock (not taxed) unless you sell the stock to pay off the load (taxed as capital gains).  
 

I’ve never seen why that’s a hard one to solve. These loans have to be repaid, presumably by the sale of the underlying assets which triggers capital gains. So, let’s say when you pledge the stock against a PAL, we jot down the current value. If you sell the stock later, which you’ll eventually have to do, you get long term gains up to that amount, and any gains past that are treated as short term gains regardless of duration, and the underlying assets must be sold to pay off the balance when you die. No rolling forward shenanigans. Still leaves PALs as a reasonable financial tool but gets rid of them as a tax loophole. 
 

The dumbest way to address it is a wealth tax.

[Day Man]

27 minutes ago, BuddhaSixFour said:

These loans have to be repaid, presumably by the sale of the underlying assets which triggers capital gains.

I'm pretty sure they are paid off by yet another loan (and the interest is written off).

https://www.dcfpi.org/all/how-wealthy-households-use-a-buy-borrow-die-strategy-to-avoid-taxes-on-their-growing-fortunes/#:~:text=Wealthy family borrows against its,doesn't tax borrowed money.

agreed wealth tax (I am assuming you mean a net worth tax) is dumb.

Edited February 18 by Day Man

[brabus]

56 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Does this include a flat tax on corporations, no more R&D deductions for example?

Maybe. It would delete all of the bullshit loopholes, but also there probably needs to be some incentive to industry to develop X because the gov needs it. So I don’t think it’s effective to truly kill every deduction, but we could kill a lot of them, assuming the flat tax rate is much lower than our current structure.

59 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

The flat tax has been shown to hit the poor harder than the current system. I don't know everyone's experience here, but I feel like a lot of you haven't interacted with many poor people regularly

I do interact pretty regularly with them and I have seen the opposite of you. They more often than not are unmotivated to work hard and will do the bare min to buy the booze and smokes they want for the week. Yeah they’re working a job, but they are choosing to min run it and DGAF because they’d rather just blame the invisible “rich guy” than admit they’re simply not self-motivated and not success-minded. I will help where I can, but I also shouldn’t be forced to give my hard earned money to them (I do donate money and time because I believe in helping people who need it, but I do it FREELY, not forced by my gov - and that’s a huge difference in my book). I’m not saying there aren’t people truly experiencing hard times outside of their control, but they are not the majority in my experience. 

Obviously the flat tax idea is not perfect, nor would any system be perfect. How do we support the people who are truly hosed not by their own doing while minimizing the leeches? And how do we do that without complete wealth redistribution to some politician’s favorite blood suckers? I think a flat tax with well thought out deductions is a good discussion and something that, even with the inevitable cons, is way better than the bullshit we have now. 

[Lord Ratner]

Sales tax for all taxation as the baseline. This allows for removing sales tax on targeted items as tax relief for those who make less and therefore spend a higher percentage of their income on essentials. It also means workers never have to do taxes ever again. 

 

Tax fraud is harder because taxes are collected *from* the taxed by a business who does not want to go to jail for tax fraud. 

 

This would have to be done by constitutional amendment. Make the amendment such that the tax is only adjustable to 0%. No intermediate tax levels to favor this industry or that. Limit exemptions to a fixed level, let's say a max of $5,000 (just an example). If the item or service costs more than that, the rest is taxed. The exceptions are solely for helping low-income Americans, but everyone gets the same exemptions. 

 

Income tax was always a stupid and complicated solution. 

[Smokin]

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

The flat tax has been shown to hit the poor harder than the current system.

Virtually any other tax system is going to hit the poor harder than the current system because they have an effective negative tax rate at the federal level.  A flat tax or a sales tax only are the only ethical tax systems.  Our current tax system is legalized theft because people are effectively voting to have other people's property taken from them.  If you break into your neighbor's house and steal a bunch of money because he's in the top 1%, you go to prison.  But when 51% of the population votes to have the government do the same thing, somehow that is not only ok but is commendable.  This is basically the tax system that we have now.  People that pay almost nothing, or even get paid rather than paying taxes, vote to take money from other people simply because they can.

And just to make my post piss off the left as much as possible, all cooperate tax is dumb.  All you're doing with corporate tax is doing a bread and circus act to be popular with voters that don't see past the smoke and mirrors.  If you add a 10% tax on a company, that company isn't just suddenly going to make 10% less money that year.  They're going to raise their prices, cut costs, or both to try to make up for it.  Raising the corporate tax rate is going to increase the cost of goods, which is going to be paid for by everyone buying the product, so it is effectively no different than increasing the sales tax.  And since they will likely not be able to raise their prices by 10% without a substantial decrease in revenue, they're going to cut labor as well since that is the largest variable cost for most companies.  So raising the corporate tax rate is going to result in layoffs, inflation, and overall decreased quality of life for the workers and consumers.  But it sure sounds good when politicians say they're not going to raise your taxes, instead they're going to make sure companies "pay their fair share."

[Guest nsplayr]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

Are you able to actively read, or do you just see a few trigger words and hit reply? I clearly said it was not an indicator of a bunch of FWA, but it is accounting ineptitude at the most basic level, which is very concerning. 

Nah it's just that when the average person sees a headline like this, and other folks share it, it makes them believe the whole thing is fraud. That's why Elon is tweeting this stuff out! It's not like "Hey guys I worked with Treasury and the Fed and improved an accounting process that will make things better!" You see the message he is putting out and the intent behind it and I would encourage you to think twice about sharing it. He wants to drive attention, he wants people to distrust the government so he can swoop in and make something better, etc. Maybe you agree with that overarching POV but I very much do not.

2 hours ago, blueingreen said:

I'm not expecting a dissertation on this, but I would like to see somebody with your ideological inclinations attempt to answer / offer a perspective on this simple question: Why has our standard of living declined in so many tangible ways? You mention things like 90% tax rates for the ultra-rich during the WWII era, but the effective tax rate for the vast majority of people, the middle income earners, was no different than it is today. As I've mentioned before, confiscating the wealth of all our billionaires wouldn't even enable us to fund our government for a year. What's going on here?

I think a lot of it is A) housing unaffordability, B) the pandemic really fucked us all up more than we'd like to admit, and C) people understandably whitewash the past and make it seem better by papering over the bad stuff and highlighting the good, while simultaneously worrying about and dooming about the future.

Covid effects over the last 4 years aside, today so SO MUCH BETTER than the past in a lot of ways. Life expectancy, per capita GDP, infant mortality, deaths from communicable diseases, literacy, college graduation rates, etc. etc. I can facetime my parents from across the world, fly an armed airplane from my hometown via satellites, and there are frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads. You get the idea.

TBH the higher taxes on the wealthy in the past I think did really help. People today are better off in absolute terms but perhaps worse off in relative terms to those at the very top, and so that drives some of the anger you see today. The atomization of modern life doesn't help either, everyone is in their own little bubble without as many common touch points so it's harder to connect to people you don't personally know and respect.

Not to discount the precariousness of the modern economy - too many people are one layoff, one illness, one bad choice or spell of bad luck away from bankruptcy or death or just getting set back multiple decades of progress. There's something real there. Some folks in the past had better assurances that if they worked hard for the right company and perhaps with a good unio they could buy a middle class life and receive a comfortable-enough pension on the back end; that didn't apply to everyone but it applied to some and now that deal is not really one on offer.

My grandpa was a lifelong postal worker & postmaster in a tiny rural town and took his family from growing up in the depression to helping win WWII to having all four of his kids graduate from college. My father-in-law did a 30 year career at a steel mill sacrificing his body for the middle class promise...and he almost achieved it. The mill went out of business right before he was going to retire and his pension was bought out and renegotiated to a ghost of what was promised. Today really no jobs other than mil have pensions anymore so you'd best save & invest wisely or else. That's just 2 generations later and my own family as an example...and we're all doing pretty good!

I have ideas on how to fix some of that, but obviously I don't have it all worked out, neither does anyone else. Liberals I think have better ideas, but conservative ideas have some merit too. We need to work together better to help fix what has degraded.

Overall I still think western liberal democracy and capitalism is still the best plan for the future and I intend to fight hard to keep us and our system on top so that more people in our country and around the world can live better lives.

Edited February 19 by nsplayr

[Guest nsplayr]

33 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Income tax was always a stupid and complicated solution. 

I mean ok, but then why does literally every country on earth except a handful of weird, tiny enclaves use income taxes? I don't look at any country on that list and say, "Gee, I'd love to be a citizen there!" I mean maybe if you're a fat fuck Qatari with inherited wealth and you can just drive Ferraris and do whatever...

A mix of income and other taxes that most of the world uses is like democracy and capitalism, it's the worst system except all the other ones we've tried.

Edited February 19 by nsplayr

[busdriver]

While ideologically, I like all the weird libertarian tax stuff; I think it's all picking at the edges of a pipe dream.  

The population is getting older.  We will likely need to cut/reform spending and increase taxes.  Of course that is political suicide.  So it will only happen after fiscal insolvency.

No one on this board should be planning on social security.

[dream big]

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I do think people who have the money to do so, i.e. high W2 earners but also, and first, the extremely wealthy & highly profitable corporations need to pay more taxes, yea.

If for nothing else to stop deficit spending every single year, but also to maintain our nation's quality of life and top dog place in world affairs.

Our nation’s quality of life wasn’t built on taxes. 

[brabus]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I would encourage you to think twice about sharing it.

Nah, I’m happy to share far and wide the gross negligence, incompetence, and in many cases, FWA, the gov has been conducting using our money. The mask is pulled off, and it’s very ugly. People need to know. We’ve been played hard in many ways, better to acknowledge that and start working on solutions. Or gaslight yourself and don’t believe what’s 6 inches in front of your face, but I don’t recommend anyone take that approach.

 

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean ok, but then why does literally every country on earth except a handful of weird, tiny enclaves use income taxes?

Ok…but how were we able to build a super power without income taxes prior to 1913? This argument is kind of like, “well everyone else is doing X, so we’d be dumb not to!” If you’re going to argue income tax is the best option, then at least put some substance behind it. So to that point, why would a sales tax or flat tax (or a combo) not be able to properly fund our gov, but our income tax system can? I think a reasonable flat tax or sales tax only would likely reduce our fed revenue compared to the current system, but I see that as a good thing. The evidence for why is on display right now…billions spent on shit that does not advance American values and interests (but may advance some very politicized interests of certain demographics…which is not good on either end of the spectrum).

[Guest nsplayr]

I’ll say this, there’s not $4.7T in fraud waste and abuse, and implying that is a bad idea.

If another tax scheme were so brilliant we or someone else would have tried it already. Most people have the sense not to KO their economies and their countries.

We may not be so wise…

Edited February 19 by nsplayr

[pbar]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I do think people who have the money to do so, i.e. high W2 earners but also, and first, the extremely wealthy & highly profitable corporations need to pay more taxes, yea.

If for nothing else to stop deficit spending every single year, but also to maintain our nation's quality of life and top dog place in world affairs.

High tariffs will just be passed along to consumers, amirite?  But higher corporate taxes won't be?  

[lloyd christmas]

Admittedly, I’m not well versed on tax policy or law.  When I hear/read these arguments about the 1% paying more, corporations paying more or Bezos not paying a fair share etc, I always wonder why a company like Amazon is not looked at in totality.  How much do they pay in excise taxes on gas for cars and aircraft, property taxes, income taxes generated by employing thousands of people, SSN/FICA/Medicare, sales tax on what they purchase, sales tax paid on their products by the consumer who buys their products, etc?   I guess I’m missing something because it seems like a guy like Bezos is generating untold amounts of tax revenue for both the local and federal governments.  

[brabus]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’ll say this, there’s not $4.7T in fraud waste and abuse, and implying that is a bad idea.

Zero mention of FWA or implication of it (though you obviously inferred it because you’re driven by political bias). Directly says they increased insight into where money is going. If one doesn’t support transparency and basic tracking of money, they’re simply an idiot. Stop grasping at straws, it’s a bad look.

[M2]

Just to switch gears (not that getting breech loaded over taxes isn't a fun discussion!), I just saw this and wanted to highlight another excellent pick by Trump!

Trump to tap Texas “border czar” to lead U.S. Border Patrol, report says

I met Mike Banks when he spoke at a Texas Leadership conference a year or so ago, and was highly impressed with the guy!  He's not a politician, knows the border as well as anyone, and has reasonable expectations as to what needs to be done. 

He is also very unapologetic, during his speech he talked about the border buoys Texas is putting in the Rio Grande.  He defended their use, and addressed numerous fallacies about them such as using saw blades in between the buoys. 

Not long after, I took a week-long trip along the Texas border with a stop at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, and there was a line of these waiting to be placed in the river.  I did the same thing Banks mentioned and ran my bare palm along the ridges of those "blades."   I didn't get a scratch.  

This new administration is moving in the right direction when it comes to defending our sovereignty!

[17D_guy]

3 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:

Admittedly, I’m not well versed on tax policy or law.  When I hear/read these arguments about the 1% paying more, corporations paying more or Bezos not paying a fair share etc, I always wonder why a company like Amazon is not looked at in totality.  How much do they pay in excise taxes on gas for cars and aircraft, property taxes, income taxes generated by employing thousands of people, SSN/FICA/Medicare, sales tax on what they purchase, sales tax paid on their products by the consumer who buys their products, etc?   I guess I’m missing something because it seems like a guy like Bezos is generating untold amounts of tax revenue for both the local and federal governments.  

Often getting a Amazon warehouse or other large corp HQ comes with corresponding tax cuts/breaks from the local/state governments. So, we got an inland port up where I'm working, for the next 10~15 years the owners of that port are paying severely reduced taxes compared to other businesses in the area. Idea is to spur growth obviously. Is that passed on to the businesses who utilize said inland port? No idea.

I legit have no strong feeling either way about that.

Additionally, these large corp's have armies of tax lawyers looking for ways to categorize for tax savings, and Amazon itself has many sub-business arrangements under the Amazon umbrella (ex. AWS) that allow for further tax savings (ex. R&D like I mentioned before). Finally, there's the whole revenue vs. profit and how that applies to taxes.

Also not a tax lawyer. 

EDIT: As a nerd, the story of how AWS came to be is pretty cool.

Edited February 19 by 17D_guy

[17D_guy]

Thoughts on the new EO where only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws?

Or Trump saying Ukraine shouldn't have started the war?

[brabus]

A couple snippets re: the EO that I just looked at (I have not read the actual EO):

• Therefore, because all executive power is vested in the President, all agencies must: (1) submit draft regulations for White House review—with no carve-out for so-called independent agencies, except for the monetary policy functions of the Federal Reserve; and (2) consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans, and the White House will set their performance standards.
• The Office of Management and Budget will adjust so-called independent agencies’ apportionments to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely.
• The President and the Attorney General (subject to the President’s supervision and control) will interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations.

I read this to mean intent is to rein in unelected bureaucrats, who have enjoyed zero accountability, from making regulations that are based on their personal interpretation. These bureaucrats are not elected and do not represent the people. The president is elected by the people to represent their interests via his running of the executive branch. Therefore, he should have final say on how the executive branch defines/implements regulations, which ultimately are what directly impact all of our daily lives. 
 

There could be more to this as I haven’t read the actual text, but what I posted above is absolutely a great thing. I’m sick of people who weren’t elected doing whatever the fuck they want to impact my family’s life. I demand accountability through elections.

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Thoughts on the new EO where only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws?

Depends on how you are interpreting it. I can see a lot of people hyperventilating by claiming that this is some sort of attempt to bypass the judiciary, but there's no good evidence of that. This seems to be a memo declaring that within the executive branch, interpretations will be made at the highest level.

 

Everything about that is a good thing.

[Blue]

20 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Thoughts on the new EO where only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws?

Yeah.  Saying that the EOs intent was "only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws" is a shitty take.  Didn't stop all of social media from running with it yesterday though.  

7 minutes ago, brabus said:

I read this to mean intent is to rein in unelected bureaucrats, who have enjoyed zero accountability, from making regulations that are based on their personal interpretation. These bureaucrats are not elected and do not represent the people. The president is elected by the people to represent their interests via his running of the executive branch. Therefore, he should have final say on how the executive branch defines/implements regulations, which ultimately are what directly impact all of our daily lives. There could be more to this as I haven’t read the actual text, but what I posted above is absolutely a great thing. I’m sick of people who weren’t elected doing whatever the fuck they want to impact my family’s life. I demand accountability through elections.

This was my interpretation as well.

For all of the screaming about Trump, DOGE, firings, Ukraine, taxes, etc, a large portion of what is happening is a long overdue attempt at reigning in the federal bureaucracy.  This EO is just another step in that direction, and I think it's a reasonable approach.

I'm anxiously awaiting the implementation of the "Schedule F" EO, which is intended to put some guardrails around civil service employees working in policy-influencing positions.  As can be expected, many in .gov land are not supportive. 

[Flev]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

A couple snippets re: the EO that I just looked at (I have not read the actual EO):

 

• Therefore, because all executive power is vested in the President, all agencies must: (1) submit draft regulations for White House review—with no carve-out for so-called independent agencies, except for the monetary policy functions of the Federal Reserve; and (2) consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans, and the White House will set their performance standards.
• The Office of Management and Budget will adjust so-called independent agencies’ apportionments to ensure tax dollars are spent wisely.
• The President and the Attorney General (subject to the President’s supervision and control) will interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations.

I read this to mean intent is to rein in unelected bureaucrats, who have enjoyed zero accountability, from making regulations that are based on their personal interpretation. These bureaucrats are not elected and do not represent the people. The president is elected by the people to represent their interests via his running of the executive branch. Therefore, he should have final say on how the executive branch defines/implements regulations, which ultimately are what directly impact all of our daily lives. 
 

There could be more to this as I haven’t read the actual text, but what I posted above is absolutely a great thing. I’m sick of people who weren’t elected doing whatever the they want to impact my family’s life. I demand accountability through elections.

I think it's also a direct response to SCOTUS getting rid of Chevron Deference (https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/) last year in the wake of agencies who were using their rule-making authority to create pseudo-carveouts in the law. One example was the ATF's bump-stock case which ultimately was found to violate the Administrative Procedures Act last summer (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-976).

Now whenever a legal challenge comes up against these agencies, they can't just have government lawyers appease judges by saying "Trust us we're the experts." They have to show a legitimate attempt to remain within the guard-rails set by Congress, and Trump's administration is likely tired of these agencies making fools of themselves.

Edited February 19 by Flev
Adding Links for Context

[Stoker]

On 2/16/2025 at 1:32 PM, Prosuper said:

Why do we need 44 Four stars. Didn't we win WW2 with 7?

You can flatten the rank structure if you increase the pay. It isn't surprising we don't track good talent to be GOs when an O-7 makes less than a 3rd year FO at mainline. Our military pay structure hasn't been "designed" in any meaningful way in decades - we've just done percentage increases across the board, and it isn't reasonable to expect people to serve out of self-denying patriotism absent an ongoing existential war.

More leadership positions is a long trend in military history. I'm sure Alexander had some folks complaining about paying for front and rear file leaders in the phalanx, when the Athenians used to get away with just front file leaders.