That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Palin and Bachman in 2010? What?
Recent evidence suggests otherwise. We just cut corporate taxes significantly in 2017. Prices didn't go down. Instead corporations overwhelmingly plowed the windfall into stock buybacks and dividends.pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:03 amAlso, back when I listened to Neal Boortz regularly, part of the argument for the Fair Tax is that the raw price of a lot of things would go down with corporate taxes being eliminated and products would only be taxed when they are bought, not when the materials for them were bought for assembly.
Oh, I don't think prices would actually go down now, but that was definitely the Boortz argument back in the early 2000s for why the FairTax was a good idea and prices wouldn't automagically go up 23% 30% overnight.malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:17 amRecent evidence suggests otherwise. We just cut corporate taxes significantly in 2017. Prices didn't go down. Instead corporations overwhelmingly plowed the windfall into stock buybacks and dividends.pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:03 amAlso, back when I listened to Neal Boortz regularly, part of the argument for the Fair Tax is that the raw price of a lot of things would go down with corporate taxes being eliminated and products would only be taxed when they are bought, not when the materials for them were bought for assembly.
Well certainly not now, but they get all 3 spots? Who knows... They showed with Roe that they don't give two flips and will do anything they want. Tucker just needs to spend 3 years saying how great it will be and then bam.pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:49 amOh, I don't think prices would actually go down now, but that was definitely the Boortz argument back in the early 2000s for why the FairTax was a good idea and prices wouldn't automagically go up 23% 30% overnight.malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:17 amRecent evidence suggests otherwise. We just cut corporate taxes significantly in 2017. Prices didn't go down. Instead corporations overwhelmingly plowed the windfall into stock buybacks and dividends.pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:03 amAlso, back when I listened to Neal Boortz regularly, part of the argument for the Fair Tax is that the raw price of a lot of things would go down with corporate taxes being eliminated and products would only be taxed when they are bought, not when the materials for them were bought for assembly.
It's not like the FairTax will ever become law or anything, anyway. Either in the past or now.
I get that it's been proposed before, but that it's being pushed now - and with more energy than we've seen - is quite puzzling (to me). This is really how they think they can build momentum heading into 2024? That the "common clay" is going to get on board with a 30% tax on everything?To provide a little background, income and wealth inequality in America have not been more extreme since before the New Deal. While the average family income in America is about $54,000 per year, the top 1% average income tops $1,700,000 annually. CEOs earn 342 times more than the average worker they employ.
In terms of wealth inequality, the US of A has the greatest disparity of any developed nation in the world. The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 60% of Americans, and in the last two years, the top 1% have accumulated 99% of all new wealth created. The share of all wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from 30% in 1989 to 42% in 2021, while the share held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33% to 21%. That’s right. The top 1% now control double the wealth of the bottom 90%!
...
In the face of all of this, House Republicans have the bold idea of giving a huge tax cut to the wealthiest among us, paid for by an enormous tax increase on everyone else. In other words, let’s take a ton of money from people who have very little, and give it to those who have way more than they’ll ever need. Genius!
Specifically, here’s what the “Fair Tax” does. It completely eliminates the income tax, the payroll tax and the estate tax, and replaces it all with a 30% sales tax. That would elminate all taxes based on how much you earn or how much you own, and instead tax people as a percentage of what they spend. The problem with this is that the poorer you are, the larger proportion of your income you spend just to stay alive.
It has a 0% chance of passing. The big money donors who love this idea will be excited to see it pushed forward and the regular folk won't even know what the hell it is. At most they might hear "Fair Tax" and think "that sounds pretty good!"Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:05 pmI get that it's been proposed before, but that it's being pushed now - and with more energy than we've seen - is quite puzzling (to me). This is really how they think they can build momentum heading into 2024? That the "common clay" is going to get on board with a 30% tax on everything?
Right - this flat tax argument isn't new. And I'd suspect the argument was as falsely premised then as it is now. *Shrug*.pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:49 amOh, I don't think prices would actually go down now, but that was definitely the Boortz argument back in the early 2000s for why the FairTax was a good idea and prices wouldn't automagically go up 23% 30% overnight.malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:17 amRecent evidence suggests otherwise. We just cut corporate taxes significantly in 2017. Prices didn't go down. Instead corporations overwhelmingly plowed the windfall into stock buybacks and dividends.pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:03 amAlso, back when I listened to Neal Boortz regularly, part of the argument for the Fair Tax is that the raw price of a lot of things would go down with corporate taxes being eliminated and products would only be taxed when they are bought, not when the materials for them were bought for assembly.
Indeed. The worst part is that the actually fair and efficient alternative the Value Added Tax doesn't even get a word in edgewise in the discussion.It's not like the FairTax will ever become law or anything, anyway. Either in the past or now.
Well, you have to remember that they're a bunch of crazy and/or stupid lunatics. And that it's important to keep their donors happy.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:05 pm More commentary on the House GOP tax plan:
I get that it's been proposed before, but that it's being pushed now - and with more energy than we've seen - is quite puzzling (to me). This is really how they think they can build momentum heading into 2024? That the "common clay" is going to get on board with a 30% tax on everything?To provide a little background, income and wealth inequality in America have not been more extreme since before the New Deal. While the average family income in America is about $54,000 per year, the top 1% average income tops $1,700,000 annually. CEOs earn 342 times more than the average worker they employ.
In terms of wealth inequality, the US of A has the greatest disparity of any developed nation in the world. The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 60% of Americans, and in the last two years, the top 1% have accumulated 99% of all new wealth created. The share of all wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from 30% in 1989 to 42% in 2021, while the share held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33% to 21%. That’s right. The top 1% now control double the wealth of the bottom 90%!
...
In the face of all of this, House Republicans have the bold idea of giving a huge tax cut to the wealthiest among us, paid for by an enormous tax increase on everyone else. In other words, let’s take a ton of money from people who have very little, and give it to those who have way more than they’ll ever need. Genius!
Specifically, here’s what the “Fair Tax” does. It completely eliminates the income tax, the payroll tax and the estate tax, and replaces it all with a 30% sales tax. That would elminate all taxes based on how much you earn or how much you own, and instead tax people as a percentage of what they spend. The problem with this is that the poorer you are, the larger proportion of your income you spend just to stay alive.
Proposals like this exist to take up space. It's chief purpose is to redirect and steal oxygen from other conversations. If it happens to become law, well that's just gravy but there is no need for that to occur to rank something like this as a political success.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:05 pmI get that it's been proposed before, but that it's being pushed now - and with more energy than we've seen - is quite puzzling (to me). This is really how they think they can build momentum heading into 2024? That the "common clay" is going to get on board with a 30% tax on everything?
There's definitely also an ideological component to this. The far right is motivated out of a belief that poor (disproportionately minority) people are mooching off of the virtuous "job creators", and this stuff is part of how they want to fix that grave injustice.malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:49 pmProposals like this exist to take up space. It's chief purpose is to redirect and steal oxygen from other conversations. If it happens to become law, well that's just gravy but there is need for that to occur to rank something like this as a political success.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:05 pmI get that it's been proposed before, but that it's being pushed now - and with more energy than we've seen - is quite puzzling (to me). This is really how they think they can build momentum heading into 2024? That the "common clay" is going to get on board with a 30% tax on everything?
I really think the Devil is just giving a non-committal shrug here.Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:52 pm I don't even understand this at a basic conceptual level. Doesn't this proposed "Fair Tax" incentivize accumulating wealth but not spending it? Isn't that the opposite of what we want to be doing to drive economic growth?
I'm no economist. Got my lowest grade in college -- a D -- in International Economics (I retook the course, too, and only managed a C+). But this seems like a crazy concept on its face. Can someone be a helpful devil's advocate here and explain why anyone would think this is good policy?
Yeah that is the overarching narrative. I don't particularly buy many truly believe it or are doing anything but repeating it out of pure ignorance.El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:51 pmThere's definitely also an ideological component to this. The far right is motivated out of a belief that poor (disproportionately minority) people are mooching off of the virtuous "job creators", and this stuff is part of how they want to fix that grave injustice.
FWIW I don't think anyone but a small handful of radicals actually want this to actually become law. Most of them are a party to the shenanigans if not outright grift around carve outs and incentives delivered through the existing tax system.Also I will say that there is genuine value to the far right in getting a vote on this even if it's doomed. With a vote the idea becomes part of the political conversation in a significant way, and is far more likely to become law if and when the GOP regains full control of government.
NEW: Matt Gaetz was SECRETLY added to the Weaponization of Government Subcommittee. Kevin McCarthy submitted the change to the Congressional Journal without any public announcement & it took a CNN reporter to discover the change. This isn’t how Congress is supposed to function.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) dared his right-wing haters to try to take away his speaker’s gavel during a closed-door meeting Thursday morning.
“If you want to file a motion to vacate, then file the fucking motion,” McCarthy told his Republican colleagues, according to Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a McCarthy supporter.
The federal government will partially shut down at the end of the month if Congress can’t pass a spending bill, and House Republicans have no clear plan to pass one.
Per the Impeachment thread, this HuffPost article is missing a lot of detail and gets it all WRONG, save for the money quote. HC Richardson has the details again.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:32 pm Things are going great:
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) dared his right-wing haters to try to take away his speaker’s gavel during a closed-door meeting Thursday morning.
“If you want to file a motion to vacate, then file the fucking motion,” McCarthy told his Republican colleagues, according to Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a McCarthy supporter.
The federal government will partially shut down at the end of the month if Congress can’t pass a spending bill, and House Republicans have no clear plan to pass one.
the real details are that they are insisting on a LOT more which has NOTHING to do with spending:As has been the case all year, McCarthy is caught between ultraconservative members of the House Freedom Caucus, who are insisting on lower spending levels than the Senate or the White House would accept, and the rest of his conference.
the extremists have loaded the must-pass bills with demands unrelated to the bill itself. They have put measures restricting abortion and gender-affirming care in at least 8 of the 12 bills. ...
...Freedom Caucus members appear to be increasing their demands as a shutdown looms. In August, the caucus announced it would not support even a short-term funding bill unless it also included their own demands for border policy, an end to what they call “woke” policies in the Department of Defense, and what they call the “unprecedented weaponization” of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They also oppose funding for Ukraine to enable it to fight off Russia’s invasion.
This framing really needs to end. They're all* ultraconservative.
They think they are compromising by letting government continue function as long as we impeach Biden and ban abortions in the military and purge woke in government and only spending the way the Freedom Caucus wants to spend. They need to go and there's nothing you or I can do about it short of refusing product and service from state or district. Leading directly to why no GOP member will get my vote at any level, barring a truly despicable person being their opponent and I mean truly despicable, until there as been demonstrable enduring change.TheMix wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 3:11 pm I'm assuming they continue to get paid if the government shuts down? And continue to get health, etc.? I really wish they were on the chopping block first. Then I bet we'd see compromise. Of course, that would never ever happen. (That anything of "theirs" would be on the block.)
IMHO, you're focussing on the wrong part - the framing that needs to end is that it's lower spending levels they care about, which is false.
Of note:Hard-line conservatives in the House sank a procedural vote on a Pentagon funding bill Tuesday, a significant setback for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
Five Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the rule for the appropriations bill, bringing the final vote to 214-212 — short of the majority support needed.
The conservative opposition — Reps. Dan Bishop (N.C.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.) and Ken Buck (Colo.) — prevents the House from debating the legislation on the floor and, subsequently, voting on whether to pass it.
The failed vote came hours after House GOP leadership pulled a procedural vote on the conference’s proposal for a short-term funding bill amid opposition from hard-line conservatives — another setback for McCarthy.
The House has less than two weeks to extend government funding past Sept. 30 or risk a shutdown.
I didn't realize this was somehow connected to Senator Tuberville.Over the weekend, though, McCarthy vowed to bring the bill to the floor “win or lose, and show the American public who’s for the Department of Defense, who’s for our military, who’s for giving them a pay raise and who’s for making sure we can take the wokeism out.”
Speaker Kevin McCarthy is facing an extraordinary referendum on his leadership of the House after a conservative member of his own Republican majority, a longtime critic, moved to launch a vote to oust him from the helm.
Late Monday, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., rose in the chamber as the House was almost done for the day to file the motion — a resolution that would set a snap vote in coming days that even Gaetz acknowledged may not have enough support to remove the speaker from the job.
“I have enough Republicans where at this point next week, one of two things will happen: Kevin McCarthy won’t be the speaker of the House or he’ll be the speaker of the House working at the pleasure of the Democrats,” Gaetz told reporters afterward outside the Capitol.
McCarthy responded minutes later on social media, “Bring it on.”
Hated by both sides...nice!
Even though all federal charges have been dropped against him (February of 2023)? Are there other charges (besides the dropped sex trafficking ones) that I'm not aware of?
I don't know. Honestly probably doesn't really matter, as it's not like anyone would react to this by saying "Gaetz?! But he's so clean and above board!"Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 10:42 amEven though all federal charges have been dropped against him (February of 2023)? Are there other charges (besides the dropped sex trafficking ones) that I'm not aware of?
Oh maybe this, which apparently went nowhere? They're probably very busy with George Santos.
I really don't get why someone would even think that. A simple argument like "I'm the CEO of Trader Joes. Fair Tax gets passed. I keep the prices as-is because I don't feel like losing profits. Done." should shut it down.
More:
This season of Republican House Follies is lit!"Matt Gaetz had planned to do this from the very beginning," McCarthy said Tuesday on "Squawk Box."
"He has personal things in his life that he has challenges with. That's fine," McCarthy said.
"He's blaming me for an ethics complaint against him that happened in the last Congress," McCarthy said. "I have nothing to do with it."
"He wants me to try to wipe that away," McCarthy said.
"I'm not going to do that. That's illegal," the California lawmaker said.
"And you know what? If some way I lose my job because I uphold the law [and the] continuity of government, so be it."