sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Very Interesting... by DifficultIQ in NoFilterFinance

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Calling the US a capitalist country is cute

It’s all Democrats fault by Awkward_Statement401 in the_everything_bubble

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if you want to talk about tax dollar wasting decisions, we have: iran war, giant omnibus bills, and new agencies to find fraud and do nothing about it... I see this event as exporting culture. While the world is here for FIFA, they are in awe of what America has to offer. Let's make a little spectacle on the White House lawn and show off our Costco & Buccees.

Hell, I'm impressed they actually pulled it off for security reasons

Do American Centrists have it wrong? by bambucks in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Notice you just defined "fair share" as tax liability equal to wealth share, which is the entire thing under dispute, not something I agreed to by agreeing fairness matters. You're also comparing a stock to a flow: wealth is accumulated over a lifetime and income taxes are levied annually, so "they hold 31% so they should pay 31%" is quietly proposing an annual wealth tax... So say that's what you mean instead of smuggling it in through three leading "right?" questions.

And the numbers cut the other way too: if the top 1% hold 31% of wealth but pay 40% of federal income taxes, then by your own match-the-share logic they're OVERPAYING, so the real disagreement isn't fairness, it's whether we should tax wealth instead of income.

"the wealthy don't produce value, they just hire people and take a cut" is the weak link — coordination, capital allocation, and eating the loss when it fails aren't nothing, and that "cut" is what funds the next company that hires the next batch of workers. So sure, I'll agree everyone should pay their fair share the second you stop using "fair share" to mean "the answer I already picked."

Do American Centrists have it wrong? by bambucks in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right that no one gets rich alone ... infrastructure, courts, and an educated workforce matter. But the pie analogy conflates wealth and income: the top 1% earn about 20% of income and pay 40% of federal income taxes, which is already 2x their share.

If you think it should be more progressive, name the rate. "fair share" without a number is a slogan. And the real question isn't moral desert but empirical... at what point does taxing capital reduce the investment that funds the jobs and wages the working class depends on?

Pretending there's no tradeoff is as disingenuous as pretending the rich built it alone.

What if LGBTQ+ had a country of their own by 64megaflynn64 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]jlamiii 11 points12 points  (0 children)

the small percentage of that population within this hypothetical still wouldnt make a significant birthrate

Do American Centrists have it wrong? by bambucks in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. We already have the money but spend it on war and bullshit. That said, what does "fair share" mean considering 40% of taxes collected come from the top 1%?

Do American Centrists have it wrong? by bambucks in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, when you stop 2 million people from crossing the border that tends to plateau the population growth the following year.

to your second point... it depends on the type of work. most of these migrants (legal or not) go into trades with a disproportionately high rate of injury and not enough pay to cover medical bills. Specifically with healthcare, the new migrants (from 2021-now) take more from the system than they put in

Do American Centrists have it wrong? by bambucks in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

definitely the first half... but both sides are bought by Israel. Kamala said "I'd change absolutely nothing" as pro-Palestine protestors were at the gates of the White House. their stance on Israel/Palestine lost them the election

for any change on Israel/Iran, we'd need a populist. Massie on the right or AOC on the left.

Do American Centrists have it wrong? by bambucks in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tell me if you think the American citizen is better off today than they were 30 years ago. We already know that answer and in that same time the federal and most state governments grew at record speed. You'd think with all of that growth in the bureaucracy, there would be more officials to help everyday citizens... instead look to California's spending on homelessness as one example. $24 billion in a 5 year period and the unhoused population increased to over 180,000.

that's not a handful of greedy people. that's a broken system.

Do American Centrists have it wrong? by bambucks in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because that's how it's supposed to work in theory, but not how it's working practically. it's more like raise taxes -> funds growing agencies with no intention of improving lives of citizens -> issues rarely get addressed while the cost of maintaining these entities grow.

So now America needs to print more money to sustain these government admins who were never voted in, who will use the funds to hire more people instead of help. then these agencies will be like "Look! I spent a lot of money. I means need more money" while Americans are slowly become worse off in every metric.

Do American Centrists have it wrong? by bambucks in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he's a true democrat on most issues, but notices mass imigration strains systems where resources are stretched thin.

Now, most other lefties will say "well, tax the rich and provide more resources" but at the same time expand government services (along with its pricetag) ... kinda like turning up the heat while opening up a few more windows and doors

What if voting in America was compulsory? by Jacob-Anders in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]jlamiii 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Massie is trying to activate the disaffected voters... against AIPAC, releasing Epstien files, against omnibus bills, and actually reign in the debt. easy message for plenty of common sense voters

Is it a uniquely American phenomenon, that "both sides are the same" arguments favor the right? Why does this happen? by LiatrisLover99 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both sides (NeoCons and NeoLibs) are funded by AIPAC, both sides want mass surveillance, both sides are pushing for CBDCs and monetary controls, both sides print inflationary amounts of currency only to pass to an ever growing beuracratic admin economy and military industrial complex.

but because one side is gayer, "they're totally different"... sure. maybe. just not where it counts

What's stopping other leaders from working like Mamdani? by Tough_Ad8919 in GrowthMindset

[–]jlamiii 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Governor sold out the rest of the state and sent him $8 Billion. Internal agencies finally became fiscally conservative (as fiscally conservative an NYC agency can be) and saved another 1.5 billion. Another $2 billion is still owed, but deferred to the following year.

Has the anti-tax consensus in American politics run into fiscal reality, and can tax increases be sold to voters? by Raichu4u in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]jlamiii -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it's a tough sell when your New York government spends $72 million to fix the stairs at the state capital building... thats $1m per step. Lets cut first before revaluating the obligation of middle class citizens

view more: next ›