2016 US Presidential Election Thread

[chamber]

There's nothing wrong with acting in self interest.

At a personal level you have to expect everyone to, that's why governments need to exist to regulate it. I believe wealth gaps should only exist in so far as they encourage work and innovation. I haven't researched this at all but I doubt the incentives for making a 1 million dollars a year vs making 5 million show much at all. All the extra money does is devalue the portion everyone else has.

[MonkeyMan576]

Wealth gaps are going to exist in a capitalist society. There is going to be an upper class and a lower class. Yeah, it sucks if the dice rolled bad for you and you were born to a poor family. But that doesn't mean that the socialist mindset is superior to the capitalist one. There's a reason governments like the USSR, China, and Cuba aren't known for taking care of their people. The 40%-50% tax rate that exists in Europe and Canada isn't going to work in the USA. So, given that most people in the USA want lower taxes, obviously spending has to be cut at some point, no matter how unpopular spending cuts are.

[chamber]

uh, canadas tax rate isn't 50%, what. (I mean we have a laddered system so it's not under 50% for everyone, but for nearly everyone it is, under 45k a year is like 20% in ontario)

[MonkeyMan576]

uh, canadas tax rate isn't 50%, what.

If you live in Nova Scotia and make over C$150K you would be paying a 50% rate including provincial taxes.

other provinces would be between 40%-50%
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

[chamber]

uh, canadas tax rate isn't 50%, what.

If you live in Nova Scotia and make over C$150K you would be paying a 50% rate including provincial taxes.

other provinces would be between 40%-50%
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

That's only 50% on the amount over 150k, so you'd need to be making substantially more than 150k for it to actually approach 50% of your total earnings.

[inte]

too many people don't actually know how taxes work. most of the problem is with how confusing the tax code actually is.

[MonkeyMan576]

The point is that the socialist economies of Canada and Western Europe have higher tax rates than the US, and that most of the US population would not be in support of those levels of taxes.

[chamber]

Oh look, your marginal tax rate also goes up to 40%. Shock!

[Cephrir]

what's an effective tax rate?

[chamber]

That would be how much they are actually being taxed from their total income, not just how much of their money over that tier is being taxed.

[zoraster]

Looking at marginal tax rates is a pretty crummy way of determining how much taxation there is. Consider two systems with 40% marginal tax rates, one of which starts at $50k a year and one that starts at $500k.

[zoraster]

Oh also worth pointing out that you stop paying social security after 118k per person, which is 6.2%.

[Cephrir]

Oh, that makes sense

[Klingoncelt]

"lots of people do it" doesn't make it acceptable, and I don't know if "careless with classified material" is a good thing to have in a President

Eh. I honestly just don't see any of this as that big of a deal. Keeping an imperfectly secured e-mail address that accidentally received a couple of classified e-mails (even though those are supposed to go through diplomatic wire instead) was a screw up, both on her part and on the part of the CIA for sending that stuff by e-mail a couple of times when they weren't supposed to, but not a major screw up, especially since nothing actually got hacked or leaked as a result. It's not even on the same planet as cases where politicians actually leaked classified documents to the media for political reasons, and that happens all the time as well (and even *that* may be justifiable, depending on the details).

we are clearly coming at this from different perspective - I can be fired with the snap of a fingers for deleting important emails or storing them on a non-authorized device, and that's the case for pretty much every government employee. I'm not enthused about electing someone who willfully broke that rule with

literally every email she sent or received

as one of the 5 most important people in the federal government

The fact is that nearly everyone in public office in DC did the same thing. Some of them are kind of old, some aren't too bright, most aren't tech-savvy in any way. Pretty much everyone does the exact same thing Hillary did. That's why she won't face any charges for it.

[Klingoncelt]

I would have to admit, I really don't feel there is a war on women.

That was sarcasm, right?

[quadz08]

It's not, he's rather more conservative than the average MS user

[Yosarian2]

The problem with the liberal ideology is that it assumes the upper class is out to get the lower class and that class warfare is inevitable. Stop worrying about what other people have and try to fix your own problems.

The idea that liberals just "want to bring the rich down" or whatever really isn't accurate. Maybe that's a fair statement for more far-left people, but there really aren't any of those of importance in the US (not even Sanders). Let me try to explain the way I see it.

There are a lot of factors that increase or reduce how likely you are to succeed in life. If you have bad schools, it lowers the odds you're going to succeed. If you're growing up in poverty, that reduces the odds. If your parents don't have a good education, that makes it harder. If you don't know where your next meal is going to come from, that makes it a lot harder to focus on school if you're a student or to make any kind of long-term planning if you're an adult. If you don't have health care, that reduces your odds of success. If you have to work 60 hours a week working two minimum wage jobs and still can't make rent, that increases the odds of going into debt and reduces the amount of time you have to try to look for a better job or to get some kind of education to improve your situation in life. If you can go to college, it increases your odds of success; if you can go to college without ending up with a huge loan, it increases it more.

None of those things *guarantee* you won't succeed in life, but some percentage of people won't, and the more of those risk factors you have, the higher percentage of people won't make it. Most people, if put in the right situation and given the right resources and the right kind of support, are willing and able to succeed. But there are a number of poverty traps that tend to keep poor people poor, and if you can help people get out of those, they will actually become a lot more productive and society as a whole will be a lot better off. Beyond that, there is always a risk in a capitalist system that something will go terribly wrong in your life and you'll lose everything, and if that happens you'll need some kind of help.

[MonkeyMan576]

I believe the capitalist system is superior to the democratic socialist system. When it comes down to it it's just a matter of opinion and niether side has facts 100% on their side.

[hiplop]

you're against democracy? or did you just randomly add on the democratic there for no reason

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not against democracy, capitalism is usually democratic. I was comparing the democratic socialism to the despotic socialist systems in USSR and China.

[zoraster]

But you surely have reasons for that preference? Like... it's not just a matter of taste: I like pepperoni pizza more than sausage pizza is a matter of opinion in that it's a matter of taste-- we don't necessarily have a reason other than "I like this more than that" But that's usually not the case for an opinion on a political ideology.

[MonkeyMan576]

Yes, I have lots of people in my family as well as friends that have worked hard and become sucessfull. So probably my viewpoint is different than someone who has seen only poverty in their family.

[Psyche]

"as a well-off person, i benefit from a system where the poor are deprived of most things that make my own life enjoyable"

even that's not true
you'd be better off if there were less profound economic inequality

[MonkeyMan576]

I've already said I'm not well off myself, but I think the fact that I can see how political systems effect both the poor and the rich gives me an objective viewpoint.

[hiplop]

I've always been lucky enough to have a LOT of money and chances that a lot of people don't and I still support liberal policy. Because not everyone is lucky. I have money because I was born into a rich family and thats it. I haven't worked the hardest, I haven't struggled the most, I was born into it. And I am NOT an exception.

Yes, lots of rich people work hard. Lots of them don't. I guarentee you the "poor" people work hell of a lot harder than me/my parents/ a lot of rich people ever have. I don't understand how you think hard work translates to anything when people have a head start.

If I put in 50% or less effort, I'll still have more money than most of my friends who put in 100% effort. It's brutally unfair.