American audio industry may suffer a blow..

[highfigh]

Google says that the current top marginal tax rate in the US is 39.6%, which applies to income over $418,400 (single) and $470,000 (married). So, at what percentage does fair taxation go from "fair" to "unfair", i.e. "socialist"?

As for business regulation, the term is so large in scope, it's difficult to know what you mean. While the financial crisis caused widespread devastation amongst American and European financial institutions, Canadian banks came through it practically unscathed. Although there are many factors accounting for this, Canadian bank regulations played a major role. So, there is a place for reasonable regulation. What constitutes "reasonable" or "socialist" regulation is up for debate, I guess...

The financial collapse occurred mainly because Clinton repealed Glass-Stegall and the greedy little bastiges saw that as an opportunity to rake in as much money through unethical schemes. Canada didn't allow what Glass/Stegall prohibited, which is one good reason FOR some regulation. The government doesn't need to crawl into every orifice we have, but because people just can't be relied on to do the right thing in all cases, it's clear that some governance is needed. The problem is that we're governed by people who are as bad, or worse than anyone outside of government.

Socialism isn't just about tax rates, it's having an over-abundance of government programs that are designed to make everyone equal, rather than allowing people to have an equal shot at succeeding in life. When people ignore opportunities, the government steps in to provide for them and their families, at the expense of the tax payers. When the government decides "At some point, you've made enough money" (Obama said that), they take more. With net worth of ~$40 Million, has he made enough?

I'm in favor of regulating industries and entities when they prove they need to be steered away from screwing competitors and people. The problem is that there's not 100% agreement that someone is being screwed, nor that someone's actions are intentional.

 

[GO-NAD!]

IMHO, it's less about the rate, and more about how wisely the money is being used.

Of course, one should keep in mind, federal income tax is only a portion of the taxes most people pay. In my neck of the woods, there are state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales tax (including "sin taxes"),and FICA to consider. It all adds up to a pretty healthy percentage of my paycheck, and I'm hardly a 1%er.

I'm certainly in agreement that the level of taxation tolerance depends on how it is spent. Which begs the question - what constitutes "wise spending"? You could get 100 different answers from 100 different people. Examples of blatant government waste are legion. We've all heard of situations where four people have been hired to do the job of one person. However, actual program spending has a far larger impact - in order of magnitude - on the bottom line. That's where the real arguments erupt. Progressives may say corporate welfare is an improper use of taxpayers' money, while right-wingers might say the same thing about social assistance.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The financial collapse occurred mainly because Clinton repealed Glass-Stegall and the greedy little bastiges saw that as an opportunity to rake in as much money through unethical schemes. Canada didn't allow what Glass/Stegall prohibited, which is one good reason FOR some regulation. The government doesn't need to crawl into every orifice we have, but because people just can't be relied on to do the right thing in all cases, it's clear that some governance is needed. The problem is that we're governed by people who are as bad, or worse than anyone outside of government.

Socialism isn't just about tax rates, it's having an over-abundance of government programs that are designed to make everyone equal, rather than allowing people to have an equal shot at succeeding in life. When people ignore opportunities, the government steps in to provide for them and their families, at the expense of the tax payers. When the government decides "At some point, you've made enough money" (Obama said that), they take more. With net worth of ~$40 Million, has he made enough?

I'm in favor of regulating industries and entities when they prove they need to be steered away from screwing competitors and people. The problem is that there's not 100% agreement that someone is being screwed, nor that someone's actions are intentional.

Socialism lies within a range on the political spectrum, just like classic liberalism (what Americans would call "conservatism" today). And, as I mentioned before, the American political spectrum has skewed to the right in comparison with other western countries, so what qualifies as "middle-ground" elsewhere, might be called socialist in America. So, we may be talking about apples and oranges here.

 

[Steve81]

Which begs the question - what constitutes "wise spending"?

The simple answer of course is cost vs benefit, though as you imply, we all judge the value of those benefits differently.

That problem requires good leadership, i.e. the kind of people that can actually explain to us peons why something is a good idea, even if our natural instinct is to write it off as bad, in a way that isn't condescending / attacking us as heartless/morons/etc. Even then, you won't be able to please all the people all of the time, but you'll get a lot closer than where we're at now.

 

[Irvrobinson]

France and Germany do have a higher standard of living. If we add up the population of countries in mainland Europe that do have a higher standard of living than the USA, it adds up to 210.6 million people. If we include the UK and Ireland, it adds up to 281 million people.

Invalid calculations. The USA Today article is an opinion story. France has a population of ~68 million and a GDP lower than California's. Germany's standard of living is higher than most of the EU, but GDP/person is lower than in the US. The UK standard of living is much lower than the US.

Of course, these countries do have more social services. There are advantages to living under the US defense umbrella.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Google says that the current top marginal tax rate in the US is 39.6%, which applies to income over $418,400 (single) and $470,000 (married). So, at what percentage does fair taxation go from "fair" to "unfair", i.e. "socialist"?

As for business regulation, the term is so large in scope, it's difficult to know what you mean. While the financial crisis caused widespread devastation amongst American and European financial institutions, Canadian banks came through it practically unscathed. Although there are many factors accounting for this, Canadian bank regulations played a major role. So, there is a place for reasonable regulation. What constitutes "reasonable" or "socialist" regulation is up for debate, I guess...

I mentioned I was pretty far to the right on economic issues.

Bank regulations are not what Warren is talking about. She talking about making corporations accountable for her social agenda.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Obsolete? You really want one state to determine the outcome of the election only because they have so many people the number of delegates is roughly equal to ten smaller states and they're politically slanted one way or the other?

Yes.

 

[TLS Guy]

Invalid calculations. The USA Today article is an opinion story. France has a population of ~68 million and a GDP lower than California's. Germany's standard of living of high, but GDP/person is lower than in the US. The UK standard of living is much lower than the US.

Of course, these countries do have more social services. There are advantages to living under the US defense umbrella.

I can tell you that the standard of living in the UK is way below that in the US. Anyone who thinks it is close is nuts. That goes for France as well.

 

[lovinthehd]

Invalid calculations. The USA Today article is an opinion story. France has a population of ~68 million and a GDP lower than California's. Germany's standard of living is higher than most of the EU, but GDP/person is lower than in the US. The UK standard of living is much lower than the US.

Of course, these countries do have more social services. There are advantages to living under the US defense umbrella.

I don't see a connection between US News & World Report and USA Today. They do have a methodology to the rankings. I didn't dig into it, though may later, just the use of USA Today caught my eye, haven't stayed in a motel for a while .

 

[Irvrobinson]

I don't see a connection between US News & World Report and USA Today. They do have a methodology to the rankings. I didn't dig into it, though may later, just the use of USA Today caught my eye, haven't stayed in a motel for a while .

I missed-typed. It was US News. Still a bullshit article.

 

[lovinthehd]

I missed-typed. It was US News. Still a bullshit article.

Most articles can be construed as bullshit by someone. Discussion of "standard of living" based on gdp/stats is somewhat bullshit, tho. Like considering that old white guys afraid of someone on the "left" taking "their" money and guns is largely bullshit, too.

 

[eljr]

"Snowflake" encapsulates so much that leftists represent (except for the violence they love to advocate). But perhaps you'd prefer buttercup. I come to this forum for information and relaxation, not to see President Trump gratuitously insulted. I never insulted Obama during his tenure, as opposed to his failed policies as I was.

Apples and ORANGES.

 

[eljr]

Now do Steve Scalise, snowflake.

why do you continually call names in this thread?

 

[Irvrobinson]

why do you continually call names in this thread?

He's following the Trumpian way. Pocahontas, Crooked Hillary, Lyin' Ted Cruz, Al Frankenstein, Sloppy Steve, etc.

 

[haraldo]

US initiating a new “cold war”, I reckon there can only be losers here....

 

[highfigh]

Yes.

What if they consistently vote in opposition to you? Will you stick to this way of thinking just on principal?

I really think the electoral college was a way to keep more states in the union, rather than seeing that they aren't being represented and leaving. We already had one Civil War, we don't need another one.

 

[herbu]

He's following the Trumpian way. Pocahontas, Crooked Hillary, Lyin' Ted Cruz, Al Frankenstein, Sloppy Steve, etc.

Hahahahaha!!!! Great examples that "the Trumpian way" means speaking the truth. He exposes liars. It makes things difficult for those who believe a lie can become the truth if repeated often enough.

 

[herbu]

Yes.

Well, that explains why you're unhappy. We don't live in a democracy. It is just part of the magnificent foresight our founding fathers had when establishing our great country.

 

[shadyJ]

Hahahahaha!!!! Great examples that "the Trumpian way" means speaking the truth. He exposes liars. It makes things difficult for those who believe a lie can become the truth if repeated often enough.

Agreed, Herbu. Donald Trump is the very paragon of honesty. Never has a more virtuous man occupied the oval office. He has a stellar record of integrity and sincerity with his past business partners, wives, employees, and political staff. I, for one, would not hesitate to entrust Trump with not only my life's savings, but also my daughter's very chastity. The man's middle name should be Honor!

 

[Irvrobinson]

What if they consistently vote in opposition to you? Will you stick to this way of thinking just on principal?

I really think the electoral college was a way to keep more states in the union, rather than seeing that they aren't being represented and leaving. We already had one Civil War, we don't need another one.

That's true. It was a way to make votes in less populous states count more than votes in more populous states. So I don't like it, and my primary residence is in a low population state.