Trump is losing the debate acting like a raving lunatic

[Wandering Monk]

$400k/year is middle class in many areas, eg,
anywhere near NYC, where a home that I consider
in a good neighborhood, but is small, needs repairs
, has high property taxes, & costs over $1,000,000.
(I have a specific example in mind.)

You make a good point, and one I agree with: tax rates should be adjusted periodically for cost of living in different locations.

 

[Copernicus]

How many mediea interviews has Harris given since becoming the candidate?

She gave one sit-down interview with Dana Bash, who threw quite a few gotcha questions at her. She gave direct answers on most subjects and avoided direct ones on those she felt would be divisive among her Democratic base (e.g. on Israel). It is standard practice for politicians to handle difficult questions by answering the question they wished was asked about the subject rather than the one that was framed in a way they did not like. Harris has that technique down, and most voters generally won't vote for someone who appears unskilled at answering them.

Yep. Said dodging avoiding questions about them both.

You act as if I am speaking about a queen lol

Nonsense, you were speaking about a seasoned politician like Harris, who is skilled at handling hostile questions. She does answer most questions quite directly. Donald Trump almost never answers directly, and often simply ignores the question entirely and expounds on different subjects in stream-of-consciousness fashion. He is skilled at the Gish gallop.

 

[Revoltingest]

You make a good point, and one I agree with: tax rates should be adjusted periodically for cost of living in different locations.

It's an argument in favor of re-instating
the deductability of home property taxes
& interest paid.
The "middle class" in the days of Ward &
June Cleaver ain't today's middle class.

 

[F1fan]

Ok I agree you think he is a lunatic. That is all you have?

Trump's behavior and statements invalidates himself from serious consideration.

Who cares who won, what matters is did it change any minds?

We don't know yet. It seems most are familiar with Trump's antics and rambling incoherently that if a voter wants him as president there's no plausble way to convince them otherwise. His supporters are not rational people. Humans go along with crowds and do all sorts of horrible acts. If Trump wins I suspect many of his voters will have regrts, as they did after the pandmic.

I admit Trump lied. Is that ok with you? Do you admit Harris lied?

Good for you. I don't recall Harris lying about anything. Someone noted that her comment about there being no American troops in a war zone was a lie, but there's a dispute about whether it is or not. It might be fuzzy with the truth, but it certainly isn't at the level of there being children killed after birth and pets being eaten. Jesus Christ, what stupidity. The guy has no discipline.

This is untrue but is this your standard? At least my candidate does not lie as much as yours?

Sorry, Trump is the world champion of liars. He can't seem to understand what reality is.

I am not full hard core MAGA. I have said my reasons for supporting him in another thread. Has nothing to do with my reputation or character. I have actual reasons for supporting Trump you have one reason to support Harris. It makes you feel good to hate Trump and his supporters.

You are more MAGA than you want to believe. I suspect some MAGAs need to process their thinking with some degree of self-deception and denial to justify their support for the criminal candidate. When both Dick Cheney and Taylor Swift are endorsing the same democrat candidate, there's something very rotten with Trump that voters are not allowing themselves to acknowledge. It truly does seem like a cult.

Can you explain why you support Harris without mentioning Trump?

Yes. She is stable and will continue with a similar stable administration as Biden. Bidena dn Harris has managed the post pandemic very well, with near continual economic growth. She has great ideas about building more housing that is affordable. She intends to restore the liberties for women reproductive care. She intends to take action of the border and work with republicans to create new laws. She has a plan to help small businesses via tax credits. She has a plan to help first time home buyers to cover the down payment so they don't have to delay a purchase and lose money on renting. That's off the top of my head.

More slurs and lies, Do you feel better now?

I won't feel better until Harris wins, and MAGAs don't attack the nation again. There's a lot of anxiety about you MAGAs, and if we can trust you to not attack America if Trump loses. Do you understand how Trump has caused instability and chaos in America? When non-MAGAs talk we are concerned about what Trump supporters will do this time.

No, I don't believe he would do that but if he did, no.

Good for you. I hope you stand by that commitment.

You don't understand because you don't care to understand.

What have you said that helps us understand why anyone supports Trump, a convicted criminal?

You just like to spout hate for Trump and his supporters.

Sorry, but Trump is disturbed and unfit, and there is no rational argument that you, or anyone else, has made that is sound. Agenda 47 is a series of goals, and none of them explain HOW they can be achieved. Most seem implausible and even illegal.

I can tell you why Harris's policies are bad and Trumps are good.

But crickets......

Can you tell me why Harris's are better and Trumps are bad without insults and slurs?

Along with my list above, she will bring stability to the White House, which is crucial to national security and global trust. She will continue seamlessly from Biden's leadership and there won;t be any disruption in government, and that is a huge positive at a time when there are global conflicts. Harris' polices are largely about helping citizens get ahead, unlike Trump where much of his ideas are ideological. His tariffs are a huge mistake that Harris won't make. More and more people are endorsing Harris, and who does Trump have? Mostly rich people who want their tax cuts.

Can you rebut any of this?

 

[Wandering Monk]

It's an argument in favor of re-instating
the deductability of home property taxes
& interest paid.
The "middle class" in the days of Ward &
June Cleaver ain't today's middle class.

Not everyone owns property though. I suppose the property tax portion of rent could be deducted if localities permit that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not everyone owns property though. I suppose the property tax portion of rent could be deducted if localities permit that.

That would be the state's decision.

 

[F1fan]

$400k/year is middle class in many areas, eg,
anywhere near NYC, where a home that I consider
in a good neighborhood, but is small, needs repairs
, has high property taxes, & costs over $1,000,000.
(I have a specific example in mind.)

I wrote $400K as a number that the Biden administration cited as a peak for the middle class. Maybe it should be higher.

I do think that home owners should be able to write off repairs on their houses. Some can get very expensive. If you put a new roof on I think that cost should be a deduction.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wrote $400K as a number that the Biden administration cited as a peak for the middle class. Maybe it should be higher.

I do think that home owners should be able to write off repairs on their houses. Some can get very expensive. If you put a new roof on I think that cost should be a deduction.

I favor lower tax rates with no deductions for expenses.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I wrote $400K as a number that the Biden administration cited as a peak for the middle class. Maybe it should be higher.

I do think that home owners should be able to write off repairs on their houses. Some can get very expensive. If you put a new roof on I think that cost should be a deduction.

So what is 'middle class?' I understand it to be the middle quintile of income earners in the country.

 

[Watchmen]

But “lower percent of their income than everybody else” IS a viable and sensical answer?

Why? Why should the rich guy pay a lower percent in taxes than you or I?
They earn 90% of the wealth and yet only end up paying 45% of the taxes.
And of course there’s always some right-wing twit who says something stupid like “it’s not fair that the top 1% has to pay 45% of the taxes” as if it’s somehow unfair against those Richie Rich types.

So I’ll ask you, how much should the top 10% pay towards the total tax revenue?

Also, why shouldn’t we count the other contributions of the rich when examining tax rates. For example, the rich provide jobs, tax deferred retirement plans, access to health and dental benefits, and so on.

 

[Watchmen]

Why demand the numbers? Will that convince you that my suggestion is sensible? How about this, do you agree that my suggestion is sensible at face value, that being that the middle class should see significant tax rate cuts while those making over $400K will see an increase? Or do you oppose it completely? If you are opposed to the idea at face value I won't bother with any details.

And do you still think shifting the burden of taxation towards those who csn better afford it socialism/communism? Or have you dropped that?

I see you won’t answer the question. Is it because you believe the top 10% should pay 100%? That must be it. The constant evasiveness suggests this is the case.

 

[F1fan]

So what is 'middle class?' I understand it to be the middle quintile of income earners in the country.

It's surely a fuzzy line. As @Revoltingest noted the cost of housing and the cost of living varies. But usually the income levels vary, too.

I think tax law needs to reflect the current realities of life in the 21st century. Still, I think it offensive that many middle class and poor stuggle to pay bills (like insirance rates that are going up) while the rich accumulate more wealth. We need serious reform. There's a concern that the home insurance market will collapse. My old insurance company did not renew my policy because my house is over 100 years old. They are eliminating categories that are considered a higher risk. Apparently my old company has suffered a lot of losses due to naural disasters and they are making changes. I've been looking for a new policy but they are all substantially higher. Just bleed me dry.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've often heard liberals call for a return
to 92% (an historic high). They always
fail to understand that this rate could
only exist with the massive & numerous
deductions (what they call "loopholes")
that avoided economic collapse.

Such liberals remind me of a friend...a Maga
who invented the term "theoretical money".
It's the concept that his company was always
able to pay the bills & make money. So if the
company bought him a BMW GS Adventure
(a spendy motorcycle), it wouldn't cost anything
because it would spend "theoretical money".

Those liberals believe that 92% income tax
rate on high earners would automatically
return USA to the glorious 1950s, when US
manufacturing ruled the globe....& when
health & safety took a back seat....& rampant
discrimination was legal.

 

[F1fan]

I see you won’t answer the question. Is it because you believe the top 10% should pay 100%? That must be it. The constant evasiveness suggests this is the case.

I guess I was correct to not waste time with numbers since you won't even say whether shifting the burden of taxation on those who can afford it better is a good idea. You can't even bother with that, yet demand me to spend time examining tax rates. And nothing on whether you still think it's socialism/communism (which it isn't).

 

[Revoltingest]

It's surely a fuzzy line. As @Revoltingest noted the cost of housing and the cost of living varies. But usually the income levels vary, too.

I think tax law needs to reflect the current realities of life in the 21st century. Still, I think it offensive that many middle class and poor stuggle to pay bills (like insirance rates that are going up) while the rich accumulate more wealth. We need serious reform. There's a concern that the home insurance market will collapse. My old insurance company did not renew my policy because my house is over 100 years old. They are eliminating categories that are considered a higher risk. Apparently my old company has suffered a lot of losses due to naural disasters and they are making changes. I've been looking for a new policy but they are all substantially higher. Just bleed me dry.

The problem isn't that the rich are getting richer.
It's that low & medium wage earners are suffering.
Just increasing taxes on the wealthy won't change
anything if the money is spent on military adventurism,
interest payments, & boondoggles.
There are cheaper ways to assist those in need, eg,
loosening zoning & building laws to make housing
more affordable, ending governmental barriers to
starting a business, criminal justice reform that
prioritizes reform over punishment.

 

[Watchmen]

I guess I was correct to not waste time with numbers since you won't even say whether shifting the burden of taxation on those who can afford it better is a good idea. You can't even bother with that, yet demand me to spend time examining tax rates. And nothing on whether you still think it's socialism/communism (which it isn't).

I asked you a question out of the gate and you’ve done nothing but evade. What are you scared of?

 

[The Hammer]

So I’ll ask you, how much should the top 10% pay towards the total tax revenue?

40% of total profit

Also, why shouldn’t we count the other contributions of the rich when examining tax rates. For example, the rich provide jobs, tax deferred retirement plans, access to health and dental benefits, and so on.

What contributions besides money do they provide?

Jobs, retirement, health and dental... All BS that could be supplied by someone that isn't profit based.

 

[F1fan]

The problem isn't that the rich are getting richer.

It's a problem all of its own. Assessed against the struggles of the rest of people it's a problem.

It's that low & medium wage earners are suffering.
Just increasing taxes on the wealthy won't change
anything if the money is spent on military adventurism,
interest payments, & boondoggles.

How the money is spent is unrelated to my point of shifting the burden of taxation to those who can better aford it.

There are cheaper ways to assist those in need, eg,
loosening zoning & building laws to make housing
more affordable,

I'm not sure how lowering standards lower costs. And zoning? Man I guess you don't live in one of our local suburb towns. They are rabid. There have been many zoning applications to build apartments and the citizens rise up every time to reject it. So it ain't always about the government.

ending governmental barriers to
starting a business, criminal justice reform that
prioritizes reform over punishment.

Well, Harris is the better bet for that happening.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure how lowering standards lower costs.

It's a mistake to presume that easing
restrictions is necessarily to lower standards.
Sometimes those standards are designed to
keep out the "wrong people", to entrench
the status quo, & often simply an archaic
vestige of another era.

And zoning? Man I guess you don't live in one of our local suburb towns. They are rabid. There have been many zoning applications to build apartments and the citizens rise up every time to reject it. So it ain't always about the government.

Citizens who use government to ban the
building apartment buildings is indeed
government. This is what should change.
Opposition to higher density housing has
inexorable deleterious consequences, eg,
more land taken from farming & natural
spaces, inhibition of pubic transport, higher
prices, higher utility consumption.


Liberals too often see raising taxes on the
"wealthy" is the solution to all problems.
How about first correcting many of the
problems they (& conservatives) are
causing, eh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, I never argued anything other than the current rate is not the lowest rate in decades s was stated and is incorrect. That was my only argument, I never said anyone was to blame or laud.

No one has claimed that. Harris has said that it is getting close to what it used to be. I never heard her claim that it was the lowest in years.