Donald Trump

[Ancient Citizen]

@Bigga You appear to be in denial mode about what happened over here last month, that rant mirrors the same stuff that
you got so wrong then, but like the others on the left, still stick with it, despite it being very unpopular, and subsequently rejected.

-Most homelessness is down to debt and low income. If you can't afford to pay the rent, you're gonna get turfed; simple maths anywhere. When big business comes to any town it changes the desirability for the location which equates to gentrification which, in turn, pushes up the affordability for the former renters resulting in them moving on or being homeless. As a result your comment actually argues for rent control. The Progressive idea is create affordable housing for a growing population. Crazy, innit??

Yes, this claptrap is certainly crazy, so you're right about something. Rent controls, despite your convoluted justification,
result in less rented property. If someone has bought a property for rent, he/she will have decided what they need to charge
to both pay the mortgage, or recoup the capital, plus repairs etc; Let's say this is £600pm, a tenant comes in, applies to
the rent tribunal, and gets it reduced to £400, as this is now no longer viable for the owner, they then do their damndest to eject
the tenant and sell ASAP. This is exactly what happened in the UK. Add to this the fact that buy to let would stop overnight,
because of rent controls.
Ideology is fine, reality bites.

As has been pointed out, college has been tuition free before. But, things have changed obviously. Warren offers a solution that would pay for colleges AND pre-K schooling at an extra tax of 2 cents on the dollar for billionaires above $100 mil. It's been cost effected to be accurate. Sanders could obviously incorporate this strategy as he had a similar viewpoint.

Yes, the billionaires will pay for everything, of course they will,
Only they won't, so what do you do then?

Closing tax loopholes and asking trillion dollar companies to pay more in tax goes a long way.

Ah, this old chestnut, yes I agree with the claim you make, everyone does.
Tell us how it would be done, because nobody has managed it yet.

That's as civil as I'm going to get.

Please yourself mate, I've noticed this rattle throwing a few times, get nasty if you like.

 

[Bigga]

@Bigga You appear to be in denial mode about what happened over here last month, that rant mirrors the same stuff that
you got so wrong then, but like the others on the left, still stick with it, despite it being very unpopular, and subsequently rejected.

There's a difference in the US and UK situations. The US aren't trying to free itself from any other nation, therefore, it doesn't have a single issue trope it has to argue with. This is a national issue about life improvement as it should have been here. You can tell me, if you like, what's so unpopular about US citizens having a national healthcare as we enjoy or earning living wages. I have, yet, to see any reports on citizens preferring to be sick rather than go to hospital or do 2 or 3 jobs than one and spending time with their families.

Yes, this claptrap is certainly crazy, so you're right about something. Rent controls, despite your convoluted justification,
result in less rented property. If someone has bought a property for rent, he/she will have decided what they need to charge
to both pay the mortgage, or recoup the capital, plus repairs etc; Let's say this is £600pm, a tenant comes in, applies to
the rent tribunal, and gets it reduced to £400, as this is now no longer viable for the owner, they then do their damndest to eject
the tenant and sell ASAP. This is exactly what happened in the UK. Add to this the fact that buy to let would stop overnight,
because of rent controls.
Ideology is fine, reality bites.

Of course private property can do what it likes. Which is why I mentioned 'affordable' housing in which social housing is included. They need to be built to contain homelessness. That story is true here as well. If a private owner would prefer their property to be empty, that's up to them.

Yes, the billionaires will pay for everything, of course they will,
Only they won't, so what do you do then?

Unlike here, there's no better place for billionaires than the states. Where would they go?

They fear paying a little bit extra into society. WTF?


My fookin' heart bleeds...

Ah, this old chestnut, yes I agree with the claim you make, everyone does.
Tell us how it would be done, because nobody has managed it yet.

A Progressive candidate who fights for the people would do it.

Your neoliberal politician with ties to Big Corp will have a natural reluctance as they also get paid by business to lean towards their interests.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Of course private property can do what it likes. Which is why I mentioned 'affordable' housing in which social housing is included. They need to be built to contain homelessness. That story is true here as well. If a private owner would prefer their property to be empty, that's up to them.

Sanders wants rent controls, I've pointed out that folly, I've not seen any promises to build social housing.

Unlike here, there's no better place for billionaires than the states. Where would they go?

They fear paying a little bit extra into society. WTF?

I'm afraid you do not understand the reality, billionaires become billionaires, and employ millions, they already
pay enormous amounts in tax, there comes a time when earning those billions is not worthwhile because of tax rates.
This has been proved time and again, the left just never get it.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

A Progressive candidate who fights for the people would do it.

This is just wishful thinking, just how would he do it?

 

[Bigga]

Sanders wants rent controls, I've pointed out that folly, I've not seen any promises to build social housing.

I'm afraid you do not understand the reality, billionaires become billionaires, and employ millions, they already
pay enormous amounts in tax, there comes a time when earning those billions is not worthwhile because of tax rates.
This has been proved time and again, the left just never get it.

He's mentioned social housing a fair few times.

As for billionaires, how much does a billionaire need that they can't contribute a little extra towards the society that they live in? Whilst the society they live in/ take from suffers around them, they sit on hoards of cash in forms of grand yachts, huge multiple properties and stakes in other companies. All that is 'great' for them, but when they pay their workers min wage instead of including them in on the wealth, that's when people get annoyed. I know how that sounds, but it's the reality.

If you're set for life, your family and their family's families are set, what else do you need?

So, basically, if you have $10Bn and have to pay $2Bn to tax, you're going to kick off and run elsewhere that doesn't have the same comforts, freedoms and familiarity to where you know...?

Fair enough.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

He's mentioned social housing a fair few times.

As for billionaires, how much does a billionaire need that they can't contribute a little extra towards the society that they live in? Whilst the society they live in/ take from suffers around them, they sit on hoards of cash in forms of grand yachts, huge multiple properties and stakes in other companies. All that is 'great' for them, but when they pay their workers min wage instead of including them in on the wealth, that's when people get annoyed. I know how that sounds, but it's the reality.

If you're set for life, your family and their family's families are set, what else do you need?

So, basically, if you have $10Bn and have to pay $2Bn to tax, you're going to kick off and run elsewhere that doesn't have the same comforts, freedoms and familiarity to where you know...?

Fair enough.

I don't want to get dragged into this, but the major issue regarding taxes on the rich really comes down to inheritance tax for the super-rich. There's a certain amount that's exempt from a death tax to heirs -- it's something like $5-10M -- but after that, 50% of everything else is taxed at death. It goes straight to the state. I can understand how a very rich person whose kids and grandkids will have plenty doesn't like the thought of 50% of what they've earned going to the government just because he/she died. And of course at reasonably smaller sums that wealth gets diluted quickly as offspring have offspring. The phrase "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in thee generations" describes all of the ability to drag oneslef up and become rich by hard work, the perils of inherited wealth (the encouragement of sloth) and the mathematical aspects of what happens as large fortunes are divided up.

Anyhow, I know a bit about rich people. Your characterization of how "billionaires" think and operate is a caricature borne perhaps of not knowing any billionaires. Walk around a college campus, a non-profit hospital, a church, the offices of hundreds of thousands of charities. Go see the ballet, a David Mamet play, any one of thousands of of museums. View some beautiful old homes or other building whose architecture was preserved. Visit many parks. Rich people who "gave back" to the nation that bred them are in part responsible for nearly ALL of these things -- largely responsible in many cases, solely responsible in others. True there are plenty of rich folks who give nothing back -- but I don't know very many, if any.

Not of this is to say I don't think tax rates should be higher in some circumstances, and certain loopholes closed. But I always become concerned about the "rich" trope because too often it means "richer than me."

 

[Bigga]

I don't want to get dragged into this, but the major issue regarding taxes on the rich really comes down to inheritance tax for the super-rich. There's a certain amount that's exempt from a death tax to heirs -- it's something like $5-10M -- but after that, 50% of everything else is taxed at death. It goes straight to the state. I can understand how a very rich person whose kids and grandkids will have plenty doesn't like the thought of 50% of what they've earned going to the government just because he/she died. And of course at reasonably smaller sums that wealth gets diluted quickly as offspring have offspring. The phrase "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in thee generations" describes all of the ability to drag oneslef up and become rich by hard work, the perils of inherited wealth (the encouragement of sloth) and the mathematical aspects of what happens as large fortunes are divided up.

Anyhow, I know a bit about rich people. Your characterization of how "billionaires" think and operate is a caricature borne perhaps of not knowing any billionaires. Walk around a college campus, a non-profit hospital, a church, the offices of hundreds of thousands of charities. Go see the ballet, a David Mamet play, any one of thousands of of museums. View some beautiful old homes or other building whose architecture was preserved. Visit many parks. Rich people who "gave back" to the nation that bred them are in part responsible for nearly ALL of these things -- largely responsible in many cases, solely responsible in others. True there are plenty of rich folks who give nothing back -- but I don't know very many, if any.

Not of this is to say I don't think tax rates should be higher in some circumstances, and certain loopholes closed. But I always become concerned about the "rich" trope because too often it means "richer than me."

Look, I know not "all" billionaires are 'evil', but as we all know, they're not all angels and for the most part, there's a reason why they do what they do.

I actually found a really good breakdown behind the 'charity' reason for most of them...

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Look, I know not "all" billionaires are 'evil', but as we all know, they're not all angels and for the most part, there's a reason why they do what they do.

I actually found a really good breakdown behind the 'charity' reason for most of them...

OK, well, I don't have 25 minutes -- can you give me the gist?

Incidentally, one of the reasons Trump isn't in any of the "best" clubs and is shunned by most white shoe well-off types in NY and elsewhere is because he has such a reputation as a liar and a "stiffer" in terms of his ability to keep promises. This paragraph from a 2016 New Yorker article spells out one reason why he's a pariah in Rich America:

Trump’s charitable giving has now become a campaign issue, largely due to a series of Post articles written by David Fahrenthold and his colleagues. Back in April, Fahrenthold and Rosalind S. Helderman reported that they couldn’t find a single cash donation to charity that Trump personally had made over the previous five years. The Trump campaign had provided the newspaper with a list of donations made by the candidate, but many turned out to be gifts-in-kind from Trump’s businesses, such as free rounds of golf at Trump courses donated to charity auctions, and land-conservation agreements to forgo development rights on Trump-owned properties. The only cash donations were from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, the family charity that Trump established in 1988. But the Post also pointed out that Trump hadn’t given any of his own money to the Trump Foundation since 2008—almost all of its funding came from other people, including some of his business associates.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

This is so irresponsible it's untrue.

What if that was a child?

 

[Bigga]

OK, well, I don't have 25 minutes -- can you give me the gist?

Incidentally, one of the reasons Trump isn't in any of the "best" clubs and is shunned by most white shoe well-off types in NY and elsewhere is because he has such a reputation as a liar and a "stiffer" in terms of his ability to keep promises. This paragraph from a 2016 New Yorker article spells out one reason why he's a pariah in Rich America:

Trump’s charitable giving has now become a campaign issue, largely due to a series of Post articles written by David Fahrenthold and his colleagues. Back in April, Fahrenthold and Rosalind S. Helderman reported that they couldn’t find a single cash donation to charity that Trump personally had made over the previous five years. The Trump campaign had provided the newspaper with a list of donations made by the candidate, but many turned out to be gifts-in-kind from Trump’s businesses, such as free rounds of golf at Trump courses donated to charity auctions, and land-conservation agreements to forgo development rights on Trump-owned properties. The only cash donations were from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, the family charity that Trump established in 1988. But the Post also pointed out that Trump hadn’t given any of his own money to the Trump Foundation since 2008—almost all of its funding came from other people, including some of his business associates.

In the vid clip, I think it's better to absorb it and see if you agree,, when you have time. It's not really a 'gist' thing to give.

As for Orange, I've seen a few docs underlining the point you make!