Trump outrage of the day

[Travis]

Makes sense.  Trump has repeatedly called members of the military idiots.  Why would you want idiots voting???

Right?  I mean Trump a lot of times will repeat a headline and take it as fact without investigating further to see if it is accurate.

This smells like something where they'll make a fuss about a handful of ballots that were discarded (note at least seven of the nine were Trump ballots) and then not make a stink later when 100,000 mail-in ballots go missing, and when it comes up they'd claim (without evidence) that they were all also Trump ballots and he would've won by even more!!!111one

No kidding. Plus, the sad thing is that given the way this administration and its supporters operate, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the people who "found" the ballots put them there in the first place, to manufacture an outrage story.

Sigh.

Manufacturing crises and pointing at them is kind of his shtick.

[MasterStache]

At least for presidential, republican wasn't the only choice ;) I voted green then.

<mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>
If you are in one of the swing states (which I don't know if you are or not), then a hundred thousand people like you created Trump.
</mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>

I believe it is important to differentiate between garden variety political corruption (==Clinton) and wannabe fascists.

I did live in a swing state then. I hope you can forgive me.

Where I live now is almost a guaranteed Trump win. So I'm going third party.

It was said in jest.

I have nothing against people who do things for the correct reasons.

I *know* and am friends with people who voted for Trump for reasons that are not unethical (
He argued that US needs to become a "normal" country and shed it's "manifest destiny" moorings. I don't agree with him, but I do agree Clinton definitely wan't the right candidate for that and Trump sounded like he wanted to do this.
).

My neighbor voted third party. He hates Trump but also fed into the BS propaganda about Clinton. I said "thanks for helping Trump win." It was said partly in jest and he didn't take offense to it.  Not too long ago he was trying to tell me Biden and Trump are exactly the same. I was like wow, just wow.

[bloodaxe]

At least for presidential, republican wasn't the only choice ;) I voted green then.

<mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>
If you are in one of the swing states (which I don't know if you are or not), then a hundred thousand people like you created Trump.
</mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>

I believe it is important to differentiate between garden variety political corruption (==Clinton) and wannabe fascists.

I did live in a swing state then. I hope you can forgive me.

Where I live now is almost a guaranteed Trump win. So I'm going third party.

It was said in jest.

I have nothing against people who do things for the correct reasons.

I *know* and am friends with people who voted for Trump for reasons that are not unethical (
He argued that US needs to become a "normal" country and shed it's "manifest destiny" moorings. I don't agree with him, but I do agree Clinton definitely wan't the right candidate for that and Trump sounded like he wanted to do this.
).

Not too long ago he was trying to tell me Biden and Trump are exactly the same. I was like wow, just wow.

I understand why people think this. Especially if they don't have much interest in politics and current news.

I would consider Biden and Trump very similar, if Trump wasn't impeached and wasn't such an a hole.

[OzzieandHarriet]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/25/917052825/what-to-know-about-those-200-drug-cards-president-trump-promised

[marty998]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

[John Galt incarnate!]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

[OzzieandHarriet]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

It’s a relic from a time when humans opened the envelopes, which (I read somewhere) is now done by machines, so the rule is pointless.

[GuitarStv]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

It’s a relic from a time when humans opened the envelopes, which (I read somewhere) is now done by machines, so the rule is pointless.

It's not pointless if it allows votes to be thrown out and discounted.  Anti-democratic, and detrimental to society - but not pointless.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

It’s a relic from a time when humans opened the envelopes, which (I read somewhere) is now done by machines, so the rule is pointless.

Noted.

[LennStar]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

I am not sure machines are doing that (at least here).
In Germany if you mail vote or early vote, you get a numbered envelope. In that you put a blank envelope with your vote.
When the votes are counted, one person opens your numbered envelope and checks that you have voted (to prevent double voting). This person knows you have voted, but not what. And it is recountable.
Another person opens the blank envelopes and counts the votes. This person know what was voted for, but not by whom. And it is recountable.

That is an easy way to have a secret, secure voting.

And at this you can also see why a voting machine (besides being a few hours faster for a preliminary result) is useless because not compatible with a correct election. Either the computer knows both who has voted and what, or you cannot recount with trust that the machine does not change the numbers.
Not to mention the hilarious easy ways to hack them. Like "nobody watching your two hands (in the sight-blocked voting cabin ahem) for 5 seconds so you can stick in an USB stick"?

[OtherJen]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

It’s a relic from a time when humans opened the envelopes, which (I read somewhere) is now done by machines, so the rule is pointless.

It is still done by humans in my community. It's why our local clerks hire several teams of four workers each to process absentee ballots on Election Day. It's why several nonprofits that support election rights have pushed to extend the law to allow the clerks' staff to begin removing the envelopes the day before Election Day. A relevant bill has passed the state legislature and should be signed by the governor soon. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/3518646001

[OzzieandHarriet]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

It’s a relic from a time when humans opened the envelopes, which (I read somewhere) is now done by machines, so the rule is pointless.

It is still done by humans in my community. It's why our local clerks hire several teams of four workers each to process absentee ballots on Election Day. It's why several nonprofits that support election rights have pushed to extend the law to allow the clerks' staff to begin removing the envelopes the day before Election Day. A relevant bill has passed the state legislature and should be signed by the governor soon. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/3518646001

From an article in the Washington Post:

“ The idea behind secrecy envelopes is to ensure that an election official opening the mail to process a voter’s ballot is not able to match voters’ name with how they voted, thereby ensuring privacy for the voter, said Michael Thorning, associate director of governance at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
But much of that processing work is now done by machines that process high volumes of envelopes at a time, and in many states, an elections official only gets involved after the ballots have been separated from any identifiable information of voters, Thorning said.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pennsylvania-naked-ballots/2020/09/24/a559a380-fe9c-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html

[John Galt incarnate!]

"Disgrace" is one of Trump's grossly overused words.

It certainly applies to him and his execrable sowing of seeds of uncertainty about the reliability and security of mail-in voting.

"Orange man bad" is a fitting disparagement.

[OtherJen]

NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value compared to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/27/donald-trump-denies-income-tax-report/3556287001/

Many times in the past, Trump bragged about paying no taxes because he had such great lawyers and accountants.  Now he wants to act like paying no taxes was a lie?  I'm so confused, but this isn't the first time.  If only hard-working, tax-paying Americans could see him for what he really is...  Not only would they not support him, they would absolutely hate him.

[Barbaebigode]

NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/27/donald-trump-denies-income-tax-report/3556287001/

Many times in the past, Trump bragged about paying no taxes because he had such great lawyers and accountants.  Now he wants to act like paying no taxes was a lie?  I'm so confused, but this isn't the first time.  If only hard-working, tax-paying Americans could see him for what he really is...  Not only would they not support him, they would absolutely hate him.

That won't happen. It will be either "fake news" or "he's so smart, if I were in his shoes I would have done the same"

[EscapeVelocity2020]

NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/27/donald-trump-denies-income-tax-report/3556287001/

Many times in the past, Trump bragged about paying no taxes because he had such great lawyers and accountants.  Now he wants to act like paying no taxes was a lie?  I'm so confused, but this isn't the first time.  If only hard-working, tax-paying Americans could see him for what he really is...  Not only would they not support him, they would absolutely hate him.

That won't happen. It will be either "fake news" or "he's so smart, if I were in his shoes I would have done the same"

I'd just love to know what would outrage a Trumper at this point!  No matter what horrible thing he does to this country that I once loved, he makes me feel like a sucker for paying hundreds of thousands in taxes, so I'm a loser and don't deserve to be here...  Little do they know, a country that lives on debt to look rich will become the next Trump Property - bankrupt!  It'll only take FOUR MORE YEARS!!  WooHoo 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Even more outrageous though, Trump was bankrupt when he 'assumed' the Presidency, but he's comfortably solvent now!  I wonder what his tax returns will look like from 2016 onward - and if he'll report all of his emoluments and what-not...

[LennStar]

It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

[Bloop Bloop]

NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value compared to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

I pay more income tax per week than the American President pays per year, even after adjusting for currency, even though Trump's salary is about 3x mine. That is disgraceful on Trump's part.

[Travis]

NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/27/donald-trump-denies-income-tax-report/3556287001/

Many times in the past, Trump bragged about paying no taxes because he had such great lawyers and accountants.  Now he wants to act like paying no taxes was a lie?  I'm so confused, but this isn't the first time.  If only hard-working, tax-paying Americans could see him for what he really is...  Not only would they not support him, they would absolutely hate him.

That won't happen. It will be either "fake news" or "he's so smart, if I were in his shoes I would have done the same"

He pulled out his favorite retort almost immediately.

[OtherJen]

It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

[Bloop Bloop]

It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

Those are different things. You can say that taxation is too progressive on one hand, and still decry Trump's blatant evasion on the other. For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000. I think it's equally ridiculous that someone should break tax laws to evade tax so that their average tax rate is <1%. Those two are perfectly consistent positions.

[WhiteTrashCash]

It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

Those are different things. You can say that taxation is too progressive on one hand, and still decry Trump's blatant evasion on the other. For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000. I think it's equally ridiculous that someone should break tax laws to evade tax so that their average tax rate is <1%. Those two are perfectly consistent positions.

Well, to be fair, you may pay a lot in taxes in Australia, but you get a lot for your money. You don't ever have to worry about going bankrupt from getting cancer or worry about getting a pension to retire on. A lot of Americans end up dead in a ditch somewhere.

[OtherJen]

It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

Those are different things. You can say that taxation is too progressive on one hand, and still decry Trump's blatant evasion on the other. For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000. I think it's equally ridiculous that someone should break tax laws to evade tax so that their average tax rate is <1%. Those two are perfectly consistent positions.

Well, to be fair, you may pay a lot in taxes in Australia, but you get a lot for your money. You don't ever have to worry about going bankrupt from getting cancer or worry about getting a pension to retire on. A lot of Americans end up dead in a ditch somewhere.

Yeah, the national situations really aren't comparable.

[GuitarStv]

For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

[Feivel2000]

Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

It’s a relic from a time when humans opened the envelopes, which (I read somewhere) is now done by machines, so the rule is pointless.

It's not pointless if it allows bores to be thrown out and discounted.  Anti-democratic, and detrimental to society - but not pointless.

Here you can read about the process in Germany: https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/service/glossar/b/briefwahl.html
2017, we had over 13 million absentee voters and there was no need to open them early or centralized.

The process is by no means anti-democratic. It ensures that the election is fair, open and secret. Removing parts of the process from the eye of the public is anti-democratic.

It baffles me, that the US is not able or willing to ensure fair, open and secret elections. (See {Florida} voting machines...)

[former player]

It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

Those are different things. You can say that taxation is too progressive on one hand, and still decry Trump's blatant evasion on the other. For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000. I think it's equally ridiculous that someone should break tax laws to evade tax so that their average tax rate is <1%. Those two are perfectly consistent positions.

Well, to be fair, you may pay a lot in taxes in Australia, but you get a lot for your money. You don't ever have to worry about going bankrupt from getting cancer or worry about getting a pension to retire on. A lot of Americans end up dead in a ditch somewhere.

Yes, those extra taxes probably buy you an extra four and a half years of life  (average life expectancy is 83.3 years for Australia but only 78.9 for the USA, according to Wikipedia).  Does that sound like better value for money to you?

[OtherJen]

It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

Those are different things. You can say that taxation is too progressive on one hand, and still decry Trump's blatant evasion on the other. For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000. I think it's equally ridiculous that someone should break tax laws to evade tax so that their average tax rate is <1%. Those two are perfectly consistent positions.

Well, to be fair, you may pay a lot in taxes in Australia, but you get a lot for your money. You don't ever have to worry about going bankrupt from getting cancer or worry about getting a pension to retire on. A lot of Americans end up dead in a ditch somewhere.

Yes, those extra taxes probably buy you an extra four and a half years of life  (average life expectancy is 83.3 years for Australia but only 78.9 for the USA, according to Wikipedia).  Does that sound like better value for money to you?

I would happily pay more in taxes if it meant that a medical emergency wouldn’t bankrupt me.

[Bloop Bloop]

For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

[RetiredAt63]

For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

People complain about our high tax rates on high income took..

Provincial income tax is quite variable.  I'm assuming you have state income taxes too. 

[rantk81]

For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

[FIPurpose]

He's talking about tax rates on high earners. SS tax has a cap on the first 140k or so, so that 7% tax doesn't apply to high income earners. The current tax on people who make over 200k is right around 32-35%. Also states tax between 0-9%. But even all that doesn't make an apples-to-oranges comparison. You'd have to do a whole analysis comparing what everyone pays in in sum and what everyone gets out. Just complaining about a single tax rate (without talking about all the potential deductions as well) just doesn't make much sense beyond demagoguery.

[JLee]

For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

My cost plus my employer's contribution for medical, dental, and vision is $12,294.88/year, or about 10% of my gross income.

How much are property taxes for your primary residence in Australia?

[Bloop Bloop]

For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

My cost plus my employer's contribution for medical, dental, and vision is $12,294.88/year, or about 10% of my gross income.

How much are property taxes for your primary residence in Australia?

Employers pay payroll tax and workers' compensation premiums. I don't know how much those are.

For healthcare, everyone (other than the poor) pays a 2.0% medicare levy and then those earning above $125k have to pay a 1.5% medicare surcharge unless they take out a useless hospital cover policy to absolve them from paying the surcharge. So for me, on about $220k a year, I pay a medicare levy of $4,400 plus $1,200 in useless hospital cover each year. But that's just a nominal amount. The actual healthcare system costs a lot more than that to fund, but I don't know what the precise proportion of tax revenue it is (but it's easily Googleable).

There is no tax whatsoever on primary residence in Australia. Council rates on the primary residence are something like $1.5 per $1000 per year.

But then - we pay luxury car tax of 33%. We pay a progressive land tax on any real estate that's not primary residence. We pay a graduated stamp duty on vehicles and land (i.e., the more it costs the higher the percent). There are all sorts of progressive consumption taxes, not just income taxes.

Anyway, don't mean to derail the thread.

[PDXTabs]

NYT: 18 Revelations From a Trove of Trump Tax Records. Some of these things look like fraudulently classifying personal expenses at business expenses.

[OtherJen]

For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

Those of us who are self-employed or contractors (raises hand) pay both the employer and employee halves of FICA (aka payroll tax for Medicare/Social Security) along with our estimated federal and state taxes every 3 months. I've paid both halves on my income since 2007. It wouldn't annoy me so much if 1) grifters like Trump also paid their fair share and 2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

[chaskavitch]

He's talking about tax rates on high earners. SS tax has a cap on the first 140k or so, so that 7% tax doesn't apply to high income earners. The current tax on people who make over 200k is right around 32-35%. Also states tax between 0-9%. But even all that doesn't make an apples-to-oranges comparison. You'd have to do a whole analysis comparing what everyone pays in in sum and what everyone gets out. Just complaining about a single tax rate (without talking about all the potential deductions as well) just doesn't make much sense beyond demagoguery.

I've never REALLY understood why only the first $180k of income is subject to SS tax.  Is it because your SS income in retirement is also capped?  It seems like that would be a great (but so terribly "socialist") way of increasing the budget for those programs to include higher incomes under that tax as well.

[talltexan]

NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value compared to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

I pay more income tax per week than the American President pays per year, even after adjusting for currency, even though Trump's salary is about 3x mine. That is disgraceful on Trump's part.

You sending your taxes to the US Treasury, fam?

[rantk81]

He's talking about tax rates on high earners. SS tax has a cap on the first 140k or so, so that 7% tax doesn't apply to high income earners. The current tax on people who make over 200k is right around 32-35%. Also states tax between 0-9%. But even all that doesn't make an apples-to-oranges comparison. You'd have to do a whole analysis comparing what everyone pays in in sum and what everyone gets out. Just complaining about a single tax rate (without talking about all the potential deductions as well) just doesn't make much sense beyond demagoguery.

Yes, there are a lot of things to factor in.  But on the surface, it doesn't sound meaningful to compare that 47% rate with only the Federal income tax rates, with there are so many other factors to consider.  (Edit: Also, the Medicare portion does not stop at a particular income level.  And if you are counting the employer part of SS, that doesn't stop after the 137K either.)

[OtherJen]

For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

My cost plus my employer's contribution for medical, dental, and vision is $12,294.88/year, or about 10% of my gross income.

How much are property taxes for your primary residence in Australia?

Employers pay payroll tax and workers' compensation premiums. I don't know how much those are.

For healthcare, everyone (other than the poor) pays a 2.0% medicare levy and then those earning above $125k have to pay a 1.5% medicare surcharge unless they take out a useless hospital cover policy to absolve them from paying the surcharge. So for me, on about $220k a year, I pay a medicare levy of $4,400 plus $1,200 in useless hospital cover each year. But that's just a nominal amount. The actual healthcare system costs a lot more than that to fund, but I don't know what the precise proportion of tax revenue it is (but it's easily Googleable).

There is no tax whatsoever on primary residence in Australia. Council rates on the primary residence are something like $1.5 per $1000 per year.

But then - we pay luxury car tax of 33%. We pay a progressive land tax on any real estate that's not primary residence. We pay a graduated stamp duty on vehicles and land (i.e., the more it costs the higher the percent). There are all sorts of progressive consumption taxes, not just income taxes.

Anyway, don't mean to derail the thread.

Yes. We have payroll taxes here (7.65% each from the employer and employee; as a contractor, I pay both halves), plus property taxes, school taxes, and sales taxes (6% flat rate sales tax in my state). Automobile registration and licensing fees (annual). We pay federal and state income tax. When we used to work in Detroit, we also paid city taxes.

We and husband's employer pay thousands of dollars that we pay in insurance premiums; even so, our annual per-person deductible is $6000 so we're paying all of those fees and copays ourselves. And that deductible is only for in-network care; if I suffered a stroke while grocery shopping and an out-of-network ambulance took me to an out-of-network emergency room, the deductible wouldn't apply. Or, if I had cancer and needed a specialized chemo drug, the insurance company can decide whether or not to pay it. If they say no, then that's $10K per month out of pocket (based on a recent example from a friend with cancer). Also, none of that covers long-term disability care, which is a separate form of insurance. That's how people in the US are bankrupted by medical costs despite carrying health insurance.

[PDXTabs]

and 2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

That is mathematically and provably false. You should shake whoever told you that.

[sherr]

I've never REALLY understood why only the first $180k of income is subject to SS tax.  Is it because your SS income in retirement is also capped?  It seems like that would be a great (but so terribly "socialist") way of increasing the budget for those programs to include higher incomes under that tax as well.

First $137k, and yes exactly. And removing the cap has been one of the proposed fixes for SS for forever. This change alone would solve 72% of the projected shortfall.

2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

It won't "run out of money", that's pure fantasy-land talk from the party that wants to destroy SS and so is trying to sow doubt about it.

Social Security is still running a surplus today, and it has $3 Trillion in the bank. It's only projected to run out of money in 2035 because of the massive wave of Boomer retirements that is coming up, but there are any number of fixes that can be applied when the problem actually presents itself. Our government is not good at dealing with problems that might happen in a couple decades, the problem has to actually be here before voters are concerned enough about it to do something about it.

The absolute worst case is that you might end up having to take a benefit haircut, eg. only 90% of what you're currently being promised, or that they raise the eligibility age by a few years. But SS will still be around when you retire, I doubt even the open Republican attempts to destroy the system will ever be successful. Voters do not like having something they've paid for stolen from them.

https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

[OtherJen]

and 2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

That is mathematically and provably false. You should shake whoever told you that.

Pretty much every adult in my life since childhood (I was born 2 years before Reagan took office). You can imagine how thrilled I was to get my first job 25 years ago (at 17), have a decent chunk of the paycheck disappear to FICA, and then be told (almost gleefully) by adults that I'd better save up because there wouldn't be Social Security for me!

Although in the last 10 years, my mother has switched to "they have to give you something! You won't get what we're getting but it has to be something after paying in all of those years!!"

[LennStar]

Just for comparison: In Germany the pension rate dropped/will drop by (it's actually impressivly complicated if you include tax rule) about 5-6%.

That gap, we are told, we have to close by using (instead of the state work-based distribution system) the market. But the state helps! You get 175€/Year or an even higher tax reduction (for the rich, who don't need the help har har) if you invest at least 4%.

So... we have reduced the pension by 5-6%, but have to pay 4% directly and get 1-2% by tax breaks, which of course means it has to be payed by other taxes.

The costs for the worker are the same, but the employer (who has to match) pays less, and insurance companies get a big chunck of the money through fees.

---

Anyway, the real point I wanted to make is that you can't compare e.g. 50% in 1990 with 45% in 2030. Productivity has increased a lot in that time, so while you get a slightly smaller share of the cake, the cake is a lot bigger.

The real problem is that taxation of work is catching ever less of the yearly GDP. If you would tax income from money at a comparable level to income from work (and the upcoming robotisation thing), and also tax wealth (esp. inheritance), you could very easily afford 60% and even more.

[wenchsenior]

and 2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

That is mathematically and provably false. You should shake whoever told you that.

Pretty much every adult in my life since childhood (I was born 2 years before Reagan took office). You can imagine how thrilled I was to get my first job 25 years ago (at 17), have a decent chunk of the paycheck disappear to FICA, and then be told (almost gleefully) by adults that I'd better save up because there wouldn't be Social Security for me!

Although in the last 10 years, my mother has switched to "they have to give you something! You won't get what we're getting but it has to be something after paying in all of those years!!"

The ignorance of the average American citizen about this just amazes me.

[FIPurpose]

and 2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

That is mathematically and provably false. You should shake whoever told you that.

Pretty much every adult in my life since childhood (I was born 2 years before Reagan took office). You can imagine how thrilled I was to get my first job 25 years ago (at 17), have a decent chunk of the paycheck disappear to FICA, and then be told (almost gleefully) by adults that I'd better save up because there wouldn't be Social Security for me!

Although in the last 10 years, my mother has switched to "they have to give you something! You won't get what we're getting but it has to be something after paying in all of those years!!"

The ignorance of the average American citizen about this just amazes me.

I had a friend last year talk about being dangerously close to the next tax bracket. "That's not how taxes work." I think he understood, but I also don't think he's the kind of guy that would have turned down a raise just to avoid a certain tax bracket.

[OtherJen]

and 2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

That is mathematically and provably false. You should shake whoever told you that.

Pretty much every adult in my life since childhood (I was born 2 years before Reagan took office). You can imagine how thrilled I was to get my first job 25 years ago (at 17), have a decent chunk of the paycheck disappear to FICA, and then be told (almost gleefully) by adults that I'd better save up because there wouldn't be Social Security for me!

Although in the last 10 years, my mother has switched to "they have to give you something! You won't get what we're getting but it has to be something after paying in all of those years!!"

The ignorance of the average American citizen about this just amazes me.

Yes, and I was informed by a retired Boomer a couple of weeks ago that Joe Biden wants to take our social security and if he’s elected we won’t get social security at all if we have a pension (lol, what’s a pension?) or 401k, so I shouldn’t vote for him.

Shit like this is why we’re doomed, folks. Voters like her will gladly throw the rest of us under the bus thanks to whatever garbage they’re being fed via Fox News.

[MilesTeg]

As expected, the Trump cultists I have the misfortune of being exposed to in some way are talking about how smart he is to figure out how to not pay taxes.

We're witnessing the death throws of our once great republic.

[bacchi]

As expected, the Trump cultists I have the misfortune of being exposed to in some way are talking about how smart he is to figure out how to not pay taxes.

We're witnessing the death throws of our once great republic.

He's still insisting that he pays a lot of US taxes.