2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Not sure what happened to my post.
It has nothing to do with how much state and locals get. It's the net amount of much the taxpayer owes, pays.
Yes and the amount the taxpayer pays to state and local stays the same, with or without cap. So there is no "netting" of SALT. There is no increase of SALT.
There is an increase in the federal income tax paid, vs the counterfactual without the cap, for people who paid more than 10k in SALT. *but* they got tax cuts as well in the same bill. Significant ones, to the point the vast majority of people paying more than 10k in SALT pre-bill, ended up paying less federal income taxes anyway with the bill.
owed : to be under obligation to pay or repay in return for something received : be indebted in the sum of
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona...
What part of obligation to pay don't you understand?
The obligation toward state and local stays the same with or without capped deductions.
And their net obligation attributable to SALT taxes is reduced by the Federal deduction. Like how every other deduction in the US tax code is accounted for by tax payers. When someone is house-shopping and calculates how much mortgage payment they want to pay they don't concern themselves with how much the bank gets - they are worried about what their net expense is.
Perhaps you work for the government because you seem unable to understand taxes from the taxpayer's perspective.
Or perhaps you're one of the 50% of Republicans who think Haitians in Ohio are eating cats and dogs.
And their net obligation attributable to SALT taxes is reduced by the Federal deduction. Like how every other deduction in the US tax code is accounted for by tax payers. When someone is house-shopping and calculates how much mortgage payment they want to pay they don't concern themselves with how much the bank gets - they are worried about what their net expense is.
Perhaps you work for the government because you seem unable to understand taxes from the taxpayer's perspective.
Or perhaps you're
Going repeatedly ad hominem won't make your argument.
Other tax deductions for the federal income tax are accounted the same: i pay more or less in taxes... to the federal government.
The federal deduction reduces the amount paid to ... the federal government.
Even from a taxpayer perspective paying to state or to the fed can be very different, depending on your preferences about what those entities do with your money.
The "obligation attributable to SALT" stays the same. Identical. The feds take more money from you than they did before. But they cut it anyway (in the same bill), so your only complaining can be that people elsewhere got even better cuts.
Your "net tax expenses" all included, if rich in a blue state , went down in 95%+ of cases with Trump tax cuts, even accounting for the removal of the SALT unlimited deduction.
You aren't approaching it from a "total tax paid" point of view because you deny that.
You wanted to claim that bill increased SALT, which it didn't. Which is why Sanders voted against it.
It cut federal income taxes, a lot for rich people living in red states, and a lot but a little less for rich people living in blue states, and a bit for most other people.
Other tax deductions for the federal income tax are accounted the same: i pay more or less in taxes... to the federal government.
The federal deduction reduces the amount paid to ... the federal government.
You keep repeating that if a taxing body like a state gets the same amount of taxes paid, the SALT tax burden to the taxpayer is the same even though that burden is reduced by the Federal deduction. I gave you the mortgage example to demonstrate how your logic doesn't make any sense. You are simply arguing for the sake of not admitting you're wrong.
Trump is such a monumental piece of **** that when asked a straightforward question about denouncing the bomb threats in Springfield (elementary schools among those threatened, I remind you) his response was word for word as follows:
‘I don’t know what happened with the bomb threats, I know that it’s been taken over by uh illegal migrants and that’s a terrible thing that happened. Springfield was this beautiful town and now they’re going through hell. It’s a sad thing. Not gonna happen with me I can tell you right now’
The guy is instigating bomb threats on a city based on lies his running mate has said they have no intention of stopping, can’t be bothered to denounce bomb threats and I’m supposed to believe you aren’t a total piece of **** for stanning a MAGA hat
But sure, Dems are getting out of hand here with the rhetoric
"Elect me if you want the bomb threats to stop..." has got to be a bumper sticker
So your proof that a tax-cutting Republican like Trump didn't increase SALT taxes specifically to punish blue states...is that a tax-increasing Democrat like Sanders also supported imposing a SALT cap? Are you being serious?
now you're just making stuff up - this is really sad dude, you were wrong, that's ok, be a big man and admit it or at least stop posting about it
https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-ext...
Bernie is absolutely for raising taxes on the elites
now you're just making stuff up - this is really sad dude, you were wrong, that's ok, be a big man and admit it or at least stop posting about it
Bernie is absolutely for raising taxes on the elites
Do you guys not even read the posts you're replying to? I called Sanders a "tax-increasing Democrat" in my original reply to you.
now you're just making stuff up - this is really sad dude, you were wrong, that's ok, be a big man and admit it or at least stop posting about it
Bernie is absolutely for raising taxes on the elites
Bernie is a typical politician . When he started out he was preaching raise the taxes on millionaires but once he became a millionaire it was raise the taxes on billionaires
There are obviously endless examples of this but as the son of a LAUSD teacher and a former sub, the one that sticks out to me is the school lunches you mentioned.
As a sub, they told us to try the food on our first day. I don't know if this is some kind of hazing thing, but I had a cheeseburger that was genuinely one of the most disgusting things I've ever tasted. The cheese was this yellow goo, a bit like you'd get if you were suicidal enough to order nachos at a movie theater in the 90s, but
great post, agree 100%
Trump Mistakes Wildlife Refuge for Airbase in Afghanistan: ‘We Have Bagram in Alaska’
Former President Donald Trump mixed up the name of an Alaskan wildlife refuge and an air base in Afghanistan during a town hall in Flint, Michigan on Tuesday.
Boasting to the audience about how he got oil drilling approved in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly referred to ANWR, Trump said:
We were energy independent, we were soon going to be energy dominant, and we would’ve been now having so much money coming out of the energy. We just have the best. We have Bagram in Alaska. They say it might be as big, might be bigger, than all of Saudi Arabia. I got it approved. Ronald Reagan couldn’t do it, nobody could do it. I got it done. In their first week they [the Biden administration] terminated it.
Instead of ANWR, used the word Bagram – the name of the United States’ former air base in Afghanistan.
Trump continued to make confusing remarks about Bagram and ANWR, saying, “Check that one out. Bagram. Check that one that. ANW– it’s, it’s– no, think about this. Between Bagram, between– you go to ANWR…”
Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-...
Yeah, I'm sure Trump executing his own Afghanistan exit plan that Biden used would have gone smoother if he was in power at the time.
it's pretty funny that Trump doesn't seem to be willing/able to really talk much about the actual things he did as president.
He did actually pass a conventional republican tax cut, but wasn't super popular and I don't think most people really notice or care anymore.
Immigration he was supposed to transform the system, but was not able to even pass anything, tried to use bureaucratic cruelty as a deterrent which wasn't super popular and ended up being reversed easily. Other presidents kicked the can on an immigration bill, but none made it as central to a campaign as Trump and he effectively did nothing lasting that wasn't already status quo since GWB.
Trade wars went as predicted. Easy to start, hard to wind down from don't really benefit nation as a whole but gives the federal government more power in picking winners and losers in the market.
Foreign policy; Middle East plan was a disaster, which some people were predicting after seeing the Abraham Accords in 2020. Bringing peace to the middle east by putting Israeli Palestinian disputes on the back burner was.....uhhhh not a smart way to go. In North Korea we had the 2 fat guys 1 handshake summit. None of the behind the scenes diplomacy looked to even be attempted. Kim would have met with any POTUS, Trump was the one guy willing to do it without any change or concession from Kim. In some ways we got the best result here; nothing changed status quo continues and Trump did not make anything worse than it was when he took over.
Healthcare and Infrastructure. Just lol Veep style running jokes not much to say, but he has flip flopped pretty hard on Obamacare though he's mostly just mirrored conventional republican talking points on this, in 2016 and now with random 1 off lies like "we'll cover everyone" which made no sense thrown in.
it's pretty funny that Trump doesn't seem to be willing/able to really talk much about the actual things he did as president.
He did actually pass a conventional republican tax cut, but wasn't super popular and I don't think most people really notice or care anymore.
Immigration he was supposed to transform the system, was not able to even pass anything, tried to use bureaucratic cruelty as a deterrent which wasn't super popular and ended up being reversed easily. Other presidents kicked the
Jamie Oliver famously went on a big quest to address this and was told to eff off. This is basically an apolitical issue. You have to be some kind of lunatic to want students to be served disgusting, extremely unhealthy food. And the cost of upgrading the food would be trivial.
I mean, it really isn't though. Do you have kids? It's a real challenge to get them to eat anything unfamiliar even high quality, expensive, healthy stuff most upper middle class adults would really enjoy . Now think about cooking for 1000 kids in a low income area where these problems are the worst and most kids have very little exposure to things you would not call junk food. Given you can't force kids to eat something they don't want to, and your budget is like a dollar per meal it's not really a surprise pre-made chicken nuggets, pizza etc are the staples. Here's a good article by a former Noma chef who started a company to improve school lunches and the huge challenges. Something like a Cesar salad with a side of hummus sounds totally reasonable to me now, but in 7th grade I could easily see myself just not eating over that. Even the picture in the article of an example meal looks good to me now, but I'm not sure at 11.
I mean, it really isn't though. Do you have kids? It's a real challenge to get them to eat anything unfamiliar even high quality, expensive, healthy stuff most upper middle class adults would really enjoy . Now think about cooking for 1000 kids in a low income area where these problems are the worst and most kids have very little exposure to things you would not call junk food. Given you can't force kids to eat something they don't want to, and your budget is like a dollar per meal it's not
there's a major misconception here as well as an error in logic
1 - the amount kids are charged for lunches, even if they pay full price, is only a fraction of the actual cost - the amount they pay is intended to help offset the cost slightly and is never the operating budget
2 - a growing number school cafeterias are outsourced to private companies - this ensures they will source the cheapest possible ingredients - while it often can make sense to outsource cafeteria management (despite it being a for profit contractor they can often do it for less than the school could on their own due to bureacratic inefficiences or lack of domain expertise since priority is the school not the food) the school should still be the ones responsible for procuring ingredients to ensure that sloppy joes are served for reasons other than cost of ingredients
3 - the best way to get children familiar with unfamiliar foods is to feed them - sure if you randomly give them a caesar salad and hummus just once it could lead to a revolt to children expecting chicken nuggets but if from day one those are the options it would be just fine - we can't allow the lowest common denominator's taste and experience dictate the diet for all, just like how some kids may grow up in homes that refuse to acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs and think the pyramids were built by aliens, we still teach about dinosaurs and don't include alien pyramid theories in our curriculum - it should be the same way with food
find a child a who's a picky eater and will only eat chicken nuggets on the kids menu and i'll show you a set of parents who not once were willing to go with an unpleasant meal or two of rebellion and always acceded to the child's meal demands - every single time in my life i've seen a child freak out because there were no chicken nuggets, at least one of the parents was freaking out at a similar level desperately trying to find a solution where they ask the kitchen what workarounds they can do, consider going to a new location or even ordering/getting nugget takeout and bringing it back to the original location for the child to eat - all that instead of saying "they don't have any, choose something else"
the parent is like zomg there's nothing that can be done - no there is, your kid is only demanding nuggets and throwing a fit because by doing so they get that, if they had 2-3 failed nugget tantrums they'd learn to stop that and just choose the next best available option - but the parents don't see it that way and will often complain "how do they not have nuggets on the kids menu, what kind of place is this?"
i see it all the time and it's just sad
Jamie Oliver famously went on a big quest to address this and was told to eff off. This is basically an apolitical issue. You have to be some kind of lunatic to want students to be served disgusting, extremely unhealthy food.
And no idea why you think this would be apolitical. I don't think any state or city that has tried universal free school lunches has seen major downsides...yet
As universal school meal proposals have spread across the country and been adopted by several Democratic governors and legislatures, they have been largely opposed by state Republicans. GOP governors have turned down federal funds to feed school children during the summer.
The Republican Study Committee, a caucus that makes up about three-fourths of the House GOP, in March published a draft budget that sought to drastically cut back on districts feeding meals to all students — specifically by ending the Community Eligibility Provision, the free meals program the Biden Department of Agriculture (USDA) just expanded.
And Project 2025, the conservative battle plan for a future Republican administration, argues that a GOP president must “reject efforts to create universal free school meals” and roll back the steps the federal government has already taken in that direction.
So exhausted with people saying this. Of course adequately funding school lunches is a matter of political ideology, why would you think it isn't?
You're right in that some people who are like, hard core libertarians would find ideological ground for opposition to school lunches existing. Though I imagine many would want the lunches to be good if they must exist.
What I mean is, that is not why these things happen. The school board didn't pass around a copy of The Fountainhead or Nozick and make a principled decision.
I also mean there isn't some huge ideological conflict over many of these things. Not that many people hold the outlier ideologies one would need to use to rationalize stuff like neglecting infrastructure, deliberately malnourishing school kids, our incarceration rate, workers getting no vacation, members of congress doing insider trading, people earning 100s of millions as career politicians, etc.
I'm sure if you showed 100k Americans the Japanese school lunch video and asked if they would like that here, with American food, something like 80k would say yes.
Teamsters came out today stating they wouldn't support either candidate. This coming after 20 straight years of putting their support behind democratic candidates.
But more interesting to me, is that their announcement included a poll they conducted asking who their members would vote for: 60% said trump , 34% said Harris. Have the teamsters historically publicly backed democratic presidents even though the majority of their members support Republicans? Just curious , wondering if these polls could indicate anything.
Teamsters came out today stating they wouldn't support either candidate. This coming after 20 straight years of putting their support behind democratic candidates.
But more interesting to me, is that their announcement included a poll they conducted asking who their members would vote for: 60% said trump , 34% said Harris. Have the teamsters historically publicly backed democratic presidents even though the majority of their members support Republicans? Just curious , wondering if these polls
didnt the leader go to the RNC?
