ADVERTISEMENT

Biden to roll out Universal Pre-K and Elder Care plans

fried-chicken said:
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/21...and-elder-care.html?__twitter_impression=true

Huge ROI to invest in programs to get kids ready for school and to allow young parents to work and provide a healthy family enviroment without the impossible burden of childcare costs.

This is a winning plan.
Click to expand...

While the campaign provided few specifics Monday as to where all this money would come from, the initial outline said it "will be paid for by rolling back unproductive and unequal tax breaks for real estate investors with incomes over $400,000 and taking steps to increase tax compliance for high-income earners."

Hard Pass. Nobody should have their taxes raised to fund these things.
 
DAiello18 said:
While the campaign provided few specifics Monday as to where all this money would come from, the initial outline said it "will be paid for by rolling back unproductive and unequal tax breaks for real estate investors with incomes over $400,000 and taking steps to increase tax compliance for high-income earners."

Hard Pass. Nobody should have their taxes raised to fund these things.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We should take the GOP line and decrease tax revenue while spending anyway and bloat the deficit.
 
hemightbejeremy said:
Agreed. We should take the GOP line and decrease tax revenue while spending anyway and bloat the deficit.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be one or the other? Both options are shit. However, taxation should never be the answer. There’s no real reason to increase taxes on anyone. If something is that vital It should be able to be privately funded or crowd funded for existence. If nobody wants to fund It willingly It isn’t that important now is It?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
fried-chicken said:
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/07/21...and-elder-care.html?__twitter_impression=true

Huge ROI to invest in programs to get kids ready for school and to allow young parents to work and provide a healthy family enviroment without the impossible burden of childcare costs.

This is a winning plan.
Click to expand...

Do you know another way to assure that young parents can provide a healthy family environment while not incurring "impossible burdens of childcare costs"? Not have both parents working. Codifying the idea that we should expect that others at daycare raise extremely young children instead of capable parent(s), and asking others to pay for that codification, is just stupid.
 
DAiello18 said:
Why does it have to be one or the other? Both options are shit. However, taxation should never be the answer. There’s no real reason to increase taxes on anyone. If something is that vital It should be able to be privately funded or crowd funded for existence. If nobody wants to fund It willingly It isn’t that important now is It?
Click to expand...
We litterally wouldnt have any services unless someone said tax increases were OK at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hemightbejeremy
UCFKnight85 said:
Do you know another way to assure that young parents can provide a healthy family environment while not incurring "impossible burdens of childcare costs"? Not have both parents working. Codifying the idea that we should expect that others at daycare raise extremely young children instead of capable parent(s), and asking others to pay for that codification, is just stupid.
Click to expand...
Assuming both parents are in the house. Big assumption. Assuming 1 income can provide for a family. Big assumption.
 
DAiello18 said:
Why does it have to be one or the other? Both options are shit. However, taxation should never be the answer. There’s no real reason to increase taxes on anyone. If something is that vital It should be able to be privately funded or crowd funded for existence. If nobody wants to fund It willingly It isn’t that important now is It?
Click to expand...
No. It’s the opposite. If something is vital it shouldn’t be relied upon to be “crowdsourced” To fund whatever that means. I’m not saying these programs are vital. I haven’t really looked into them. But to say that there is never a cause to increase taxes is very short sided. What if a pandemic hit and we needed to pass trillions of dollars of bills to keep everything afloat. You don’t think somebody eventually has to foot that bill?
 
fried-chicken said:
Assuming both parents are in the house. Big assumption. Assuming 1 income can provide for a family. Big assumption.
Click to expand...

No. Not even remotely true.

70% of kids born in the US are born into 2-parent homes.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pre...6 — The majority of,or having a single parent.

"Provide for a family" is a deceptively loose, vague term and used for a reason. There is no magic number for a salary that can "support" a family, it's usually dependent upon that the material expectations of that family are and what list of priorities exist. I know many parents my age who dump their kid on grandma every single day so that they can go to work, go to the gym, and do happy hour a few nights per week. Like a lot of families, they could absolutely live on one salary and foster a much better environment for their child but that doesn't rank high in the priority list.
 
Trump said on Sunday that he would have a tremendous plan coming out very soon. I'm waiting for that because it will be better. *
 
Sorry twats, this plan will be wildly popular. Taxes for 400k per year plus investment bankers can go back to what they were before and we'll be fine just like we were then.

No one is getting crushed because we already had these taxes once and did fine when we had them.
 
fried-chicken said:
False.
Click to expand...
I guess he means the UAE doesn’t have an individual income tax. Mainly because native Emirates make up less than 1/8 of the population and are inherently wealthy due to oil money. Expats are subject to income tax from their home countries and there are VAT taxes and lodging taxes, etc. the UAE government also has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world due to their oil exports and the government does just fine funding things like sculpting islands to look like the world, building the tallest building on earth, making indoor ski resorts, and even making lakes look like people.
 
hemightbejeremy said:
I guess he means the UAE doesn’t have an individual income tax. Mainly because native Emirates make up less than 1/8 of the population and are inherently wealthy due to oil money. Expats are subject to income tax from their home countries and there are VAT taxes and lodging taxes, etc. the UAE government also has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world due to their oil exports and the government does just fine funding things like sculpting islands to look like the world, building the tallest building on earth, making indoor ski resorts, and even making lakes look like people.
Click to expand...
And the government owns whole industries and they charge "fees" instead of taxes.

Its a B.S. argument based on being technically true but not functionally true at all. UAE has universal healthcare. The money to pay for that comes from somewhere.
 
“As for the poor, either a truly free market would eliminate poverty, or else, if there are still some poor folks who are not being helped by charity, they would get vouchers for essential services.”

for essential services It says. Also way to leave out the part about a truly free market eliminating poverty. I expect nothing less from the Cherrypickers on here.

I love how FC comes in here with this, I got a better idea. Since you want to help all these people. I don’t want to, so therefore I shouldn’t have to. So what I propose is we tax your paychecks at 90% since you care so much about these causes and we don’t tax mine, because I’m choosing not to help. Would you be okay with that?

because after all, as you’ve stated so many times, if It doesn’t impact you, who cares.
 
Or is my freedom to choose who I want to help restricted because you say this is good for them and I must do It.
 
DAiello18 said:
“As for the poor, either a truly free market would eliminate poverty, or else, if there are still some poor folks who are not being helped by charity, they would get vouchers for essential services.”

for essential services It says. Also way to leave out the part about a truly free market eliminating poverty. I expect nothing less from the Cherrypickers on here.

I love how FC comes in here with this, I got a better idea. Since you want to help all these people. I don’t want to, so therefore I shouldn’t have to. So what I propose is we tax your paychecks at 90% since you care so much about these causes and we don’t tax mine, because I’m choosing not to help. Would you be okay with that?

because after all, as you’ve stated so many times, if It doesn’t impact you, who cares.
Click to expand...
Did you ever get to how the vouchers are paid for other than we eliminate poverty with unicorns and rainbows?
 
hemightbejeremy said:
Did you ever get to how the vouchers are paid for other than we eliminate poverty with unicorns and rainbows?
Click to expand...

You keep skipping the first part about the free market eliminating poverty. As for the vouchers if they are needed, for essential services, It goes on to explain that.

“Taxation in substance is the imposition of costs not directly linked to any service or penalty. Taxation in form is a required payment to a government. Two taxes in form, which are not taxes in substance, are pollution charges and levies on land rent or land value. In substance, a pollution charge is compensation for trespass and damages on the property of others. In substance, a levy on land rent or land value is a payment for property—rent—that morally belongs to the members of a community rather than the title holder.”

The second “tax” if you will is more of a fine and penalty. These fees for things of that nature would in theory cover any costs that the truly free market failed to. But a truly free market would eliminate poverty.

Its really not a hard concept to grasp. I know it’s fun to dismiss cause Its not A widely held view in either the left or the right but from an economic standpoint It is the most effective and efficient way to go about things.

The problem, like I said, is nobody on the left or right will budge from their line
 
DAiello18 said:
You keep skipping the first part about the free market eliminating poverty. As for the vouchers if they are needed, for essential services, It goes on to explain that.

“Taxation in substance is the imposition of costs not directly linked to any service or penalty. Taxation in form is a required payment to a government. Two taxes in form, which are not taxes in substance, are pollution charges and levies on land rent or land value. In substance, a pollution charge is compensation for trespass and damages on the property of others. In substance, a levy on land rent or land value is a payment for property—rent—that morally belongs to the members of a community rather than the title holder.”

The second “tax” if you will is more of a fine and penalty. These fees for things of that nature would in theory cover any costs that the truly free market failed to. But a truly free market would eliminate poverty.

Its really not a hard concept to grasp. I know it’s fun to dismiss cause Its not A widely held view in either the left or the right but from an economic standpoint It is the most effective and efficient way to go about things.

The problem, like I said, is nobody on the left or right will budge from their line
Click to expand...
How does a free market eliminate poverty?
 
hemightbejeremy said:
How does a free market eliminate poverty?
Click to expand...

Im not going to write a novel. Instead I’ll leave these sources to help explain how and why we are not a free market and how a TRUE free market helps eliminate poverty. You can choose to read or ignore this as you wish.

https://mises.org/library/how-truly-free-markets-help-poor

https://mises.org/library/data-clear-free-markets-reduce-poverty

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-an...economic-freedom-enables-great-escape-poverty

In short a truly free market, would allow people to make money how they can, rather then regulating and taxing them to hell forcing a discouraged work force and small business force. It doesn’t cure anything but It allows everyone no matter the size or product to find a path to generating revenue without regulation and being taxed over the head
 
DAiello18 said:
Im not going to write a novel. Instead I’ll leave these sources to help explain how and why we are not a free market and how a TRUE free market helps eliminate poverty. You can choose to read or ignore this as you wish.

https://mises.org/library/how-truly-free-markets-help-poor

https://mises.org/library/data-clear-free-markets-reduce-poverty

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-an...economic-freedom-enables-great-escape-poverty

In short a truly free market, would allow people to make money how they can, rather then regulating and taxing them to hell forcing a discouraged work force and small business force. It doesn’t cure anything but It allows everyone no matter the size or product to find a path to generating revenue without regulation and being taxed over the head
Click to expand...
I didn’t ask for a novel. Free markets don’t eliminate poverty. There isn’t a single example of this. In periods of economic growth free markets can reduce poverty. Just as pure socialism is not a utopia, neither is pure capitalism. So the vouchers don’t matter because you live in utopia in your head.
 
hemightbejeremy said:
I didn’t ask for a novel. Free markets don’t eliminate poverty. There isn’t a single example of this. In periods of economic growth free markets can reduce poverty. Just as pure socialism is not a utopia, neither is pure capitalism. So the vouchers don’t matter because you live in utopia in your head.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe you read all 3 of those in this short time and know more than Experts with PHD’s in economics. But maybe you do. If you don’t think a free market with reduced regulation, taxation and federal micromanaging will not help smaller and start up businesses thrive you do not understand economies. Also elimination of a minimum wage would allow more opportunities for work without handicapping corporations
 
DAiello18 said:
I find it hard to believe you read all 3 of those in this short time and know more than Experts with PHD’s in economics. But maybe you do. If you don’t think a free market with reduced regulation, taxation and federal micromanaging will not help smaller and start up businesses thrive you do not understand economies. Also elimination of a minimum wage would allow more opportunities for work without handicapping corporations
Click to expand...
If your experts contend that a free market will “eliminate poverty” (hint, they don’t), then I would say yes they are stupid. You are very good at sidestepping the question. So since we don’t live in a fantasy land where poverty is eradicated completely, who is paying for their vouchers?
 
fried-chicken said:
Every problem is so simple when you start with the assumption that the free market eliminates poverty. Hahaha
Click to expand...

laughing is the guy who suggests taxing people to help. That always works right? They don’t just move their money elsewhere.
 
hemightbejeremy said:
If your experts contend that a free market will “eliminate poverty” (hint, they don’t), then I would say yes they are stupid. You are very good at sidestepping the question. So since we don’t live in a fantasy land where poverty is eradicated completely, who is paying for their vouchers?
Click to expand...

I explained It twice. You can read up for chose to ignore the explanation that you don’t agree with
 
DAiello18 said:
“As for the poor, either a truly free market would eliminate poverty, or else, if there are still some poor folks who are not being helped by charity, they would get vouchers for essential services.”

for essential services It says. Also way to leave out the part about a truly free market eliminating poverty. I expect nothing less from the Cherrypickers on here.

I love how FC comes in here with this, I got a better idea. Since you want to help all these people. I don’t want to, so therefore I shouldn’t have to. So what I propose is we tax your paychecks at 90% since you care so much about these causes and we don’t tax mine, because I’m choosing not to help. Would you be okay with that?

because after all, as you’ve stated so many times, if It doesn’t impact you, who cares.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that we should raise taxes on middle class sales reps. You're not in the group that would have their taxes changed back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
DAiello18 said:
I explained It twice. You can read up for chose to ignore the explanation that you don’t agree with
Click to expand...
You didn’t explain how a “free market” “eliminates poverty”. I understand what you are saying and it all assumes people are willing and able to work for a living. What about the 19 million Americans who are limited or cannot work due to disability? What about those with mental illness who choose not to work? All these people are covered by charity?
 
DAiello18 said:
laughing is the guy who suggests taxing people to help. That always works right? They don’t just move their money elsewhere.
Click to expand...
You know how taxes work? Because it doesnt sound like you do. You cant just move your money somewhere else. Businesses arent taxed on their assets they are taxed on earnings. Are you saying amazon should just earn their money outside of America? Ok good luck, leave the richest market in the world amd go sell only in Brazil only to avoid a few percent tax hike. They wont leave shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
fried-chicken said:
No one is saying that we should raise taxes on middle class sales reps. You're not in the group that would have their taxes changed back.
Click to expand...

I notice you conveniently skipped my post above but that's fine. I'll just address this now.

I know you chuds love to say "It's only this much more tax on those stupid rich people!" every time you want to champion a new program and new spending that will never, ever be cut or scaled back once passed into law. The issue is not whether that is true or not for this program, the issue is that Biden and the left will have at least 6-7 more programs at least this size, or alot bigger, and the rationale will be the same every time. Just a little more tax for the evil rich!

You can only treat high wage earners as a piggy bank so many times before you realize that socialist spending eventually requires pain and taxation at the middle class level. Only the DNC won't ever admit this since it's easier to pontificate the idea that we can pass $15T in new spending and only impact what those "investment bankers" are making.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
I notice you conveniently skipped my post above but that's fine. I'll just address this now.

I know you chuds love to say "It's only this much more tax on those stupid rich people!" every time you want to champion a new program and new spending that will never, ever be cut or scaled back once passed into law. The issue is not whether that is true or not for this program, the issue is that Biden and the left will have at least 6-7 more programs at least this size, or alot bigger, and the rationale will be the same every time. Just a little more tax for the evil rich!

You can only treat high wage earners as a piggy bank so many times before you realize that socialist spending eventually requires pain and taxation at the middle class level. Only the DNC won't ever admit this since it's easier to pontificate the idea that we can pass $15T in new spending and only impact what those "investment bankers" are making.
Click to expand...
This will increase the skill of our labor force. It will increase the number of available workers. It will reduce the kids who head down a bad path due to poor home enviroments. It will provide a steady launch pad for young kids in poor areas.

All great investments in the long run. This is a labor infrastructure plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
fried-chicken said:
This will increase the skill of our labor force. It will increase the number of available workers. It will reduce the kids who head down a bad path due to poor home enviroments. It will provide a steady launch pad for young kids in poor areas.

All great investments in the long run. This is a labor infrastructure plan.
Click to expand...

You literally just addressed nothing that was actually in my post.
 
fried-chicken said:
Your post was boring I didnt care to dig into it. Dems will spend when it makes sense to spend, this makes sense.
Click to expand...

It would make sense if there were qualifiers or if this applied to people with hardship who truly, actually need paid daycare. It doesn't make sense to spend $1T merely to solidify the idea that Americans should have kids and then ask others to pay for the daily raising of those kids by other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back