3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

What do you mean that never happened? Yes, it absolutely has happened. There are laws passed by Congress which gives the president authority to impose tariffs under certain situations, which is why every past president has been able to impose the tariffs they did. The question at hand is if the way Trump has been imposing them goes BEYOND the power that Congress has delegated to the president, which is why it's currently being challenged in court.

"But none of that's the point anyways, if Democrats come into power full wave with both houses the iron will very likely be hot enough to soak the ultra rich right and proper through congress."

In order for an amendment for a wealth tax to be passed, they would need 2/3 of the house and senate to approve it, and 3/4 of the states. There is 0.00000% chance of that happening. Democrat politicians have ultra rich friends too.....

Do democrat voters not understand that both the ultra rich and corporations back the democrats overall?

32 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I also have two children and I am already through childcare so I have no personal skin in the game. I was paying between 25k-30k at the highest point. For people above the qualifications (likely around 50-60k) but below a salary to be able to comfortably do that (probably around $200k) a lot of hard decisions need to be made. I haven't seen the numbers but I bet if you graph birthrate by income level it would be a U shape and it's not that hard to figure out why. There are low-earners who don't have to worry about healthcare/childcare costs and there are high earners who aren't concerned with the high costs.

As far as what the best way to go about the implementation? No idea. I would just like to know why people are so quick to blow it off when they know we have a birthrate problem. The middle class isn't having babies right now because they can't even afford a house in their 20s/30s let alone a family of 4-5.

According to Statista, it is not a U shaped curve. Households between 100-150k, 150k-200k, and 200k+ have the 3 lowest birth rates https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/?srsltid=AfmBOoqGmdxCUV679Lw4wiOVT9epW4kjbTgRcnD3BAmsUmy-dzjLZ5HT

" I would just like to know why people are so quick to blow it off when they know we have a birthrate problem"

Well, I just provided you a number of reasons to be against such a policy.

32 minutes ago, TEW said:

Why do you keep assuming his tenure is only going to be 4 years? More likely he serves 8 years followed by an equally radical candidate.

Ok, then make it 8 years. I said 4 years because if he's as disastrous as many think he will be, he may not get 8. But sure make it 8. Still no comparison to the situation Detroit was in. Detroit quickly ascended due to 1 industry and then quickly descended when that industry was no longer the same dominant force and when manufacturing started moving out to other areas instead of being focused in just Detroit. Again, 25% of the working population of the city was in the auto industry. And that's not counting all of the people indirectly employed by the auto industry. Again, no comparison to NYC. If Philly can survive Kenney and Krasner, I think NYC can survive Mamdani.

33 minutes ago, TEW said:

Do democrat voters not understand that both the ultra rich and corporations back the democrats overall?

shhhh.....it's their little secret!

51 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Beyond being unconstitutional, a wealth tax is just about the dumbest policy imaginable. A wealth tax would require people to value illiquid investments and then liquidate them to pay the tax. As an example, someone who founded a business that is valued at hundreds of millions is wealthy on paper, but not in reality. Same as his early investors. So the only way to pay the tax is to sell horribly illiquid investments at a huge discount, or borrow against the investment (which is very dangerous). The outcome will be obvious -- investors will stop investing in start-ups/growing companies. The USA's economic advantage is based on encouraging such investment -- it's why we create companies like AMZN while Europe does nothing. We'd destroy that advantage and annihilate the economy.

It's legitimately insane policy. As someone who would likely have to pay it, I'd stop doing any early stage investing. And so would much wealthier folks.

No no no but it wouldn't target those people. Just those other evil greedy rich billionaires....

12 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

According to Statista, it is not a U shaped curve. Households between 100-150k, 150k-200k, and 200k+ have the 3 lowest birth rates https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/?srsltid=AfmBOoqGmdxCUV679Lw4wiOVT9epW4kjbTgRcnD3BAmsUmy-dzjLZ5HT

" I would just like to know why people are so quick to blow it off when they know we have a birthrate problem"

Well, I just provided you a number of reasons to be against such a policy.

Go state-by-state and look at when subsidies phase out and there is a direct correlation. 200k would still feel a financial strain if there are two car payments, two student loan payments and a mortgage. We need the 300k, 400k, 500k numbers in there and I promise you it will be U-shaped. This graph makes much more sense:

3 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Go state-by-state and look at when subsidies phase out and there is a direct correlation. 200k would still feel a financial strain if there are two car payments, two student loan payments and a mortgage. We need the 300k, 400k, 500k numbers in there and I promise you it will be U-shaped.

Of course there will be a financial strain. You're paying someone to watch your kid for 8+ hours a day. Why wouldn't there be a financial strain to pay for such a service? While I complain about the cost of daycare, it's also slightly tongue in cheek. In reality it's a bargain. My daughter is daycare 4 days a week, 9-10 hours a day. We pay about $1,400 a month, and she's in there on average 165 hours a month. So that comes out to about $8.50 an hour, to pay for someone to watch my kid all day. Now, why would I want it to be "free" to me, where I'd have less control over where she goes, and there would be less incentive for the daycare she attends to make improvements, and on top of that, then have to be stuck with an additional ever increasing tax bill that I'll be paying for the rest of my life. I'll be done paying daycare in 3 years. God willing I'll live another 50 years. 3 years of financial strain vs 50 years of an ever increasing tax burden. Give me the former please.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Of course there will be a financial strain. You're paying someone to watch your kid for 8+ hours a day. Why wouldn't there be a financial strain to pay for such a service? While I complain about the cost of daycare, it's also slightly tongue in cheek. In reality it's a bargain. My daughter is daycare 4 days a week, 9-10 hours a day. We pay about $1,400 a month, and she's in there on average 165 hours a month. So that comes out to about $8.50 an hour. Now, why would I want it to be "free" to me, where I'd have less control over where she goes, and there would be less incentive for the daycare she attends to make improvements, and on top of that, then have to be stuck with an additional ever increasing tax bill that I'll be paying for the rest of my life. I'll be done paying daycare in 3 years. God willing I'll live another 50 years. 3 years of financial strain vs 47 years of an ever increasing tax burden. Give me the former please.

I'm not advocating for anything. Just explaining that the drop in birthrate is directly correlated to income level. If we don't want to make it financially easier for those folks then I'd like the GOP to stop complaining about falling birthrates and accept it.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

Beyond being unconstitutional, a wealth tax is just about the dumbest policy imaginable. A wealth tax would require people to value illiquid investments and then liquidate them to pay the tax. As an example, someone who founded a business that is valued at hundreds of millions is wealthy on paper, but not in reality. Same as his early investors. So the only way to pay the tax is to sell horribly illiquid investments at a huge discount, or borrow against the investment (which is very dangerous). The outcome will be obvious -- investors will stop investing in start-ups/growing companies. The USA's economic advantage is based on encouraging such investment -- it's why we create companies like AMZN while Europe does nothing. We'd destroy that advantage and annihilate the economy.

It's legitimately insane policy. As someone who would likely have to pay it, I'd stop doing any early stage investing. And so would much wealthier folks.

A policy that was tried in those Northern European places the lefties like to point at and the results are clear, taxing wealth is a bad idea.

So what happened?

14 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

So what happened?

Slag off and do your own research, wanker

Look I'm not saying we tax the wealth of every rich person out there. Just Vikas. That at least buys Staton Island a subsidized organic fruit market.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

Go state-by-state and look at when subsidies phase out and there is a direct correlation. 200k would still feel a financial strain if there are two car payments, two student loan payments and a mortgage. We need the 300k, 400k, 500k numbers in there and I promise you it will be U-shaped. This graph makes much more sense:

The language in the chart is somewhat confusing. Is it actual data? Or a hypothetical model. And let's assume it's actual data. That shows that the difference in fertility rates in households of 60-80k is about 1.75 while the fertility rate in households that make over $700k a year is 2. So you're talking about an income difference of about $600K+ PER YEAR and yet only a fertility rate difference of 0.2 children. No, I don't think that shows that having to spend $12-$15k a year on daycare for 5 years is the driving factor in that decision based on that data.

53 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I'm not advocating for anything. Just explaining that the drop in birthrate is directly correlated to income level. If we don't want to make it financially easier for those folks then I'd like the GOP to stop complaining about falling birthrates and accept it.

But again, it's not.  If the drop in birthrate was directly correlated to income level, then we'd see a direct correlation between fertility rate and income level.  But as I've already shown, the opposite is true.  We have an inverse relationship between birth rates and income level in this country.  As compared to say, Sweden, where there actually is a direct correlation between income level and birth rates, with birth rates rising at each income level.  

13 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

But again, it's not.  If the drop in birthrate was directly correlated to income level, then we'd see a direct correlation between fertility rate and income level.  But as I've already shown, the opposite is true.  We have an inverse relationship between birth rates and income level in this country.  As compared to say, Sweden, where there actually is a direct correlation between income level and birth rates, with birth rates rising at each income level.  

I thought I already addressed this but here's a more direct reason: "The birthrate is directly related to income level and when healthcare/childcare subsidies phase out".

That's why the people who aren't paying these costs have babies more.

It's also funny you use a country with universal child care to support your case Thank you for proving my point with that one.

45 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Look I'm not saying we tax the wealth of every rich person out there. Just Vikas. That at least buys Staton Island a subsidized Slurpee market.

FYP.

Can we also impose a tax on West Virginia Mike?

I wanna get a Sizzli from WaWa and if there's anything left over maybe a pack of Fun Dip.

God I used to love that stuff.

4 hours ago, It Hurts said:

Let’s not forget free childcare!

Trumptards: Trump is going to give free money for people who have babies! Socialism is awesome! Trump forever!!!!!

Also Trumptards: Suggesting universal pre K is full on communism worse than the Soviet Union.

28 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I thought I already addressed this but here's a more direct reason: "The birthrate is directly related to income level and when healthcare/childcare subsidies phase out".

That's why the people who aren't paying these costs have babies more.

It's also funny you use a country with universal child care to support your case Thank you for proving my point with that one.

Sweden has childcare payment caps tied to income. Childcare payment is capped at 3% of income for your first kid, 2% for 2nd kid, 1% for 3rd kid, and 4th kid is free. They can have such a system because their society had a direct relationship between birth rates and income level. Their poorest citizens have the lowest birth rates and then the birth rate increases with each income level.

We have an inverse relationship between income and birth rates with Our poorest citizens having the highest birth rates.

"The birthrate is directly related to income level and when healthcare/childcare subsidies phase out".”

Where have you shown that? The data from statists doesn’t show that. And the majority of low income families don’t even use paid childcare.

2/3 of households with income under 50k don’t use childcare. 22% rely on a relative for childcare.

Census.gov

About 1 in 5 Parents Relied on a Relative for Child Care

The Household Pulse Survey shows that 1 in 5 parents relied on a relative for child care.

4 hours ago, It Hurts said:

He’s going to need it for all the free stuff he’s going to give away.

No he's not. That **** is going right in his pockets. Terrorism ain't cheap.

Stephen A Smith slams Mamdani's policies, says his biggest fans 'are not people who pay bills every day'

He sure as hell got that right!

9 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

No he's not. That **** is going right in his pockets.

Oh, the irony.

6 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Oh, the irony.

I know. 😆

The commie hasn't even moved in yet.....

Are those things really worth having to listen to country music all the time?