Apple Announces American Manufacturing Program, Promises to Spend $600 Billion

[BaldiMac]

There is zero correlation between the number of executive orders and acting like a king. There are degrees of executive orders. What I do know is forcing a candidate on the people who got zero votes is more king like than anything the Repubs have done.

So convincing a really old guy to retire is "king like" to you? But president "Article II allows me to do whatever I want" and "total immunity" is not? And you think that's a rational argument?

 

[BaldiMac]

The math equation is to take the federal spending for a year and divide it up one of 3 ways (Using a $10 budget as an example):

1). Per taxpaying household. That means you and I pay the same amount whether I have 3 kids, 0 kids or 1 kid. ($5 for your household and $5 for my household)
2). Per person. That means if I have a wife and 3 kids I pay the amount representative of that (5 people) and if you only have a wife you would pay your representative amount (2 people) ($7.14 for my household and $2.86 for yours)
3). Per tax payer. That means if I only work in my house I pay that amount. If your wife works you would pay yours and her amount. ($3.33 for mine and $6.66 for yours)

I believe #1 is the most realistic and fair. #2 next, and #3 next (#3 makes no sense to me, but one might argue that).

For reference there is about $6.75 Trillion spent and 165 million returns filed. That amount is $40,909 per tax payer. That is as close to a true fair share as there can be. The problem is for households filing "married but separately filing". Taking that into account would push the number slightly higher. So if you pay $50,000 or more you are likely paying your fair share of government spending.

So, you think it's "realistic and fair" for a disabled person on welfare to pay 50K per year to the federal government on top of state and local taxes? Or a retired person collecting social security? And, again, you think that's a rational argument?

What happens if you don't pay? Since 100% collection is impossible, do we just continue to go deeper into debt?

I certainly don't think every person consumes about the same and I would actually say the poor consume far more government services than I do but we all relatively consume close to the same amount within reason. I certainly don't consume 10x more than someone who pays 10X less in taxes. Assuming you are US based I would be willing to bet your family and mine consume about the same amount in government resources

Wait? Which is it? Are we paying by what we consume? Or is each household paying the same thing? You can't have it both ways.

A billionaire does not receive subsidies from the government on a mss scale. His company might but he personally (federal income taxes are personal) does not.

Sure, but they benefit from those subsidies. And the company benefits. But the company doesn't pay any federal taxes in your scenario despite the benefits. But really, only benefits to poor people should count, right? A company that ships products across the country certainly benefits from federal infrastructure spending more than someone living off the grid, but that doesn't count either. Because.... reasons.

 

[Cicnod]

So convincing a really old guy to retire is "king like" to you? But president "Article II allows me to do whatever I want" and "total immunity" is not? And you think that's a rational argument?

Read what is written. Forcing a candidate on who never earned a single vote is more king like. Not instituting the 25th amendment when everyone saw a cognitively impaired candidate for 4 years (not 4 month, but 4 years) is more king like. Not arguable

 

[Cicnod]

First - You asked what fair share was. So yes it is fair to ask someone who consumes a finite amount of resources or product to pay for it. Do you believe someone should be able to go into your business of X, consume your services and product, and walk out without paying because they are disabled or retired? Now I have no issue in "real" situations propping someone up together collectively.

Second - We already go into debt and the 20% paying 84% of the expenditures are not the problem. Never have and never will be. It is the 80% only carrying about 16% of expenditures who are the problem. This is easy math. Yet the world screams make those 80% pay their fair share. See if you did some research you would see that if you made the 20% pay 100% of the taxes collected we would still be in a deficit, thus proving they are not the problem. The 80% are. This is not arguable as it is math.

Again back to the first example it wasn't person E who was the problem. It was A, B, and C

You asked which is it? I already said. Divide tax paying households by the budget. Again simple math. If the math doesn't work (like that exact math that happens in houses every day) then you cut expenses until the math does work.

Companies pay corporate taxes and I can certainly have a discussion on the frame work of the corporate tax structure in the US but it literally has zero relevance to personal income taxes thus a billionaire does not get subsidies which is what you stated. A company does benefit more but a company has not and does not pay personal federal income taxes. Now do I believe corporations should have a better structured tax policy? Yes I do and when I say better structured I mean one where companies carry a larger burden overall since like you said, and I agree, they do benefit and consume more government resources.

 

[BaldiMac]

Read what is written. Forcing a candidate on who never earned a single vote is more king like. Not instituting the 25th amendment when everyone saw a cognitively impaired candidate for 4 years (not 4 month, but 4 years) is more king like. Not arguable

It's certainly arguable in that neither thing that you said is "king like". He was simply convinced to retire at the end of his term. That's the opposite of "king like". And, of course, you ignored the other half of the equation.

Not the point, but one of the problems with the presidential election is that neither the primary elections nor the general election actual chooses the winner. The candidates for each party are chosen at the convention. (Just as happened with Harris.) And the president is chosen by the electors. At some point, we need to demand that this whole "electors" nonsense goes away, so the president could by elected by the people, preferably through ranked choice voting. That way we could have real third-party candidates that aren't simply spoilers and the parties lose power.

 

[Cicnod]

It's certainly arguable in that neither thing that you said is "king like". He was simply convinced to retire at the end of his term. That's the opposite of "king like". And, of course, you ignored the other half of the equation.

Not the point, but one of the problems with the presidential election is that neither the primary elections nor the general election actual chooses the winner. The candidates for each party are chosen at the convention. (Just as happened with Harris.) And the president is chosen by the electors. At some point, we need to demand that this whole "electors" nonsense goes away, so the president could by elected by the people, preferably through ranked choice voting. That way we could have real third-party candidates that aren't simply spoilers and the parties lose power.

If you believe that then bless your heart.

I won't get into why we need to keep the system the same. Furthermore we are not a democracy, have never been one, and the founding fathers never wanted us to be one.

If you do not like that there are certainly other places that are Democracies

 

[BaldiMac]

First - You asked what fair share was. So yes it is fair to ask someone who consumes a finite amount of resources or product to pay for it. Do you believe someone should be able to go into your business of X, consume your services and product, and walk out without paying because they are disabled or retired? Now I have no issue in "real" situations propping someone up together collectively.

Second - We already go into debt and the 20% paying 84% of the expenditures are not the problem. Never have and never will be. It is the 80% only carrying about 16% of expenditures who are the problem. This is easy math. Yet the world screams make those 80% pay their fair share. See if you did some research you would see that if you made the 20% pay 100% of the taxes collected we would still be in a deficit, thus proving they are not the problem. The 80% are. This is not arguable as it is math.

Again back to the first example it wasn't person E who was the problem. It was A, B, and C

You asked which is it? I already said. Divide tax paying households by the budget. Again simple math.

Again, you keep going back and forth, because neither argument can stand on it's own. You argue that it's only fair to pay what we consume, but then you say we should split the costs equally by household. Again, you can't have it both ways. Don't we all hate the guys at dinner who insist that we split the bill equally, when they each ordered a steak and four cocktails while everyone else ordered a appetizer to save money?

Of course, I think both arguments are nonsense, but at least be consistent. In my opinion, the government isn't a business and shouldn't be run like a business, so I reject that whole premise of what you consider fair. The government sets rules that rich people, by definition, benefit from more than poor people. So I think it's completely fair for taxation to be progressive.

If the math doesn't work (like that exact math that happens in houses every day) then you cut expenses until the math does work.

How would cutting expenses help if you make less that 50K per year that you say would charge each household? What kind of math were you taught? In your scenario, do salaries start at 100K per year? Do you let people starve and die if they can't work for whatever reason? No retirement. Even if you work, you're forced to stay in a bad marriage to avoid an extra 50K annual bill. Are orphans put to death or forced into child labor? Because according to you, it's not fair for them to consume resources without paying for them.

Your simple equation is an unworkable hellscape.

Companies pay corporate taxes and I can certainly have a discussion on the frame work of the corporate tax structure in the US but it literally has zero relevance to personal income taxes thus a billionaire does not get subsidies which is what you stated. A company does benefit more but a company has not and does not pay personal federal income taxes. Now do I believe corporations should have a better structured tax policy? Yes I do and when I say better structured I mean one where companies carry a larger burden overall since like you said, and I agree, they do benefit and consume more government resources.

And yet your own simple equation puts the entire federal tax burden on personal federal income taxes.

 

[BaldiMac]

If you believe that then bless your heart.

I won't get into why we need to keep the system the same. Furthermore we are not a democracy, have never been one, and the founding fathers never wanted us to be one.

If you do not like that there are certainly other places that are Democracies

I have no idea why this has become conservatives favorite dumb argument. Yes, the US is and has always been a democracy. Specifically a representative democracy and constitutional republic. It's like saying an apple is not a fruit because it's an apple.

 

[Cicnod]

I have no idea why this has become conservatives favorite dumb argument. Yes, the US is and has always been a democracy. Specifically a representative democracy and constitutional republic. It's like saying an apple is not a fruit because it's an apple.

No it is like saying apples are not oranges. We are a republic and always have been and will be into the future. Luckily that is the case. We don't need government pandering to population centers. You also do not understand the costs would exponentially go up for politicians in a democracy. Instead of needing a billion you would need 5 billion +

 

[BaldiMac]

No it is like saying apples are not oranges. We are a republic and always have been and will be into the future. Luckily that is the case.

A representative democracy is a type of democracy. Just like an apple is a type of fruit. We are also a republic. This isn't a complicated concept.

We don't need government pandering to population centers.

We already get pandering to population centers. Why does a big city voter in a small state gets more voting power that a rural voter in a big state?

You also do not understand the costs would exponentially go up for politicians in a democracy. Instead of needing a billion you would need 5 billion +

No, we wouldn't, because it already exists. Again, you simply don't understand the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy.

 

[Cicnod]

Again, you keep going back and forth, because neither argument can stand on it's own. You argue that it's only fair to pay what we consume, but then you say we should split the costs equally by household. Again, you can't have it both ways. Don't we all hate the guys at dinner who insist that we split the bill equally, when they each ordered a steak and four cocktails while everyone else ordered a appetizer to save money?

Of course, I think both arguments are nonsense, but at least be consistent. In my opinion, the government isn't a business and shouldn't be run like a business, so I reject that whole premise of what you consider fair. The government sets rules that rich people, by definition, benefit from more than poor people. So I think it's completely fair for taxation to be progressive.


How would cutting expenses help if you make less that 50K per year that you say would charge each household? What kind of math were you taught? In your scenario, do salaries start at 100K per year? Do you let people starve and die if they can't work for whatever reason? No retirement. Even if you work, you're forced to stay in a bad marriage to avoid an extra 50K annual bill. Are orphans put to death or forced into child labor? Because according to you, it's not fair for them to consume resources without paying for them.

Your simple equation is an unworkable hellscape.


And yet your own simple equation puts the entire federal tax burden on personal federal income taxes.

This is pretty simple and no I have not gone back and forth. In a perfect world yes everyone would pay for exactly everything they consume but one has to be realistic. In this country we spend about $6 Trillion or so and have about 165 Million tax paying households. Taking it down to actual households where one household may have two taxpayers who file separately we likely have 160 million tax paying households. Since we all consume about the same amount as far as government spending goes a fair amount would be to split the $6T into the 160 million actual households who pay federal income taxes. I have said that from the first post on. That amount if we get into exacts would be from 40-50K (if need be we can do the exact math but in this range). If you pay that in federal income tax then you do pay your fair share. If you do not then you do not pay your fair share.

The government is an entity that spends our money, in theory, for us. I anyone who spends my money to do it responsibly and fairly and I have faith that if I give them my $50,000 yearly (actually mine is much more than that but for arguments sake we can go with this amount) then I should expect my neighbors did the same and so on. Now if I got some far better resource that others did not I would have no issue paying more (using your steak and appetizer example), but that is not the case. Rich people do not benefit from the tax code. Tax payers benefit from the tax code and for the third time taxpayers in this country are the ones who happen to be rich. We are talking about federal income tax here not anything else.

If we as a country cannot afford to spend $50,000 per taxpaying household (which is literally what we do spend as a government) then we should cut spending BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. I agree someone making $50,000 a year cannot afford to pay $50,000 in taxes. But anyone not paying $50,000 a year in federal income taxes is not, by definition and very simple math, not paying their fair share. IT IS NOT ARGUABLE.

The answer to your questions are yes. If they can't afford it then they do not get it, but your solution to all of this is make me pay for it then scream that I don't pay my fair share. Over the last 10 years our family (3 households) should have each paid about $150,000 per year ($50K x3) so $1,500,000 total. That would literally be our fair share based on, once again, basic math. We have paid 7x that amount over the last 10 years. Tell me why I should pay for what others consume.

You are correct that I did not use corporate taxes or other federal revenues to calculate which would obviously lower it but the ratios remain the same. We could probably cut all the amounts in half if we used a 50/50 corporate/personal income tax mix.

But let's say half the federal spending came from corporations and half from personal federal income taxes then that amount would be $25,000 instead of $50,000. Well that means I have paid 14x more than my fair share over the last 10 years and yet you run around saying I should pay my fair share because it used to be 15x more and now it is 14x more and you think that isn't fair.

Lastly we live in a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy and not arguable. A Democracy is the people cast votes and whoever has the most wins. As we have seen that is irrelevant here because of how the Constitutional Republic is setup with the Electoral College. That will not and should not change and is cost prohibitive for politicians

 

[BaldiMac]

This is pretty simple and no I have not gone back and forth. In a perfect world yes everyone would pay for exactly everything they consume but one has to be realistic. In this country we spend about $6 Trillion or so and have about 165 Million tax paying households. Taking it down to actual households where one household may have two taxpayers who file separately we likely have 160 million tax paying households. Since we all consume about the same amount as far as government spending goes a fair amount would be to split the $6T into the 160 million actual households who pay federal income taxes. I have said that from the first post on. That amount if we get into exacts would be from 40-50K (if need be we can do the exact math but in this range). If you pay that in federal income tax then you do pay your fair share. If you do not then you do not pay your fair share.

The government is an entity that spends our money, in theory, for us. I anyone who spends my money to do it responsibly and fairly and I have faith that if I give them my $50,000 yearly (actually mine is much more than that but for arguments sake we can go with this amount) then I should expect my neighbors did the same and so on. Now if I got some far better resource that others did not I would have no issue paying more (using your steak and appetizer example), but that is not the case. Rich people do not benefit from the tax code. Tax payers benefit from the tax code and for the third time taxpayers in this country are the ones who happen to be rich. We are talking about federal income tax here not anything else.

If we as a country cannot afford to spend $50,000 per taxpaying household (which is literally what we do spend as a government) then we should cut spending BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. I agree someone making $50,000 a year cannot afford to pay $50,000 in taxes. But anyone not paying $50,000 a year in federal income taxes is not, by definition and very simple math, not paying their fair share. IT IS NOT ARGUABLE.

The answer to your questions are yes. If they can't afford it then they do not get it, but your solution to all of this is make me pay for it then scream that I don't pay my fair share. Over the last 10 years our family (3 households) should have each paid about $150,000 per year ($50K x3) so $1,500,000 total. That would literally be our fair share based on, once again, basic math. We have paid 7x that amount over the last 10 years. Tell me why I should pay for what others consume.

Simply repeating yourself without addressing any of my points doesn't further the conversation.

Lastly we live in a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy and not arguable. A Democracy is the people cast votes and whoever has the most wins. As we have seen that is irrelevant here because of how the Constitutional Republic is setup with the Electoral College. That will not and should not change and is cost prohibitive for politicians

All true republics are representative democracies, just like the US. Even by your own definition, we are a representative democracy. We cast votes for our representatives, and whoever has the most wins. Whether that be electors for president or congressmen.

Democracy or Republic: What's the difference?

And which is the United States?

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Cicnod]

Simply repeating yourself without addressing any of my points doesn't further the conversation.


All true republics are representative democracies, just like the US. Even by your own definition, we are a representative democracy. We cast votes for our representatives, and whoever has the most wins. Whether that be electors for president or congressmen.

Democracy or Republic: What's the difference?

And which is the United States?

www.merriam-webster.com

I addressed all points. Your points are well Person A can't afford it or should person B have to pay for that? Doesn't change the fact of "fair share". You also avoid every question I ask I notice.

I'll repeat. We are a constitutional republic. Always have been and always will be. You are free to google but here it is quoted "Yes, the Founding Fathers established the United States as a constitutional republic." If you invented/established it then what anyone else thinks is irrelevant. A famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "A republic, if you can keep it," highlights the importance of citizen participation and vigilance in maintaining a constitutional republic. Norway and Denmark are Democracies. Our government is not like theirs.

You think you know more about this government than one of the people who literally established it?

 

[BaldiMac]

I addressed all points. Your points are well Person A can't afford it or should person B have to pay for that? Doesn't change the fact of "fair share".

The root of our disagreement is right there. What you call "fact" or "not arguable" are simply your opinions or assumptions that I very much disagree with. I don't agree with your definition of fair nor do I believe that we all benefit equally from the federal government.

You also avoid every question I ask I notice.

As far as I can tell, you asked one question today and I addressed it.

I'll repeat. We are a constitutional republic. Always have been and always will be. You are free to google but here it is quoted "Yes, the Founding Fathers established the United States as a constitutional republic." If you invented/established it then what anyone else thinks is irrelevant. A famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "A republic, if you can keep it," highlights the importance of citizen participation and vigilance in maintaining a constitutional republic. Norway and Denmark are Democracies. Our government is not like theirs.

You think you know more about this government than one of the people who literally established it?

Sigh. When did I ever say we are not a constitutional republic? I said we are ALSO a representative democracy. I provided a clear, non-partisan source. Which you ignored.

 

[Cicnod]

So then again give me your fair share definition. Why is it I pay 14x more than what would be considered a fair share by my calculation and probably 30-50x more than what you feel is fair share when I consume the same amount as pretty much any normal situation you know of?

Also tell me what I possibly consume from the federal government that you do not.

 

[BaldiMac]

So then again give me your fair share definition. Why is it I pay 14x more than what would be considered a fair share by my calculation and probably 30-50x more than what you feel is fair share when I consume the same amount as pretty much any normal situation you know of?

Also tell me what I possibly consume from the federal government that you do not.

What part of me rejecting the entire premise of your argument do you not get? I find your concept of consuming from the federal government completely nonsensical. I obviously can't telll you what you consume because you're some anonymous poster on a message board. More importantly, I don't care. Because my morality isn't transactional.

I very clearly said that what I believe is fair is progressive taxation where the more that you benefit financially from our economic system, the more you pay in taxes.

Want to protect that republic that Franklin charged us to keep? A republic ceases to exist when a few people become so rich that they can control all the levers of power while controlling the public through massive propaganda networks. That's how you lose a republic. When you have a president who declares that "Article II allows me to do whatever I want" and that he has "total immunity" from any crime that he commits, you are losing your republic.

And back to the topic of the thread, when a president threatens American companies to get them to do what he wants while openly soliciting bribes, you are losing your republic.

 

[ThomasJL]

I wonder how much corporate welfare Apple will receive for that, while poor people will be told to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps"? No doubt that Tim Cook supports socialism for corporations, and capitalism for the poor.