Did you not read that 26.9% of the richest 20% will actually see their taxes go up?
Did you not read that 22% of the next bracket of rich will see their taxes go up? — Agustino

(Edit) Yes, and 35.5% of the poorest will either see their taxes go up or get nothing.

+Most (65%) of those earning 25,000 or less will get a tax break of 100 bucks. Less than 1%. Most (73%) of those earning over 150,000 will get 20,000 on average, the exact percentage depending on how much they earn but likely significantly higher than 1% for most of them.

And I don't really agree with super high taxes for the rich. — Agustino

So what? You don't have that anyway.

In addition, if I do end up rich, there's the problem of why should the state be an administrator for my wealth? — Agustino

This is just babble. Without the state, you are nothing. Go live in the woods and see how rich you get there.

I should start my own programs to give to the poor, and the state should not tax me anymore. They should give me full tax breaks so long as I give a certain amount of my income to the poor! — Agustino

I have a feeling you're more interested in being rich than helping the poor. If you want to help the poor, don't vote for someone who wants to take their benefits away and give them to the rich in tax cuts.

Yes, a lower percentage than the poorest, of whom 35.5% will see their taxes go up. — Baden

Nope, not 35.5% will see their taxes go up. Only 6.8% will see their taxes go up:

How many will have a tax increase? 6.8% of the poorest 20% will NOT get a tax cut, but rather will pay more tax under the Trump tax plan.

This is just babble. Without the state, you are nothing. Go live in the woods and see how rich you get there. — Baden

I don't need the state, I need a community of people.

I have a feeling you're more interested in being rich than helping the poor. If you want to help the poor, don't vote for someone who wants to take their benefits away and give them to the rich in tax cuts. — Baden

I've further clarified:

The problem is that all of us have learned to treat the government like a Big Daddy that is supposed to take care of us, while we misbehave. That's wrong. People are supposed to take care of each other, not governments. As far as I'm concerned, the government is an evil. — Agustino

the government is an evil. — Agustino

Don't call the police next time you get robbed then. Stop using public roads and boycott the fire brigade. Get out there and protest against public transport, libraries and schools. Good luck with that.

Don't call the police next time you get robbed then. Stop using public roads and boycott the fire brigade. Get out there and protest against public transport, libraries and schools. Good luck with that. — Baden

I disagree that those services you mention require the kind of overly controlling, big bureacratic state we have today.

And to get back to the point we were talking about, you were wrong that the percentage of poor people that pay a higher tax is greater than the percentage of rich that pay a higher tax as a result of the tax changes.

If you want to help the poor, don't vote for someone who wants to take their benefits away and give them to the rich in tax cuts. — Baden

Furthermore, it's not at all clear that Trump will take away benefits, and especially not in order to give them to the rich via tax cuts. Trump is lowering budget overall in most categories. I would disagree with how much he is defunding the Environmental Protection Agency, but apart from that it looks good. He is removing some old programs that took in a lot of money, and some of them had little positive effects, and introducing new ones which are cheaper, and will hopefully have better long term effects. It's hard to judge. If it was after me, the government shouldn't be doing a lot of this stuff anyway. It should all be at local levels.

Silly meme >> evasive dodge >> :-d

I think you are actually more thoughtful than this and your position is probably more nuanced, but Trump's isn't. He doesn't give a flying about the poor or their problems because he can't relate to them. Don't jump on his depraved bandwagon.

Don't call the police next time you get robbed then. — Baden

In fact, I did call the police one time when I got my place attacked in the UK and guess what - they came in 2 days, and ended up doing almost nothing, just saying how sorry they were... I think the state bureaucracy is actually really bad and crippling many of these services. For example, I remember healthcare used to be quite horrible in the UK (massive waiting times) - although it was free.

He doesn't give a flying about the poor or their problems because he can't relate to him. Don't jump on his depraved bandwagon. — Baden

Well okay, but you seem to be jumping to these conclusions based on what you personally think about Trump's character, and I don't think that's very useful when judging his tax policy for example.

but you seem to be jumping to these conclusions based on what you personally think about Trump's character, and I don't think that's very useful when judging his tax policy for example — Agustino

No, I base these conclusions on the actual budget. The 1.74 trillion cut in anti-poverty programs in particular. I actually didn't think Trump would be this bad as during his campaign he seemed to be the one promising to keep the safety net in place. Then again, he wanted the votes of poor white folks. Now, he's got them, he's reverted to doling out presents to people like him. But, yes, I don't like his character either for obvious reasons.

Pro: not Hillary Clinton

Con: emotionally petty and politically uninformed

Pro: holds up a mirror to the retardation of American politics

Con: holds up a mirror to the retardation of American politics

I think a possible Pro is that his election may have demonstrated that the electoral influence of people of lower socio-economic status has been greatly underestimated. That may open the door to endorsed candidates with policies that up until now were regarded as political suicide in the US, like meaningful measures to reduce inequality and curbs on plutocratic power. The popularity of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are other signs of this, but those signs are not nearly as persuasive as the fact that people were prepared to elect a recognised narcissistic, bullying, misogynist, racist, neo-fascist ignoramus, simply because they were so desperate for a change from the status quo, and saw no hope of that in the current establishment candidates (once Sanders was gone).

I got this as wrong as anybody else. I really liked Sanders' policies but wanted Clinton to get the nomination because I thought Sanders was unelectable. Now I've come to the opinion that Sanders would probably have beaten Trump (although as a philosopher that statement makes me blush, as I know that counterfactuals like that are meaningless).

If we can get through the rest of the term without him managing to do too much permanent damage then I think there's a serious possibility that we may see the election of a genuine champion of the working class (rather than this current pretend one) in 2020. And then, maybe, the working poor of the US will be able to start to claw their way out of the misery they've been subjected to for the last couple of decades.

I was hoping the political pendulum would swing pretty hard to the left after Trump, but his base cannot be persuaded that big government isn't always a bad thing.

The problem is that all of us have learned to treat the government like a Big Daddy that is supposed to take care of us, while we misbehave. That's wrong. People are supposed to take care of each other, not governments. As far as I'm concerned, the government is an evil. — Agustino

Agustino, this is the type of mindbogglingly moronic political philosophy that I'd expect from a freshman high school student who is just started read Atlas Shrugged. You've participated in philosophy forums for what? Four years now give or take? You have absolutely nothing to show for it.

America needs a budget cut. It seems to me that only someone financially illiterate can suggest otherwise. — Agustino

Yes he does cut out budgets for several state programs that were meant for the disadvantaged — Agustino

Cutting 31% of the Environmental Protection Agency helps which state program for the disadvantaged?

You understand, don't you, that cutting 100% of the EPA and adding 10% to the Defense budget doesn't even remotely balance out--$18 billion (+/-) budget for EPA, $600 billion (+/-) for defense? Which state benefits from the 29% cut in the $37 billion State Department Budget?

The problem with budget cuts, is that much of the budget are mandatory expenses, like interest on the debt and entitlement programs such as Social Security. If we don't cut the military budget, then the cuts come out of programs that provide long term benefits to the population as a whole. The military budget especially benefits communities with bases near by, and the complex of manufacturers that make up the other half of the "military industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned about in 1960.

I was hoping the political pendulum would swing pretty hard to the left after Trump, but his base cannot be persuaded that big government isn't always a bad thing. — Posty McPostface

Trump has only been in office 8 months; give him time. With any luck, he'll take the Republicans down with him.

People are supposed to take care of each other, not governments. — Agustino

It should be apparent that people need the government as a vehicle to execute their desires to care for one another. Government is a critical institution in the complex business of a society as a whole caring for itself. State, county, and municipal governments carry much of the load and the cost is largely locally raised. But only the Federal Government is in a position to capture revenue across the wide horizon of the economy, and funnel it back to the states.

I have no problem with "the government" providing Medicare and Social Security, for example. What's your problem with it?

In fact, I did call the fucking police one time when I got my place attacked in the UK and guess what - they came in 2 days, and ended up doing almost nothing, just saying how sorry they were... — Agustino

At least they said they were sorry, instead of finding something to charge you for.

I disagree that those services you mention require the kind of overly controlling, big bureacratic state we have today. — Agustino

It does. Building a rapid transit line (not a whole system) is likely to cost 1 or 2 billion dollars--a level of expense that counties and cities can not usually come up with. Generally the federal government funds at least half of such necessary infrastructure costs. where does the money come from? It comes from states that generate more income in federal taxes than they receive back. So, if Minnesota gets a billion bucks from those evil feds, well... it was sent to Washington from us in the first place

Now, if you live in the really anti-government states, like much of the south, you are a net dependent on the federal government. Those federal government hating states get more from the Feds than they send to Washington.

Trump has only been in office 8 months; give him time. With any luck, he'll take the Republicans down with him. — Bitter Crank

You can't do anything about a fanatic base who view the government as an evil entity that needs to be drained.

Now, if you live in the really anti-government states, like much of the south, you are a net dependent on the federal government. Those federal government hating states get more from the Feds than they send to Washington. — Bitter Crank

That's to be expected, the ones who hate the government the most are going to give the least and take the most.

Here's a quote you'll like:

As Will Rogers said: “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.”

Now, during WWII, the highest tax rate on the wealth was 94%. Admirable, but it didn't last.

For the 30 years of the post war boom, the tax rate on wealthy individuals never fell below 70%.

In the 1980s (the country led by the rotting brain of Ronald Reagan) the tax rate was around 50%. Then they cut the top rate to 28%. After 3 years of that, the tax system was in bad shape. After that, the rate went up to 39%

In this century it was at 39%, 35%, 43%, and 39%.

You can't do anything about a fanatic base who view the government as an evil entity that needs to be drained. — Posty McPostface

Swamps get drained, evil entities get exorcized. I don't think there are any priests up to the task, these days.

But there is something that can be done: Just wait for the logic of Trump's policies to totally screw the working and unemployed lumpen proles to the point where they finally see the light.

And they will.

Eventually.

We hope.

Let us pray.

You can't do anything about a fanatic base who view the government as an evil entity that needs to be drained. — Posty McPostface

My impression from afar is that Trump supporters have very little overlap with small-Government Republicans. The biggest economic desire of Trump supporters appears to be erection of a tariff wall to protect US manufacturing, which is about as Big Government as one can get.

The same neoliberal policies have been pushed for a while already, with negative effects on the middle class and poor, much to the benefit of the rich.

It's a matter of ignorance and also willful ignorance to think that more of the same would work; but, hey, here we are still trying to get trickle down to work.

I thought believing in small government was a sine qua non nowadays to being a Republican.

No, it is more like an ipse ad quo pros tate. Or like an id est tu, or like an obinem iodu quam parat sod. Or, perhaps, I am not ashamed to say it, like a panem rehabilitatio ubi padre nostra. But never, NEVER a sine qua non.

I'm making the distinction between Trump supporters and Republicans. My impression is that most Republicans detest Trump. The Evangelical Republicans detest him because they know he's not really a Christian, the Libertarian Republicans detest him because he's an Authoritarian, the Business-oriented Republicans detest him because his economic policies are doomed to fail, the Latino Republicans detest him because he hates Latinos, and many not already covered detest him because he has vilified them at some time or other. Trump's true supporters are what I think used to be called Reagan Democrats.

There's a separate discussion about whether the Republican establishment itself is even pro small government, given their enthusiasm for enormous spending on the military and on prosecuting and incarcerating people involved in victimless crimes like drug use. But, interesting as that subject is, it's not about Trump.

(although as a philosopher that statement makes me blush, as I know that counterfactuals like that are meaningless). — andrewk

Why are they meaningless? I fully understand the concept of Bernie Sanders being elected, just like I fully understand the idea of alternate history when watching The Man in The High Castle.

That may be true during the nomination phase; but, when the cards are down most Republicans will fall in line with whoever is the candidate, either a democrat or republican with the obvious choice being a Republican for Republicans.

I'd say that Hillary was just an awful candidate and have to agree with the fact that the nomination was stolen from Sanders. If my memory serves correctly, I think Sanders had a lead over Trump in most polls I saw. Even if Sanders is a social democrat, although he emphasizes the socialist part, was the President, he would have been certainly a more rational and cool headed one.

Well, let's say 'speculative fiction' instead. Kudos for mentioning Man in the High Castle. Next on my reading list.

I think a possible Pro is that his election may have demonstrated that the electoral influence of people of lower socio-economic status has been greatly underestimated. That may open the door to endorsed candidates with policies that up until now were regarded as political suicide in the US, like meaningful measures to reduce inequality and curbs on plutocratic power. The popularity of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are other signs of this, but those signs are not nearly as persuasive as the fact that people were prepared to elect a recognised narcissistic, bullying, misogynist, racist, neo-fascist ignoramus, simply because they were so desperate for a change from the status quo, and saw no hope of that in the current establishment candidates (once Sanders was gone).

I got this as wrong as anybody else. I really liked Sanders' policies but wanted Clinton to get the nomination because I thought Sanders was unelectable. Now I've come to the opinion that Sanders would probably have beaten Trump (although as a philosopher that statement makes me blush, as I know that counterfactuals like that are meaningless).

If we can get through the rest of the term without him managing to do too much permanent damage then I think there's a serious possibility that we may see the election of a genuine champion of the working class (rather than this current pretend one) in 2020. And then, maybe, the working poor of the US will be able to start to claw their way out of the misery they've been subjected to for the last couple of decades. — andrewk

(Y)

I think the one positive thing he managed to do was to make oft-maligned working class white Republican voters aware of the fact that the 'establishment' wing of the party did/does not represent their economic interests. The consciousness of this fact will be important moving forward, I think, and if Democrats can craft an inclusive economic message--i.e. not one primarily focused on an exclusionary friend/enemy form of identity politics--then this demographic may be ripe for the taking next time around.

The perception of this group is obviously extremely negative at the moment, and perhaps rightly so, but I also feel that the racism, xenophobia, etc. has been a bit exaggerated. I'd also even suggest that it's at least partly a reaction to the Left's continued fixation on identity politics; they can hardly contain their glee at the thought of the coming demographic shift in the US which is going to make POC the dominant voice in politics.

That's not meant to suggest that lingering racism isn't something we as a nation need to sincerely address, but only that it should be done more tactfully than is being done at present--preferably through opening up constructive mutual dialogue and without demonizing a particular group.

Too many cons to list.