Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[A Thing]

But regardless of how it plays out, what we know for sure is that Bernie Sanders will be blamed for the outcome.

"I beat the socialist, but his lingering miasma of communism cost me the victory."

[hector13]

Would anyone take the bet that Trump gets muted multiple times, storms off the stage, then tweets about mainstream media silencing conservative voices?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Personally, I'm hoping for one of them to flip off the camera while muted.

[McTraveller]

Personally, I'm hoping for one of them to flip off the camera while muted.

Bonus points if it's a gymnastics flip, not a hand gesture.

[Dostoevsky]

Real answer, though: No one actually knows. Election day is the third of November, i.e. less than two weeks. Votes can end up being accepted out 'till about the 17th, though, iirc, and legal challenges can mess with any of the dates involved. So we don't know. No one knows. It could be less than two weeks. It could be some time into December or 2021. Power transfer isn't slated to finish until some time in January, I think. So probably more than a week, probably less than four months. >1, <16.

Technically the constitutional requirement is that the old congress ends at noon on January 3rd (and the new congress starts at the same time), while the president's term ends at noon on January 20th.

Not sure these requirements have ever had to be enforced, but there have been cases before when there was no clear winner by then (all of which predate the 20th Amendment, mind). As I believe has been discussed before in this thread, if we reach that point and there's still no winner, then an awkward version of the House (voting by state delegation instead of individual members) has to vote in place of the electoral college, per the 12th Amendment. That vote theoretically takes place at some point between January 3rd and January 20th. It also has a limited set of choices, so no Vermin Supreme or undead Ronald Reagan becoming president in a freak House vote.

Thanks to how it's set up, that vote generally favors Republicans for the same reason the Senate writ large does, so unless there are some unexpected flips in state delegations it's likely to end up with a Republican president.

Another interesting quirk there is that the VP would be picked by the Senate, meaning that there's a hypothetical case with a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, VP Biden, and... President Trump.

There's a hypothetical further situation where the Speaker of the House becomes president, but that's a fail-safe for more outlandish situations a la "House of Cards" or "24." (That one's a statute, 3 USC 19.)

Regardless, hopefully none of this becomes necessary and we get some form of resolution in 2020.

[Random_Dragon]

VP Biden, and... President Trump.

I can only wonder how hilarious that would turn out.

[Rolan7]

Historically - eh, alright?  It basically means an extra senate seat for the opposition.

Originalism is a damn stupid concept.  So much has changed. 
Anyone who studies law and claims to hold to the original founders' intentions is not just anti-democracy, but against our republic.

Would anyone take the bet that Trump gets muted multiple times, storms off the stage, then tweets about mainstream media silencing conservative voices?

It's so telling that conservatives these days wail constantly about censorship, when they are able to speak on Youtube (the modern public forum) as long as they avoid enunciating literal slurs and calling for hate actions.

This is the marketplace of ideas, fam.  Spam is easy, persuasive arguments take effort.

While LGBTQ+ channels get demonitized all the time for mentioning the wrong topic.  Where's the outrage there?  That's just what corporations DO.

Regardless, hopefully none of this becomes necessary and we get some form of resolution in 2020.

Indeed, let us hope so.

[The_Explorer]

So, looking like after november, everyone rich, and companies making over 400k USD a year, will be heavily taxed. Thats facebook, twitter, apple, microsoft, actors, actresses, all kinds of people and companies that get far too much money compared to everyone else. I am not too good with math so I'm relying on others, and supposedly from what democrat leaders have said is that individuals will see an increase of up to 300 USD a month depending on the person's income. Thats a huge increase since my income is barely double that a month if I end up getting the full amount.

Very excited to see the increase in income, thats such a huge increase for me. Even if it ends up being 100 or something a month, thats over 1k a year increase in income. Though supposedly won't really see a difference for at least a year, but still. Thats really awesome.

(edit: Has anyone by chance more knowledgable about the other benefits to the tax increase? Besides personal benefits, will homeless see any income at all? I imagine this will help so many people, even if they end up on the lower end of the income increase. Maybe it would help the infrastructure (like roads, dams etc)? I imagine all kinds of good will come out of it, besides the personal monthly increase I'll get

Either way, I imagine a ton of benefits. And it'll be nice for the rich to finally pay up, instead of hoarding all their money. So excited Hopefully ends up going well in november

[sluissa]

Source?

Name of bill?

Any info at all I could use to look up more details?

Sounds interesting but I can't find anything relevant through searching.

[The_Explorer]

Source?

Name of bill?

Any info at all I could use to look up more details?

Sounds interesting but I can't find anything relevant through searching.

Not really a specific source, its a private biden group on facebook. I might link it when I get home and maybe you guys can join if I do, but dont really want my personal info known to the public since its a small group and its my main facebook account with all my private details there. In any case, I know some reading that will wave their hand at it cause its just a facebook group, but they had some good info. But, because biden wants to raise taxes on the rich by 28% for corperations, it'll cause a trickle down effect of all kinds of benefits for everyone else.

Here is an article showing how much corperations will be taxed by. It isn't specifically about the taxes themselves, but it does say how much they'll get raised

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/biden-tax-plan-economy.html

"Polls show Americans largely support raising taxes on the rich. But Mr. Biden has faced mounting questions about whether, given the pandemic, he would delay his tax increases, which also include raising the corporate rate to 28 percent from 21 percent and increasing the rate on investment and labor income for high earners."

So its a 7% increase, though from my understanding individuals who earn 400k a year will be taxed more than corperations will. And the more money one earns, the more they'll get taxed.

So because it'll cause a trickle down effect, people in the group did the math and it'll be on average about 150 or so USD a month increase, and up to 300 for those who are in poverty but still earn a tiny income (this is my situation so hopefully it works out that way, thats a huge increase to what I usually get). Though usually taxes go to all kinds of things which is the point of taxes, like repairing roads and general infrastructure. But not sure all the benefits besides that, besides the personal benefits I'll get.

Admittedly, they've been wrong before. They used to be a hillary clinton group but got rebranded when biden was going to be the obvious choice, and they got a lot of things wrong back then. (They got a lot of things right though, and somehow they knew about a lot of the negatives about trump way before the media ever did.) But the math they did looks good to me and the info they have seems legit. Gets me excited to get a personal increase in income if biden wins, so hopefully they got it right.

(edit:

To add before I leave my pc to go shopping. Their reasoning is the "trickle down" effect comment biden made, I'll have to try to find that quote when I get back, I'm sure its out there. Kinda went unnoticed at the time. But say a company makes 1 billion a year, they'll get taxed 28% of that, which is a huge increase even if 7% increase might not seem like too much. So the more money a company or person makes, the more they'll give out to those beneath their income. So in the end, a lot of people end up benefitting from it is the group's reasoning and the way they got the math to work to that increase, though its an estimate until it actually goes into effect. Though I'm unsure if EVERYONE gets that benefit, or if already have to earn some kind of income from it (whether its social security or disability or whatever). Or if people who have no income at all (the homeless) will also benefit from it.

I'd do the actual math, but like I said, I suck at math lol

[Lord Shonus]

Any such tax increase will have to go through a proposal in the House, debate in committee, a House vote, debate in Senate committee, a Senate vote, debate on the Senate changes, a reconciliation vote in the House, possibly a repeat of this process if the House isn't happy with the Senate version, and eventually a signature by the President. Even if Biden's plan passes with minimal changes, you're looking at most of a year before the law changes, and probably until the start of the next fiscal year before it goes into effect.

Particularly since Biden will have to be dealing with the effects of Trump's "we're just going to stop collecting Social Security taxes" mock stimulus. Anyone who got extra money from this (many employers simply refused to participate, because they don't want to deal with an angry mob once the feedback hits) will have to pay those taxes eventually, unless there's some Congressional action to finalize the gap and/or find an alternative source for the cash.

[Maximum Spin]

To add before I leave my pc to go shopping. Their reasoning is the "trickle down" effect comment biden made, I'll have to try to find that quote when I get back, I'm sure its out there. Kinda went unnoticed at the time. But say a company makes 1 billion a year, they'll get taxed 28% of that, which is a huge increase even if 7% increase might not seem like too much. So the more money a company or person makes, the more they'll give out to those beneath their income. So in the end, a lot of people end up benefitting from it is the group's reasoning and the way they got the math to work to that increase, though its an estimate until it actually goes into effect. Though I'm unsure if EVERYONE gets that benefit, or if already have to earn some kind of income from it (whether its social security or disability or whatever). Or if people who have no income at all (the homeless) will also benefit from it.

I'd do the actual math, but like I said, I suck at math lol

This is economically and mathematically impossible.

[Doomblade187]

Do tell, yes. (I enjoy taxation economic discussions)

[The_Explorer]

To add before I leave my pc to go shopping. Their reasoning is the "trickle down" effect comment biden made, I'll have to try to find that quote when I get back, I'm sure its out there. Kinda went unnoticed at the time. But say a company makes 1 billion a year, they'll get taxed 28% of that, which is a huge increase even if 7% increase might not seem like too much. So the more money a company or person makes, the more they'll give out to those beneath their income. So in the end, a lot of people end up benefitting from it is the group's reasoning and the way they got the math to work to that increase, though its an estimate until it actually goes into effect. Though I'm unsure if EVERYONE gets that benefit, or if already have to earn some kind of income from it (whether its social security or disability or whatever). Or if people who have no income at all (the homeless) will also benefit from it.

I'd do the actual math, but like I said, I suck at math lol

This is economically and mathematically impossible.

Curious your reasoning for this. Because economically, some examples I can think of (though maybe on the higher end)

With 300 dollar a month increase in income, I could actually afford alienware PCs after a few months of savings. Very hard to do that now. of course alienware is expensive and there are far more affordable options, but its just an example. So then (in this example) alienware makes money from me, which in turn goes back to the economy as they pay taxes and pay their employees. or just in general computer upgrades, suddenly with an increase in income, hardware for pcs would sell more. So the money goes right back to the economy or back to the people through taxes. Its almost like what andrew yang wanted to do.

But I am open to all opinions on this, like post above economic discussions can be interesting (even if I'm just barely able to understand it lol). Is there a reason this wouldn't work through taxes?

[Dostoevsky]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the link/process from a tax on some to money for others? Are they straight-up dividending the money to people making under X dollars?

This seems confusing.

Edit: note that the word "benefits" in politics is a very elusive beast. Folks on all ends of the spectrum do various forms of math to totally-not-math to reach "cost" and "benefit" figures that are often quite indirect, symbolic, metaphorical, or otherwise not very concrete. The "cost" to a company might be the most marginal/unlikely opportunity cost, while the "benefit" to a person may be the monetized form of a 15-second faster commute calculated by an outdated transportation model.

Further edit: per MSH's point, it's likely the benefits here would mainly not be from the tax proposal itself, but associated spending increases elsewhere that are only really linked to the tax provisions insofar as they count as a "pay-for."