Is civil war possible in America

[Bullthrower338]

Diving into the tax code can indeed be quite laborious IdaRam, and I will hasten to say that I am not qualified to do it comprehensively.

I am not indicting business/corporations, and I am actually not criticizing them for taking advantage of every existing legal mechanism to lower their tax liability. As long as they comply with the IRS they are entirely fine by me. They did not vote the laws, a Congress assembled from people WE elected did.

I am also not criticizing “Obama Care.” However imperfect (major understatement!), it initiated a needed effort to attempt to rein in the completely out of control costs of our medical system. Had it been a bi-partisan effort, that effort might have resulted in something truly useful. The partisan circus that presided over that saga only served to kick the can down the road. Not very productive...

The point that I am trying to make is simple. As stated above, I see a growing social unbalance when our largest corporations pay no income tax on $79 billion in profits while off shoring said profits, and receive $4.3 billion in rebates on investments they make outside of the country, transferring our technology and industrial basis out in the process, while the local welding shop or family restaurant pay taxes on their profits, and John Doe Public's income tax burden increases. Shifting the burden of funding society/government on the diminishing group alone of citizens and small businesses sandwiched between the 44% of Americans who do not pay any federal income tax, and the business/corporations/finances who also do not pay any federal income tax, and their elites who pay capital gain taxes at half the rate John Doe Public is paying, is not healthy for a society. It has proven socially unsustainable time and again, and I suspect that it is in the process of causing the rise of protectionist and nationalist aspirations here and in various Western societies that are essentially hitched to our economic and cultural engine. Historically, these are not very productive trends...

In ultra simplistic words, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and there will progressively be nobody left between the "1%" and the "99%" as the middle class slowly but surely melts into the rank of the lower economic class. How long do you think the "1%" or "3%" or "5%" and their political figures will retain control in a 'one person/one vote' democracy? And is this a desirable outcome for America?

The pie is growing, but everyone's share is shrinking, in both proportional and absolute terms, but for one group who wants it all. Not a very sound basis for long term harmony in the clan...

In any case I do not pretend to have the answers, I am just observing that for the first time in American history self avowed "socialists" are parading at the head of the democratic party primaries process. This is new. And my sense is that economic disparity is what is putting them there.

But these discussions are quite honestly not the reason why I roam about AfricaHunting.com. Nobody forced me into this thread, it was my choice alone, and it is now also my choice alone to go back to more relaxing threads on rifles, bullets, etc.

So Drone strikes are the only solution! Lol

Disclaimer: for any one super sensitive I am not advocating Drone Strikes nor do I own a drone capable of conducting such operations.

 

[IdaRam]

Diving into the tax code can indeed be quite laborious IdaRam, and I will hasten to say that I am not qualified to do it comprehensively.

I am not indicting business/corporations, and I am actually not criticizing them for taking advantage of every existing legal mechanism to lower their tax liability. As long as they comply with the IRS they are entirely fine by me. They did not vote the laws, a Congress assembled from people WE elected did.

I am also not criticizing “Obama Care.” However imperfect (major understatement!), it initiated a needed effort to attempt to rein in the completely out of control costs of our medical system. Had it been a bi-partisan effort, that effort might have resulted in something truly useful. The partisan circus that presided over that saga only served to kick the can down the road. Not very productive...

The point that I am trying to make is simple. As stated above, I see a growing social unbalance when our largest corporations pay no income tax on $79 billion in profits while off shoring said profits, and receive $4.3 billion in rebates on investments they make outside of the country, transferring our technology and industrial basis out in the process, while the local welding shop or family restaurant pay taxes on their profits, and John Doe Public's income tax burden increases. Shifting the burden of funding society/government on the diminishing group alone of citizens and small businesses sandwiched between the 44% of Americans who do not pay any federal income tax, and the business/corporations/finances who also do not pay any federal income tax, and their elites who pay capital gain taxes at half the rate John Doe Public is paying, is not healthy for a society. It has proven socially unsustainable time and again, and I suspect that it is in the process of causing the rise of protectionist and nationalist aspirations here and in various Western societies that are essentially hitched to our economic and cultural engine. Historically, these are not very productive trends...

In ultra simplistic words, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and there will progressively be nobody left between the "1%" and the "99%" as the middle class slowly but surely melts into the rank of the lower economic class. How long do you think the "1%" or "3%" or "5%" and their political figures will retain control in a 'one person/one vote' democracy? And is this a desirable outcome for America?

The pie is growing, but everyone's share is shrinking, in both proportional and absolute terms, but for one group who wants it all. Not a very sound basis for long term harmony in the clan...

In any case I do not pretend to have the answers, I am just observing that for the first time in American history self avowed "socialists" are parading at the head of the democratic party primaries process. This is new. And my sense is that economic disparity is what is putting them there.

But these discussions are quite honestly not the reason why I roam about AfricaHunting.com. Nobody forced me into this thread, it was my choice alone, and it is now also my choice alone to go back to more relaxing threads on rifles, bullets, etc.

@One Day... thank you for taking the time to reply. It seems we share many of the very same points of view. Allow me to throw this out here though. Much of what gets tossed around when it comes to businesses, taxes, etc has spin and bias purposefully for consumption by the masses. I see much that is technically correct, but it is stated in such a way as to create the perception intended by the source and truly only contains a small piece of the larger reality. Is the tax code fair and well balanced. Hell no, it is not. And we probably agree much needs to change to more fairly and equitably serve the American people, particularly middle class on down. However, to directly or indirectly assert that mom and pop shops (like mine) don’t have access to and take advantage of the same tax breaks that big business does is not accurate. Much of the “tax loop hole” (gun show loop hole - see a pattern here?) discussion is designed to create division and an “us vs them” attitude. Many of these large corporations took bonus depreciation on capital investments which have paid dividends in job creation and is one of many reasons why we now have a very low unemployment rate. In most cases if someone wants a job right now they have one.
Regarding the disparity between the top few percent and “the rest of us”, if you listen to main stream news you would think there’s a big house on the hill in every city with just one rich dude looking down on all the peasants. But it seems that everywhere I look there are new houses being built. Expensive houses, half a mil and up. And I see people driving $75,000 dollar tucks pulling $50,000 boats or camp trailers, or a trailer full of UTV’s.
My intent here is not the defense of corporations, large or small. Simply that this topic of corporate taxation disparity is poorly understood by most and people’s understanding and perception is continually manipulated to serve an agenda. Talking points are hand picked and creatively spun for political purposes. Once again, is the tax code fair? Nope, needs work. Always has. But without the benefit of some of tools in the tax code which allows small businesses like mine to invest in capital equipment I wouldn’t be in business and providing 40 jobs in my community. And to be clear, these tools such as Section 179 Depreciation and Bonus Depreciation (which is primarily what the link you previously posted seems to take issue with) simply allow a company to depreciate a piece of equipment more quickly thereby decreasing their tax burden in the short term, it does not gain them a tax advantage over the long term. It puts their capital (usually borrowed money) to work immediately rather than down the road a few years.
Also, I’ll apologize now I’m not trying to be confrontational. That may be the way it comes across. Not my intent. As I said earlier, I think we see things much the same way and if we were talking over a beer we would be nodding and agreeing most of the time. Just trying to articulate some of the other side of a very large and deep conversation.

 

[Wheels]

Most of the time when large corporations don't pay taxes for a few years, there has been a large loss of some kind. The tax code allows the loss's to be written off against profits. Thus, no tax liability for the year. ie:

Would you like to own Bayer right now? They purchased the chemical division from Monsanto last year which included Roundup, immediately prior to the first successful glyphosate lawsuit. Depending upon appeals, Bayer may never make a profit again, and be cast off into the dustbin of history.

 

[IdaRam]

nor do I own a drone capable of conducting such operations.

Sorry Bud, nobody's buyin' that!

 

[IdaRam]

Most of the time when large corporations don't pay taxes for a few years, there has been a large loss of some kind. The tax code allows the loss's to be written off against profits. Thus, no tax liability for the year. ie:

Would you like to own Bayer right now? They purchased the chemical division from Monsanto last year which included Roundup, immediately prior to the first successful glyphosate lawsuit. Depending upon appeals, Bayer may never make a profit again, and be cast off into the dustbin of history.

Timing is everything!

 

[One Day...]

You are absolutely not coming across as confrontational IdaRam

I had the privilege of being at different times on both sides. As owner of my own optoelectronics company here in the U.S., then as Division VP & GM / Optoelectronics Team Leader (the lingo changed along the way) for Perkin Elmer ($10 billion market cap) also here in the U.S. I therefore fully understand that the same tax code applies to all corporate entities, large or small. The only caveat I would mention is that few small privately owned businesses can afford the battalions of tax lawyers large public corporations employ, so even though the code is the same, the ability to take advantage of arcane tax schemes is not exactly the same. I also understand what IRS Section 179 does, and I do not think that I promote vilifying the IRS, or corporate America, or that I promote "us vs. them"

I understand that all this can be parodied in confrontational and divisive manners, but it is not my point, and I appreciate that this has not been the case in this discussion

My point remains the same: accelerating and increasing economic disparity, characterized by the increasing concentration of wealth at the top and the progressive elimination of the middle class have social repercussions. I rest my case with the fact that for the first time ever in the history of this country the Democratic party front runners are self proclaimed and avowed socialists, proposing for the first time a socialist agenda. This is new and this is a fact

This is certainly not the "revolution" the possibility of which this thread was created to contemplate, and many folks indeed continue to afford big houses, luxury cars, boats, and Safaris in Africa, and I personally do not believe that America is ready to elect a socialist President, but this is clearly an "evolution." This too is new in America and this is also a fact

I am also on record (page 3) for dreading the effect of demography on democracy, and the ineluctability of ethno-mathematics (B. Lugan) or more generally in our case, cultural mathematics (see previous posts). As previously stated, like Red Leg I too believe that "We are on the losing end of a geometric curve. Population dynamics are inexorable..." (Red Leg). It simply seems to me that compounding these dynamics with economic disparity dynamics can only complicate the problem

My only reason for contributing to this thread was that while openly socialist candidates for the Presidency may be new to America, it is not new to those of us who lived in Europe in the 1970's and 1980's. And we have also seen where it leads. The pendulum has this tendency not to stop in the middle when it swings back. It generally tends to swing back all the way from one extreme to the opposite extreme. Countries in Europe that experienced the socialist swing, have not fared remarkably well from it...

So, in order to help prevent that kind of swing here in America, I figured I would just pass along this detail of history that wealth distribution is socially necessary to sustainable wealth concentration (the two concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although it is a common mistake to think so), however well, or not well, this narrative may fit in the current (emphasis: current) interpretation of the American Dream. Students of history will not pain to identify the differences between the distribution/concentration balance of the 150's, 60's, 70's and the current trending balance

Please note that I use the term wealth distribution in its economic meaning of profit sharing; NOT in the sense of welfare state doling out unearned benefits. This precision might help folks understand that I am not advocating for socialism, but that I am interested in denying the creation of the conditions in which it flourishes

 

[LivingTheDream]

The biggest problem with wealth disparity is that it has to happen just based upon math. If a lower income individual invest 1000 and makes 10% they made 100 dollars, if the guy that invests 100000 makes 10k. This compounding earning potential creates a gap. Throw in using that earnings to buy a house (no longer paying rent and building equity) with the tax advantages to boot and it grows more.

To stop the growing disparity someone would have to manipulate the math equation. And I guess that is socialism.

 

[One Day...]

... which gets us LivingTheDream, exactly back to square one at the beginning of this thread: "all or nothing" philosophical purity can be a dangerous gamble in a one-person/one-vote system when the demographics are not exactly going your way...

Shall we die on our sword of market economy purity and sooner or later hand the Democrats the control of the nation, or shall we make a few social concessions that insure the perpetuity of the American system?

I am not discussing anything else

 

[lwaters]

Yes if ordered to. A lot of the Army is minorities more than the other branches. They would never call for gun confincation. But they could go house to house for drugs and take the guns also. I myself don't think things are all that bad. It's a small minority that blowing a lot of hot air.

Do you think the whole US military would go along with some kind of marshal law gun confiscation property seizure people round up.

 

[sgt_zim]

Diving into the tax code can indeed be quite laborious IdaRam, and I will hasten to say that I am not qualified to do it comprehensively.

I am not indicting business/corporations, and I am actually not criticizing them for taking advantage of every existing legal mechanism to lower their tax liability. As long as they comply with the IRS they are entirely fine by me. They did not vote the laws, a Congress assembled from people WE elected did.

I am also not criticizing “Obama Care.” However imperfect (major understatement!), it initiated a needed effort to attempt to rein in the completely out of control costs of our medical system. Had it been a bi-partisan effort, that effort might have resulted in something truly useful. The partisan circus that presided over that saga only served to kick the can down the road. Not very productive...

Health care is expensive precisely because of government interference with market signals. Adding more of the thing which created the problem in the first place is only going to make the problem worse, not better.

The point that I am trying to make is simple. As stated above, I see a growing social unbalance when our largest corporations pay no income tax on $79 billion in profits while off shoring said profits, and receive $4.3 billion in rebates on investments they make outside of the country, transferring our technology and industrial basis out in the process, while the local welding shop or family restaurant pay taxes on their profits, and John Doe Public's income tax burden increases. Shifting the burden of funding society/government on the diminishing group alone of citizens and small businesses sandwiched between the 44% of Americans who do not pay any federal income tax, and the business/corporations/finances who also do not pay any federal income tax, and their elites who pay capital gain taxes at half the rate John Doe Public is paying, is not healthy for a society. It has proven socially unsustainable time and again, and I suspect that it is in the process of causing the rise of protectionist and nationalist aspirations here and in various Western societies that are essentially hitched to our economic and cultural engine. Historically, these are not very productive trends...

A very large part of the reason they're off-shoring business is precisely because of the tax code, plus regulation. What do you suppose would happen to the US economy if the income tax were repealed? It doesn't require a seer to see that every business in the world with the capitalization to do so would domicile themselves in the US. Reckon that might cause a wage bump, and bring unemployment to statistical ZERO?

The federal legislature has been "tweaking" the US income tax code since 1913. Every iteration makes it longer and more complicated.

In ultra simplistic words, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and there will progressively be nobody left between the "1%" and the "99%" as the middle class slowly but surely melts into the rank of the lower economic class. How long do you think the "1%" or "3%" or "5%" and their political figures will retain control in a 'one person/one vote' democracy? And is this a desirable outcome for America?

You've identified the problem, but misidentified the cause. The reason there is such a delta between the top and the bottom is because of inflation, not because businesses are too successful.

The only "us vs. them" of any real meaning is "we the people" vs. our usurping government. The rest is a smoke screen to have us quarreling with each other, while we ignore the elephant in the room.

The pie is growing, but everyone's share is shrinking, in both proportional and absolute terms, but for one group who wants it all. Not a very sound basis for long term harmony in the clan...

No disagreement with the premise, only with the conclusion. Men are greedy, have always been greedy. Why the wide disparity now? It has taken the better part of a century for the law of large numbers to finally show itself.

Since you're a gun guy, this example should serve nicely. In 1920, you could have walked into any hardware store in the US, and with 2 $10 gold eagles could have purchased a Colt 1911A1, with a couple boxes of ammo to boot. Today, that same pistol is about $1000 in Federal Reserve Notes. But I absolutely guarantee if you went to a gun show with a pair of $10 eagles, you could buy the same pistol and get change back.

The value of gold relative to what it takes to make/sell a pistol has changed in favor of us, the consumers. Relative to gold, that Colt has actually gotten less expensive.

What this example amply demonstrates is that the USD has lost better than 95% of its purchasing power over the course of a century. This would be impossible if we still had money, as opposed to currency.

What one earns as a wage isn't the thing, it's what one can buy with what one earns that's the thing. Those with income-producing assets are the only class of people who can manage to stay in front of the inflationary curve, but even that won't last. For most of those earning wages, whether hourly or salaried, we will continue to fall further and further behind. It isn't the business owners who are the problem, it's our medium of exchange.

As with others, my intent is not to be combative. I frequently come off as prickly. I'm working on it.

 

[IdaRam]

or that I promote "us vs. them"

Agreed. If it came across that I was implying that you were, that was not my intent.
And thank you for the dialogue. I now better understand the points you are making and I believe we see things much the same way. Also, I appreciate your perspective from life experiences in Europe.

 

[tigris115]

To answer the question, GOD NO. From Vietnam to the Middle East, war is quickly becoming much less popular in America and the last thing many people want is to die over what at this point, is basically a metaphorical dick measuring contest. At worst, you'd get a few token dipshits who decide that they're gonna go out with style like that little shit in Christchurch, aka those who specifically look to divide and insight anger. The problem I feel is that thanks to the internet, we've entered a hug box era. Now even though y'all are likely old enough to be my dad or grandpa, I feel this is something I have more experience in than others here. The hug box is a DANGEROUS THING. You enter it, your opinions are constantly validated and if anyone steps out of line, they're on them like seagulls on fries. You go around to a super-liberal college or even an uber-conservative place, you see the Hugbox principle in action. I think the first thing to do is teach people to specifically go out looking for opinions that don't match theirs. See what the other side has to say so you don't have a shitfit and succumb to the Hugbox. If you do that and match it with some basic understanding and control of temper, war will seem like such a silly thing.

 

[Deleted member 40394]

Anything is possible. Think I will make another gun purchase soon to add to my arsenal just in case.

 

[sgt_zim]

To answer the question, GOD NO. From Vietnam to the Middle East, war is quickly becoming much less popular in America and the last thing many people want is to die over what at this point, is basically a metaphorical dick measuring contest. At worst, you'd get a few token dipshits who decide that they're gonna go out with style like that little shit in Christchurch, aka those who specifically look to divide and insight anger. The problem I feel is that thanks to the internet, we've entered a hug box era. Now even though y'all are likely old enough to be my dad or grandpa, I feel this is something I have more experience in than others here. The hug box is a DANGEROUS THING. You enter it, your opinions are constantly validated and if anyone steps out of line, they're on them like seagulls on fries. You go around to a super-liberal college or even an uber-conservative place, you see the Hugbox principle in action. I think the first thing to do is teach people to specifically go out looking for opinions that don't match theirs. See what the other side has to say so you don't have a shitfit and succumb to the Hugbox. If you do that and match it with some basic understanding and control of temper, war will seem like such a silly thing.

Only one side of any [currently non-violent] conflict needs to want war in order for there to be war.

Historically, more people have died from internal conflicts than have died from natural disasters. Let that sink in.

I think if Trump wins again this year, the odds of violent conflict (initiated by the left) increase appreciably.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Unless the economy tanks and there's a geopolitical catastrophe, I don't see any of the Dems coming close to winning enough electoral votes.

 

[tigris115]

As someone who's friends are mostly leftist (I have many bits from both sides), I HIGHLY doubt that they're gonna wanna start a civil war in the hypothetical scenario that Trump gets elected in 2020. Most of them know damn well that they'd get creamed in conflict and in the end, I think that conservatives are trying too hard to make boogeymen. Now, of course, there are violent leftists but they're about as rare as really violent white supremacists.

 

[Uncle Sauce]

Since you're a gun guy, this example should serve nicely. In 1920, you could have walked into any hardware store in the US, and with 2 $10 gold eagles could have purchased a Colt 1911A1, with a couple boxes of ammo to boot. Today, that same pistol is about $1000 in Federal Reserve Notes. But I absolutely guarantee if you went to a gun show with a pair of $10 eagles, you could buy the same pistol and get change back.

The value of gold relative to what it takes to make/sell a pistol has changed in favor of us, the consumers. Relative to gold, that Colt has actually gotten less expensive.

What this example amply demonstrates is that the USD has lost better than 95% of its purchasing power over the course of a century. This would be impossible if we still had money, as opposed to currency.

This right here...! IMO if you solve the money / currency problem you solve a LOT of problems!

 

[YancyW]

You are absolutely not coming across as confrontational IdaRam

I had the privilege of being at different times on both sides. As owner of my own optoelectronics company here in the U.S., then as Division VP & GM / Optoelectronics Team Leader (the lingo changed along the way) for Perkin Elmer ($10 billion market cap) also here in the U.S. I therefore fully understand that the same tax code applies to all corporate entities, large or small. The only caveat I would mention is that few small privately owned businesses can afford the battalions of tax lawyers large public corporations employ, so even though the code is the same, the ability to take advantage of arcane tax schemes is not exactly the same. I also understand what IRS Section 179 does, and I do not think that I promote vilifying the IRS, or corporate America, or that I promote "us vs. them"

I understand that all this can be parodied in confrontational and divisive manners, but it is not my point, and I appreciate that this has not been the case in this discussion

My point remains the same: accelerating and increasing economic disparity, characterized by the increasing concentration of wealth at the top and the progressive elimination of the middle class have social repercussions. I rest my case with the fact that for the first time ever in the history of this country the Democratic party front runners are self proclaimed and avowed socialists, proposing for the first time a socialist agenda. This is new and this is a fact

This is certainly not the "revolution" the possibility of which this thread was created to contemplate, and many folks indeed continue to afford big houses, luxury cars, boats, and Safaris in Africa, and I personally do not believe that America is ready to elect a socialist President, but this is clearly an "evolution." This too is new in America and this is also a fact

I am also on record (page 3) for dreading the effect of demography on democracy, and the ineluctability of ethno-mathematics (B. Lugan) or more generally in our case, cultural mathematics (see previous posts). As previously stated, like Red Leg I too believe that "We are on the losing end of a geometric curve. Population dynamics are inexorable..." (Red Leg). It simply seems to me that compounding these dynamics with economic disparity dynamics can only complicate the problem

My only reason for contributing to this thread was that while openly socialist candidates for the Presidency may be new to America, it is not new to those of us who lived in Europe in the 1970's and 1980's. And we have also seen where it leads. The pendulum has this tendency not to stop in the middle when it swings back. It generally tends to swing back all the way from one extreme to the opposite extreme. Countries in Europe that experienced the socialist swing, have not fared remarkably well from it...

So, in order to help prevent that kind of swing here in America, I figured I would just pass along this detail of history that wealth distribution is socially necessary to sustainable wealth concentration (the two concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although it is a common mistake to think so), however well, or not well, this narrative may fit in the current (emphasis: current) interpretation of the American Dream. Students of history will not pain to identify the differences between the distribution/concentration balance of the 150's, 60's, 70's and the current trending balance

Please note that I use the term wealth distribution in its economic meaning of profit sharing; NOT in the sense of welfare state doling out unearned benefits. This precision might help folks understand that I am not advocating for socialism, but that I am interested in denying the creation of the conditions in which it flourishes

Can you give me a little more insight into what you mean by, "progressive elimination of the middle class".

 

[sgt_zim]

This right here...! IMO if you solve the money / currency problem you solve a LOT of problems!

IMO, trying to tackle ANY other fiscal issues without first addressing this one is just whistling past the graveyard.

 

[sestoppelman]

"The real question is, do you mind not being a Mo-Taur?"