[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

That's just it. If the relief cheques are considered income, those with little or no income in 2020 won't pay any of it back (since their total income won't meet certain thresholds). Those well-off will pay most or all of it back.

No they won't. Almost no one pays over 50% income tax - only people living in California making large sums of money. And obviously no one pays 100% income tax, so no one will pay "all of it back". Furthermore, a lot of people who make large sums of money employ tax planners who take steps to reduce their taxable income as much as possible, so they might keep all of it.

If the strategy is to claw it back next year, treating it as income doesn't come close to being good enough. It needs to be subject to special rules to ensure that the higher your household income, the less you keep.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No they won't. Almost no one pays over 50% income tax - only people living in California making large sums of money. And obviously no one pays 100% income tax, so no one will pay "all of it back". Furthermore, a lot of people who make large sums of money employ tax planners who take steps to reduce their taxable income as much as possible, so they might keep all of it.

If the strategy is to claw it back next year, treating it as income doesn't come close to being good enough. It needs to be subject to special rules to ensure that the higher your household income, the less you keep.

Personally I was thinking it should be treated as a capital gain or something of the sort, that usually gets taxed at fairly high rates.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm in great shape financially and have no real reason to worry, I cannot imagine what you younger guys with families are going through.

Oh I don't have a family lol. I'm just a mid-30s philandering, degenerate bachelor. But COVID has been hard on our kind as well.

[nfotiu]

Impeachment could play out in an interesting way. It sounds like it would take all 100 Senators to agree to do a hearing before Trump if the house acted quickly.

So, that would move the trial to Schumer's senate. It would still require a supermajority of 2/3s to convict. How tempting would it be for the Republicans to be able to put forth 17 votes to disqualify Trump from running in 2024? GOP strategists have to realize this is the best path forward for the party. They are throwing 17 Senators to the wolves in primaries and such, so can they find 17 willing to take one for the team?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Personally I was thinking it should be treated as a capital gain or something of the sort, that usually gets taxed at fairly high rates.

For the record, short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income, so at one’s marginal tax bracket. Long term capital gains are taxed at either 0%, 15%, or 20%, depending on your income amounts and filing status.

In either case, though, you could also be subject to a 3.8% net investment income surtax and a 0.009 Medicare surtax, depending on your income and filing status, but, at the same time, the capital gains could be reduced or offset completely by capital losses in the current or past year.

Suffice it to say that with some tax planning, capital gains are not taxed at high rates at all.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Impeachment could play out in an interesting way. It sounds like it would take all 100 Senators to agree to do a hearing before Trump if the house acted quickly.

So, that would move the trial to Schumer's senate. It would still require a supermajority of 2/3s to convict. How tempting would it be for the Republicans to be able to put forth 17 votes to disqualify Trump from running in 2024? GOP strategists have to realize this is the best path forward for the party. They are throwing 17 Senators to the wolves in primaries and such, so can they find 17 willing to take one for the team?

I'm wondering if this is a place where PA's Pat Toomey is finally somewhat useful. He's already announced he's not running for re-election in 2022, so it's a tossup seat regardless. I'm wondering if there are a few other GOP senators in the same boat. (To be fair I only really know Toomey's future plan so well because it's my home state)

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I'm wondering if this is a place where PA's Pat Toomey is finally somewhat useful. He's already announced he's not running for re-election in 2022, so it's a tossup seat regardless. I'm wondering if there are a few other GOP senators in the same boat. (To be fair I only really know Toomey's future plan so well because it's my home state)

Yeah, at least a couple others in a similar boat: Johnson from Wisconsin, Burr in North Carolina, plus Grassley in Iowa is in his late 80s and hasn't made a call either way but wouldn't be surprising if he didn't run again. But I can't see Johnson voting to impeach.

I think there's a lot of low profile "they'll do what Mitch (and their donors) tells them to do" senators. They probably need more in the neighbourhood of 20+ rather than 17, so nobody gets the heat of being the deciding vote.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

If I was a betting man I'd say he made many many of these calls to different states. And would probably win a lot of money.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1347957413014614017

[octothorp]

I always enjoy Alexandra Petri's satire:

I see no choice but to resign from this Death Star as it begins to explode

(may require incognito mode)

[MoneyGuy]

I’ve seen a list of benefits Trump would lose if he’s impeached but I have a question for those who know.

He’s already been impeached and presumably still has those benefits (lifetime pension, Secret Service protection, etc.). Does he only lose those benefits if he’s impeached AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE? I’m guessing that’s it and there is nothing magical about a second impeachment, but I dunno.

[Wormius]

I think now there might be a strong possibility that the senate goes along and has him removed.

[djsFlames]

If he loses benefits then I'd say it's fully worth pursuing.

He deserves to carry zero perks of presidency beyond the 20th.

[edslunch]

For everyone concerned about giving money to people who don’t need it, sure it would be great to make it more targeted but this thread has shown the difficulty in doing that let alone the delays it would incur. And by comparison, how well targeted were the Trump tax cuts to the people who needed them?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, at least a couple others in a similar boat: Johnson from Wisconsin, Burr in North Carolina, plus Grassley in Iowa is in his late 80s and hasn't made a call either way but wouldn't be surprising if he didn't run again. But I can't see Johnson voting to impeach.

I think there's a lot of low profile "they'll do what Mitch (and their donors) tells them to do" senators. They probably need more in the neighbourhood of 20+ rather than 17, so nobody gets the heat of being the deciding vote.

McConnell and others just got elected for 6 years so don’t have much to lose. Sounds like old Mitch holds no love for Trump. Who knows which way Graham would blow.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by edslunch

McConnell and others just got elected for 6 years so don’t have much to lose. Sounds like old Mitch holds no love for Trump. Who knows which way Graham would blow.

We do if the Lady G rumours are correct.

[MoneyGuy]

I’ve had a few people tell me they hate CNN and it’s not to be trusted and I’m trying to figure out why. Some possible reasons....

-It’s biased - yes, with respect to Trump and the GOP, but while I may not excuse that bias in normal times I’ll give the anchors, reporters and commenters a big pass here because Trump is so obviously deranged and dangerous that he needs to be taken down.
-CNN shows the same footage over and over again (my wife’s complaint) - legit, I think, but footage such as the Capitol takeover is so important.

I like CNN and it’s my main source of information, with Daniel Dale and the many great reporters and anchors. I wish I could get it on my iPad for free; it’s not worth the $30-whatever a month for the very little I’d use (I get it from my cable provider).

[dammage79]

CNN is amazing at one thing and one thing only, covering major breaking news. It eliminates all opinion and bias and just reports what they're seeing and hearing. And they're usually the first to get information during events as well. 9/11, it was CNN for me. The Japan earthquake, CNN. Pretty anything happening live as it happens, CNN. No other substitute IMO.

As far as anything else for news consumption like catching up on the day, cbc or ctv news Channel.

I don't watch news for opinion.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I’ve had a few people tell me they hate CNN and it’s not to be trusted and I’m trying to figure out why. Some possible reasons....

-It’s biased - yes, with respect to Trump and the GOP, but while I may not excuse that bias in normal times I’ll give the anchors, reporters and commenters a big pass here because Trump is so obviously deranged and dangerous that he needs to be taken down.
-CNN shows the same footage over and over again (my wife’s complaint) - legit, I think, but footage such as the Capitol takeover is so important.

I like CNN and it’s my main source of information, with Daniel Dale and the many great reporters and anchors. I wish I could get it on my iPad for free; it’s not worth the $30-whatever a month for the very little I’d use (I get it from my cable provider).

I prefer MSNBC myself, mostly as I find their presenters more informed, Racheal Maddows is a gem, I find CNN as being closer to Fox, less actual information and more outrage and schlock

[MoneyGuy]

I don’t have MSNBC but would watch if I could.

[troutman]

Rachel and Brian Williams are first rate.