Someone pls explain why Democrats don't want ICE contacted if illegal aliens attempt to buy guns

[PrettyFly]

However I answer this question, it will not be satisfactory to you.

Not looking to argue here just understand.

I think I am hearing that part of it is about "earning the privileges" the US offers you and you worked hard for.

That is of course very reasonable.

Well what about cutting back the welfare state in the US? Would you be more open to immigration then?

Personally I don't like paying for anyone. I don't care if they are English (like I am) or Polish. As far as I am concerned a bum is a bum.

Cutting back on the welfare state would "treat the root cause" as it were IMO.

What do you think of that?

 

[Xzi]

While we're on the subject of the democratic process, it's about time the U.S. implemented Voter ID nationwide, it's long overdue.

It really isn't, documented voter fraud is nearly non-existent. Election fraud is more of a pressing issue, but a different issue.

 

[Foxi4]

Not looking to argue here just understand.

I think I am hearing that part of it is about "earning the privileges" the US offers you and you worked hard for.

That is of course very reasonable.

Well what about cutting back the welfare state in the US? Would you be more open to immigration then?

Personally I don't like paying for anyone. I don't care if they are English (like I am) or Polish. As far as I am concerned a bum is a bum.

Cutting back on the welfare state would "treat the root cause" as it were IMO.

What do you think of that?

I am most certainly for cutting back on welfare. Any welfare recipient should be aware of the fact that welfare exists in order to enable them to go through a rough patch in life, it's not a primary source of income.

It really isn't, documented voter fraud is nearly non-existent. Election fraud is more of a pressing issue, but a different issue.

This is another instance of two separate issues that can be addressed simultaneously. I am opposed to illegal immigrants voting just as much as I am opposed to dead citizens voting. I'm not a fan of magically disappearing/appearing ballots either, but that's not the subject of this thread. My point was that any voter heading to the ballot box should be expected to prove that they are in fact entitled to vote, it's another non-issue in every country besides the United States. In my country they say that some people "can't see the forest for the trees" - you can't address the simple and obvious problems, you're just too busy arguing about the minutiae.

 

[tatripp]

I agree that police should be notified when someone tries to buy a gun when they're not allowed although I still don't get why Americans need to have guns in the first place

Guns and free speech are awesome!!! 'MERICA
-We need guns to defend ourselves against tyrannical governments (it wouldn't be the first time our country had to do this)
-We need guns to protect our homes
-We trust our citizens enough to let them use weapons
-They are so fun to shoot

 

[Xzi]

You can't address the simple and obvious problems, you're just too busy arguing about the minutiae.

It's not minutiae, as usual the difference in opinion between us comes down to who is actually responsible for the problem. Your instinct seems to be to blame the people living in this country first, whereas I blame the people at the top who like to manufacture misinformation and wedge issues for everybody else to bicker about. The election in North Carolina last year is a prime example of the candidate himself orchestrating election fraud. Yet he's facing no real consequences. Until we fix that, the double standard under the law for wealthy/connected individuals in this country, not much else is going to get done. You can't fix things from the bottom up when it's clear that things at the top are most broken.

 

[Viri]

I agree that police should be notified when someone tries to buy a gun when they're not allowed although I still don't get why Americans need to have guns in the first place

Because they're cool! I own two hand guns. I might get myself an AR-15 in the future.

 

[Foxi4]

Guns and free speech are awesome!!! 'MERICA
-We need guns to defend ourselves against tyrannical governments (it wouldn't be the first time our country had to do this)
-We need guns to protect our homes
-We trust our citizens enough to let them use weapons
-They are so fun to shoot

There's a simpler reason - the presumption of innocence. There's no reason for the state to assume that the weapon you purchase will be used to commit a crime, the reason for your purchase is yours only and none of the state's business. Anything short of a right to bear arms is overstepping the boundaries, the state should not intrude in the private lives of its citizens. What you do with your money is up to you as long as you excercising your freedom doesn't violate anyone else's rights. People argue about the immutable right to self-defense and self-determination till they're blue in the face when the most obvious answer here is that it's just nobody else's business for as long as you don't take your gun and aim it at another person without provocation/justification.

It's not minutiae, as usual the difference in opinion between us comes down to who is actually responsible for the problem. Your instinct seems to be to blame the people living in this country first, whereas I blame the people at the top who like to manufacture misinformation and wedge issues for everybody else to bicker about. The election in North Carolina last year is a prime example of the candidate himself orchestrating election fraud. Yet he's facing no real consequences. Until we fix that, the double standard under the law for wealthy/connected individuals in this country, not much else is going to get done. You can't fix things from the bottom up when it's clear that things at the top are most broken.

Any form of accountability starts with personal responsibility. I don't look at things from a systemic lens because I treat the United States as unique in the sense that it's a country built by industrious individuals which is only loosely tied with common values. It's a melting pot of different races, religions and creeds who all came together to form a nation based on the power of the individual. I believe that the United States has flourished over the centuries specifically because the government was minimal and marginalised and the individual was allowed to excercise immutable freedoms, this state of matters has only changed in relatively recent history. As such, I focus on individuals as opposed to the system. With that said, I would like the "people at the top" to be held to the same standard and punished accordingly when it is warranted - they need to be held responsible for any wrongdoing just as much as anybody else.

 

[Xzi]

Any form of accountability starts with personal responsibility. I don't look at things from a systemic lens because I treat the United States as unique in the sense that it's a country built by industrious individuals which is only loosely tied with common values. It's a melting pot of different races, religions and creeds who all came together to form a nation based on the power of the individual. I believe that the United States has flourished over the centuries specifically because the government was minimal and marginalised and the individual was allowed to excercise immutable freedoms, this state of matters has only changed in relatively recent history. As such, I focus on individuals as opposed to the system.

How do you square your beliefs with the fact that the US' most prosperous decades were also those in which we had our highest marginal tax rates? Because it seems to me that is at the core of so many modern day issues, thus the problem is systemic and also has a systemic solution. I'm in agreement with Rutger Bregman on that one.

 

[PrettyFly]

I am most certainly for cutting back on welfare. Any welfare recipient should be aware of the fact that welfare exists in order to enable them to go through a rough patch in life, it's not a primary source of income.

Is the cheap labour an issue to you?

Because it seems like with cut back welfare any illegal who comes would have to work hard for cheap.

Isn’t this ideal?

 

[Foxi4]

How do you square your beliefs with the fact that the US' most prosperous decades were also those in which we had our highest marginal tax rates? Because it seems to me that is at the core of so many modern day issues, thus the problem is systemic and also has a systemic solution. I'm in agreement with Rutger Bregman on that one.

I can justify it by saying that it's simply untrue. Which decade would you like to tackle first?

Is the cheap labour an issue to you?

Because it seems like with cut back welfare any illegal who comes would have to work hard for cheap.

Isn’t this ideal?

I don't have an issue with that, I'm against the idea of a minimum wage. Market forces should decide what the value of someone's labour is - if we're talking about systemic issues that motivate employers to hire illegal immigrants, that's one of them. A minimum wage for labour that simply doesn't justify it directly incentives hiring illegal immigrants who do not have to be paid said minimum wage - they can be given half of it under the table. This directly undercuts the ability of low skilled citizens to compete on the job market.

 

[Xzi]

I can justify it by saying that it's simply untrue. Which decade would you like to tackle first?

AFAIK it wasn't until the mid-80s that the marginal tax rate finally dipped below ~70%. Every decade prior to that had about the same rate or even higher. The 1950s is the decade the right-wing always considers the "golden age." To some extent I can see why, you could buy a house, car, and support an entire family on one income. The marginal tax rate also happened to be 90%.

Income inequality has been consistently skyrocketing since the 90s, and again it's easy to see how that would tie in to so many other national issues.

 

[Foxi4]

AFAIK it wasn't until the mid-80s that the marginal tax rate finally dipped below ~70%. Every decade prior to that had about the same rate or even higher. The 1950s is the decade the right-wing always considers the "golden age." To some extent I can see why, you could buy a house, car, and support an entire family on one income. The marginal tax rate also happened to be 90%.

Income inequality has been consistently skyrocketing since the 90s, and again it's easy to see how that would tie in to so many other national issues.

The right wing does not consider the 1950's to be a golden age of anything, the 1950's were a decade of tepid growth after the war. The country was ripe with economic opportunities simply because the war drew to a close. As you might imagine, the casualties of said war greatly reduced the supply of able bodied workers, but the demand was high. This relation stimulated wages upwards, hence the relative prosperity of citizens. The top marginal tax rate was 91%, however tax avoidance was high, exemptions were plentiful and the actual effective top marginal tax rate was 42%. With those factors accounted for, tax revenues were relatively the same and the top 1% paid in just as much as they have prior, in many cases less than before.


https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

If we're taking about prosperous times, we should talk about the roaring 20's instead. The only problem with that decade was caused by market speculation which eventually led to a crash, which is not unusual on a market that's speculative by nature.

As far as prosperity goes, people are the most prosperous when they are taxed the least and when the demand for their labour is high. The relationship between tax revenues and tax rates is not linear - taxing people at higher rates does not mean that revenues will be higher. For instance, if you told me that I am allowed to earn X and anything I earn past the point of X will be automatically seized by the state, I am simply not going to work past that point because I don't fancy being a slave. What you've effectively done is you kept revenue stagnant, but you killed my productivity and therefore stifled the economy. I'm taxed the same amount, but there is less wealth being generated over time. There is a golden mean somewhere between 0% and 100%, and it's not immediately obvious where that golden mean is, it's subject to fierce debate.

EDIT: Just so that we're 100% clear, I consider any form of an income tax to be a punitive tax on the industrious, I'm simply playing the devil's advocate here. If I can't get rid of the income tax, marginal tax rates and all of the assorted nonsense, I will certainly advocate for lower, not higher taxes.

 

[SG854]

The right wing does not consider the 1950's to be a golden age of anything, the 1950's were a decade of tepid growth after the war. The country was ripe with economic opportunities simply because the war drew to a close. As you might imagine, the casualties of said war greatly reduced the supply of able bodied workers, but the demand was high. This relation stimulated wages upwards, hence the relative prosperity of citizens. The top marginal tax rate was 91%, however tax avoidance was high, exemptions were plentiful and the actual effective top marginal tax rate was 42%. With those factors accounted for, tax revenues were relatively the same and the top 1% paid in just as much as they have prior, in many cases less than before the war.
View attachment 158933
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

If we're taking about prosperous times, we should talk about the roaring 20's instead. The only problem with that decade was caused by market speculation which eventually led to a crash, which is not unusual on a market that's speculative by nature.

As far as prosperity goes, people are the most prosperous when they are taxed the least and when the demand for their labour is high. The relationship between tax revenues and tax rates is not linear - taxing people at higher rates does not mean that revenues will be higher. For instance, if you told me that I am allowed to earn X and anything I earn past the point of X will be automatically seized by the state, I am simply not going to work past that point because I don't fancy being a slave. What you've effectively done is you kept revenue stagnant, but you killed my productivity and therefore stifled the economy. I'm taxed the same amount, but there is less wealth being generated over time. There is a golden mean somewhere between 0% and 100%, and it's not immediately obvious where that golden mean is, it's subject to fierce debate.

Basically to simplify your post. Higher taxes doesn’t always more more collected. We would have to tax at a rate that’s not too high that’ll discourage people, but not too low that’ll cause us to hardly collect any taxes at all and not fund programs.

In either case less is collected and we should find a good middle ground tax rate that’s actually productive.

 

[Foxi4]

Basically to simplify your post. Higher taxes doesn’t always more more collected. We would have to tax at a rate that’s not too high that’ll discourage people, but not too low that’ll cause us to hardly collect any taxes at all and not fund programs.

In either case less is collected and we should find a good middle ground tax rate that’s actually productive.

Sometimes less is more. I want the government to incentivise private citizens to be industrious as opposed to fleecing them at every opportunity. The more industrious the nation is the higher the receipts, not just from the income tax, but from all taxation. Let's not forget that the income tax itself was supposed to be a countermeasure against an expected loss of tariff revenue, in just a few years it became the primary source of revenue for the federal government instead, and the government has been growing ever since. At some point between 1913 and now the economy became a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos.

 

[Xzi]

The right wing does not consider the 1950's to be a golden age of anything, the 1950's were a decade of tepid growth after the war. The country was ripe with economic opportunities simply because the war drew to a close. As you might imagine, the casualties of said war greatly reduced the supply of able bodied workers, but the demand was high. This relation stimulated wages upwards, hence the relative prosperity of citizens. The top marginal tax rate was 91%, however tax avoidance was high, exemptions were plentiful and the actual effective top marginal tax rate was 42%. With those factors accounted for, tax revenues were relatively the same and the top 1% paid in just as much as they have prior, in many cases less than before the war.
View attachment 158933
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The effective tax rate means little to nothing without taking the highest wages of the period as well as wage disparity into consideration. I'd wager the rich in the 1950s still ended up paying a greater portion of their total income, especially if you account for inflation.

For instance, if you told me that I am allowed to earn X and anything I earn past the point of X will be automatically seized by the state, I am simply not going to work past that point because I don't fancy being a slave. What you've effectively done is you kept revenue stagnant, but you killed my productivity and therefore stifled the economy.

This is nonsense. We're talking about people making over 10 million a year. Rarely are they contributing any actual labor or value to the economy themselves, that's what their employees do.

 

[SG854]

@Foxi4 People want introduce high taxes to discourage people from smoking or discourage people from eating junk food.

Yet that same logic from the same people doesn’t apply to what that’ll cause to business.

I think they are mostly focused on the rich avoid paying taxes. Which is why the argument doesn’t register.

 

[Foxi4]

The effective tax rate means little to nothing without taking the highest wages of the period as well as wage disparity into consideration. I'd wager the rich in the 1950s still ended up paying a greater portion of their total income, especially if you account for inflation.

You can say that, but you have no evidence to support that. Actual statistics show conclusively that the tax receipts of the federal government were equivalent to those before the higher marginal tax rates were introduced.

This is nonsense. We're talking about people making over 10 million a year. Rarely are they contributing any actual labor or value to the economy themselves, that's what their employees do.

Define "labour". It's easy for you to say that these people don't actually do anything, but I somehow doubt that you're earning in excess of 10 million a year, even though you seem to be a doing a lot, or at least talking a lot. Again, if you're going to tell me that anything I earn past 10 million dollars will be seized and I already know that I earn, say, 15 million a year, I'm not going to give you 5 million dollars - I'm just going to move because I can afford to. You're not going to see 90% of my income past that bracket, and if you play rough, you're not going to see any of my income at all because the cost of me selling my assets and relocating is lower than the cost of your ridiculous Robin Hood-style plan to steal my money.

 

[Xzi]

Again, if you're going to tell me that anything I earn past 10 million dollars will be seized and I already know that I earn, say, 15 million a year, I'm not going to give you 5 million dollars - I'm just going to move because I can afford to.

This is the same threat the rich made over FDR's New Deal, and it rang empty then just as it rings empty now. The rich continue to live and operate in the states with the highest tax rates, because they're fully aware that those are the states where people also have higher wages and the most buying power. They're also aware that the second they take their ball and go home, a new small business will pop up to take their place and take their sales.

Hell, we're so far down the rabbit hole now that we're to the point of several billionaires asking to have their own taxes raised. The current rate of growth in income inequality is unsustainable, and even several people at the top can see that.

 

[Foxi4]

This is the same threat the rich made over FDR's New Deal, and it rang empty then just as it rings empty now. The rich continue to live and operate in the states with the highest tax rates, because they're fully aware that those are the states where people also have higher wages and the most buying power. They're also aware that the second they take their ball and go home, a new small business will pop up to take their place and take their sales.

Hell, we're so far down the rabbit hole now that we're to to point of several billionaires asking to have their own taxes raised.

FDR's New Deal was terrible and prolonged The Great Depression, he was far from a saviour, but that's neither here nor there. We're talking about the 1%, which is in fact capable of moving their assets rapidly when the circumstances call for it. The present administration is favourable to them, so there is no sudden exodus. Things are very different in Britain with BREXIT looming over future economic prospects or Venezuela which is in the middle of a financial crisis and is, slowly but surely, heading towards a possible coup d'etat:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/sunday/millionaires-fleeing-migration.html

It's almost as if millionaires were migrating whenever their fortunes are at risk, funny how that works.

Now, back to labour. In case it's not painfully obvious how the rich contribute to the economy, they generate jobs by opening/maintaining businesses, they stimulate industry growth via investing capital and, ultimately, they make the decisions in their own companies. I know that as a left-winger you don't consider anything short of shoveling coal to be beneficial to the economy or to be a form of labour, but that's not how it works. In order for the average Joe to work an average job, there has to be an exceptional Steve who is willing to stake his own money in the process of creating an environment that enables Joe to work. The Steves of this world take the risks, the Joes can jump from company to company. Let's not forget that the gross majority of businesses in general fail within the first few years - we're talking about a figure in the whereabouts of 90%, depending on where you look. The businesses that do work long term are clearly doing something right, primarily thanks to their management which, ultimately, chooses the path the company takes on the market. Think of it as a ship - it takes many sailors to run it, but the captain decides where it goes and his decisions make it sink or swim.

EDIT: Just as a side note, why is wealth inequality bad? I've never heard a good argument on that subject. It seems to me that all this nonsense about some people having more money than others is motivated by envy more than anything else.

 

[Captain_N]

https://www.floridadaily.com/democr...-ice-when-illegal-immigrants-try-to-buy-guns/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...gal-immigrants-fail-firearm-background-checks


The news articles are rather focused on the illegal alien issue, but actually the amendment was not just to contact ICE when an illegal alien attempted to buy a gun, but to contact law enforcement when any background check was rejected.

Attempting to purchase a gun when you're prohibited by law or by submitting a false 4473 form to a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) is a crime, so law enforcement should be alerted, right? Well, Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee voted to kill that amendment to their "Bipartisan Background Checks Act."

Do they really want their gun control legislation to result in catching criminals, or do they just want control over everyone else?

Also, why hasn't CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc reported this story? It is newsworthy, isn't it???

They do just want to control you. crazy Bernie and Cortez are socialists that want the government to have more control over you. They want you to rely on the government for income and higher level schooling. I for the life of me, dont know why people think more government is better. doe anyone here want a 70% tax rate?