The POTUS election betting markets

[bpj]

Unfortunately this won't help most of the liberal arts majors that can't do anything with their degrees, but this is an interesting development for Trump-

Yeah, lets live in reality. This is like the kid running for 8th grade class President promising free pizza.

"In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs. Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it is unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only end the individual income tax.

Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive."

I tend to agree 100% with this (what you wrote).

We have to have a federal income tax because as a country we spend way too much. Now, I will also say that taxes are way too high, and that as a country we have A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A COLLECTING TAX PROBLEM.

So why not just cut the spending instead of allowing it to perpetuate?

[bpj]

Grok weighs in-

The United States relied primarily on tariffs for revenue from its inception until the early 20th century. Here are the key points:

- **From Founding to Civil War**: Throughout the 19th century, tariffs were the main source of federal revenue. This period was characterized by protectionist policies where tariffs were not only used to raise revenue but also to protect nascent American industries from foreign competition.

- **Post-Civil War to Early 20th Century**: Even after the Civil War, tariffs continued to be a significant source of income for the federal government, though other forms of taxation like excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco also played a role.

- **The Change**:

- **16th Amendment**: The shift from tariffs to income tax as a primary source of federal revenue came with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913. This amendment allowed Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census.

- **Revenue Act of 1913**: Following the amendment, the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff Act, was passed. It significantly reduced tariff rates and implemented a federal income tax. This was the beginning of the modern income tax system in the U.S.

- **Duration**: Therefore, the United States had tariffs as its primary source of revenue for roughly 124 years from the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 until the introduction of the federal income tax in 1913.

**What Changed:**

- **Economic Reasons**: The need for more revenue due to increased government spending, particularly around wartime (though the U.S. was not in a major war in 1913, the anticipation of expenses related to global tensions was growing), and the desire for a more elastic source of income led to the shift.

- **Political Reasons**: There was a growing sentiment that tariffs disproportionately benefited certain industries and regions while potentially harming consumers through higher prices. An income tax was seen as a way to spread the tax burden more equitably.

- **Social and Economic Shifts**: The early 20th century saw significant changes in American society with industrialization, urbanization, and a push for progressive reforms, which included taxation based on ability to pay rather than consumption.

- **Global Trade**: With the world economy becoming more interconnected, high tariffs were seen as less viable for encouraging international trade, particularly post-World War I when economic reconstruction required more open trade policies.

This transition marked a fundamental change in how the U.S. government funded itself, moving from indirect taxes on trade to direct taxation of income, reflecting broader shifts in economic policy towards progressive taxation.

So they had to switch to income taxes to fund their bigger government.

Eff that, have Elon cut all the waste and go back to barebones government.

Ya great idea... lets copy economic policies from the pre-Civil War era when there was a total population of 31 million people vs now where there's 341 million people. Where telephones and the internet didn't exist. Lets copy economic policies from when almost no millionaires existed and apply them to a time where 22 million millionaires exist.

Makes total sense.

What makes the government entitled to a millionaires money any more than mine?

Eff their income tax nobody agreed to.

[Seattle or Bust]

Unfortunately this won't help most of the liberal arts majors that can't do anything with their degrees, but this is an interesting development for Trump-

Yeah, lets live in reality. This is like the kid running for 8th grade class President promising free pizza.

"In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs. Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it is unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only end the individual income tax.

Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive."

I tend to agree 100% with this (what you wrote).

We have to have a federal income tax because as a country we spend way too much. Now, I will also say that taxes are way too high, and that as a country we have A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A COLLECTING TAX PROBLEM.

I think we have an allocating problem and an efficiency problem. I think things the government (both federally and locally) spends money on should have incredibly strict oversight.

Nothing bothers me more than driving down 405 and seeing 50 un-manned construction vehicles just sitting there or watching 8 people stand around a piece of concrete while one person works. Construction projects shouldn't take 15 years to complete.

Taxation, especially of the rich, is fundamental in making sure the country functions. I just think they need to do a lot better to use the money more efficiently. Fully cutting federal income tax is crazy shit as you've alluded to.

[Seattle or Bust]

Yeah, lets live in reality. This is like the kid running for 8th grade class President promising free pizza.

"In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs. Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it is unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only end the individual income tax.

Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive."

I tend to agree 100% with this (what you wrote).

We have to have a federal income tax because as a country we spend way too much. Now, I will also say that taxes are way too high, and that as a country we have A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A COLLECTING TAX PROBLEM.

So why not just cut the spending instead of allowing it to perpetuate?

You're voting for a man who spent more in the first 2 years (pre-pandemic) of his Presidency than any President ever.

Make spending work more efficiently. Don't just cut it. That solves no problems. Rich people don't need more money... they're fine.

Trump is floating policy around tariffs that worked when the population and resulting government was a lot smaller. It just doesn't work for a country of this size.

[bpj]

What do you guys think about the top 5% of earners have a flat % tax, and the other 95% get covered by the tariff?

According to grok the top 5% currently pay 66% of the total tax revenue.

Tariffs would only have to cover 1/3 to let everyone else off the hook.

Seems reasonable, even if not at all fair to the high earners.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Yeah, lets live in reality. This is like the kid running for 8th grade class President promising free pizza.

"In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs. Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it is unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only end the individual income tax.

Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive."

I tend to agree 100% with this (what you wrote).

We have to have a federal income tax because as a country we spend way too much. Now, I will also say that taxes are way too high, and that as a country we have A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A COLLECTING TAX PROBLEM.

So why not just cut the spending instead of allowing it to perpetuate?

By all means, we should cut the spending...and cut.....and cut.....and cut.

But the federal gov. has taken on so much, tariffs only will not get the job done.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

I also don't believe that Corporations pay taxes. When taxes are increased on corporations, they just raise their rates...thus passing the cost on to the consumer.

The rich should pay more, only because they can afford more.

But the poor should also have to pay something, so they have some skin in the game.

[D-train]

Last week 538 had Harris with a higher probability to win. This week it is Trump 51 to 48.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

[D-train]

Latest updates
LAST UPDATED Oct. 18

For the first time since 538 published our presidential election forecast for Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, Trump has taken the lead (if a very small one) over Harris. As of 3 p.m. Eastern on Oct. 18, our model gives Trump a 52-in-100 chance of winning the majority of Electoral College votes. The model gives Harris a 48-in-100 chance.

The change in candidate’s fortunes came after a slow drip-drip-drip of polls showed the race tightening across the northern and Sun Belt battlegrounds. In our forecast of the popular vote in Pennsylvania, the race has shifted from a 0.6-point lead for Harris on Oct. 1 to a 0.2-point lead for Trump; In Michigan, a 1.8-point Harris lead is now just 0.4 points; And in Wisconsin, a 1.6-point lead for Harris is now an exact tie between the two candidates. Meanwhile, Arizona and Georgia have flipped from toss-ups to “Lean Republican” states.

[D-train]

Nobody knows who will win. It is a coin flip at this point. Very confident people are wrong all the time. Check out this counting your chickens before they hatch vid at Gasworks park election day 2016.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... orks-park/