Politics

[Big_Easy]

Even if you confiscated every penny owned and ever asset owned by every American it won’t pay off the debt and continue to generate the taxes to pay future the bills.

Thank you for your red herring argument...thankfully the Democrat party is not advocating for confiscating the Billionaires money. I believe the subject of the post was taxation not outright confiscation...I believe you are thinking of Communism.

 

[Scott CWO]

At least we can agree that only some of it was earned.

The tax isn't on the income/principal, its on the growth that it generates. Think of that growth as "new" money vs. existing money...Like sales tax. If you resell the same item again and again, it generates the tax multiple times vs. just once.

Believe me, I more than understand. If I make money from money I was already taxed on, I shouldn’t be taxed on the new money. Roth IRAs work like that.

 

[Big_Easy]

You can tax billionaires at 75% as they did in the mid 70s and it will never be enough. The spending will always outpace the generation of wealth.

If we taxed the top 0.1% at that rate our deficit would be over tomorrow. And we'd have a surplus to pay down our national debt. Kinda like during the Clinton administration when one of their first orders of business was to get congress to pass a tax increase on the wealthy. Again, I swear folks on here either don't have google, or they have poor long term memory. The only reason things are as bad as they are financially is because of the republican tax cuts for the rich. If we rolled the top tax rate back to 39.6% and the top 1% paid that rate on all income that alone would be a 2/3 deficit reduction.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Thank you for your red herring argument...thankfully the Democrat party is not advocating for confiscating the Billionaires money. I believe the subject of the post was taxation not outright confiscation.

Please read it again. The post was to demonstrate You can’t tax your way out of the debt we have and the spending.

there isn’t enough wealth in the entire nation. Please read it again.

 

[R.N.L]

If we taxed the top 0.1% at that rate our deficit would be over tomorrow. And we'd have a surplus to pay down our national debt. Kinda like during the Clinton administration when one of their first orders of business was to get congress to pass a tax increase on the wealthy. Again, I swear folks on here either don't have google, or they have poor long term memory. The only reason things are as bad as they are financially is because of the republican tax cuts for the rich. If we rolled the top tax rate back to 39.6% and the top 1% paid that rate on all income that alone would be a 2/3 deficit reduction.

Do you not think that would create a significant exodus ?

 

[Altitude sickness]

If we taxed the top 0.1% at that rate our deficit would be over tomorrow. And we'd have a surplus to pay down our national debt. Kinda like during the Clinton administration when one of their first orders of business was to get congress to pass a tax increase on the wealthy. Again, I swear folks on here either don't have google, or they have poor long term memory. The only reason things are as bad as they are financially is because of the republican tax cuts for the rich. If we rolled the top tax rate back to 39.6% and the top 1% paid that rate on all income that alone would be a 2/3 deficit reduction.

You Kathy Hochal, Mamdani and the Mayor of Seattle should get together with your tax proposals.

Those three are finding out the hard way that if you punish the wealthy, they have the opportunity to just leave. Or would you also ban moving to another state or out of the country.

If New York wouldn’t have housed illegals in 5 Star hotels maybe they’d have enough money to meet their budget. Instead of stealing more from the wealthy.

 

[Big_Easy]

The post was to demonstrate You can’t tax your way out of the debt we have

You absolutely can. We have done it several times throughout American history. The first personal income tax was to pay for Civil War debt. And more recently WWI and WWII debt. That was the whole point of modern Income Taxation...to pay off your debts. Look at our debt levels after WWII, more than 100% public debt to GDP ratio. It took several decades to pay that down but we still did it. Sorry rich people, I guess you'll just have to pay more.

Most recently the Clinton admin did it to a lesser extent. They reversed the significant Republican deficits and were paying off debt when Bush took over, and I quote.."The federal gov having a surplus is evidence that we are taking too much of our hard working Americans money, and thats why we need a tax cut" - GWB, 2001.

Except then he got us into not one but two wars that he never paid for, followed by two more rounds of tax cuts mostly for the rich. The situation deteriorated significantly from there.

 

[Big_Easy]

So what happens if you tax investment income at marginal tax rates?

1.) The market tanks to third world status immediately. People will pull their money out of stocks and move them into real property.

2.) Little old ladies and other pensioners will be on welfare. They live on their dividends but they'll fail to make their life work, forcing them to sell the now worthless stock due to outflows. They'll shortly be on the dole all while the companies of America lose their capitalization.

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen on here.

The Capital Gains tax rate during part of the 1990s was 28%, did it crash to third world status then?...No.
The Capital Gains tax rate rose from 15 to 20% during Obama, did the market crash to third world status then?...No.
Then it rose to 23.8% during Obama after the ACA took affect, did it crash to third world status then?...No.
Capital Gains tax rates were 33% previously, did the markets crash to third world status then?...No.

So we do have real world knowledge that top Capital Gains tax rates of 28-33% would not crash the US markets to third world status. Sounds like another red herring argument?

 

[Big_Easy]

Do you not think that would create a significant exodus ?

At 75%? Probably.
At 39.6%? No.

39.6% (future) vs. 23.8% (currently) is not enough of an increase for significant capital flight. Besides, where would it go? Africa? Europe? China? Australia? Mars? As I've said before, the ROI for the market is still going to be far superior to other investment vehicles, even with the rich having to pay 15.8% more in taxes.

 

[Big_Easy]

Those three are finding out the hard way that if you punish the wealthy, they have the opportunity to just leave. Or would you also ban moving to another state or out of the country.

I'm not sure if this is a red herring, a straw man, or just lack of understanding. There's a difference between state level taxation and federal. If one state raises its taxes then yes, they can move to another state. Federal is different, you get taxed on your federal taxes in every state and in every country (i assume if you lived on Mars you'd still have to pay too). Moving to a new state of country wouldn't make much of difference (subject to tax treaties than could be amended). America taxes you on your income gains world-wide (inter-planet-wide?). Moving to FL, TX, or Antarctica wont matter.

The only way they could possibly escape that is to renounce their citizenship. Which has significant disadvantages for those who do. And I'm not sure the fed gov even has to allow that. But even so, thats where tax treaties, tariffs, and other mechanisms come into play.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Here is the Crux of the discussion. Guys like Shultz are the enemy. And can never pay enough. The left expects him to pay someone slinging coffee a “living wage”.

Guess what. Pouring coffee and taking payment is a an entry level job. You’re not supposed to be satisfied making that a career.

If you want a living wage Go to a trade school or gain a certification of some sort to get a higher paying job, selling coffee your whole life and expecting to earn what people that have worked their way up the ladder earn is ridiculous.

 

[Russ16]

Tax policy is quirky.

In the 50s the top rate was 92% which is absurd.

But one byproduct was that if you had inherited wealth and invested in things like oil exploration and it didn’t pay you got a write off. So basically you only lost 8%. That five a lot of old money investment intents oil patch. Which is part of why the Bush family wound up in Texas.

So high taxes can have an unintended consequence.

I’m not advocating for high taxes just pointing out that outcomes aren’t always completely predictable.

 

[mdwest]

I mean the bottom half of the top 1%. My issue isn’t with the whole code. Basically there is a big gulf between to top earners and the uber wealthy. And the code doesn’t really address that. People making $600,000 are taxed much more heavily on a percentage basis than people with super high incomes.

I can attest to that being true…

We’re somewhere between the bottom of the 1% and the top of the 2% mark… and we get hammered…

Thankfully we own a couple of small businesses that we can use to help offset a bit… and my wife is a career (30+ year) accountant with a good bit of experience in tax…

Without those two things it would be far more painful than it already is…

 

[Tbitty]

I'm going to repeat some information from post #72,874. I see continued claims that the national debt is all or mostly Republicans (or Trump's!) fault, but some actual facts and data give a much different view.

7. "Democrats didnt bury this country in debt. Republicans did." -- Bullshit... Both Democrats and Republicans buried us in debt.

You want to use Clinton as your example of how its not Democrats fault? Fair enough. I agree from 1993-2000 were easily the "Best" years of minimizing debt growth. Let's add some context: in those years, the debt grew most, and grew every year, between 1993-1996, when democrats had controlled congress (both chambers) from '87-'94. It was split chambers in '95-96 at its high. Then it reduced from '98-2001 while Republicans controlled both houses for the end of Clinton's years and to start Bush Jr's term. One could make an argument from that factual data that it was the Republicans in house/senate that were responsible for the balanced budget.

I could also provide you a chart that shows the 2 most massive debt increases under a presidents tenure happened under Democrats FDR & Wilson (and also under democrat controlled congress both times). Both of these were over right around 790% debt growth. The next closest is Regan at 161% (split or Democrat controlled congress), then Bush Jr at 73% (split or Republican congress), and Barry at 64% (all 3 variations of congress). Those are the only Presidents that had a % debt change over 43% during their terms. *I do not have data for Trumps 2nd term (since he's in office!!!) yet. ---- If we do it by actual dollar amount, for quicker summary, we have Biden highest over $8.4T, Trump 45 at $7.8T, Barry $7.66T, Bush Jr $4.2T as your top 4 in dollars.

Data can be manipulated. I'm not making the argument that Republicans are not to blame for the deficit, but you absolutely cannot argue that Democrats "didn't do it."

 

[Red Leg]

If we taxed the top 0.1% at that rate our deficit would be over tomorrow. And we'd have a surplus to pay down our national debt. Kinda like during the Clinton administration when one of their first orders of business was to get congress to pass a tax increase on the wealthy. Again, I swear folks on here either don't have google, or they have poor long term memory. The only reason things are as bad as they are financially is because of the republican tax cuts for the rich. If we rolled the top tax rate back to 39.6% and the top 1% paid that rate on all income that alone would be a 2/3 deficit reduction.

The problem is, that sort of wealth can be maintained an grown in ways other than income. The successful used all sorts of vehicles that resulted in deadweight economic loss. Instead of a windfall, the economy experiences stagnation. The first postwar president who fully grasped that economic reality was JFK (Now what party was he?) His proposed tax cuts, which were dramatic at the time, were actually passed and signed into law by Johnson (another dem?) immediately following his death. The GDP blossomed significantly from 64 thru 66 and unemployment fell 5.2% in 64 to 3.5 by the end of 68.

Again, I rarely respond to you because I don't take you or your opinions seriously. But I would urge you to actually inform yourself. If anyone needs to work on long term memory when it comes to economic theory and its history, it is a 21st century democrat.

 

[Scott CWO]

If we taxed the top 0.1% at that rate our deficit would be over tomorrow. And we'd have a surplus to pay down our national debt. Kinda like during the Clinton administration when one of their first orders of business was to get congress to pass a tax increase on the wealthy. Again, I swear folks on here either don't have google, or they have poor long term memory. The only reason things are as bad as they are financially is because of the republican tax cuts for the rich. If we rolled the top tax rate back to 39.6% and the top 1% paid that rate on all income that alone would be a 2/3 deficit reduction.

And you think it’s fair to take 40% of someone’s money? The reason we have deficits is because of spending. The more you tax, the more you spend.

 

[Tbitty]

And you think it’s fair to take 40% of someone’s money? The reason we have deficits is because of spending. The more you tax, the more you spend.

This!

We do NOT have a tax/revenue problem. We have a spending problem. And that is a problem of both parties, not at all one or the other.

 

[Tbitty]

Oh, Chucky... what a special kind of stupid.

The same guy that has been criticizing Trump for the "war" in Iran, apparently is mad at Trump for not starting a war with China.

.....
"Just hours in, and Xi Jinping has already threatened to, quote, collide or even clash, unquote, with the United States if we continue our support for Taiwan. Trump apparently didn't say anything in response. He was just mute," Schumer said. "For the sake of democracy and the stability of the global economy. Trump must not sell out Taiwan. Trump must also safeguard the interests of American workers, families and businesses."
.....

If it wasnt for double standards, he would have no standards at all. But what can we expect from the guy who said Republicans were holding the government hostage with a shutdown during Bidens time in office, then turns around and holds the government hostage while Trump is President.

 

[mdwest]

Oh, Chucky... what a special kind of stupid.

The same guy that has been criticizing Trump for the "war" in Iran, apparently is mad at Trump for not starting a war with China.

.....
"Just hours in, and Xi Jinping has already threatened to, quote, collide or even clash, unquote, with the United States if we continue our support for Taiwan. Trump apparently didn't say anything in response. He was just mute," Schumer said. "For the sake of democracy and the stability of the global economy. Trump must not sell out Taiwan. Trump must also safeguard the interests of American workers, families and businesses."
.....

If it wasnt for double standards, he would have no standards at all. But what can we expect from the guy who said Republicans were holding the government hostage with a shutdown during Bidens time in office, then turns around and holds the government hostage while Trump is President.

Schumer doesn’t know how to grill a cheeseburger….

It doesn’t surprise me that he doesn’t understand geopolitics either…

But NY will keep electing the likes of him, AOC, and Mandami… and wonder why they can’t afford to live in their own state…

 

[Flipper Dude]

Freaking moron