Here comes the debt ceiling crisis: June 1

[Dizkneelande 839]

33 minutes ago, dogcows said:

If somebody really wants better roads and safer streets? Repeal the Trump tax cuts. Use all the extra money to fix roads, help the police, and give food and housing to the homeless. Worried about schools? Same thing. As for healthcare, do you really think a system run by for-profit insurance companies benefits public health? Their top priority is to the shareholders, not their clients/patients. Take profit out of the equation. Have a single-payer govt system and everything will cost less because our premiums won’t be spent on yachts for wealthy executives.

Everybody complains about taxes, but they don’t seem to realize that if we taxed the rich at the same percentage rate we tax the middle class? We could easily pay back the national debt in a couple years. I don’t understand why so many right-wing voters, who reasonably ask for lower taxes, then applaud bills that give a minuscule reduction to the middle class and massive breaks to the wealthy. Wake up. 

Holy phucking lies JFC you are not credible. You’re a public sector stooge. 

[seafoam1 1,878]

On 5/25/2023 at 10:38 AM, Dizkneelande said:

Climate Mental Illness

 

[The Real timschochet 2,877]

2 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

Holy phucking lies JFC you are not credible. You’re a public sector stooge. 

Rather than just call him a liar and a stooge why don’t you answer his arguments? What’s wrong with them, specifically? 

[Dizkneelande 839]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Rather than just call him a liar and a stooge why don’t you answer his arguments? What’s wrong with them, specifically? 

This is so mind boggling stupid I’m surprised you even want to go down this road -

“Everybody complains about taxes, but they don’t seem to realize that if we taxed the rich at the same percentage rate we tax the middle class? We could easily pay back the national debt in a couple years.”

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

55 minutes ago, dogcows said:

 

Everybody complains about taxes, but they don’t seem to realize that if we taxed the rich at the same percentage rate we tax the middle class? We could easily pay back the national debt in a couple years. I don’t understand why so many right-wing voters, who reasonably ask for lower taxes, then applaud bills that give a minuscule reduction to the middle class and massive breaks to the wealthy. Wake up. 

Elon Musk says he will sell Tesla shares to help world hunger – if the U.N. can prove where the money is going

.....Last week, the director of the United Nation's World Food Programme said if the world's top billionaires just donated a fraction of their worth, millions of people who are at risk of starving to death can be saved. Elon Musk, the second wealthiest person in the world, said he'd give up some of his wealth — only if he knows exactly where the money is going.

...David Beasley, director of the World Food Programme, said on CNN last week that a "one-time" donation from the top 400 billionaires, whose net worths are ever growing, in the U.S. could help save the lives of 42 million people this year. ..."The world's in trouble and you're telling me you can't give me .36% of your net worth increase to help the world in trouble, in times like this?" he said. "What if it was your daughter starving to death? What if it was your family starving to death? Wake up, smell the coffee, and help."

....Musk, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX who has an estimated net worth of $151 billion, according to Forbes, replied to a tweet questioning the group's figures. "If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it," Musk wrote. "But it must be open source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent."

....He also tweeted that with Musk's help the organization "can bring hope, build stability and change the future....Let's talk: It isn't as complicated as Falcon Heavy, but too much at stake to not at least have a conversation. I can be on the next flight to you. Throw me out if you don't like what you hear!" he wrote.

To which Musk replied: "Please publish your current & proposed spending in detail so people can see exactly where money goes. Sunlight is a wonderful thing."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-tesla-shares-world-hunger-united-nations/

 

 

 

[The Real timschochet 2,877]

25 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

This is so mind boggling stupid I’m surprised you even want to go down this road -

“Everybody complains about taxes, but they don’t seem to realize that if we taxed the rich at the same percentage rate we tax the middle class? We could easily pay back the national debt in a couple years.”

Well he’s exaggerating IMO. But eliminating certain loopholes would relieve the deficit for sure. The MAGA Republicans I’ve heard lately on TV offer the old argument that tax cuts actually produce more revenue, but this has been proven wrong again and again. Personally I used to be a believer in the Reagan approach, which he got from Milton Friedman, that it didn’t matter whether tax cuts increased the deficit, because they stimulated growth, which was more important: the larger the economy grows the less the debt matters. I still largely believe in that principle, but I’m no longer convinced that tax cuts are the way to get there. 
 

 

[Dizkneelande 839]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Well he’s exaggerating IMO. But eliminating certain loopholes would relieve the deficit for sure. The MAGA Republicans I’ve heard lately on TV offer the old argument that tax cuts actually produce more revenue, but this has been proven wrong again and again. Personally I used to be a believer in the Reagan approach, which he got from Milton Friedman, that it didn’t matter whether tax cuts increased the deficit, because they stimulated growth, which was more important: the larger the economy grows the less the debt matters. I still largely believe in that principle, but I’m no longer convinced that tax cuts are the way to get there. 
 

 

Exaggerating? Gtfo. Numbers don’t lie Tim the Trump tax cuts led to record tax collections. Every idea the left has implemented has had the opposite effect. I give you Norway as a recent example.

https://reason.com/2023/05/26/wealth-taxes-result-in-rich-people-fleeing-turns-out/

[The Real timschochet 2,877]

11 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

Exaggerating? Gtfo. Numbers don’t lie Tim the Trump tax cuts led to record tax collections. Every idea the left has implemented has had the opposite effect. I give you Norway as a recent example.

https://reason.com/2023/05/26/wealth-taxes-result-in-rich-people-fleeing-turns-out/

Yeah I’ve heard that argument before. But I really doubt a lot of rich folks are going to flee America for any reason- that goes for liberals as well as conservatives. 
The Trump tax cuts achieved record collection numbers THE FIRST YEAR, partly because it was actually a tax INCREASE in certain states (like mine) for property owners. But of course it increased the deficit and debt, exactly what the CBO projected. 

[The Real timschochet 2,877]

Actually, to digress for moment: it’s very hard to evaluate the Trump tax cuts because he coupled them with the disastrous tariff policies, most of which, unfortunately, Biden has chosen to continue.

[Cdub100 3,368]

It's funny you guys arguing about tax intake. 

Just print more money. 

[Dizkneelande 839]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yeah I’ve heard that argument before. But I really doubt a lot of rich folks are going to flee America for any reason- that goes for liberals as well as conservatives. 
The Trump tax cuts achieved record collection numbers THE FIRST YEAR, partly because it was actually a tax INCREASE in certain states (like mine) for property owners. But of course it increased the deficit and debt, exactly what the CBO projected. 

FISCAL YEAR	REVENUE
FY 2021	$4.05 trillion
FY 2020	$3.42 trillion
FY 2019	$3.46 trillion
FY 2018	$3.33 trillion
FY 2017	$3.32 trillion

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

29 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Well he’s exaggerating IMO. But eliminating certain loopholes would relieve the deficit for sure. The MAGA Republicans I’ve heard lately on TV offer the old argument that tax cuts actually produce more revenue, but this has been proven wrong again and again. Personally I used to be a believer in the Reagan approach, which he got from Milton Friedman, that it didn’t matter whether tax cuts increased the deficit, because they stimulated growth, which was more important: the larger the economy grows the less the debt matters. I still largely believe in that principle, but I’m no longer convinced that tax cuts are the way to get there. 
 

 

TIM you are misguided, but you need to clear up one fact.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOOPHOLE

[Dizkneelande 839]

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-04/57909-MBR.pdf
 

KEY POINTS:

Corporate tax revenue is shattering records under Republican tax reform.

• Corporate tax revenue is coming in 22 percent higher than last year’s record level, according to the CBO’s most recent monthly budget review.
• Corporate tax revenue is set to hit a new record of $454 billion. CBO had predicted in June 2017 that corporate tax revenue would only hit $389 billion in 2022.
• As a share of GDP, corporate tax revenue is on track to reach its highest level since 2015 (1.9 percent of GDP).

Overall tax revenue is also strong, including individual, payroll, and other taxes. 

• Individual income tax receipts reached an all-time high of $2.04 trillion in FY2021. Receipts are already coming in 36 percent higher in FY2022.
• Total federal tax collections, including payroll and other taxes, are on track to reach $5.04 trillion in FY22, or 21.0 percent of GDP. This would be a new all-time high in both cases.

 

[Dizkneelande 839]

If the tax cuts didn’t lead to record economic growth and record tax collections, why did the tax cuts lead to record economic growth and record tax collections?

[Mark Davis 154]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

 

Everybody complains about taxes, but they don’t seem to realize that if we taxed the rich at the same percentage rate we tax the middle class? We could easily pay back the national debt in a couple years. 

This is a blatant falsehood.  You need to research this.  It's fine if you want to disagree on who should pay what burden, but the facts shouldn't be a left or right issue. We are in much deeper trouble than you think. 

[thegeneral 1,384]

11 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

If the tax cuts didn’t lead to record economic growth and record tax collections, why did the tax cuts lead to record economic growth and record tax collections?

These last tax cuts def didn’t lead to record economic growth.

[Mark Davis 154]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Well he’s exaggerating IMO. But eliminating certain loopholes would relieve the deficit for sure. The MAGA Republicans I’ve heard lately on TV offer the old argument that tax cuts actually produce more revenue, but this has been proven wrong again and again. Personally I used to be a believer in the Reagan approach, which he got from Milton Friedman, that it didn’t matter whether tax cuts increased the deficit, because they stimulated growth, which was more important: the larger the economy grows the less the debt matters. I still largely believe in that principle, but I’m no longer convinced that tax cuts are the way to get there. 
 

 

He may be exaggerating, but it's like calling the Pacific Ocean a wading pool if he is.  He's not close to reality.  I'm a believer in the larger the economy grows, the less it matters.  But it must be looked at on an exponential scale.  Our GDP isn't growing rapidly enough to counter the debt we've incurred.  There are going to have to be both spending and revenue adjustments to fix it.  The problem is neither side is going to admit to the other that they have to give some in that.  The perfect example of this was Simpson Bowles.  Even as someone who stridently opposes new taxes, and yes some of us who may be saddled with it didn't get all the benefits of the spending that got us in this mess, we are eventually going to have to sacrifice.  I'd rather be able to choose the time and spread it out on our own accord than a fiscal emergency that will come down the road.  But we shouldn't kid ourselves, we are spending way too much and for at least a period of time there will have to be some revenue component too.  The issue is it would be foolish to feed the spending beast that is our government with new revenues without cuts in spending.  Everyone has a pet plan they want funded or funding increased for.  I don't want to raise revenues to pay off student loans, if we cut spending AND then there is additional tax to pay down debt and free us from obligations to China, I'm in.

[GutterBoy 2,277]

2 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

Numbers don’t lie Tim the Trump tax cuts led to record tax collections.

The majority of analysis says this false.

[The Real timschochet 2,877]

1 hour ago, Mark Davis said:

He may be exaggerating, but it's like calling the Pacific Ocean a wading pool if he is.  He's not close to reality.  I'm a believer in the larger the economy grows, the less it matters.  But it must be looked at on an exponential scale.  Our GDP isn't growing rapidly enough to counter the debt we've incurred.  There are going to have to be both spending and revenue adjustments to fix it.  The problem is neither side is going to admit to the other that they have to give some in that.  The perfect example of this was Simpson Bowles.  Even as someone who stridently opposes new taxes, and yes some of us who may be saddled with it didn't get all the benefits of the spending that got us in this mess, we are eventually going to have to sacrifice.  I'd rather be able to choose the time and spread it out on our own accord than a fiscal emergency that will come down the road.  But we shouldn't kid ourselves, we are spending way too much and for at least a period of time there will have to be some revenue component too.  The issue is it would be foolish to feed the spending beast that is our government with new revenues without cuts in spending.  Everyone has a pet plan they want funded or funding increased for.  I don't want to raise revenues to pay off student loans, if we cut spending AND then there is additional tax to pay down debt and free us from obligations to China, I'm in.

I’m not opposed to any of this in theory. The question becomes where to make cuts, and where to make future investments. From what I can tell, on that question I probably have very different opinions from most of the people here. But I’m also not willing to keep writing the Democrats a blank check. 

[Dizkneelande 839]

2 hours ago, Mark Davis said:

He may be exaggerating, but it's like calling the Pacific Ocean a wading pool if he is.  He's not close to reality.  I'm a believer in the larger the economy grows, the less it matters.  But it must be looked at on an exponential scale.  Our GDP isn't growing rapidly enough to counter the debt we've incurred.  There are going to have to be both spending and revenue adjustments to fix it.  The problem is neither side is going to admit to the other that they have to give some in that.  The perfect example of this was Simpson Bowles.  Even as someone who stridently opposes new taxes, and yes some of us who may be saddled with it didn't get all the benefits of the spending that got us in this mess, we are eventually going to have to sacrifice.  I'd rather be able to choose the time and spread it out on our own accord than a fiscal emergency that will come down the road.  But we shouldn't kid ourselves, we are spending way too much and for at least a period of time there will have to be some revenue component too.  The issue is it would be foolish to feed the spending beast that is our government with new revenues without cuts in spending.  Everyone has a pet plan they want funded or funding increased for.  I don't want to raise revenues to pay off student loans, if we cut spending AND then there is additional tax to pay down debt and free us from obligations to China, I'm in.

I don’t see how adjusting tax rates upward and cutting spending will have any impact in our current system. I’m willing to listen because you are reasonable. 2 things IMO need to happen. We need to drastically reduce the size and scope of the Fed and, we need a fair tax system. 

If replaced with a VAT/consumption tax implemented progressively to offset the (what would have been) regressive nature of a sales tax while returning constitutionally responsibilities back to the states, it could work.  Unfortunately, people are split between status quo, flat tax, and fair tax.  So, we’ll never get any movement on this.

Also, I’m all for California keeping a majority of their tax revenues and reducing the Fed back to its original intentions. It’s another thing that will never happen because the left and their copartners in the uni-party want to expand the size and scope of the Fed and have zero interest in returning economic power back to the states. This could be accomplished by eliminating all the repetitive agencies in the Fed. Dept of Ed budget is $175 bil alone.  I hadn’t been over there in a while but remember years ago someone at the other board making a very compelling case about this. 

net/net things will continue to get worse for average Americans and Tim will keep getting his talking point memos from msnbc. 

 

[dogcows 1,029]

 

8 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

Holy phucking lies JFC you are not credible. You’re a public sector stooge. 

The tax cuts increased the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Just as the CBO predicted, and disproving the false claim of Republicans at the time who said they would pay for themselves. I’m pretty sure a lot of good could be done for roads and keeping our streets safe with that much money.

I see many people disbelieving that getting the richest Americans to pay the same rate as the middle class would result in a windfall. Sorry, but it’s the truth. Billionaires pay an average of 8.2% in taxes to the federal government. Most middle-class taxpayers pay about 24%. The top 1% of Americans control 20% of the country’s wealth. If we tripled what they are paying in taxes, we’d increase federal tax revenues by 40%. We got 2.35 trillion of income tax last year. Increase that 40% - an extra 900 billion. Now the deficit goes away and we get a surplus which could be used to pay down the debt. If we upped corporate taxes from 21 back up to 38, and closed some loopholes, we could double that revenue - an extra $500 billion. So now we’re talking 1.4 trillion - and this is just taxing the one-percenters at the same rate as the middle class. If we taxed them at the rate for $400k/yr earners - 37% - that’s a few more hundred billion. And since they proved that tax breaks led to more consolidation of wealth instead of the promised “trickle down” effect, there is no reason to cut their taxes below what average people pay.

I don’t think anybody truly thinks billionaires should pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. Perhaps the propaganda of “giving rich people more money will boost the economy” has fooled some. But I’m not falling for it, and IMO neither should anybody else. In some of the most successful years for America’s economy, the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. Im not saying we should return to that, but my point is that it didn’t kill the economy to charge the wealthy as much (or more) than the middle class in taxes.

[dogcows 1,029]

6 hours ago, Mark Davis said:

He may be exaggerating, but it's like calling the Pacific Ocean a wading pool if he is.  He's not close to reality.  I'm a believer in the larger the economy grows, the less it matters.  But it must be looked at on an exponential scale.  Our GDP isn't growing rapidly enough to counter the debt we've incurred.  There are going to have to be both spending and revenue adjustments to fix it.  The problem is neither side is going to admit to the other that they have to give some in that.  The perfect example of this was Simpson Bowles.  Even as someone who stridently opposes new taxes, and yes some of us who may be saddled with it didn't get all the benefits of the spending that got us in this mess, we are eventually going to have to sacrifice.  I'd rather be able to choose the time and spread it out on our own accord than a fiscal emergency that will come down the road.  But we shouldn't kid ourselves, we are spending way too much and for at least a period of time there will have to be some revenue component too.  The issue is it would be foolish to feed the spending beast that is our government with new revenues without cuts in spending.  Everyone has a pet plan they want funded or funding increased for.  I don't want to raise revenues to pay off student loans, if we cut spending AND then there is additional tax to pay down debt and free us from obligations to China, I'm in.

Yes, we will need to increase revenues and cut spending. As for increasing revenues while keeping activity in the economy high, what is the best plan? We saw it during COVID. To keep the economy going, we sent money directly to people that were out of work. And they spent it almost immediately, putting it straight into the US economy. Conversely, when we give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, very little of the money is spent. With the 2017 cuts, most of it went to stock buybacks. A lot was then transferred to overseas accounts. It took money out of the government’s pockets, but it didn’t really benefit the country on the whole.

The lesson we should take: if we need to boost the economy, tax cuts for those who spend most/all of their paychecks every month will have the biggest benefit. Cuts for those who spend very little of their money have little effect on the economy, and can actually depress it, since reduced revenues lead to reduced govt spending, much of which goes to the poor…. Who again, will spend that money immediately, keeping the economic engine humming.

A progressive tax system should not be misinterpreted as a bleeding-heart system that is more humane towards those of lesser means. It actually strongly benefits our economy - which is heavily consumer spending based.

[Dizkneelande 839]

4 hours ago, dogcows said:

 

The tax cuts increased the deficit by $1.5 trillion. Just as the CBO predicted, and disproving the false claim of Republicans at the time who said they would pay for themselves. I’m pretty sure a lot of good could be done for roads and keeping our streets safe with that much money.

I see many people disbelieving that getting the richest Americans to pay the same rate as the middle class would result in a windfall. Sorry, but it’s the truth. Billionaires pay an average of 8.2% in taxes to the federal government. Most middle-class taxpayers pay about 24%. The top 1% of Americans control 20% of the country’s wealth. If we tripled what they are paying in taxes, we’d increase federal tax revenues by 40%. We got 2.35 trillion of income tax last year. Increase that 40% - an extra 900 billion. Now the deficit goes away and we get a surplus which could be used to pay down the debt. If we upped corporate taxes from 21 back up to 38, and closed some loopholes, we could double that revenue - an extra $500 billion. So now we’re talking 1.4 trillion - and this is just taxing the one-percenters at the same rate as the middle class. If we taxed them at the rate for $400k/yr earners - 37% - that’s a few more hundred billion. And since they proved that tax breaks led to more consolidation of wealth instead of the promised “trickle down” effect, there is no reason to cut their taxes below what average people pay.

I don’t think anybody truly thinks billionaires should pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. Perhaps the propaganda of “giving rich people more money will boost the economy” has fooled some. But I’m not falling for it, and IMO neither should anybody else. In some of the most successful years for America’s economy, the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. Im not saying we should return to that, but my point is that it didn’t kill the economy to charge the wealthy as much (or more) than the middle class in taxes.

None of what you wrote pays back 32 trillion dollars in a “couple” years and your numbers are pure fiction and have been debunked by credible economists. All you have is far left talking points. 

[Dizkneelande 839]

Paul dogcows Krugman thinks billionaires pay income tax and tripling their taxes will put a dent in this issue. 

Year	Surplus/deficit in trillion U.S. dollars
'28*	-1.38
'27*	-1.31
'26*	-1.36
'25*	-1.53
'24*	-1.74
'23*	-1.56
'22	-1.36
'21	-2.78
'20	-3.13
'19	-0.98
'18	-0.78
'17	-0.67
'16	-0.58

 

He also thinks raising corporate tax rates back to 38% will double the revenue 

Characteristic	Revenues in billion U.S. dollars
2033*	539
2032*	527
2031*	527
2030*	520
2029*	514
2028*	506
2027*	494
2026*	495
2025*	489
2024*	479
2023*	475
2022	425
2021	372
2020	212
2019	230
2018	204.7
2017	297
2016	299.6
2015	343.8
2014	320.7
2013	273.5
2012	242.3
2011	181.1

 

 

 

[Dizkneelande 839]

 

[dogcows 1,029]

4 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

None of what you wrote pays back 32 trillion dollars in a “couple” years and your numbers are pure fiction and have been debunked by credible economists. All you have is far left talking points. 

These aren’t talking points, and you didn’t refute what I wrote. I looked up the numbers and did my own calculations. They’re not perfect but they get the point across that we’re leaving trillions on the table by allowing the top 1% to get away with paying very little in taxes.

My question is: should billionaires have to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class?

It boggles my mind to see people defending billionaires getting away with paying so little in taxes. They already milk us by consolidating industries to eliminate competition, then crank up prices. And you want them to have the additional advantage of paying lower taxes to increase the wealth gap even further? Again I say: wake up.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,589]

So the democrats, including the president, and even worse, the secretary of the VA, lied.  It’s disgusting how they use veterans like they do. 

[Cdub100 3,368]

Since we keep borrowing money and raising our credit usage above and beyond our GDP... Why am I paying taxes again? My dollar is getting inflated away on top of getting it taken from me.

Why taxes? 

[Dizkneelande 839]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

These aren’t talking points, and you didn’t refute what I wrote. I looked up the numbers and did my own calculations. They’re not perfect but they get the point across that we’re leaving trillions on the table by allowing the top 1% to get away with paying very little in taxes.

My question is: should billionaires have to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class?

It boggles my mind to see people defending billionaires getting away with paying so little in taxes. They already milk us by consolidating industries to eliminate competition, then crank up prices. And you want them to have the additional advantage of paying lower taxes to increase the wealth gap even further? Again I say: wake up.

I want to scrap our tax system for something  fair for everyone. Also you suck at math. You could confiscate all the wealth of every billionaire in the country and it wouldn’t make a dent.

[Dizkneelande 839]

31 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Since we keep borrowing money and raising our credit usage above and beyond our GDP... Why am I paying taxes again? My dollar is getting inflated away on top of getting it taken from me.

Why taxes? 

Because you’re a servant. It’s why everyone that sells more than $600 on eBay or other platforms that record transactions will receive a 1099k. We now get taxed on items we sell that we already paid taxes on. 

[GutterBoy 2,277]

1 hour ago, Dizkneelande said:

I want to scrap our tax system for something  fair for everyone. Also you suck at math. You could confiscate all the wealth of every billionaire in the country and it wouldn’t make a dent.

It would be about $5T, which is a dent.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,589]

19 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

TIM you are misguided, but you need to clear up one fact.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOOPHOLE

You can tell them that 1000x and they still won’t get it.  They like repeating what they are told.  Acknowledgement of that fact opens up a whole can of worms.  There are none so blind that will not see. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,589]

On 5/25/2023 at 12:03 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Looks like the democrats are going to have to decide what gets cut.  Don’t worry though , the donors will be fine. 

Nailed it.  

[Mark Davis 154]

15 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

I don’t see how adjusting tax rates upward and cutting spending will have any impact in our current system. I’m willing to listen because you are reasonable. 2 things IMO need to happen. We need to drastically reduce the size and scope of the Fed and, we need a fair tax system. 

If replaced with a VAT/consumption tax implemented progressively to offset the (what would have been) regressive nature of a sales tax while returning constitutionally responsibilities back to the states, it could work.  Unfortunately, people are split between status quo, flat tax, and fair tax.  So, we’ll never get any movement on this.

Also, I’m all for California keeping a majority of their tax revenues and reducing the Fed back to its original intentions. It’s another thing that will never happen because the left and their copartners in the uni-party want to expand the size and scope of the Fed and have zero interest in returning economic power back to the states. This could be accomplished by eliminating all the repetitive agencies in the Fed. Dept of Ed budget is $175 bil alone.  I hadn’t been over there in a while but remember years ago someone at the other board making a very compelling case about this. 

net/net things will continue to get worse for average Americans and Tim will keep getting his talking point memos from msnbc. 

 

I don't think we should up the incremental tax rates.  Those rates apply to earned income and people often fail to realize that most of the folks they are targeting aren't paying those rates.  When you go after those rates you go after professionals and small business owners.  Personally I'm not a fan of a VAT.  I did some study on it, admittedly quite a few years ago when I thought it may be a good idea, and it would be a complicated endeavor to try and explain the reasons I'm not in favor.  They can be quite complicated.

Afraid I agree with you that we likely will never get anywhere on drastic tax changes that could help.  Our code has become so cumbersome with so many carve outs, it's really not effective.  I think what you're describing is kind of a states driven approach where states pay into the federal gov't for the common defense and basic things like that.  Unfortunately, the federal gov't has grown to the point too many people have an interest in seeing it stay the way it is due to jobs, dependency, etc.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

16 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It would be about $5T, which is a dent.

and dumbass thinks that would be good

[iam90sbaby 2,120]

20 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It would be about $5T, which is a dent.

You have zero clue how billionaires and multimillionaires operate. You think they keep all their money in a personal US checking account? It's hilarious when you broke a$$ libtards think you can just tax the wealthy and we're out of debt. 

[GutterBoy 2,277]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

and dumbass thinks that would be good

No I don't think it would be good, just pointing out where the idiot is wrong.

But yeah rich people need to pay more in principle.

[GutterBoy 2,277]

3 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

You have zero clue how billionaires and multimillionaires operate. You think they keep all their money in a personal US checking account? It's hilarious when you broke a$$ libtards think you can just tax the wealthy and we're out of debt. 

You're spewing nonsense.  Who said anything about a checking account?

 

In general the wealthy need to pay more than they have.  The wealth gap is astounding and has only gotten worse.

 

I used to be like you and bought into the "don't tax the rich" talking point.  I've seen over 20 years how that worked out, not great.

[Mark Davis 154]

11 hours ago, dogcows said:

Yes, we will need to increase revenues and cut spending. As for increasing revenues while keeping activity in the economy high, what is the best plan? We saw it during COVID. To keep the economy going, we sent money directly to people that were out of work. And they spent it almost immediately, putting it straight into the US economy. Conversely, when we give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, very little of the money is spent. With the 2017 cuts, most of it went to stock buybacks. A lot was then transferred to overseas accounts. It took money out of the government’s pockets, but it didn’t really benefit the country on the whole.

The lesson we should take: if we need to boost the economy, tax cuts for those who spend most/all of their paychecks every month will have the biggest benefit. Cuts for those who spend very little of their money have little effect on the economy, and can actually depress it, since reduced revenues lead to reduced govt spending, much of which goes to the poor…. Who again, will spend that money immediately, keeping the economic engine humming.

A progressive tax system should not be misinterpreted as a bleeding-heart system that is more humane towards those of lesser means. It actually strongly benefits our economy - which is heavily consumer spending based.

I'm not a proponent of government spending being the way to stimulate growth.  I think by in large, lower taxes on small business does help that.  Many small businesses operate as schedule C's, S-Corps, things of that nature.  The issue is, to get at the billionaires so many people want to, incremental rates aren't the way to raise revenue from them.  You'd have to examine cap gains rates and other carve outs.  I do realize that every point we raise cap gains rates deters investment.  There's really not a "soft landing" way out of this.  Look at what austerity measures have done in Europe.  We aren't there yet, but if we don't take some medicine that may be tough to swallow now, it's going to be worse later.  And let's face it, later is what we likely will have.  No politician is going to really do what it takes because they won't have consensus to pass it, and the pain people would feel from it for the moment would get them voted out in favor of someone who would undo it.

Just to address the last part, I'm fine with a progressive tax system.  My question has always been and will continue to be, how much is enough?  How high of an incremental tax rate on earned income is enough, 50%, 70%?  I never have heard an answer because the math doesn't work.  There isn't a number you could put on the rich to fix the problem.  That doesn't begin to address that when you raise those incremental earned income rates, you deter people from wanting to put the effort/risk into earning that next incremental dollar and deter productivity.  In addition, most of the extreme high wealth individuals don't have the majority of their income as earned income so you really would be hitting productivity hard.  But there just isn't enough there by itself to fix this.  We have a spending problem that a temporary revenue component is likely needed along with spending cuts to help correct.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,589]

All this talk about the one pct is a left wing anti-semetic dog whistle.  It needs to stop.