Debates
28 Aug 21
28 Aug 21
He will have to. The money to run this country comes not from the rich, but from the middle class, small business, etc. Hatred of corps keep the forum pot boiling, but it is mis-directed. Money of rich folks won't be adequate. And I am doubly sure it will happen,, because I think Kamala will rise to the Presidency in a few months, and,,,,,,,hey, it was not a promise that SHE made, so everyone get your middle-class friends ready. I hate it, but it is going to have to happen. We need the money to pay for Biden's very expensive plans.
@averagejoe1 said"The wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled about $41.52 trillion in the first quarter, according to Federal Reserve data released Monday."
He will have to. The money to run this country comes not from the rich, but from the middle class, small business, etc. Hatred of corps keep the forum pot boiling, but it is mis-directed. Money of rich folks won't be adequate. And I am doubly sure it will happen,, because I think Kamala will rise to the Presidency in a few months, and,,,,,,,hey, it was not a promise th ...[text shortened]... te it, but it is going to have to happen. We need the money to pay for Biden's very expensive plans.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/how-much-wealth-top-1percent-of-americans-have.html
28 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidLink city. OK that you research this, a topic of the future, let's get ready for it!
"The wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled about $41.52 trillion in the first quarter, according to Federal Reserve data released Monday."
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/how-much-wealth-top-1percent-of-americans-have.html
But, I am only saying, with no Link-basis,, that it is my personal opinion that he will break his pledge. Could you come back with what you think about that? what you think?
@averagejoe1 saidPlenty of stuff to tax that rich folks have amassed; there's no need for Biden to break his pledge and I don't think he will.
Link city. OK that you research this, a topic of the future, let's get ready for it!
But, I am only saying, with no Link-basis,, that it is my personal opinion that he will break his pledge. Could you come back with what you think about that? what you think?
28 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidOK, so we will have a friendly disagreement. I do think with all due respects that the majority of posters just don't like people to be rich. So, whether the govt needs it or not, methinks you just want to hit up the rich....for being rich.
Plenty of stuff to tax that rich folks have amassed; there's no need for Biden to break his pledge and I don't think he will.
28 Aug 21
@AverageJoe1
So their wealth is some 40 TRILLION. about twice the national debt.
So if they even got a TEN PERCENT tax, that would yield near 5 TRILLION dollars.
So lets see, call us 300 million in the US. So if we needed 5 trillion in one year,
we would need near 17 thousand dollars for every man woman and child in the US.
Note, if those super rich did get a ten percent tax, they would still have 90% left over.
How much left over would there be for the common folk eh?
28 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidI pulled this from a report on the Internet. Either they are wrong, or you are wrong. “ “Combining popular proposals to tax the wealthiest Americans and corporations would likely raise 3,9 trillion over 10 years. This revenue could not even eliminate half of the 15.5 trillion budget deficit that is already projected over the next decade, Much less pay for $40 trillion and more spending. The overwhelming majority of new tax revenue to finance such expenditures would have to be raised from the middle and lower income earners.”
@AverageJoe1
So their wealth is some 40 TRILLION. about twice the national debt.
So if they even got a TEN PERCENT tax, that would yield near 5 TRILLION dollars.
So lets see, call us 300 million in the US. So if we needed 5 trillion in one year,
we would need near 17 thousand dollars for every man woman and child in the US.
Note, if those super rich did get a ten ...[text shortened]... ax, they would still have 90% left over.
How much left over would there be for the common folk eh?
29 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidThe article speaks for itself. I think there is not enough money of the rich to make much of a dent. I learned this from all the economists on the financial channels, you should watch them….CBNC, Bloomberg, FOX Biz. Steven Moore, Charles Payne (my favotite), Kudlow, Squawk Box, ….and they speak in non-partisan terms. They speak of money. Not one of them, on any network, makes a case for the ‘monry ofvthe rich’ as being an answer. Just sayin’……,
@AverageJoe1
So you are denying the top tier is worth 40 trill?
29 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidNo, because they use their wealth to force more money out of the poor.
OK, so we will have a friendly disagreement. I do think with all due respects that the majority of posters just don't like people to be rich. So, whether the govt needs it or not, methinks you just want to hit up the rich....for being rich.
29 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidOh, so you think that they are, and you think we storm their bank accounts to get the whole $40M.
@AverageJoe1
So you are denying the top tier is worth 40 trill?
29 Aug 21
@athousandyoung saidStart a thread on how they do that, i am curious. Bring it.
No, because they use their wealth to force more money out of the poor.
29 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidThere are no proposals for $40 trillion in additional spending over 10 years. $3.9 trillion almost covers the the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Sanders budget baseline ($1 trillion and $3.5 trillion over 10 years respectively). So we'd need only $600 billion in additional revenue and/or spending cuts over 10 years. Just because proposals aren't "popular" according to your article, doesn't mean there isn't ways to raise more revenue from the wealthy if needed.
I pulled this from a report on the Internet. Either they are wrong, or you are wrong. “ “Combining popular proposals to tax the wealthiest Americans and corporations would likely raise 3,9 trillion over 10 years. This revenue could not even eliminate half of the 15.5 trillion budget deficit that is already projected over the next decade, Much less pay for $40 trillion ...[text shortened]... enue to finance such expenditures would have to be raised from the middle and lower income earners.”
29 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidGiven what you say is true, you appear to be saying that there is a simple answer to all this? That there is money to pay for it (which is impossible), or are you saying that there WiLL be money to pay for it when you hit up the rich? Do you and Sonhouse want to just get all the 40trillion from the rich and put them on the street? And you are naive to think it will cost only what the House of Reps say it is going to cost.
There are no proposals for $40 trillion in additional spending over 10 years. $3.9 trillion almost covers the the bipartisan infrastructure bill and Sanders budget baseline ($1 trillion and $3.5 trillion over 10 years respectively). So we'd need only $600 billion in additional revenue and/or spending cuts over 10 years. Just because proposals aren't "popular" according to your article, doesn't mean there isn't ways to raise more revenue from the wealthy if needed.
You and Sonhouse are off the wall about rich people.