Debates
28 Aug 21
30 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidExactly what I said earlier, it would create a miniature financial crisis and the ones that would suffer the most, as with all financial crisis's would be those at the bottom, always happens, always. and next worse of, causing maximum pain, the middle class.
See my note to Sonhouse above. You say 'the wealthy have plenty of assets...." Notice that you do NOT say the wealthy have plenty of cash. You see the difference? My note to Sonhouse touches on that. How do you think the wealthy would raise cash? Right! Dump the assets. And so on.
I am not an economist, but just that alone gives food for thought for the uninitiated as to the reverberation in society if you mess with the Golden Goose.
30 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidFool Questions: Here a couple of them....
Get a life, Joe; maybe you want to spend your entire weekend posting in these forums but I have better things to do.
Anyway the problem isn't I don't answer your fool questions; your problem is you don't like my answers but having no real rational response have to pretend I didn't answer them in order to continue your bootlicking whining.
"Adjusting the rates upwards", you said. So I asked, upwards to what? No response. As libs do, you leave it hanging.
"the Rich...', you say. I ask you to define rich. It still hangs, like bloomers on a clothesline.
And, I Ask you, what we will do when all the rich are bled out, and AOC becomes president and wants the entire country to be sodded for green grass...... Where do you go for the money?
ANd, I ask you to, when speaking of taxing the rich, tell us how much should the rich pay?
You call these 'fool questions'. I don't think anyone here would agree with you. Most would frankly like to hear your answer(s).
30 Aug 21
@AverageJoe1. As to 'get a life' and my weekends, do you know that there are some guys who sit on sofas for hours at a time and watch other guys with balls,,,,,footballs, baseballs, basketballs, golf balls. They spend minutes, waste minutes, of their lives watching OTHER PEOPLE play ball. I don't do that. So either they are stupid, or I am stupid......... as I ply my real life.
I bet you would like my way of doing things, even Sonhouse would!!!!
@averagejoe1 saidI've answered every single one of those questions numerous times to the extent they are even relevant. Raising taxes on the wealthy to something like pre-Reagan levels isn't going to bankrupt them or the country.
Fool Questions: Here a couple of them....
"Adjusting the rates upwards", you said. So I asked, upwards to what? No response. As libs do, you leave it hanging.
"the Rich...', you say. I ask you to define rich. It still hangs, like bloomers on a clothesline.
And, I Ask you, what we will do when all the rich are bled out, and AOC becomes president and wants the ...[text shortened]... '. I don't think anyone here would agree with you. Most would frankly like to hear your answer(s).
You don't like my answers.
@averagejoe1 saidYes, I know the difference between wealth and cash.
See my note to Sonhouse above. You say 'the wealthy have plenty of assets...." Notice that you do NOT say the wealthy have plenty of cash. You see the difference? My note to Sonhouse touches on that. How do you think the wealthy would raise cash? Right! Dump the assets. And so on.
I am not an economist, but just that alone gives food for thought for the uninitiated as to the reverberation in society if you mess with the Golden Goose.
Are you saying the top 1% of wealth holders in this country lack the ability to convert a small portion of their assets to cash to pay taxes?
If so, I call BS.
I've listened to your claims that the rest of us peasants would suffer eternal ruination if the rich have to pay a slightly higher tax rate. It's utter and complete nonsense.
30 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidNo, you spend your time endlessly blathering on this forum about subjects you know virtually nothing about.
@AverageJoe1. As to 'get a life' and my weekends, do you know that there are some guys who sit on sofas for hours at a time and watch other guys with balls,,,,,footballs, baseballs, basketballs, golf balls. They spend minutes, waste minutes, of their lives watching OTHER PEOPLE play ball. I don't do that. So either they are stupid, or I am stupid......... as I ply my real life.
I bet you would like my way of doing things, even Sonhouse would!!!!
30 Aug 21
@jimmac saidSee the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility.
My view/opinion on this is not entirely relevant, I am no economist, I have no need to comprehend. Just like with climate crap, no need to comprehend. My point was as much that it cannot/will not happen because ( aside from my not agreeing with it ) the wealthy are woke and they are hypocrites all, well, predominantly. You tell me they will give back their money without a fight. They "will" make "you" pay.
Best to create/grow a middle class and use that as your tax base.
There are good economic reasons to raise most tax revenue from those who can most afford it rather than increasing the burden on the average workers and families.
Bernie made proposals which would raise $3 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years by putting the corporate rate back at 35% (where it was before the Trump tax cuts), raising estate taxes back up to more reasonable levels and changing the rules to make tax avoidance for multinationals more difficult.
https://www.rollcall.com/2021/03/25/sanders-rolls-out-nearly-3-trillion-in-tax-increase-proposals/
There are numerous other proposals which could raise significant revenue while having little impact on average workers and families. A tiny .1% tax on financial transactions would raise anywhere from $500 billion to $2 trillion over ten years. https://theappeal.org/the-lab/policy/the-case-for-the-financial-transaction-tax-in-2021/
30 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidI am not so against corporate tax as that is on the "profits", but as stated the corporates are good at not making "profits".
Bernie made proposals which would raise $3 trillion in tax revenue by putting the corporate rate back at 35% (where it was before the Trump tax cuts), raising estate taxes back up to more reasonable levels and changing the rules to make tax avoidance for multinationals more difficult. https://www.rollcall.com/2021/03/25/sanders-rolls-out-nearly-3-trillion-in-tax-increase-proposals/
In my estimation the "middle" class is not your average worker. Maybe that is just my summation. I call the middle class those that are doing nicely "thank you". While it might be ok to tax the poor, as in Australia, there are safety nets, and good ones at that, esp if you have dependents. No tax is paid on the 1st, guessing a bit here, $18,000. That is fine with me.
If we create a large "middle" class, that is the best place to raise taxes.
30 Aug 21
@jimmac saidI do not know enough about Australia's tax system to comment about it. But the US has a bifurcated system of taxation where a significant portion of total tax revenue comes from state and local taxes which are mainly regressive in nature. The total system is hardly progressive at all; the top 20% in the US earn 62% of the income and pay 66% of the taxes. The middle 40% earn only about 29% of total income, so raising taxes on them isn't really economically viable. https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwg7KJBhDyARIsAHrAXaGkrNOOzFbNI8akoAlgmsswpztZBx42DCc6XReWRJqamRN0uq7Ww7saAnMGEALw_wcB
I am not so against corporate tax as that is on the "profits", but as stated the corporates are good at not making "profits".
In my estimation the "middle" class is not your average worker. Maybe that is just my summation. I call the middle class those that are doing nicely "thank you". While it might be ok to tax the poor, as in Australia, there are safety nets, and good ...[text shortened]... That is fine with me.
If we create a large "middle" class, that is the best place to raise taxes.
Obviously, the top 1%, 5% and even 10% in the US could easily afford a raising of tax rates to pre-Trump or even pre-Reagan levels.
@averagejoe1 saidThe average annual income of the top 1% is $1.7 million. That is in total about 20% of GNP or $4 trillion a year. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/01/how-much-you-need-to-make-to-be-in-the-1-in-every-state/112002276/
Fool Questions: Here a couple of them....
"Adjusting the rates upwards", you said. So I asked, upwards to what? No response. As libs do, you leave it hanging.
"the Rich...', you say. I ask you to define rich. It still hangs, like bloomers on a clothesline.
And, I Ask you, what we will do when all the rich are bled out, and AOC becomes president and wants the ...[text shortened]... '. I don't think anyone here would agree with you. Most would frankly like to hear your answer(s).
Are you disputing they are "rich"?
Biden's pledge not to raise taxes on those with household incomes under $400,000 a year exempts 98.2% of US households as "A $400,000 a year household income puts you in America’s top 1.8% income-earners according to the IRS." https://www.financialsamurai.com/400k-income/
Note that the US has a marginal income tax so a higher rate on over $400,000 would apply only to income above that figure and not to a taxpayer's total income.
@no1marauder saidBecause they are not. Nothing direct about 'em. Liberal-eze. They would all take a total of 4 sentences,,,,,funny you don't re-do them? And without links?
I've answered every single one of those questions numerous times to the extent they are even relevant. Raising taxes on the wealthy to something like pre-Reagan levels isn't going to bankrupt them or the country.
You don't like my answers.
30 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidJoe. I.was a huge fan of reaganomics. Promote free market activities by lowering taxes on the wealthy and it trickles down to the plebes like warm spring water.
You know, a working-life span is, say, 55 years. So there are hundreds of real rich people, mostly over 70. I think you are talking about people in their early 20's? Is that right? So, that means they have about 50 years to make themselves rich. If you are a liberal, I just lost you with that statement.
And, in closing, your first sentence above says to tax the ri ...[text shortened]... t are not the rich already being taxed? You want MORE from the rich? Oh. Well, how much more??
But it didn't work. The conservative politicians forgot the other side of the equation . The hard part of the equation. The part that requires spending within your means. They did the easy part (lower taxes) but they didn't want to risk the hard part (cut spending).
Small government is not about lower taxes. It's about lower spending. That's why when I see the budgets of republican regimes with budgets $800 billion in the red, which offer higher lavish new spending programs that even Dems wouldn't propose, like tens of billions in cash to farmers, I groan.
I often hear the non-discretionary spending as rationale for the republican ineptitude at slashing spending. They'll pick on NPR but won't go near medicare. But I have non discretionary spending too. I have a mortgage. I can't take a lower paying job that won't pay the mortgage and just tell the bank I forgot that side of the equation.
Low taxes is great. Love it. But it has to come along with smaller government. Stop the corporate welfare. Any who doesnt think the pentagon budget is corp. welfare should note that we just exited 2 major conflicts and the military budget is increasing. Stories out of afghanistan about building the same bridge over and over just blow it up and start all over.
I'm sorry about your singular focus on taxes. But it has proven impossible to starve this beast. I'll praise the first politician who successfully trims a federal budget but it's not going to be a republican.
@wildgrass saidI don't disagree with any of this. well said. Start with nothing is perfect,....yet, the country is seemingly doing OK even with Biden, I guess the markets look beyond him. I just know, sitting here, that both parties, because they are so off balance in their negotiating, will in the end just never stop spending, so the market will not be able to hold up, the scales will tilt.
Joe. I.was a huge fan of reaganomics. Promote free market activities by lowering taxes on the wealthy and it trickles down to the plebes like warm spring water.
But it didn't work. The conservative politicians forgot the other side of the equation . The hard part of the equation. The part that requires spending within your means. They did the easy part (lower taxes) but ...[text shortened]... the first politician who successfully trims a federal budget but it's not going to be a republican.
I can, like you, write about practical solutions. There only needs to be maybe 30 govt agencies, there are over 100. Why have a Dept of Education, when each state has their own??? The welfare programs all need to cease except for the poor 40M citizens. Just stop the programs. Give everyone 15 days notice and the checks stop coming. The 9M unfilled jobs will fill up!! The country would rock.
And, yes, I am sick of liberals wanting to get the money of the rich. Sick of their second-guessing things like giving farmers tax breaks. We were not in the room when this was all hashed out, and agreed upon by both parties over the years. Libs act like it was just a gift to farmers, they have no idea about its impact on our society .
And so on. Twenty smart economists could spend a week together and come up with a plan that makes sense. Why don't they? Business men should do this, not politicians. That's my 2 cents, thanks for your thoughtful input.