GOP megabill’s final score

[struth]

Stop defending the 1 percent that has more wealth than the other 99 percent combined.

Stop whining about being a lazy unsuccessful bum

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you realize the fuel cost each of those trucks generate? The taxes paid on every gallon of fuel. Oil, maintenance. You have IFTA, and a heavy use vehicle tax, every truck has multiple permits, licenses, inspections etc. All that costs money.

Also, those trucks, while help the company make money, they also drive the economy.




And pays FAR less for using those roads, individually, than a company does.



And again, that means jobs, which drives the economy.



They are rich because they make a product that people want. That demand creates jobs. The people need those jobs.



They do. If you have an education, a degree and a skill that a company wants, they tend to pay you more for it.




Yes, they benefit from it, but the general public gets far more in services than rich people do. You're just using one example, of the highway system. There are a lot of other benefits that rich people dont use.



Ok, but until someone comes up with a number of how much more they should pay, I guess we're at a standstill.



They pay as much as the tax code requires them to. If dems feel that isnt enough, then they need to change the laws, but first they need to decide how much more the rich need to pay.





Didn't we just have a CEO get shot in the head a couple weeks ago?


Why is asking "pedantic". Im bringing out the point that, for years we keep hearing "fair share" and for years, nobody has said what that is. It just seems like a fruitless topic if nobody has an idea of what that number looks like.

Yeah, but think about how much they'd have to pay if the roads weren't tax paid roads.

The Alabama River Parkway costs between $1.50 for 2 axles and then .25 for each additional axle. That's to cross one bridge. Imagine that were the cost of using roads in the whole of the US. Private roads would cost these companies an absolute fortune to send a truck out with supplies.

They pay far less, because they use far, far less.

Yeah, a CEO got shot in the head, but not by a mafia, but by an angry person. Not really a point that enhances this argument.

The point is that if everything had to be paid for out of pocket by the company, they'd be paying way, WAY more than they're paying now. Normal people would also pay more, but comparatively much less than the rich would have to pay.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yeah, but think about how much they'd have to pay if the roads weren't tax paid roads.

The Alabama River Parkway costs between $1.50 for 2 axles and then .25 for each additional axle. That's to cross one bridge. Imagine that were the cost of using roads in the whole of the US. Private roads would cost these companies an absolute fortune to send a truck out with supplies.

They pay far less, because they use far, far less.

Yeah, a CEO got shot in the head, but not by a mafia, but by an angry person. Not really a point that enhances this argument.

The point is that if everything had to be paid for out of pocket by the company, they'd be paying way, WAY more than they're paying now. Normal people would also pay more, but comparatively much less than the rich would have to pay.

Let's take 1 trucking company. Let's say they have 12000 trucks running. The HVUT is $550 for any vehicle over 75000 lbs. Since most trucks run at 80000 lbs, they complay pays 6.6 million a year for their use of the roads.

Federal tax on diesel is .24 cents per gallon.

Let's say a truck averages 2000 miles a week at an average of 4 miles per gallon. That 500 gallons of fuel each week. If that truck runs 50 weeks a year, thats 25000 gallons of diesel. Thats $6000 a year in federal fuel taxes per truck. Thats 72 million per year added to the previous 6.6 million per year.

So we're up to 78.6 million per year.

Then, states charge about .37 per gallon for every miles you drive across their state. Cant tell you how much that would be but it would be several million more. Let's just say 100M per year in diesel fuel tax and hvut alone. Thats a single large trucking company.

You're right, if we didnt have a federal highway system, the businesses would have to build their own roads, but then we wouldn't have an economy either.

But you're focused on just highway use. There are many other federal services that rich people dont have access to.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's take 1 trucking company. Let's say they have 12000 trucks running. The HVUT is $550 for any vehicle over 75000 lbs. Since most trucks run at 80000 lbs, they complay pays 6.6 million a year for their use of the roads.

Federal tax on diesel is .24 cents per gallon.

Let's say a truck averages 2000 miles a week at an average of 4 miles per gallon. That 500 gallons of fuel each week. If that truck runs 50 weeks a year, thats 25000 gallons of diesel. Thats $6000 a year in federal fuel taxes per truck. Thats 72 million per year added to the previous 6.6 million per year.

So we're up to 78.6 million per year.

Then, states charge about .37 per gallon for every miles you drive across their state. Cant tell you how much that would be but it would be several million more. Let's just say 100M per year in diesel fuel tax and hvut alone. Thats a single large trucking company.

You're right, if we didnt have a federal highway system, the businesses would have to build their own roads, but then we wouldn't have an economy either.

But you're focused on just highway use. There are many other federal services that rich people dont have access to.

I didn't really get anything from this post. If roads were private, companies would have to pay more. You say the economy would suck without public roads. Well, there you go. They're paying money so they CAN MAKE MONEY.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I didn't really get anything from this post. If roads were private, companies would have to pay more. You say the economy would suck without public roads. Well, there you go. They're paying money so they CAN MAKE MONEY.

You didn't get anything from that post? I just laid out all the money these companies have to pay for access to those roads. They pay for their use of those roads.

You say the economy would suck without public roads

No, I said the economy wouldn't exist without roads.

They're paying money so they CAN MAKE MONEY

Exactly, so they are not getting it for free.

So this comes back to, rich people use far less of the system, from the perspective of benefit. They have to pay extra for their use.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You didn't get anything from that post? I just laid out all the money these companies have to pay for access to those roads. They pay for their use of those roads.



No, I said the economy wouldn't exist without roads.



Exactly, so they are not getting it for free.

So this comes back to, rich people use far less of the system, from the perspective of benefit. They have to pay extra for their use.

Yes, they pay for the use of the roads. But they don't pay anywhere near as much as they would if all the roads were private.

It seems you want to avoid the simple fact that by creating an environment where people can do trade easily, the rich can make a lot of money, if there weren't taxes, if there weren't the government to make things happen, then the amount businesses would have to pay would be higher, their profits would be lower and they'd be the people who would lose out the most.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, they pay for the use of the roads. But they don't pay anywhere near as much as they would if all the roads were private.

But they pay much more than the normal drivers.

It seems you want to avoid the simple fact that by creating an environment where people can do trade easily, the rich can make a lot of money, if there weren't taxes, if there weren't the government to make things happen, then the amount businesses would have to pay would be higher, their profits would be lower and they'd be the people who would lose out the most.

I admit the rich make a lot of money off of the road system, they also pay a lot more. This topic wasnt about rich people making money off of the system, it was about who gets more services from the system. Business pay for their access.

But you are also focusing on just one aspect of the system. There are a myriad of services that wealthy people dont have access to. Also, the wealthy pay the most in taxes, so again, who gets more from the system?

 

[frigidweirdo]

But they pay much more than the normal drivers.





I admit the rich make a lot of money off of the road system, they also pay a lot more. This topic wasnt about rich people making money off of the system, it was about who gets more services from the system. Business pay for their access.

But you are also focusing on just one aspect of the system. There are a myriad of services that wealthy people dont have access to. Also, the wealthy pay the most in taxes, so again, who gets more from the system?

But do they pay more per use?

No.

Imagine you have, I don't know, a cell phone.

You pay $10 a month and you make one phone call a month.

Another person pays $100 a month and makes 1,500 phone calls.

Who is paying more per individual phone call?

One is paying less than others, the other is paying less per use.

And the point here is that we're talking about what is FAIR. And what is fair for a business? to be paying way less per use, or to pay the same as everyone else?

Who gets more out of it? The rich, obviously. A individual who receives a little bit of money from the government isn't well off. When the rich get massive tax breaks, on the other hand, or rich farmers get huge sums of money....

 

[ThisIsMe]

But do they pay more per use?

No.

Imagine you have, I don't know, a cell phone.

You pay $10 a month and you make one phone call a month.

Another person pays $100 a month and makes 1,500 phone calls.

Who is paying more per individual phone call?

One is paying less than others, the other is paying less per use.

And the point here is that we're talking about what is FAIR. And what is fair for a business? to be paying way less per use, or to pay the same as everyone else?

Who gets more out of it? The rich, obviously. A individual who receives a little bit of money from the government isn't well off. When the rich get massive tax breaks, on the other hand, or rich farmers get huge sums of money....

Imagine you're a rich person who has to pay into the system, such as taxes that help people with housing, medical, education, food, etc...but never being able to take advantages of those services yourself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Imagine you're a rich person who has to pay into the system, such as taxes that help people with housing, medical, education, food, etc...but never being able to take advantages of those services yourself.

Happens to everyone.

You pay in to a pension, but might die early
Pay into education that you don't use because you don't have kids.

We pay into the system because that's what it is. In other countries like the UK everyone pays into the healthcare system, and the rich hate it because they have to pay like 10% of their earnings for it, while others pay 10% into theirs.

My brother in law is kind of rich, he went to a top, top university and earns good money. He pays loads in taxes. He's still richer than me.

I don't think taxes should be too high, I'm not a "**** the rich" kind of person. I want the rich to pay their FAIR SHARE and for me, FAIR SHARE is a tiered system when the poorest pay nothing, the middle pay X amount and the rich pay X+Y amount.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Happens to everyone.

You pay in to a pension, but might die early.

Yes, but it is a system you DO have access to, until you die. There are things they lay for thag they wont ever have access to.

Pay into education that you don't use because you don't have kids.

Thats a good point, why should someone have to pay school taxes if they have no kids? Why should someone have to pay more in taxes because they dont have kids? Talk about fairness...

We pay into the system because that's what it is

Yeah, maybe if you useess services, you should pay less taxes?

. In other countries like the UK everyone pays into the healthcare system, and the rich hate it because they have to pay like 10% of their earnings for it, while others pay 10% into theirs.

My brother in law is kind of rich, he went to a top, top university and earns good money. He pays loads in taxes. He's still richer than me.

I don't think taxes should be too high, I'm not a "**** the rich" kind of person. I want the rich to pay their FAIR SHARE and for me, FAIR SHARE is a tiered system when the poorest pay nothing, the middle pay X amount and the rich pay X+Y amount.

Well, thags good to hear, now we just need to figure out what a fair share is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, but it is a system you DO have access to, until you die. There are things they lay for thag they wont ever have access to.




Thats a good point, why should someone have to pay school taxes if they have no kids? Why should someone have to pay more in taxes because they dont have kids? Talk about fairness...



Yeah, maybe if you useess services, you should pay less taxes?




Well, thags good to hear, now we just need to figure out what a fair share is.

Yes, we implement systems and we make sure everyone can access them. People pay into those systems, even if they don't get something out of those systems, or get less.

Again, an educated workforce makes a country richer. You pay for education regardless of whether you use it, and a richer person will pay MORE even if they have no kids than a poor person with kids. They still benefit from this.

The alternative is private education where the rich get good education and the poor get no education because they can't afford it. The rich would love that, Betsy de Vos has been pushing for something closer to this than currently exists with school vouchers.

Why should you have to pay into it? Because you benefit from it. Without universal education, that rich person might still be working down the mines. They also got universal education for themselves (even if their parents chose not to use it) and many of their workers will have used that system.

However rich people benefit from all these things, because they make a country richer, and they are making money from these things.

Maybe if you use less services, you should pay less, so the rich who use more services, or benefit more from those services, should pay more.

Well, what is a "fair share"?

Again, I point to Russia in the 1990s.

Gangsters in Gucci: How 1990s Russia Became an Oligarch Factory

In the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia was thrust into a wild experiment in capitalism. Factories, oil fields, and entire industries were auctioned off at breakneck speed, often under shady circumstances. Economic chaos, hyperinflation, and a collapsing social order left power up for...

historycollection.com

Some made it massively rich by being unscrupulous, while most didn't.

"Amid the privatization frenzy, Soviet-era factory bosses—known as Red Directors—used their insider knowledge and vast networks to seize control of newly privatized enterprises."

Then they used, or made, the mafia

"As state authority crumbled, organized crime surged to fill the void, forging a fearsome new power structure in Russia’s cities. The Russian mafia offered “protection” for fledgling businesses and enforced contracts in a lawless environment."

"The 1990s brought “shock therapy” reforms: sweeping price liberalization, subsidy cuts, and currency devaluation. Hyperinflation devoured savings, and factories shuttered, leaving millions jobless and impoverished almost overnight. Yet, amid the turmoil, a shrewd minority exploited the volatility—profiting from currency speculation, asset stripping, and insider deals. This economic freefall widened the gap between ordinary Russians and the emerging oligarch class, entrenching profound social and financial divides (via Brookings)."

And most people didn't do well out of it, just the super rich.

"In the lawless climate of 1990s Russia, violence and intimidation became standard business tools. Oligarchs and criminal groups often operated in tandem, with business tycoons hiring gangs for protection—or to eliminate rivals. These protection rackets blurred the line between legitimate enterprise and outright extortion, making survival and profit inseparable from the underworld."

And for this reason, some of the super rich in the US, not only don't want to pay taxes, they want the state to disappear. And they've manipulated the Republican Party, especially MAGA into thinking taxes are "theft", because they're the ones who would benefit the most.

However for most people, that just wouldn't be the case, they'd be poor and living in a dangerous world.

"The world of the Russian oligarch was as dangerous as it was glamorous. Power struggles frequently erupted into violence, with some tycoons forced into exile, others assassinated, and many caught in brutal feuds as fortunes and alliances shifted. "

Again, it's the sort of thing that needs to be taken into account when deciding what is "fair". Some oligarchs being super rich and everyone else poor, is not "fair" at all. "Fair" is a tax system that leads to the best situation for all.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, we implement systems and we make sure everyone can access them. People pay into those systems, even if they don't get something out of those systems, or get less.

Again, an educated workforce makes a country richer. You pay for education regardless of whether you use it, and a richer person will pay MORE even if they have no kids than a poor person with kids. They still benefit from this.

The alternative is private education where the rich get good education and the poor get no education because they can't afford it. The rich would love that, Betsy de Vos has been pushing for something closer to this than currently exists with school vouchers.

Why should you have to pay into it? Because you benefit from it. Without universal education, that rich person might still be working down the mines. They also got universal education for themselves (even if their parents chose not to use it) and many of their workers will have used that system.

However rich people benefit from all these things, because they make a country richer, and they are making money from these things.

Maybe if you use less services, you should pay less, so the rich who use more services, or benefit more from those services, should pay more.

Well, what is a "fair share"?

Again, I point to Russia in the 1990s.

Gangsters in Gucci: How 1990s Russia Became an Oligarch Factory

In the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia was thrust into a wild experiment in capitalism. Factories, oil fields, and entire industries were auctioned off at breakneck speed, often under shady circumstances. Economic chaos, hyperinflation, and a collapsing social order left power up for...

historycollection.com

Some made it massively rich by being unscrupulous, while most didn't.

"Amid the privatization frenzy, Soviet-era factory bosses—known as Red Directors—used their insider knowledge and vast networks to seize control of newly privatized enterprises."

Then they used, or made, the mafia

"As state authority crumbled, organized crime surged to fill the void, forging a fearsome new power structure in Russia’s cities. The Russian mafia offered “protection” for fledgling businesses and enforced contracts in a lawless environment."

"The 1990s brought “shock therapy” reforms: sweeping price liberalization, subsidy cuts, and currency devaluation. Hyperinflation devoured savings, and factories shuttered, leaving millions jobless and impoverished almost overnight. Yet, amid the turmoil, a shrewd minority exploited the volatility—profiting from currency speculation, asset stripping, and insider deals. This economic freefall widened the gap between ordinary Russians and the emerging oligarch class, entrenching profound social and financial divides (via Brookings)."

And most people didn't do well out of it, just the super rich.

"In the lawless climate of 1990s Russia, violence and intimidation became standard business tools. Oligarchs and criminal groups often operated in tandem, with business tycoons hiring gangs for protection—or to eliminate rivals. These protection rackets blurred the line between legitimate enterprise and outright extortion, making survival and profit inseparable from the underworld."

And for this reason, some of the super rich in the US, not only don't want to pay taxes, they want the state to disappear. And they've manipulated the Republican Party, especially MAGA into thinking taxes are "theft", because they're the ones who would benefit the most.

However for most people, that just wouldn't be the case, they'd be poor and living in a dangerous world.

"The world of the Russian oligarch was as dangerous as it was glamorous. Power struggles frequently erupted into violence, with some tycoons forced into exile, others assassinated, and many caught in brutal feuds as fortunes and alliances shifted. "

Again, it's the sort of thing that needs to be taken into account when deciding what is "fair". Some oligarchs being super rich and everyone else poor, is not "fair" at all. "Fair" is a tax system that leads to the best situation for all.

How do we benefit from paying into the education system? The kids today are being taught that they dont have to work, that the government should provide for them, that "everyone gets a trophy!", and that you dont need grades!

Seems like we're not getting a good return on our investment.

 

[Eman623]

The MAGATs seem to think Trump saved them some money.

He did. Even the NY Times said so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html

IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups.

thehill.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

How do we benefit from paying into the education system? The kids today are being taught that they dont have to work, that the government should provide for them, that "everyone gets a trophy!", and that you dont need grades!

Seems like we're not getting a good return on our investment.

Shall we look at education systems and how much the population earns?

Education Rankings by Country 2026

Overview of educational rankings by country through the years, based on various factors including the top ten countries with the lowest adult literacy rates.

worldpopulationreview.com

The US claims the US has the best education system in the world, someone else claims it's 31st in the world. It's difficult to rank education systems, because you can't put the same person under the same conditions through all of the education systems to find out which is best. And some will be better than others for certain kids, and others will be better for other kids.

HOWEVER...

"There is a correlation between a country's educational system quality and its economic status, with developed nations offering higher quality education."

Had the US only had a private education system for the last 250 years, the US would not have become an economic powerhouse. It would have fallen behind other countries in many areas. Businesses wouldn't have been able to compete with other first world countries.

If you are a businessman and you set up a business in the US, you are far, far more likely to make money because of that education system. Take that away, and you'd be much poorer. You'd be poorer paying no taxes in a system with no state education, that you'd be paying lots of taxes in a system with an universal education system.

Seems like you're getting an AMAZING DEAL.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Shall we look at education systems and how much the population earns?

Education Rankings by Country 2026

Overview of educational rankings by country through the years, based on various factors including the top ten countries with the lowest adult literacy rates.

worldpopulationreview.com

The US claims the US has the best education system in the world, someone else claims it's 31st in the world. It's difficult to rank education systems, because you can't put the same person under the same conditions through all of the education systems to find out which is best. And some will be better than others for certain kids, and others will be better for other kids.

HOWEVER...

"There is a correlation between a country's educational system quality and its economic status, with developed nations offering higher quality education."

Had the US only had a private education system for the last 250 years, the US would not have become an economic powerhouse. It would have fallen behind other countries in many areas. Businesses wouldn't have been able to compete with other first world countries.

If you are a businessman and you set up a business in the US, you are far, far more likely to make money because of that education system. Take that away, and you'd be much poorer. You'd be poorer paying no taxes in a system with no state education, that you'd be paying lots of taxes in a system with an universal education system.

Seems like you're getting an AMAZING DEAL.

You're mostly talking about secondary education. In primary school, the US is just average, basically.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're mostly talking about secondary education. In primary school, the US is just average, basically.

Doesn't really matter, the US has an "average" education system for a first world country. Though it depends what you're measuring. China, Japan, South Korea, etc, have high levels of education, but don't teaching thinking skills. They make for good workers, but not for good bosses, good managers. Either way the US has better education than Somalia, Afghanistan and a whole host of other poor countries who would benefit massively from a better education, and be richer for it.

 

[Rambunctious]

It is just another GOP ****-up that the Democrats will need to fix in 2028.

I will fix it.....