Our National Debt, spending addiction and deficit spending is problem 1

[BackAgain]

Insufficient taxation of the wealthy and corporations is the principal problem.

That’s absolute tripe.

 

[Shareprofit]

That’s absolute tripe.

As expected. The US is one of the most unjust inequality of any westen nation and the way to fix that is for the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Check out Norway, their society works unlike the broken failing US.

 

[BackAgain]

As expected. The US is one of the most unjust inequality of any westen nation and the way to fix that is for the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Check out Norway, their society works unlike the broken failing US.

Your ignorance is amusing. Please post more often. I need a couple of laughs.

 

[task0778]

As expected. The US is one of the most unjust inequality of any westen nation and the way to fix that is for the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Check out Norway, their society works unlike the broken failing US.

You appear to believe that the way to prosperity for all is simply to raise taxes on the wealthy and big corps. Do you believe it is feasible to raise such taxes enough to pay down the debt and would have no economic consequences? These days, our annual deficits exceed a trillion dollars, and going higher every year. Do you have a link that suggests raising taxes alone would cover that? Do you not realize that a substantial increase in those taxes would result in less domestic investments? We've seen it time and time again in other countries, they raised thoswe taxes and as a result the rich people and big corps left for greener financial pastures.

 

[EMH]

We had this budget, deficit, and debt issue under control with Speaker Newt.

Since then the GOP has not cut any spending and has spent like Dems.

The problem is the post 1998 GOP, where Zionist Fascism replaced fiscal conservatism thanks to Fox News.

 

[Shareprofit]

Your ignorance is amusing. Please post more often. I need a couple of laughs.

Can you be more specific.

 

[FA_Q2]

I guess that word 'Congress' must've confused you, huh? And BTW Obama spent more than Bush did, so fuck off. You tell me, when was the last time that the democrats IN CONGRESS wanted to spend less on any bill than the republicans did? Congress appropriates the money, asshole. It's their sole responsibility, the president can veto it, but how often does that happen?

Nope not confused at all. I have no illusions that you live in reality or can comprehend even the simplest of facts.

But go on pretending you care about the debt or deficit whilst defending the republicans spending just like democrats. No one takes you seriously anymore. Trumps asinine spending ensured that.

 

[BackAgain]

Can you be more specific.

Not. You appear to be generally ignorant.

 

[Shareprofit]

You appear to believe that the way to prosperity for all is simply to raise taxes on the wealthy and big corps. Do you believe it is feasible to raise such taxes enough to pay down the debt and would have no economic consequences? These days, our annual deficits exceed a trillion dollars, and going higher every year. Do you have a link that suggests raising taxes alone would cover that? Do you not realize that a substantial increase in those taxes would result in less domestic investments? We've seen it time and time again in other countries, they raised thoswe taxes and as a result the rich people and big corps left for greener financial pastures.

No you haven't seen it before, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing taxes on working people is highly productive.

 

[task0778]

No you haven't seen it before, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing taxes on working people is highly productive.

Nominated for troll post of the day, week, month, and year.

Well then, you ought to have no trouble identifying one such occurrence. Kindly do so or STFU.

 

[BackAgain]

No you haven't seen it before, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing taxes on working people is highly productive.

The whole thing is far too complicated to address in such a ridiculously simplistic manner as “raise taxes on the wealthy.”

In this nation, we decided to tax annual income. Accumulated wealth itself is therefore immune from taxation at least of that kind.

So, if a wealthy person earns some interest on his or her bank accounts, the government may get to tax the interest but that’s about it. If the rich guy has a great job, you can also tax his annual salary. But once that tax is paid and gets put into a portfolio, it can’t be taxed again except for when some of the interest is withdrawn.

But imagine a wealthy bunch of folks not earning a salary. They have their nest eggs all negates and earning money which isn’t withdrawn but simply rolled over. That shit can’t be taxed until the interest is withdrawn.

Bottom line: you can’t really tax the rich via an income tax like that. You are not allowed to tax accumulated wealth.

So the simplistic notion of raise taxes on the rich is kind of mere puffery. It’s meaningless. Unless what you seek is to tax accumulated wealth itself despite the fact that it was already taxed in the past.

This is no longer taxation. And it’s definitely not the kind we have via the Income Tax. It has another name. Theft.

 

[otto105]

That’s absolute tripe.

It's very true

 

[g5000]

The whole thing is far too complicated to address in such a ridiculously simplistic manner as “raise taxes on the wealthy.”

In this nation, we decided to tax annual income. Accumulated wealth itself is therefore immune from taxation at least of that kind.

So, if a wealthy person earns some interest on his or her bank accounts, the government may get to tax the interest but that’s about it. If the rich guy has a great job, you can also tax his annual salary. But once that tax is paid and gets put into a portfolio, it can’t be taxed again except for when some of the interest is withdrawn.

But imagine a wealthy bunch of folks not earning a salary. They have their nest eggs all negates and earning money which isn’t withdrawn but simply rolled over. That shit can’t be taxed until the interest is withdrawn.

Bottom line: you can’t really tax the rich via an income tax like that. You are not allowed to tax accumulated wealth.

So the simplistic notion of raise taxes on the rich is kind of mere puffery. It’s meaningless. Unless what you seek is to tax accumulated wealth itself despite the fact that it was already taxed in the past.

This is no longer taxation. And it’s definitely not the kind we have via the Income Tax. It has another name. Theft.

The wealthy use a great deal of tax dodges and loopholes to evade taxes. Simply closing those holes in the tax code would bring in a couple hundred billion a year.

Here's an interesting story about how tax evasion by the rich is done: The Getty Family’s Trust Issues

 

[BackAgain]

It's very true

Well of course, a lying moron like you would “agree.”

It’s moronic.

 

[task0778]

The wealthy use a great deal of tax dodges and loopholes to evade taxes. Simply closing those holes in the tax code would bring in a couple hundred billion a year.

What is generally misunderstood or ignored by many on the Left is that those loopholes were put there for a reason, to encourage investment and growth in businesses in general and sometimes a specific sector of the economy. Take away those tax advantages, whatever they may be, always creates consequences which many on the Left also ignore. It is an inescapable fact that when you increase taxes on anything, then you get less of it, and inevitably the higher taxes impact results in lost jobs. And that means the gov't always gets less revenue than initially expected.

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers actually pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. If you look at the Trump tax cuts, the rich people actually paid more after the tax cuts than they did before.

If one does a linear calculation on the incomes of the top 1%, that calculation will show an increase in the tax rates should mean more revenue to the gov't, but only if nothing else changes. And that right there is the problem, because those 1%ers are not going to take it in the shorts and do nothing. They are going to change their spending and investment decisions to avoid the higher tax rates, just like every other taxpayer does. It's a simple fact that investment money flows to where it makes the most return, and higher taxes are a part of the determination for how much return you get. So, when you raise taxes you actually are disincentivizing investments and a more productive use of their money. Maybe the tax hike will result in more revenue, but unless the economy is going gangbusters like it was in the 90s under Clinton, usually a tax hike results in a slower economy and lost jobs.

 

[g5000]

What is generally misunderstood or ignored by many on the Left is that those loopholes were put there for a reason, to encourage investment and growth in businesses in general and sometimes a specific sector of the economy.

Horseshit. Total horseshit.

You've been gaslighted, son.

 

[otto105]

What is generally misunderstood or ignored by many on the Left is that those loopholes were put there for a reason, to encourage investment and growth in businesses in general and sometimes a specific sector of the economy. Take away those tax advantages, whatever they may be, always creates consequences which many on the Left also ignore. It is an inescapable fact that when you increase taxes on anything, then you get less of it, and inevitably the higher taxes impact results in lost jobs. And that means the gov't always gets less revenue than initially expected.

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers actually pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. If you look at the Trump tax cuts, the rich people actually paid more after the tax cuts than they did before.

If one does a linear calculation on the incomes of the top 1%, that calculation will show an increase in the tax rates should mean more revenue to the gov't, but only if nothing else changes. And that right there is the problem, because those 1%ers are not going to take it in the shorts and do nothing. They are going to change their spending and investment decisions to avoid the higher tax rates, just like every other taxpayer does. It's a simple fact that investment money flows to where it makes the most return, and higher taxes are a part of the determination for how much return you get. So, when you raise taxes you actually are disincentivizing investments and a more productive use of their money. Maybe the tax hike will result in more revenue, but unless the economy is going gangbusters like it was in the 90s under Clinton, usually a tax hike results in a slower economy and lost jobs.

Okay, when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993 what happened?

 

[g5000]

Okay, when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993 what happened?

Tax revenues increased and the economy boomed. In fact, GDP growth has not even approached the Clinton years ever since, with the exception of 2021.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is generally misunderstood or ignored by many on the Left is that those loopholes were put there for a reason, to encourage investment and growth in businesses in general and sometimes a specific sector of the economy.

Like green energy tax credits, right?

So do you support that practice or is it somehow different when it is the left supporting their 'investment strategy' for their favored pet projects.

 

[FA_Q2]

Tax revenues increased and the economy boomed. In fact, GDP growth has not even approached the Clinton years ever since, with the exception of 2021.

That is somewhat of a misleading statement though considering how much of that growth was a factor of massively overvalued tech companies essentially just making up what they were worth.