Right-Wing Challenge: Fair Income Tax For The Top 50% vs Bottom 50%

[progressive hunter]

I said tons and tons

How’s that not an answer?

that would depend on how big the total spending was,,

a cpl tons mean nothing if we are talking about tens of thousands of tons,,

just give me your opinion on what percentage of spending is waste or unconstitutional??

my guess is the reason you wont answer is because you know where I am going with this if you answer honestly,,

 

[struth]

that would depend on how big the total spending was,,

a cpl tons mean nothing if we are talking about tens of thousands of tons,,

just give me your opinion on what percentage of spending is waste or unconstitutional??

my guess is the reason you wont answer is because you know where I am going with this if you answer honestly,,

I have no idea where you are going....I would say 65 to 70 percent is wasteful.

 

[progressive hunter]

I have no idea where you are going....I would say 65 to 70 percent is wasteful.

so if only 50% is created through income tax it would mean a lot of spending could be reduced and eliminate income taxs all together,,

 

[struth]

so if only 50% is created through income tax it would mean a lot of spending could be reduced and eliminate income taxs all together,,

elimating taxes doesn't translate to elimanating spending.

The Fed Govt has shown that tax revenue doesn't really matter, they'll spend anyway.

 

[progressive hunter]

elimating taxes doesn't translate to elimanating spending.

The Fed Govt has shown that tax revenue doesn't really matter, they'll spend anyway.

but as you have shown, reducing wasteful spending does result in no need for income taxs,,

 

[struth]

but as you have shown, reducing wasteful spending does result in no need for income taxs,,

Not sure where I showed that.

I think we need taxes, regardless of wasteful spending or not, frankly there will always be wasteful spending when you have Govt. It's not efficent at spending.

With that said, I do think there are better ways to tax, then taxing someone's progress and success (ie income).

 

[progressive hunter]

Not sure where I showed that.

I think we need taxes, regardless of wasteful spending or not, frankly there will always be wasteful spending when you have Govt. It's not efficent at spending.

With that said, I do think there are better ways to tax, then taxing someone's progress and success (ie income).

you said correctly that only about 50% of revenue comes from income taxs,, and then you said 65-70% is wasteful,,
that means if we can cut spending of waste there is no need for income taxs,,

there will always be waste if we listen to people that make excuses for having it,

I choose to call it out and demand we cut it,,

 

[Nostra]

citygator should just pay off our debt. He says he is super rich and stuff.

 

[struth]

you said correctly that only about 50% of revenue comes from income taxs,, and then you said 65-70% is wasteful,,
that means if we can cut spending of waste there is no need for income taxs,,

there will always be waste if we listen to people that make excuses for having it,

I choose to call it out and demand we cut it,,

There will always be waste because that's the nature of how that money is spent. When someone or something (govt) is spending other people's money, it's never done efficiently

 

[progressive hunter]

There will always be waste because that's the nature of how that money is spent. When someone or something (govt) is spending other people's money, it's never done efficiently

with that attitude I am sure youre correct,,

I choose to work to solve problems instead of making excuses for them,,

 

[my2¢]

whats fair is everyone pays the same percentage,,

as it stands now the lower income people pay almost nothing with some even getting back more than they pay in,,

I see that as half the answer to what's fair. My belief is that there also needs to be a uniform definition of income.

For example, the annual income tax burden should be an equal amount for these stooges:

• Larry who for his labor earns $150,000
• Jerome "Curly" spends his days as an investor and earns $150,000
• Moe leads a life of idle through benefit of an inherited trust providing him $150,000 per year

While I see it is fair for the three above to all be taxed equally, Shemp, whose sole income is $100,000 annually from the lottery, should incur a tax liability that is two-thirds of each of the three above.

 

[my2¢]

0%
The only fair tax is no tax. None. Nada. People should keep 100% of their earnings.
You want a war machine? Go Fund Me.
You want a welfare apparatus? Go Fund Me.
You want any other collectivised shit? Go Fund Me.

Go Fund Me with what? The only value the dollar has is in the government's ability to back it. In a way 0% might be the fairest, as everybody would become piss-poor.

 

[struth]

with that attitude I am sure youre correct,,

I choose to work to solve problems instead of making excuses for them,,

Not making excuses it is just the nature of how money is spent

That’s why I am a strong advocate for allowing people that earn money to keep as much of their own money

 

[progressive hunter]

I see that as half the answer to what's fair. My belief is that there also needs to be a uniform definition of income.

For example, the annual income tax burden should be an equal amount for these stooges:

• Larry who for his labor earns $150,000
• Jerome "Curly" spends his days as an investor and earns $150,000
• Moe leads a life of idle through benefit of an inherited trust providing him $150,000 per year

While I see it is fair for the three above to all be taxed equally, Shemp, whose sole income is $100,000 annually from the lottery, should incur a tax liability that is two-thirds of each of the three above.

hasnt moes money has already been taxed?? so why would it be taxed again??

arent lottery winnings taxed at over 50%

and you said "equal amount? that is already the case being they both made the same amount,,

the issue at hand is percentage,,

to be truly fair all people should be taxed at the same percent,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Not making excuses it is just the nature of how money is spent

That’s why I am a strong advocate for allowing people that earn money to keep as much of their own money

of course youre making excuses,, and you just did it again,,

you just dont want to admit youre part of the problem not the solution,,

 

[struth]

of course youre making excuses,, and you just did it again,,

you just dont want to admit youre part of the problem not the solution,,

Oh I freely admit that I too spend other peoples money inefficiently

The problem is actually folks like yourself unwilling to admit it

 

[progressive hunter]

Oh I freely admit that I too spend other peoples money inefficiently

The problem is actually folks like yourself unwilling to admit it

still making excuses,,

I have never spent other peoples money inefficiently,,

and I have spent a lot of other peoples money,, possibly in the millions,,

 

[Seymour Flops]

The problems with all of these "let's tax the rich to solve our fiscal problems" ideas are twofold:

1) We're not in a fiscal disaster because we failed to tax the rich enough. We're in a fiscal disaster because of out of control spending, including a culture within federal agencies that requires managers to spend as much as possible in order to get a bigger budget next year, and a "you give me mine and I'll give you yours" dynamic when Congress authorizes spending.

Bring in more revenue and it is sure to be spent on pet projects, and not on debt reduction. If Congress had any interest in fiscal responsibility, they would have already reduced the debt.

2) Theoritically, we can come up with figures that show that taxing the rich by x amount will eliminate the deficit and pay down the national debt. That is easy middle school math. The hard part is actually getting the rich to pay those vastly increased taxes, when they are way smarter than the tax collectors and prefer to pay tax attorneys (CPA's with law degrees) to avoid taxes rather than simply paying them.

 

[progressive hunter]

The problems with all of these "let's tax the rich to solve our fiscal problems" ideas are twofold:

1) We're not in a fiscal disaster because we failed to tax the rich enough. We're in a fiscal disaster because of out of control spending, including a culture within federal agencies that requires managers to spend as much as possible in order to get a bigger budget next year, and a "you give me mine and I'll give you yours" dynamic when Congress authorizes spending.

Bring in more revenue and it is sure to be spent on pet projects, and not on debt reduction. If Congress had any interest in fiscal responsibility, they would have already reduced the debt.

2) Theoritically, we can come up with figures that show that taxing the rich by x amount will eliminate the deficit and pay down the national debt. That is easy middle school math. The hard part is actually getting the rich to pay those vastly increased taxes, when they are way smarter than the tax collectors and prefer to pay tax attorneys (CPA's with law degrees) to avoid taxes rather than simply paying them.

I have one issue with your last sentence,,

they dont avoid paying taxs,, they use the tax code to pay the legal amount required by law,,

as everyone should be doing,,

 

[ThisIsMe]

Here is the challenge and it is based on next year's budget.

You need to raise about $2.4T in personal income taxes just to be $2.0T short of next year's expenses (Trump's plan) in a way that allows people to also live a life.

How do you raise your $2.4T from income taxes between the two halves of earners? Bottom half and top half.

Today we get 98% from the top 50% as it is circled in red on the chart to the right but as you can see they earn almost all the income and certainly 100% of the discretionary income after you put bare bones living expenses against $23k vs 137k.

What is "fair" to you?

I predict a long line of right-wingers suggesting we take $200B from people making $23K still leaving a $1.6T deficit without regard to how one would live. But maybe they will surprise me with some thoughtful reflection on income tax burdens and living with low means.

GO!

Trump 2026 Budget
$7T in Expenses

$2.4T of Income Tax
$1.7T of Payroll Tax
$0.5T of Corporate Tax
$0.5T of Excise and Tariffs
$5.2T of Revenue

$1.8T Deficit


View attachment 1229675

How does the federal tax system affect low-income households?

taxpolicycenter.org

Cut spending and eliminate wasteful spending.

Reduce corporate taxes and encourage innovation and growth to hire more people.

Give incentives to corporations to hire and train more people.

Reduce taxation on corporations to encourage lower prices and people will spend more.

Maybe?


Here’s a better and more efficient alternative to your plan.

They say the top 10% hold 200T in wealth? We are currently just short of 40T in debt. Rather than trying to seize wealth by implementing a wealth tax that will generate income over time, and be largely ineffective, why not just have the government pull some “eminent domain” trickery and just seize 40T from these people all at once and pay off the debt tomorrow? I mean, if you can sieze income over time and call it a tax to make it more palatable, or you could just sieze it all at once, it’s effectively the same thing. A “tax” will have zero effect on reducing debt because we will just spend it on new projects.

If you want zero debt, just confiscate it all at once. Maybe give them special tax considerations for their “contribution”.


Either way it will be ineffective. If we paid off the debt today, in 50 years we’d be right back to where we are. Government would continue to borrow.