This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[Mac1958]

You can't have a constructive conversation on this topic without comprehensively covering the other side of the ledger.

The key is finding an optimal point between taxing and spending, between not taxing or spending so much that it net hamstrings dynamic macroeconomic and individual growth.

That would be the conversation to have, but it's now beyond us. We just no longer have the capacity to communicate constructively. Just another self-inficted wound. Oops.

 

[pknopp]

What is your effort trying to accomplish? Cutting social programs unnecessarily hurts the public. Do you want more homeless people defecating on the sidewalk in front of your business? How does that improve America? We have plenty of money, so the canard that we're running out of it is just nonsense. As long as GDP remains high and growing, we have more than enough money for all social programs. These programs increase the nation's productivity. It grows our GDP.

Social programs aren't for bums, they're for everyone.

We could cut the budgets of every program and not touch a single benefit or goal of that department. There is so much waste, fraud and duplicity in government that this could easily be accomplished.

I would cut every budget by X%. I would then tell the heads of those departments that if they cut one benefit or designed action of that department that they would be fired.

Or in other words, they would have to actually do their jobs to get paid.

In a way this would be kinda like a tax on many. Those benefitting from the waste and fraud would end up with less and we would have less debt.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You can't have a constructive conversation on this topic without comprehensively covering the other side of the ledger.

The key is finding an optimal point between taxing and spending, between not taxing or spending so much that it net hamstrings dynamic macroeconomic and individual growth.

That would be the conversation to have, but it's now beyond us. We just no longer have the capacity to communicate constructively. Just another self-inficted wound. Oops.

The so-called national debt is a surplus for the private sector. The government's red ink is the people's black ink or surplus. Stephanie Kelton a professor in economics and expert on macroeconomics explains:

Michael Norman is also an economist and explains what the national debt actually is:





​

Balance the budget and that means less money in private hands, which historically, leads to a recession. Every single time the budget is balanced, there's a recession within two or three years. There's less money in the economy.

 

[beautress]

Billionaires Are Hoarding Trillions in Untaxed Wealth. They Want the Supreme Court to Keep It That Way

A new report from Americans for Tax Fairness found that America’s richest families accumulated $8.5 trillion in untaxed capital gains in 2022

www.yahoo.com

TRILLIONS in untaxed wealth. Good luck explaining this to republicans I guess. You have to explain the difference between the official tax rate and the EFFECTIVE tax rate of top earners.

So the guy that spent years bringing the world the incandescent bulb to light up the nights should starve? I ain't buyin' that gobbledygook.

his teachers denied him an answer
to questions he had in his head
they drew a chalk circle near corner
to cause his bright mouth to be dead

at night he went home to his mother
who felt his sad mind in the dark
so she taught him arithmetic, writing
and reading, to build Menlo Park

tirelessly his work would allow
him to try a hundred times
sweat dripping from determined brow
to bring incandescent shine

for brilliant future till now.
as trials failed, others felt weary
patiently Thomas continued
another attempt every day

as he fought the good fight with might
to brighten the world with light
and bulbs appeared incandescent
helped him to pay his back rent.

And the moral of this story is that the world benefits when someone has a stellar mom.
And some think his family doesn't deserve the benefits he earned the hard way
after experiencing torment from his teachers, and impatient nincompoops.
​

 

[Rumpole]

Actually that's EXACTLY what Christian is proposing, Rumpole! Read the string!!!

the upper 50% own 97% of the nation's wealth (evidence on request)

Therefore, it's only fair that they pay 97% of the nation's taxes.

That's not 'communism', that's being fair. A progressive tax on the upper 50% is fair.

 

[Rumpole]

Didn't somebody somewhere else try this?

Oh yeah, the USSR. How'd that Workers Paradise turn out?

******* idiot

It's why you're dimocraps -- You never learn. Not ever.

taxing the rich isn't communism, it's true populism/progressivism. Not taxing the rich is the reason why there is the inequality gap.

You ******* republicans never learn.

 

[Rumpole]

So the guy that spent years bringing the world the incandescent bulb to light up the nights should starve? I ain't buyin' that gobbledygook.

View attachment 890219

his teachers denied him an answer
to questions he had in his head
they drew a chalk circle near corner
to cause his bright mouth to be dead

at night he went home to his mother
who felt his sad mind in the dark
so she taught him arithmetic, writing
and reading, to build Menlo Park

tirelessly his work would allow
him to try a hundred times
sweat dripping from determined brow
to bring incandescent shine

for brilliant future till now.
as trials failed, others felt weary
patiently Thomas continued
another attempt every day

as he fought the good fight with might
to brighten the world with light
and bulbs appeared incandescent
helped him to pay his back rent.



View attachment 890214

And the moral of this story is that the world benefits when someone has a stellar mom.
And some think his family doesn't deserve the benefits he earned the hard way
after experiencing torment from his teachers, and impatient nincompoops.
​

No one is talking about the hard working entrepeneurs.

What has happened is that wealth and power are now controlled by inherited dynasties, none of whom have invented anythingt, but due to their massive wealth, it accrues in value vastly faster than inflation, which is financed by the poor. Those who can hedge, (the rich) live at the expense of those who cannot hedge (the poor). Inflation is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

The ONLY way to correct that is to tax wealth. That isn't communism, it's Keynesian economics, which both the right and left practiced until Reagan, then neoliberalism (which rejected progressivism) spiked inequality.

 

[SweetTea]

There is an obvious reason why we have a big deficit. It’s both tax cuts and spending.

It is spending, PERIOD. Taxes are not too low. Cut spending AND cut taxes to stimulate organic growth. As Mac1958 stated below, there is a balance between tax rate and growth. It is undeniable that cutting taxes provides a stimulus to the overall economy and raising taxes is a hinderance. IMO, we should cut taxes a small amount and spending a much larger amount and then evaluate the overall tax revenue after giving the economy time to react.

even self made rich people didn’t become rich all on their own.

You sound like an Obama prodigy.

The self-made rich paid taxes just like everybody else on their climb up the ladder. Why do they owe more than those that received the same benefits but failed to take full advantage? This sounds like nothing more than a push for equity, regardless of abilities or achievement.

We should cut our defense budget in half and close most of those military installations. We should also get out of NATO ASAP, and stop poking the bear

The combination of those two things would lead to us not having a country much longer.

Feeding the flames of war, creating the profitable illusion that everyone is out to get us

You are living in a fantasy land if you don’t think other countries want what we have. We are sitting on a gold mine, both geographically and with our natural resources which the left refuses to fully utilize. Other countries salivate at the opportunity.

Controlling government spending doesn't necessitate defunding important social programs, which actually save the government money in the long term. Conservatives like you fail to understand that, when you fail to address certain needs of the populace or to respond to certain social ills, the problems get out of control and much more expensive.

We perpetuate the problems. Letting your able-bodied, adult, non-working child live in your basement for free is fine in the short-term, but if he chooses to get married, have numerous children that you feed and then have the nerve to complain that you go out to eat on Friday nights and they must stay home and eat the food you bought for them at the grocery store….well, you should have a problem and you should speak up.

The key is finding an optimal point between taxing and spending, between not taxing or spending so much that it net hamstrings dynamic macroeconomic and individual growth.

Ha, we agree.

the upper 50% own 97% of the nation's wealth (evidence on request)

Therefore, it's only fair that they pay 97% of the nation's taxes.

That's not 'communism', that's being fair. A progressive tax on the upper 50% is fair

We don’t tax people on net worth. That is beyond ridiculous. If I pay higher taxes on the money I make in the first place because of the progressive tax system, why on earth should I be penalized even further for saving or investing that already heavily taxed money?

 

[SweetTea]

taxing the rich isn't communism, it's true populism/progressivism. Not taxing the rich is the reason why there is the inequality gap.

You ******* republicans never learn.

We do tax the rich.

 

[SweetTea]

No one is talking about the hard working entrepeneurs.

What has happened is that wealth and power are now controlled by inherited dynasties, none of whom have invented anythingt, but due to their massive wealth, it accrues in value vastly faster than inflation, which is financed by the poor. Those who can hedge, (the rich) live at the expense of those who cannot hedge (the poor). Inflation is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

The ONLY way to correct that is to tax wealth. That isn't communism, it's Keynesian economics, which both the right and left practiced until Reagan, then neoliberalism (which rejected progressivism) spiked inequality.

So now were are back to good ole’ fashion envy and the wealth tax.

 

[pknopp]

It is spending, PERIOD. Taxes are not too low. Cut spending AND cut taxes to stimulate organic growth. As Mac1958 stated below, there is a balance between tax rate and growth. It is undeniable that cutting taxes provides a stimulus to the overall economy and raising taxes is a hinderance. IMO, we should cut taxes a small amount and spending a much larger amount and then evaluate the overall tax revenue after giving the economy time to react.



You sound like an Obama prodigy.

The self-made rich paid taxes just like everybody else on their climb up the ladder. Why do they owe more than those that received the same benefits but failed to take full advantage? This sounds like nothing more than a push for equity, regardless of abilities or achievement.



The combination of those two things would lead to us not having a country much longer.



You are living in a fantasy land if you don’t think other countries want what we have. We are sitting on a gold mine, both geographically and with our natural resources which the left refuses to fully utilize. Other countries salivate at the opportunity.



We perpetuate the problems. Letting your able-bodied, adult, non-working child live in your basement for free is fine in the short-term, but if he chooses to get married, have numerous children that you feed and then have the nerve to complain that you go out to eat on Friday nights and they must stay home and eat the food you bought for them at the grocery store….well, you should have a problem and you should speak up.



Ha, we agree.


We don’t tax people on net worth. That is beyond ridiculous. If I pay higher taxes on the money I make in the first place because of the progressive tax system, why on earth should I be penalized even further for saving or investing that already heavily taxed money?

Theory not reality. Reality, we are $34 trillion in debt. Those who have want more and more and more and there is never enough to satisfy. So we run on debt and printing trillions of dollars.

Create a million dollars in debt. Hand it out. People buy things and pay tax and you get $200,000 in return. We are still $800,000 in debt.

 

[Mac-7]

Why do you assume that we need to cut or reduce funding for welfare and other social programs? The US federal government has plenty of money to cover the cost of these programs. Do you want them to cut Medicare and Medicaid?

We need to cut all spending programs to stop the increase in the national debt

There is a day of reckoning in our future that cant be avoided by wishful thinking

And the pain must be shared by everyone including medicare and medicaid

 

[Markle]

Why do you assume that we need to cut or reduce funding for welfare and other social programs? The US federal government has plenty of money to cover the cost of these programs. Do you want them to cut Medicare and Medicaid?

How has all that spending worked out?

How much has the US spent on the Great Society?​

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs.]

How much has the US spent on the Great Society? (2024)

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs.

investguiding-com.custommapposter.com

How has that helped those living in poverty? Zip, zero, nada.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You keep trying to make this emotional argument about the rich but it just doesn’t fly.

I'm making an argument about fellow American citizens who have the same rights and are entitled to the same considerations as you.

It isn’t a practical argument. If you want to make it emotional consider this: even self made rich people didn’t become rich all on their own. They had help. You could argue they have to give back to society for that help.

What does that have to do with unfairly taxing the rich?

Putting the burden on the rich isn’t about easy. It’s about what makes sense.

But it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense from a fairness standpoint. No one group of citizens should be unfairly taxed because of mistakes made by the government. It violates every principle of rights and liberties this country was founded on.

You can’t give me a viable alternative to fund the government so this is what we are stuck with.

That is a non sequitur fallacy. Just because I or someone else do not have an alternative viable solution does not mean yours is right or justified.

You can keep pretending i don’t keep telling you that but it does you know good.

I'm not pretending you're not telling me, I'm disagreeing with what you tell me.

You’re desperate for me to say some sort of slight about the rich to justify this emotional argument you keep making. You’re wasting your time. I’m sure it’s easy for you to just assume I am bitter and jealous because that makes you feel validated but it’s a complete waste. I have plenty of respect for the wealthy unless their actions and personalities take that away.

It doesn't matter whether you are bitter and jealous or not; that's why I'm approaching this from an equality standpoint and asking questions.

lol you’ll say anything won’t you? You can’t frame this as “rights and privileges” from an objective constitutional standpoint.

I can and I have.

Do rich people deserve the same rights? Yes they do. Unless you can prove being taxed more is against their constitutional rights, you’re not making much of a point.

So now you want proof that the rich are equally entitled to rights, protections and considerations under the law?

Now as far as privilege goes, that is just an emotional argument that has no bearing on their constitutional rights.

So what about their constitutional rights?

Taxes has nothing to do with privilege. At the very least you need to define what you mean by privilege for me to answer that question.

But taxes are the law. Are you suggesting that the rich are not entitled to equal application of the law or equal treatment under the law?

 

[Billy000]

I'm making an argument about fellow American citizens who have the same rights and are entitled to the same considerations as you.


What does that have to do with unfairly taxing the rich?


But it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense from a fairness standpoint. No one group of citizens should be unfairly taxed because of mistakes made by the government. It violates every principle of rights and liberties this country was founded on.


That is a non sequitur fallacy. Just because I or someone else do not have an alternative viable solution does not mean yours is right or justified.


I'm not pretending you're not telling me, I'm disagreeing with what you tell me.


It doesn't matter whether you are bitter and jealous or not; that's why I'm approaching this from an equality standpoint and asking questions.


I can and I have.


So now you want proof that the rich are equally entitled to rights, protections and considerations under the law?


So what about their constitutional rights?

But taxes are the law. Are you suggesting that the rich are not entitled to equal application of the law or equal treatment under the law?

I don’t care that it isnt fair. You should have picked that up by now. I don’t need to justify it being fair. I haven’t even tried to explain to you why it is fair. It’s besides my point as to why the rich should be taxed more.

Their constitutional rights are irrelevant to how much they are taxed.

Different laws apply to different people so you can’t put them all in the same umbrella of law protection. As an example, it is illegal for a high school teacher to have a sexual relationship with an 18 year old student. Any other adult could have a relationship with an 18 year old student. Laws do not always apply across the board to the same people.

 

[Soupnazi630]

the upper 50% own 97% of the nation's wealth (evidence on request)

Therefore, it's only fair that they pay 97% of the nation's taxes.

That's not 'communism', that's being fair. A progressive tax on the upper 50% is fair.

WRONG.

It is communism

They do not own any part of the nations wealth and you have no such evidence. your claim is based on a lie that the wealth is a collective pie owned by the nation. It is not.

Their wealth is theirs or your wealth is yours. No one else has a claim on on it and it is strictly as marxist idea to progressively tax them

It is in no way fair it is nothing more than childish rationalization for theft

 

[SweetTea]

Create a million dollars in debt. Hand it out. People buy things and pay tax and you get $200,000 in return. We are still $800,000 in debt.

Sure, that is why we have to cut spending to 200k in your scenario. The other alternative is to raise taxes to generate the same 200k, but the main difference is that the economy is not as strong. It is artificial and will eventually stagnate as opposed to the cut taxes approach which will grow the economy. Its a no-brainer to me.

 

[pknopp]

Sure, that is why we have to cut spending to 200k in your scenario. The other alternative is to raise taxes to generate the same 200k, but the main difference is that the economy is not as strong. It is artificial and will eventually stagnate as opposed to the cut taxes approach which will grow the economy. Its a no-brainer to me.

We can cut to 200k but that isn't going to pay off the $34 trillion we have already spent. Again, people loved the benefits of this but now don't want to pay up for it.

 

[SweetTea]

We can cut to 200k but that isn't going to pay off the $34 trillion we have already spent. Again, people loved the benefits of this but now don't want to pay up for it.

Agreed, it won't pay for it so we are left with raising taxes to generate more revenue in the short term or lowering taxes to stimulate the economy and raise more revenue in the long term. They can both achieve the same result, but one leaves us with a weak economy while the other with a strong, vibrant economy that ultimately generates even more revenue without as much of a hardship on the taxpayers.

 

[TruthNotBS]

We need to cut all spending programs to stop the increase in the national debt

There is a day of reckoning in our future that cant be avoided by wishful thinking

And the pain must be shared by everyone including medicare and medicaid

Your concern about the national debt is based on ignorance of how economics works with a modern, fiat currency. Our so-called "national debt", isn't the same as a household debt or the debt of a private corporation, because the US Federal Government is the exclusive sovereign issuer of our currency, not a mere user like you and me. Do you realize that?

We shouldn't even call it a debt, we could just as well call it an asset surplus. Do you realize that? We're no longer under the gold standard, hence national debts are simply ledgers of how much money is being saved in treasuries, held in bank accounts. etc. Our federal government will never go insolvent.

The government's red ink is the people's black ink or surplus. Stephanie Kelton a professor in economics and expert on macroeconomics explains:

Michael Norman is also an economist and explains what the national debt actually is:






​

This is one of the reasons I'm not that concerned with tax rates at the federal level. The federal government imposes taxes, taking money out of the economy, to control inflation, and maintain the value of the dollar. Federal taxes are important, but not for the same reason as most Americans think. The US Federal Government doesn't have to rely on our taxes to fund itself, due to the nature of a sovereign, fiat currency. It will never run out of USD, because it is the exclusive issuer of it. The most important metric that sets federal government spending is the nation's GDP i.e. production capacity. Our ability to meet the nation's demand for products and services.

Watch Greenspan, the head of the FED educate House Rep Paul Ryan, a confused, young conservative Senator from Wisconsin:

​

GDP, the nation's production capacity determines its budget limits, not tax revenue. If the US Federal Government allocates funds to projects and programs that strengthen the working class, our nation's GDP grows (i.e. Our nation's production capacity expands). There's no need to cut or decrease funding for any social program, especially for Medicare and Medicaid. That would undermine the nation's health (i.e. Access to medical care) and hence production capacity. You would be applying unnecessary stress to the American public at large (i.e. The Working Class = Workers = Producers, including small business owners.) hence undermining production.

Stop hanging out with Paul Ryan, he's confusing you.