Where big promises meet economic reality.

If I’d be surprised, meaning something I’d agree with, then let er rip, taterchip….Why so shady?
I've explained my stance adequately. I just told you that I don't take hard positions on almost anything.

How about this...

What do you suspect my motive would be if I'm not telling the truth? What political positions do you think I might keep in secret?
 
What ever you believe, for what ever reason, It has become harder for the many to attain the American dream.
And the riches of richest continue to bloom into the multiple billions.
 
I've explained my stance adequately. I just told you that I don't take hard positions on almost anything.
Why not? What are you afraid of?
How about this...

What do you suspect my motive would be if I'm not telling the truth? What political positions do you think I might keep in secret?
That's a cop out...I don't assign motives, I'm simply asking a question that you are obviously too embarrassed to answer honestly...That seems to be a problem with many....It really shouldn't be this hard with honest participants...Like I said though, you're clearly NOT going to respond in good faith, so have fun with your thread, and stay out of the heat today....cya.
 
Why not? What are you afraid of?

That's a cop out...I don't assign motives, I'm simply asking a question that you are obviously too embarrassed to answer honestly...That seems to be a problem with many....It really shouldn't be this hard with honest participants...Like I said though, you're clearly NOT going to respond in good faith, so have fun with your thread, and stay out of the heat today....cya.
Yeah, you got me J-Mac. Have a nice day. Lol
 
There’s a common idea on the left that taxing the rich can fund massive social programs without burdening the rest of the population. It’s emotionally appealing, but economically impossible. While rich individuals do hold a lot of wealth, the broader truth is that the middle and upper-middle classes, because of their sheer numbers, account for the majority of national income and consumption. That’s where most taxable economic activity occurs. Large scale public investments require broad participation. Just taxing the rich more won't make these things possible. Countries with strong safety nets, such as those in Scandinavia, reflect this in practice with high taxes across income levels. Pretending otherwise isn't logical and sets the public up for disappointment through unrealistic expectations.
That is absolutely untrue.

Middle class has around 22% of the wealth while the top 10% has 77%.

 
What ever you believe, for what ever reason, It has become harder for the many to attain the American dream.
And the riches of richest continue to bloom into the multiple billions.
I have a great idea….We should recruit 50 million desperate and illiterate thirdworlders to destroy the blue collar trades that used to drive the middleclass, we need them to destroy our public education and take higher education opportunities from our own people. You think that would help?
 
Progressive liberals want the social safety net programs that the Scandinavian countries enjoy, but they want the wealthy to pay for it, which is totally unrealistic. Those countries pay for their gov't service with a tax system that everybody pays into; they pay what is essentially a 25% consumption tax and everybody also pays income taxes no matter what their income was. Everybody. In the past, several countries have raised the income tax rates on the rich up to around 80%, expecting to get enormous revenue increases that they can spend on social programs. But the problem was that the rich people said **** you we ain't paying that high tax rate and they sold out, packed up, and moved elsewhere. That actually happened, we ain't talking about theory here. And the result was the enormous revenue increases didn't happen and economic growth went down the drain cuz investments cratered.

Bottom line: you just can't expect the rich to cover the national deficits, it ain't gonna happen. I do think the democrats will try to raise taxes on the wealthy if and when they take control of Congress and the WH, and they'll spend that expected revenue of their political agenda stuff. But they won't get nearly the increased revenue and the national debt will go up bigly.
 
He doesn't understand what wealth vs income and consumption is. His position comes from economic ignorance.
Nope. I know far more about economics than any bloody tRumpling. You dolts still think the exporting country pays the tariffs.
 
Progressive liberals want the social safety net programs that the Scandinavian countries enjoy, but they want the wealthy to pay for it, which is totally unrealistic. Those countries pay for their gov't service with a tax system that everybody pays into; they pay what is essentially a 25% consumption tax and everybody also pays income taxes no matter what their income was. Everybody. In the past, several countries have raised the income tax rates on the rich up to around 80%, expecting to get enormous revenue increases that they can spend on social programs. But the problem was that the rich people said **** you we ain't paying that high tax rate and they sold out, packed up, and moved elsewhere. That actually happened, we ain't talking about theory here. And the result was the enormous revenue increases didn't happen and economic growth went down the drain cuz investments cratered.

Bottom line: you just can't expect the rich to cover the national deficits, it ain't gonna happen. I do think the democrats will try to raise taxes on the wealthy if and when they take control of Congress and the WH, and they'll spend that expected revenue of their political agenda stuff. But they won't get nearly the increased revenue and the national debt will go up bigly.
Libs are always noble as hell when armed with the checkbooks of others.
 
That is absolutely untrue.

Middle class has around 22% of the wealth while the top 10% has 77%.
You’re confusing wealth with income and consumption, which are distinct concepts. Wealth refers to accumulated assets, income is the flow of earnings, and consumption is the spending that drives much of the economy. It's important to distinguish between wealth, income, and consumption. While the top 10% do hold the majority of wealth (assets), the middle and upper-middle classes collectively earn most of the national income and account for the bulk of consumer spending. Since taxes on income and consumption fund most public services, broad-based participation in taxation is necessary to sustain large-scale social programs. Simply taxing wealth alone, especially when much of it is illiquid or tied up in assets, isn't sufficient to support comprehensive social safety nets.
 
j-mac

Apparently, I'm a bloody Trumpling.
Woah, hey buddy. I excused myself from your little thread here...Now you want to bring me back in?

I don't know what you believe in, but I do know what kind of tactic that is.....Quit crying and conduct your ridiculous exercise without me....Thank you.
 
15th post
We've never had some of the social programs left wingers push for, like universal healthcare and publicly funded tuition, even when top tax rates were above 80%. Those high rates applied to a narrow portion of income and didn’t generate the kind of revenue needed for massive new entitlements. Countries that have those programs, like those in Scandinavia, fund them with broad-based taxes on the middle class.

That's math. No ideology needed.
We've also never had this level of wealth generated before, nor the income disparity.

We're in uncharted territory.

However, the math works, it's you'r corrupted ideology that's preventing you from seeing this.
 
All tne $ saved from cuts can easily go into social security coffers. Or at least a good sized chunk. american citizens are worth that.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom