Who wants to defend the Federal Income Tax?

[iamwhatiseem]

The federal government has moved to do more for the middle class. I support that

Our military spends 40 cents of every military dollar on earth. I would gladly cut that in favor of more domestic spending

Which completely avoided everything I said.

 

[Flash]

Murica raised what it took built roads, ports and other infrastructure, maintained a navy, educated children, fought wars, and built an industrial empire all without a federal income tax.

Any clown who says "how would the gubmint raise revenue without it" is a stone dope.

View attachment 839795

 

[Orangecat]

The people never voted for an income tax, destroying the narrative that we are a democracy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

My current income tax rate, counting everything including state and local is 21.6%
Which means, I work pretty much a whole week every month just to pay taxes.
Now.. you add sales tax, property taxes, excise taxes on top of that... I am easily paying 25% of my entire income on taxes. Easily.
That is ******* ridiculous.
And you have morons on here saying I should pay more.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hey, congratulations for an honest discussion. That is really all I wanted.

I prefer not to discuss other countries. This leads us to bad conclusions.
I will try to be more brief than you have been for the sake of concisely making points.
As to your critique of my using the term joy for paying taxes, when I read Democrats posts, it sure seems as if they really enjoy paying high taxes. They do not question what for. They made up their mind the Feds are right as long as the Feds are managed only by Democrats. Then the Democrats get to spend all they want with no questions asked.

Frankly if you ask 100 citizens what the Government does, the majority of them have no clue. And if you ask a million of them, they too have no clue what the Feds do.

When you speak of bridges, how many for example know that the vast network of bridges are paid for at the State level and not the Fed level? You will see a lot of don't knows on that.

One the nanny state idea. That is true. This is often called that by we Republicans. What are we trying to talk about? Well the feds can sure figure out how to take every dime we ever make too. And promise us that nanny state. Where we are essentially working for the Feds under the guise they provide us police and roads and shit, the entire list of crap.

Cops here are locally funded. So I tried to exclude the local taxes.
Roads that cross state lines can collect some funds. But it is not true that the Feds pay for all of those roads. States also kick in. That is a different topic since again, this is about the Feds role and not the states nor cities roles.

Asking how big should the Feds be is also my question. Must it be too big to fail? Must it consume 30 percent of our dollar? How about doing the job using only 10 percent. What the Mormons call Tithing to GOD. I suspect many religions would love to collect 10 percent for GOD. Why the hell can't the Feds declare enough is enough?

Under FDR who they love, he charged them up to around 90 percent. My god man, GOD can't keep up with the Democrats. Kennedy realized high taxes were bad. But for some reason Democrats today want us to return to 90 percent taxes. That is the meaning of the nanny state.

unbridled Capitalism means you and I are free to choose to make a deal or pass it by. If I pass your deal, I find a person with a better deal. It is a friendly way to do business.

Flat tax. I believe we must try that system. While as you say, all will pay the same, it is based on sales and not income. So if I decide to purchase more, I pay more taxes. Then some argue it will hurt business. but the amount left for us is more so we will adjust to that.

Accountants have that system all worked out. We have nothing to lose. We should try this and see if the naysayers are right. Try it as a trial run.

Thank you for being civil and not calling me a Marxist who hates America. That is about the best that I can hope for from conservatives around here. Having said that, I will add that you seem to have a strange understanding of Democrats. I’m not sure what posts you’re referring to,, but don’t recall anyone saying “I want to pay higher taxes and I don’t care what it’s used for” That is certainly not what I am saying. The basic message from Democrats and Progressives is and always has been that every one should pay their fair share and that revenue should be used in a way that maximizes the greater good. Ofcourse, we may not always agree on what exactly that means, but if we could pur aside the ideology and focus on rational problem solving we most likely can find some common ground
You say that you don’t want to talk about other countries but by doing so we might learn something about smarter and more effective government

How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending (taxfoundation.org)

In a recent interview on ABC’s This Week, Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders reiterated his position that he wants the United States to look more like Scandinavian countries policy-wise:

George Stephanopoulos: “I can hear the Republican attack ad right now: ‘He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.’”
Bernie Sanders: “What’s wrong with that?”
Specifically, Sanders wants the United States to adopt a lot of the spending policies that many of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are commonly known to have. Policies such as government sponsored college education, paid parental leave, and universal healthcare.

You can deride that as the “Nanny State” that goes against the grain of small government ideology. I call government for the people. Government that recognizes that personal responsibility and individuality goes only so far in a cruel and unpredictable capitalist economy. If you support a free market economy, then you must also support social safety nets there are there for people when needed. The unbridled capitalism that you champion gives freedom to the capitalists. Most people only work for the capitalists. We will not thrive as a nation where peoples basic life necessities are not met, where a major illness, or just going to college can bring financial ruin upon a person . There is far to much emphasis placed on what things cost and far to little on the benefits, and worse, the cost of doing nothing because it will come back to bite you

Moving on, you seem to be saying that roads and bridges are not a valid topic in relation to the issue of federal income tax. I beg to differ. State rely heavily on federal grants to maintain infrastructure. You might recall the recent infrastructure bill signed by Biden. Most major roads and rail lines are critical to interstate commerce and therefore a federal –state responsibility.

Here in New Jersey, we have a major catastrophe waiting to happen because of Republican stupidity and twisted priorities. The two rail tunnels that connect NJ to Manhattan are well over 100 years old and are likely to fail soon, disrupting if not destroying the entire regional economy. The states simply cannot go it alone on this. Trump had put the project on the back burner, and the former Republican governor actually cancelled it once. This while giving tax breaks to the wealthy . Not smart government Now it is on track but we are racing. The federal government also provides grants for public safety such as police and fire. So no, there is no clear line between state and federal responsibility.

Regards,

Comrade, Patriot

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I am sorry. I have hired too many workers and paid them plus been a worker for firms to keep arguing this point. I say the income source is the customer. The way you explain it the income source is not the customer, but the worker. That is magic.

All for One and That One All for Himself

Without the worker, there is no product for the owner to get income from by selling to attracted customers. With workers who are unmotivated because of cheapskate wages given by bosses who think they are "producers," there is only a trickle of income from some inexperienced customers.

The lack of motivation from this system of Investor Supremacy includes the sales clerk. How much better service would he give if he got a percentage of the sale?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Correct and backed up by an economist historian:

Oinkonomist Histwhorean

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The reactionary argument against the New Deal amounts to the claim that if Herbert Hoover had been re elected in 1932 the United States would have recovered earlier from the Great Depression. Obviously we cannot go back in time and engineer that re election. Nevertheless, we can see what the situation was like in 1932, and how things changed later. I will use as economic guide posts the years 1932, 1940, and 1944.

1932 was Hoover's last year in office. The unemployment rate was 23.6%. The per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 dollars was $4,901. The top tax rate was 63.0%. (The previous year it had been 25%.)

In 1940 Roosevelt was re elected for the second time. Unemployment had declined to 14.6%. The per capita GDP in 1996 dollars had grown to $7,423. The top tax rate had grown to 81.0%.

In 1944 Roosevelt was re elected for the third time. Unemployment had declined to 1.2%. The per capita GDP in 1996 dollars had grown to $12,380. The top tax rate had grown to 94.0%.

United States Unemployment Rate

Find information and statistics about the overall unemployment rate in the United States from 1920 to 2013.

www.infoplease.com

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

www.singularity.com

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Reactionaries have argued that it was not the New Deal, but the the Second World War that ended the Great Depression. I would like to remind them that military spending and employment is government spending and employment. During the Roosevelt administration we taxed and spent our way to prosperity.

Liberals Are Pinsetters for Their Conservative Fraternity Brothers

Liberals pervert the New Deal and claim they are FDR Democrats. This gives a talking point to their Rightist classmates, who claim that the perversion of democracy we live under today is just like the New Deal.

Second, we were able to bail out the formerly Great Britain and then defeat the Fascists ourselves because of the strong economy created by the New Deal. If it had been an economic disaster, half of America would be speaking German and the other half would be speaking Japanese.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

As long as Americans expect government to fix their problems, there will be a need to pay for it. Cut the dependence and you can cut taxes.

And Become Dependent on Greedy Investor and Management Parasites

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Only idiots think corporations pay taxes.
They never have, and they never will.

DEMOCRATS - Raise taxes on corporations!!! GRRR!! GRRR!!

You can't get more stupid.
If you raise taxes on, say, Lowes... you think Lowes just pays that amount without raising prices to compensate???????????????
REALLY?????????????

Okay - so, in the end who pays for corporate taxes genius??
YOU DO.

God people are dumb.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

My current income tax rate, counting everything including state and local is 21.6%
Which means, I work pretty much a whole week every month just to pay taxes.

Excessive Pay-Gouging Is the Same Enslavement As Excessive Taxes

Does any corporate slave ever figure out how much he produces and how much of that is deducted by the profit-tax and given back to him in the form of salary or wages? Until you can apply a meme to both sides, government and your bosses, then such selective resentment is meaningless and hypocritical.

In fact, profit is the most extreme graduated tax. The guy who invented the Nobel Prize-winning Polymerase Chain Reaction got a $30,000 bonus from his Scrooge bosses, who sold the patent on it for $300,000,000. The guy who invented Valium and the guy who invented television got the same raw deal from Investor Supremacy.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If you raise taxes on, say, Lowes... you think Lowes just pays that amount without raising prices to compensate???????????????
REALLY?????????????

Okay - so, in the end who pays for corporate taxes genius??
YOU DO.

Covering Up an Inevitable and Deserved Cut in Profits

Even a Corpie-loving fanatic would never say, "I'll pay more than I think this product is worth because I feel sorry for the poor over-taxed manufacturer."

Nor would he be willing to pay more because of Sympathy for Suitcoats having to meet a union's demands.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Democrat plan to lower the national debt is to raise taxes on rich people and corporations.

The 1% Who Were Also Born in the 1% Is 20 Times Any Rational Distribution

What about Inheritance Tax? That is the key solution which the Preppy-programmed duplicate ideologies are ignoring. Since the heirs did nothing to earn that wealth, leaving them with what they deserve will eliminate the need for any other taxes. Even from the 1% alone, it comes to $3 trillion a year.

So Americans are programmed to let this unAmerican privilege dominate us when it could end all these Debates in a Bubble.

 

[Hector12]

The 1% Who Were Also Born in the 1% Is 20 Times Any Rational Distribution

What about Inheritance Tax? That is the key solution which the Preppy-programmed duplicate ideologies are ignoring. Since the heirs did nothing to earn that wealth, leaving them with what they deserve will eliminate the need for any other taxes. Even from the 1% alone, it comes to $3 trillion a year.

So Americans are programmed to let this unAmerican privilege dominate us when it could end all these Debates in a Bubble.

The estate tax was introduced in a deliberate effort to prevent the United States from developing a hereditary upper class. I think it is a beneficial reform.

 

[Hector12]

**** man, you want my words to substitute for the authors?

Essentially she proves that FDR did not cause the economy to get better. However if you want to give credit, give it to the Japanese and Hitler for us getting into a major war.

FDRs policies were in a large measure overturned by the Supreme Court.

The economy did get better for most Americans. That is why Franklin Roosevelt was re elected three times.

The economy did not get better for the rich businessmen Amity Shlaes cares about. First they lost fortunes during the stock market crash. Then Franklin Roosevelt came along, blamed them for the great depression, raised their taxes, imposed minimum wage laws on them, and encouraged their employees to join unions.

It was great fun, and very successful politics. I wish we had a Democrat president now who could out think and out maneuver Republican politicians and their puppet masters in the Republican Donor Classes.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A lot has happened since the 1880's. American's expect more benefits from the government. We want the rich to pay for them.

Only the Born-Rich Should

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The estate tax was introduced in a deliberate effort to prevent the United States from developing a hereditary upper class. I think it is a beneficial reform.

If the Fatherest Survive, the Fittest Won't

Abolish large inheritances. If bimbo Caroline Kennedy had to pay 50%, she'd still have $100 million dollars, which she didn't do a thing for.

These no-talent spoiled and sheltered brats dominate all sections of the specious spectrum. Even with a larger estate tax, they still would. Hereditary power is the greatest social crime in history, an undiscussed cancer that has destroyed all civilizations.

The HeirHeads are set up halfway to the finish line and prevent the best racers from finishing where we need them to be, which is not in middle-of-the-pack subservience to the Legacy Leeches.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

View attachment 839762

GreedHead Parasites Call Trickle-Down "Gold Water"

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

They wanted the freedom to keep Negroes in slavery.

Slavery Was Punishment. A Race That Acts Like Jungle Animals Needed to Be Tamed.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Covering Up an Inevitable and Deserved Cut in Profits

Even a Corpie-loving fanatic would never say, "I'll pay more than I think this product is worth because I feel sorry for the poor over-taxed manufacturer."

Nor would he be willing to pay more because of Sympathy for Suitcoats having to meet a union's demands.

You are delusional.
Raising corporate taxes is the worst thing possible to do in an inflationary economy.
The single dumbest thing anyone could come up with.
Saying so, shows a 5th grade level understanding of basic economics.