Presidential Election

60,107 Views | 1209 Replies | Last: 24 days ago by Tswizsle
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:47a, 9/3/24
AG
What freedom do I want to take away from people? If you're just going to say raising taxes on the rich, that's a pretty weak case you're making.

I should also note that the state of Texas, a state that constantly touts itself as "free" is anything but that. It's not all about money and taxes, you know.

Texas has:

- a very harsh criminal justice system, including high incarceration rate, and most lethal injections by far (which have questionable accuracy)
- civil asset forfeiture
- MJ laws still among the harshest in the country. still criminalized and Paxton suing cities that have decriminalized
- overly broad book bans that don't just ban pornography in school libraries but a ton of other content that offends people's sensibilities
- draconian abortion restrictions that have affected the quality of maternal healthcare
- voting consistently made more difficult, minor offenses prosecuted as felonies, Paxton regularly engages in intimidation tactics to stop people from voting. including the recent LULAC raid.
- 4% of the state is public land, compared with other large states which are usually around 50%. it's hard to just go on a hike or camp or go explore the outdoors because nearly everywhere is privately owned
- transportation is difficult if you don't have a car. we have the means and money to expand rail service, both inter and intra city, and it's just not a priority to our leaders. Car centric culture makes people miserable.
- employers aren't required to carry workers comp insurance, which may be "freedom" to the employer but anything but that to the employee

so usually when I hear conservatives talk about freedom it usually is just limited to taxes for rich people and guns
Reply Quote
2
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 11:49a, 9/3/24
AG
Any taking is taking. A little taking is still taking.

It's ok, we found the problem. You think it's fine to take, and justify it by wanting to take only a "modest amount" from the "very rich" for the "public good".

It think it's wrong to take, and note your glaring hypocrisy besides.

Discussion over. Issues clear.
Reply Quote
4
Rongagin71
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UTExan • 12:14p, 9/3/24
AG
UTExan said:
barbacoa taco said:
this whole back and forth about "freedom" is so silly to me. It's a buzzword. The same conservatives and libertarians who say it all the time don't seem to consider that the bottom 50% doesn't feel very free in this country. When you make low wages, have no benefits, can't ever afford to go on vacation, and consistently have things taken away from you by those at the top, life doesn't feel very free.

And it's really stupid when people say taxation is an infringement on freedom. Taxation is an enumerated power in the constitution. How much we are taxed is something that will be debated until the end of time.

I don't think I'll ever be convinced that a marginal tax rate of, say 50% on incomes over $1 million, is a violation of personal freedom.


The top 50% of income earners/wealthy pay 97% of federal income taxes. If you are poor, then you are eligible for an astonishing array of benefits:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Also known as food stamps, SNAP provides a benefits card that can be used to purchase food at participating grocery stores and farmers markets

Supplemental Security Income (SSI): A program that provides monthly benefits to people with low income and resources who are blind, 65 or older, or have a qualifying disability

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): A cash assistance program

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): A cash assistance program

Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP): Provides no-cost internet

Housing assistance: Includes subsidized housing, housing vouchers, and public housing programs

Health insurance: Includes Medicaid and the Child's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

Head Start: A program for low-income families

Federal Pell Grant Program: A program for low-income families
https://www.usa.gov/benefits
This is just a partial list economic programs for poor people by the Feds, there are also many private programs that get tax breaks, many NPC's that get tax money, and many race based preference programs that give not just preference in hiring but also preference in testing, contracting, promoting, etc.
Affirmative Action should be for ALL poor people and NOT AT ALL for rich women IMHO.
Reply Quote
2
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 12:22p, 9/3/24
AG
Zobel said:
Any taking is taking. A little taking is still taking.

It's ok, we found the problem. You think it's fine to take, and justify it by wanting to take only a "modest amount" from the "very rich" for the "public good".

It think it's wrong to take, and note your glaring hypocrisy besides.

Discussion over. Issues clear.
Yep, it really is that simple. It is okay to take money from "rich" anonymous people to help fund your desires.

Again, tale as old as time.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 12:34p, 9/3/24
barbacoa taco said:
What freedom do I want to take away from people? If you're just going to say raising taxes on the rich, that's a pretty weak case you're making.

I should also note that the state of Texas, a state that constantly touts itself as "free" is anything but that. It's not all about money and taxes, you know.

Texas has:

- a very harsh criminal justice system, including high incarceration rate, and most lethal injections by far (which have questionable accuracy)
- civil asset forfeiture
- MJ laws still among the harshest in the country. still criminalized and Paxton suing cities that have decriminalized
- overly broad book bans that don't just ban pornography in school libraries but a ton of other content that offends people's sensibilities
- draconian abortion restrictions that have affected the quality of maternal healthcare
- voting consistently made more difficult, minor offenses prosecuted as felonies, Paxton regularly engages in intimidation tactics to stop people from voting. including the recent LULAC raid.
- 4% of the state is public land, compared with other large states which are usually around 50%. it's hard to just go on a hike or camp or go explore the outdoors because nearly everywhere is privately owned
- transportation is difficult if you don't have a car. we have the means and money to expand rail service, both inter and intra city, and it's just not a priority to our leaders. Car centric culture makes people miserable.
- employers aren't required to carry workers comp insurance, which may be "freedom" to the employer but anything but that to the employee

so usually when I hear conservatives talk about freedom it usually is just limited to taxes for rich people and guns


If you want "public" goods like big parks, you must pay for them. The state of Utah is currently suing the Feds over land ownership (about 60-70 % federally owned) federal lands deprive locals of needed revenue to maintain public infrastructure and adequately compensated emergency services. A lot of our search and rescue on federal lands is volunteer effort: sheriff's or fire entities with volunteer support from the community. There's your direct "tax on the rich".
We also have robust public transit in Salt Lake City: basically it provides great transportation cheaply from the airport to the downtown hotels and to the football stadium and commuter rail on about 90 miles of large conurbation we know as the metro area for 2.7 million people. But we need more police on the system because between 7pm and midnight it is has safety issues with crime, mostly from the homeless who are fare jumpers. Huge taxpayer outlays to subsidize poor and lower middle income people because fixed rail systems are very expensive to maintain and operate. Another direct tax on the "rich". People use cars to avoid having to use the transit system.
Homeless camp on our city sidewalks and streets clustering around places where they will be fed and services provided at taxpayer expense: another direct tax on the "rich".
We have well-funded free libraries where the homeless sleep while not in mental crisis or sleeping off the effects of their pharmaceuticals du jour. Another direct tax on "the rich".
Free emergency medical care and Medicaid for indigent persons and free clinics for the poor also are a feature of our society, funded by "the rich".
All that is asked of the dysfunctional poor of our society is that they don't commit criminal acts. Yet you complain that the justice system is harsh because it puts sociopaths in prison. Taxpayer funded prisons with job training opportunities and medical care. Another direct tax on "the rich".
There will always be poor people and our job as a society ought to be to provide opportunities because we cannot guarantee outcomes.

“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Reply Quote
3
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 12:40p, 9/3/24
AG
Zobel said:
Any taking is taking. A little taking is still taking.

It's ok, we found the problem. You think it's fine to take, and justify it by wanting to take only a "modest amount" from the "very rich" for the "public good".

It think it's wrong to take, and note your glaring hypocrisy besides.

Discussion over. Issues clear.
When I discuss this topic with conservatives, I always wonder what level of taxation you think is acceptable. Because like I said, it's an enumerated power in the constitution. I think most rational people agree that zero taxes is not a sustainable solution.

Is all taxation theft? If not, what is an acceptable level of taxation?
What do you think is the purpose of government?
Everyone knows there are public services the government pays for (roads, parks, public schools, water treatment, police). Should these be taxpayer funded or privately funded?

Between the bellyaching over taxes being an infringement on freedom and wanting to gut the administrative state, I sometimes feel like I'm talking to a toddler who is mad about being told what he can and can't do. I'm going to need an argument more convincing than "taxes bad. regulations bad."
Reply Quote
1
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UTExan • 12:50p, 9/3/24
AG
a lot of these issues you mention are issues common to populated areas. I don't necessarily see them as arguments against these very things existing, but that we have improvements to make.


Quote:
If you want "public" goods like big parks, you must pay for them. The state of Utah is currently suing the Feds over land ownership (about 60-70 % federally owned) federal lands deprive locals of needed revenue to maintain public infrastructure and adequately compensated emergency services. A lot of our search and rescue on federal lands is volunteer effort: sheriff's or fire entities with volunteer support from the community. There's your direct "tax on the rich".

yeah, there are national and state parks, which are taxpayer funded. then there is just plain old public land that isn't designated as a park but is still open to the public. Texas has almost none of that.

Quote:
We also have robust public transit in Salt Lake City: basically it provides great transportation cheaply from the airport to the downtown hotels and to the football stadium and commuter rail on about 90 miles of large conurbation we know as the metro area for 2.7 million people. But we need more police on the system because between 7pm and midnight it is has safety issues with crime, mostly from the homeless who are fare jumpers. Huge taxpayer outlays to subsidize poor and lower middle income people because fixed rail systems are very expensive to maintain and operate. Another direct tax on the "rich". People use cars to avoid having to use the transit system.
is this meant to be an argument against the existence of public transit as a whole?

these problems are common in cities with wide public transit. If anything it means we need more police and security. I am pretty passionate about good infrastructure and I think car centric infrastructure with terrible public transit (looking at you, Houston) is absolutely terrible, ugly, inefficient, and lowers quality of life. I dont want to ban cars, but strong public transit yields so many benefits.

Public transit and rail networks expand freedom of movement. Cars are expensive to own, lease, and maintain. Car centric cities limit movement. This infrastructure allows for lower income people to easier get to work and other places. Rich and middle income earners don't need this as much and can use their cars if they want. Not to mention car centric communities are terrible for kids to grow up in, have higher auto fatality rates, and are just downright unpleasant.

The pros outweigh the cons by a long shot.
Quote:
Homeless camp on our city sidewalks and streets clustering around places where they will be fed and services provided at taxpayer expense: another direct tax on the "rich".
We have well-funded free libraries where the homeless sleep while not in mental crisis or sleeping off the effects of their pharmaceuticals du jour. Another direct tax on "the rich".
as long as there are homeless people they will sleep in public places where they are able to do so. Some cities have done a good job alleviating this problem, some not so much.

Quote:
Free emergency medical care and Medicaid for indigent persons and free clinics for the poor also are a feature of our society, funded by "the rich".
All that is asked of the dysfunctional poor of our society is that they don't commit criminal acts. Yet you complain that the justice system is harsh because it puts sociopaths in prison. Taxpayer funded prisons with job training opportunities and medical care. Another direct tax on "the rich".
my complaint with the criminal justice system is not how you characterize it. I see it as a major societal issue that has plagued poorer communities, often with people who grew up in broken homes and had almost no opportunities to escape the cycle, and over-policing combined with overly harsh and punitive laws that ruin lives and lead to even more crime. It's not over "putting sociopaths in prison" as you put it.


Quote:
There will always be poor people and our job as a society ought to be to provide opportunities because we cannot guarantee outcomes.
I haven't said the government should guarantee outcomes, but that it should function better. Use its power to allow people to live at their full potential, rather than constantly serving those who don't need it.
Reply Quote
1 edit
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 1:03p, 9/3/24
I know of one retired couple that makes around $90,000 per year from pensions, SS and investment distributions. They pay, IIRC, around $20,000 in income taxes, another $2700 in real estate taxes, around $3600 in Medicare supplements and donate about $12-14,000 per year to humanitarian charities/church. They also pay big premiums for long term care insurance to avoid having to burden kids or the government. They are frugal to a fault with their remaining money and fund education savings funds for grandchildren because the millennial parents cannot seem to save money for that purpose, deeming dining out more vital than children's education funds. These are my friends who had middle class jobs who are maligned by the envious poverty activists because they listened to solid financial counseling and acted over a quarter century to save and invest, sometimes sacrificially. To this day they shop for food bargains because it is an ingrained habit. They lack for nothing and still manage to grow their investments. You and your poor friends can do the same.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Reply Quote
1
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 1:05p, 9/3/24
AG
Define "rich".

Because there are not enough of truly wealthy people to significantly affect the tax rate.

That is why when there are tax increases, it always includes the middle and upper middle class.

And the "rich" can handle tax increases because a lot do not have any income. Just wealth. So income tax increases always hurt the middle and upper class the most.

Do you want the government to seize the "Rich's" assets?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
5
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 1:11p, 9/3/24
dermdoc said:
Define "rich".

Because there are not enough of truly wealthy people to significantly affect the tax rate.

That is why when there are tax increases, it always includes the middle and upper middle class.

And the "rich" can handle tax increases because a lot do not have any income. Just wealth. So income tax increases always hurt the middle and upper class the most.

Do you want the government to seize the "Rich's" assets?

I think it's what he wants. Even cash subsidies to poor people have been shown not to increase overall mental or physical health according to an article by Megan McArdle in today's Washington Post. This is not about shaming poor people: it's about breaking that sense of entitlement because that attitude casts people as perpetual victims and inhibits their inclinations to save and invest.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Reply Quote
1
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:14p, 9/3/24
Can anyone explain to me how rich people take from the poor? He says that a lot but has yet to explain the mechanism of transfer.
Reply Quote
4
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 1:29p, 9/3/24
AG
"toddler" and "hissy fit" aren't really effect ways of framing disagreement, and nobody said "taxes bad". i said you're a hypocrite.

nobody is arguing for zero taxation or even against taxation. you're missing it.

in a democratic society the status quo is a snapshot - lagging indicator - of the public will. this is of course a gross oversimplification because it assumes that the society is in fact democratic which is never perfectly true, but it's true enough for public expenditures.

you are arguing that the status quo is bad because immoral. you are outlining your view of the good. the rub comes when faced with the reality that the majority of people do not share your view of the good - as evidenced by the status quo.

your answer is literally that you don't care about freedom. whether you realize it or not, what you're saying is you don't accept other people's view of the good as valid, and you don't think the way they spend their own money is acceptable, so you want to take it and spend it for them.

meanwhile you're not even willing to spend your own money on these things.

you justify it by creating a class of citizens called "the rich" who especially are not spending their money the way you like, and especially need to have their money taken from them to given to people (probably like you) who can spend it better than they can. and you veil this in moral language about what is good and right.

tone deaf doesn't come close to describing this behavior.

there is a correct way to disagree with taxation and spending from the public treasury. it is possible to do it without hypocrisy. i don't have an issue that you disagree with the current model of taxation and spending. i have issue with your complete lack of grounding in the theory that underpins our model of government and lack of a coherent relationship between morality and freedom.

we haven't even gotten to the knock-on effect from a political philosophy perspective as to the problem raised with regard to suffrage when suggesting the public will is actually wrong in a democratic society.

but we don't need to struggle up to those lofty levels -- it is apparent that you're not operating there. i think this whole thing comes down to simple greed on your own part. we can clear it up quickly, though, and if i'm wrong i'll gladly admit it.

the median annual income in the US is around $48k. you say you donate to charities and whatnot. a tithe of that income would be $4800. you say it is "a good thing" to make sure people don't starve, support them in unexpected medical emergencies. you said not doing so is "fundamentally wrong". So how much money do you personally spend on this? more than a tithe on a median income? (you've got a college degree it seems, so you likely make more than that).

maybe that's too much, though. i suppose you have a netflix account and a cell phone - who doesn't these days? those together are probably around $1800 a year. do you spend that much on charity? the average per capita charitable donation in the US is around $2400. do you value charity more than phone and netflix?

maybe even that's too much, though. why set such a high bar? maybe you're cash strapped like some of us. but everyone has time. let's set the time value of your charitable working at $25 an hour - the rough equivalent of the median income rate. one day a month would give the equivalent value of that $2400 donation. do you do that?
Reply Quote
3
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 2:01p, 9/3/24
AG
dermdoc said:
Define "rich".

Because there are not enough of truly wealthy people to significantly affect the tax rate.

That is why when there are tax increases, it always includes the middle and upper middle class.

And the "rich" can handle tax increases because a lot do not have any income. Just wealth. So income tax increases always hurt the middle and upper class the most.

Do you want the government to seize the "Rich's" assets?
Trump's tax cuts increased the deficit by $2T, and that's not even including his spending on other things. To say it makes no meaningful difference is simply false.
Reply Quote
4
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 2:05p, 9/3/24
AG
Silent For Too Long said:
Can anyone explain to me how rich people take from the poor? He says that a lot but has yet to explain the mechanism of transfer.
it's not literal theft. and it's not all rich people, it's the elites + major corporations that own our government, mostly. they keep wages low, cut benefits, take away healthcare, cut social programs, and support politicians that work in their interest. this all has the effect of making themselves richer and limiting any upward mobility of those below them.

as you (or someone) said, it's a zero sum game. they do things to benefit themselves at the expense of the poor.
Reply Quote
4
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 2:29p, 9/3/24
AG
barbacoa taco said:
dermdoc said:
Define "rich".

Because there are not enough of truly wealthy people to significantly affect the tax rate.

That is why when there are tax increases, it always includes the middle and upper middle class.

And the "rich" can handle tax increases because a lot do not have any income. Just wealth. So income tax increases always hurt the middle and upper class the most.

Do you want the government to seize the "Rich's" assets?
Trump's tax cuts increased the deficit by $2T, and that's not even including his spending on other things. To say it makes no meaningful difference is simply false.
I would argue that the tax cuts were not the primary cause of the increase in deficit, but that is another topic.

Who are the "rich" you keep talking about?
And remember, this is income tax we are talking about. Not a wealth tax. So if I am really rich and do not work, how do you really tax me? You can try capital gains but that is very difficult to do.

And how do "rich" people take from poor people?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:38p, 9/3/24
AG
And you say Trump and Reagan tax cuts were for the "rich", correct?

Then being rich means paying any federal income tax. It was a percentage, across the board. The biggest tax cuts were for the working middle and upper middle class. Who are most of the posters on here.

Yet, you do not define them as "rich", correct?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:45p, 9/3/24
AG
And do you believe cutting marginal tax rates or inflation hurt the poor more?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 2:55p, 9/3/24
barbacoa taco said:
Silent For Too Long said:
Can anyone explain to me how rich people take from the poor? He says that a lot but has yet to explain the mechanism of transfer.
it's not literal theft. and it's not all rich people, it's the elites + major corporations that own our government, mostly. they keep wages low, cut benefits, take away healthcare, cut social programs, and support politicians that work in their interest. this all has the effect of making themselves richer and limiting any upward mobility of those below them.

as you (or someone) said, it's a zero sum game. they do things to benefit themselves at the expense of the poor.


I think your argument is basically with health insurance and the current structure. We could go to a Singapore style arrangement basic health care system but the context of that is that everybody pays into health care insurance and has skin in the game with supplemental insurance allowed for those who wish it. Under our system we just fund low income health care with Medicaid (or VA) and expand it to a lot of people whose asylee status is questionable.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Reply Quote
2
BluHorseShu
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 3:32p, 9/3/24
AG
dermdoc said:
barbacoa taco said:
dermdoc said:
Define "rich".

Because there are not enough of truly wealthy people to significantly affect the tax rate.

That is why when there are tax increases, it always includes the middle and upper middle class.

And the "rich" can handle tax increases because a lot do not have any income. Just wealth. So income tax increases always hurt the middle and upper class the most.

Do you want the government to seize the "Rich's" assets?
Trump's tax cuts increased the deficit by $2T, and that's not even including his spending on other things. To say it makes no meaningful difference is simply false.
I would argue that the tax cuts were not the primary cause of the increase in deficit, but that is another topic.

Who are the "rich" you keep talking about?
And remember, this is income tax we are talking about. Not a wealth tax. So if I am really rich and do not work, how do you really tax me? You can try capital gains but that is very difficult to do.

And how do "rich" people take from poor people?
Just keep the estate tax exemptions where they are and don't sunset them. For us poors, we don't have the benefit of spending money on lawyers to find tax shelters so we have to hope the GOP is in office to maintain the higher exemption rates. Its the only way to really pass on generational wealth.
Reply Quote
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BluHorseShu • 3:53p, 9/3/24
BluHorseShu said:
dermdoc said:
barbacoa taco said:
dermdoc said:
Define "rich".

Because there are not enough of truly wealthy people to significantly affect the tax rate.

That is why when there are tax increases, it always includes the middle and upper middle class.

And the "rich" can handle tax increases because a lot do not have any income. Just wealth. So income tax increases always hurt the middle and upper class the most.

Do you want the government to seize the "Rich's" assets?
Trump's tax cuts increased the deficit by $2T, and that's not even including his spending on other things. To say it makes no meaningful difference is simply false.
I would argue that the tax cuts were not the primary cause of the increase in deficit, but that is another topic.

Who are the "rich" you keep talking about?
And remember, this is income tax we are talking about. Not a wealth tax. So if I am really rich and do not work, how do you really tax me? You can try capital gains but that is very difficult to do.

And how do "rich" people take from poor people?
Just keep the estate tax exemptions where they are and don't sunset them. For us poors, we don't have the benefit of spending money on lawyers to find tax shelters so we have to hope the GOP is in office to maintain the higher exemption rates. Its the only way to really pass on generational wealth.


You don't need attorneys to find tax shelters. You need a decent financial advisor to help you save and invest with whatever you can set aside. It starts with the desire to save and invest and the patience to save plus the financial miracle of compound interest. No real magic involved! Just math and time. You won't be poor for long.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Reply Quote
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 4:38p, 9/3/24
AG
dermdoc said:
And you say Trump and Reagan tax cuts were for the "rich", correct?

Then being rich means paying any federal income tax. It was a percentage, across the board. The biggest tax cuts were for the working middle and upper middle class. Who are most of the posters on here.

Yet, you do not define them as "rich", correct?
according to google, you need to make an annual income of $787k to be in the top 1% of income earners in the USA. Top 5% is $290k. The top 5% got about 50% of the benefits in the trump tax cuts.

The income gap gets wider every year. The top 1% holds about 30% of all wealth in the USA. The bottom 50% owns 2.5% of the wealth, and that number continuously gets worse.

My position isn't really all that complicated. I'm simply saying we should reverse this trend by repealing policies that widen the gap and enact policies that narrow it. Tax cuts for rich people have been shown time and time again to widen the gap, yet we are told that the gap exists just because the rich "work hard" and the poor "are lazy." Fortunately, more and more people of all generations are rejecting this way of thinking.

What will happen to said "rich" people if this happens? Honestly, not much. It would be hard to notice a meaningful difference in one's way of life.
Reply Quote
4
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 5:34p, 9/3/24
AG
barbacoa taco said:
dermdoc said:
And you say Trump and Reagan tax cuts were for the "rich", correct?

Then being rich means paying any federal income tax. It was a percentage, across the board. The biggest tax cuts were for the working middle and upper middle class. Who are most of the posters on here.

Yet, you do not define them as "rich", correct?
according to google, you need to make an annual income of $787k to be in the top 1% of income earners in the USA. Top 5% is $290k. The top 5% got about 50% of the benefits in the trump tax cuts.

The income gap gets wider every year. The top 1% holds about 30% of all wealth in the USA. The bottom 50% owns 2.5% of the wealth, and that number continuously gets worse.

My position isn't really all that complicated. I'm simply saying we should reverse this trend by repealing policies that widen the gap and enact policies that narrow it. Tax cuts for rich people have been shown time and time again to widen the gap, yet we are told that the gap exists just because the rich "work hard" and the poor "are lazy." Fortunately, more and more people of all generations are rejecting this way of thinking.

What will happen to said "rich" people if this happens? Honestly, not much. It would be hard to notice a meaningful difference in one's way of life.


Why did they get such a large benefit? Because they pay more in taxes.

Every person who pays fed income taxes got the same percentage tax cut.

If the tax rate is 10% and I pay 100k I get 10k back. If I pay 10k I get 1k back.

Seems fair to me. What you want to do is to use the government to take money from the "rich" and give it to the poor.

Wealth redistribution. Which is great until your side loses.

See the Trump and Reagan tax cuts did not redistribute wealth. It simply gave people a percentage of their income tax back.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
BiochemAg97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 5:48p, 9/3/24
AG
dermdoc said:
barbacoa taco said:
dermdoc said:
And you say Trump and Reagan tax cuts were for the "rich", correct?

Then being rich means paying any federal income tax. It was a percentage, across the board. The biggest tax cuts were for the working middle and upper middle class. Who are most of the posters on here.

Yet, you do not define them as "rich", correct?
according to google, you need to make an annual income of $787k to be in the top 1% of income earners in the USA. Top 5% is $290k. The top 5% got about 50% of the benefits in the trump tax cuts.

The income gap gets wider every year. The top 1% holds about 30% of all wealth in the USA. The bottom 50% owns 2.5% of the wealth, and that number continuously gets worse.

My position isn't really all that complicated. I'm simply saying we should reverse this trend by repealing policies that widen the gap and enact policies that narrow it. Tax cuts for rich people have been shown time and time again to widen the gap, yet we are told that the gap exists just because the rich "work hard" and the poor "are lazy." Fortunately, more and more people of all generations are rejecting this way of thinking.

What will happen to said "rich" people if this happens? Honestly, not much. It would be hard to notice a meaningful difference in one's way of life.


Why did they get such a large benefit? Because they pay more in taxes.

Every person who pays fed income taxes got the same percentage tax cut.

If the tax rate is 10% and I pay 100k I get 10k back. If I pay 10k I get 1k back.

Seems fair to me. What you want to do is to use the government to take money from the "rich" and give it to the poor.

Wealth redistribution. Which is great until your side loses.

See the Trump and Reagan tax cuts did not redistribute wealth. It simply gave people a percentage of their income tax back.


If you look at the Trump tax cut, the 1% ended up paying a larger share of the total taxes after the cut. The larger standard deduction helped the bottom end more than the top and the limits on state and local tax deductions hurt the top more than the bottom. People at the low end aren't paying over 10k/year in state income or property taxes. The 1% are likely paying way over that and got hit by the limit.
Reply Quote
4
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BiochemAg97 • 5:51p, 9/3/24
AG
BiochemAg97 said:
dermdoc said:
barbacoa taco said:
dermdoc said:
And you say Trump and Reagan tax cuts were for the "rich", correct?

Then being rich means paying any federal income tax. It was a percentage, across the board. The biggest tax cuts were for the working middle and upper middle class. Who are most of the posters on here.

Yet, you do not define them as "rich", correct?
according to google, you need to make an annual income of $787k to be in the top 1% of income earners in the USA. Top 5% is $290k. The top 5% got about 50% of the benefits in the trump tax cuts.

The income gap gets wider every year. The top 1% holds about 30% of all wealth in the USA. The bottom 50% owns 2.5% of the wealth, and that number continuously gets worse.

My position isn't really all that complicated. I'm simply saying we should reverse this trend by repealing policies that widen the gap and enact policies that narrow it. Tax cuts for rich people have been shown time and time again to widen the gap, yet we are told that the gap exists just because the rich "work hard" and the poor "are lazy." Fortunately, more and more people of all generations are rejecting this way of thinking.

What will happen to said "rich" people if this happens? Honestly, not much. It would be hard to notice a meaningful difference in one's way of life.


Why did they get such a large benefit? Because they pay more in taxes.

Every person who pays fed income taxes got the same percentage tax cut.

If the tax rate is 10% and I pay 100k I get 10k back. If I pay 10k I get 1k back.

Seems fair to me. What you want to do is to use the government to take money from the "rich" and give it to the poor.

Wealth redistribution. Which is great until your side loses.

See the Trump and Reagan tax cuts did not redistribute wealth. It simply gave people a percentage of their income tax back.


If you look at the Trump tax cut, the 1% ended up paying a larger share of the total taxes after the cut. The larger standard deduction helped the bottom end more than the top and the limits on state and local tax deductions hurt the top more than the bottom. People at the low end aren't paying over 10k/year in state income or property taxes. The 1% are likely paying way over that and got hit by the limit.


But that is not a good sound bite for the naive.

Dirty little secret is that the top 5% pay over half (and that is conservative) of taxes. But that is not enough for some on here.

And this is getting close to forced equal outcomes.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:00p, 9/3/24
AG

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:49p, 9/3/24
AG

🤡🤡🤡
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 6:50p, 9/3/24
AG
"Wealth redistribution" is just scaremongering. Big spooky socialism.

But you know what, enough about taxes. That's just one part of the equation. Remember a few pages back when we were discussing project 2025? That document wants to completely and utterly demolish any policy that benefits workers. It seeks to weaken unions and allow states to ban them altogether, change the rules for overtime pay, lift some child labor restrictions, and gut the EEOC.

Literally all of these policy proposals benefit corporations and the wealthiest Americans. None benefit workers. They keep wages low, strip workers of more rights, gut their benefits, and make the American dream (if it even still exists) less attainable for even more people. It will widen the wealth gap even more.

I've said this on this thread many times and I'll say it again: this agenda, and those who support it, are openly hostile to working Americans. There's no reason anyone other than the top income earners should ever support it.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:09p, 9/3/24
AG
"Now that I'm getting my head caved in with facts, let's move on to the next topic"
Reply Quote
5
Rongagin71
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 7:15p, 9/3/24
AG
Trump has repeatedly denied any connection to Project 2025
or any intention to reduce Social Security.
But the Dems will continue to lie and claim they know better than Trump what Trump will do, despite the four years of evidence that Trump governs pretty well, certainly better than Biden.
Reply Quote
4
AggieRain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 7:16p, 9/3/24
AG
Project 2025 is not the Republican platform.
Reply Quote
5
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 7:26p, 9/3/24
AG
barbacoa taco said:
"Wealth redistribution" is just scaremongering. Big spooky socialism.

But you know what, enough about taxes. That's just one part of the equation. Remember a few pages back when we were discussing project 2025? That document wants to completely and utterly demolish any policy that benefits workers. It seeks to weaken unions and allow states to ban them altogether, change the rules for overtime pay, lift some child labor restrictions, and gut the EEOC.

Literally all of these policy proposals benefit corporations and the wealthiest Americans. None benefit workers. They keep wages low, strip workers of more rights, gut their benefits, and make the American dream (if it even still exists) less attainable for even more people. It will widen the wealth gap even more.

I've said this on this thread many times and I'll say it again: this agenda, and those who support it, are openly hostile to working Americans. There's no reason anyone other than the top income earners should ever support it.
Hey, I am a working American. So I hate myself?

And why are you moving the goalposts? This all started about marginal tax rates. What are we talking about now?
🤡🤡🤡
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
Rongagin71
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rongagin71 • 7:27p, 9/3/24
AG
Rongagin71 said:
Trump has repeatedly denied any connection to Project 2025
or any intention to reduce Social Security.
But the Dems will continue to lie and claim they know better than Trump what Trump will do, despite the four years of evidence that Trump governs pretty well, certainly better than Biden.
The is much more evidence of Biden's poor governance than just the border.
Here is a current disaster in the making, a million barrels of oil products about to spill into the Red Sea and the Houthis claiming it will be the fault of the U.S. - and not a U.S. warship in sight.
Reply Quote
2
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rongagin71 • 7:42p, 9/3/24
Rongagin71 said:
Trump has repeatedly denied any connection to Project 2025
.


That's funny.
Reply Quote
2
Rongagin71
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 7:46p, 9/3/24
AG
Macarthur said:
Rongagin71 said:
Trump has repeatedly denied any connection to Project 2025
.


That's funny.
I'm willing to look at your evidence.
Reply Quote
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rongagin71 • 8:01p, 9/3/24
Johnny McEntee was a top Trump WH aide. He is a senior advisor to P2025

Stephen Miller same

JD Vance has deep ties to P2025

"I've reviewed a lot of it. There are some good ideas in there."

Vance wrote the forward of the upcoming book from P2015 Architect - Roberts

CNN reports that 140 people that have worked on P2025 worked for the Trump white house

Trump name appears 312 times in the P2025 document.

I can post plenty of policy parallels

Now, if you want to make the case Trump had nothing to do with writing it, you would be right because he's never written a serious word in his life.

But it's the height of disingenuous to say he has nothing to do with this. This is 100% their playbook for Trump once he takes over.

And it's true he has distanced himself because his campaign has seen how incredibly unpopular the document is.

Come on, you guys love to hammer on intellectual honesty and arguing in good faith. You can't honestly believe what you're saying.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.