Here is an interesting interview on CNBC with lefty questions pummeling Art Laffer and his very rational responses to why overly high taxes don't work as well as reasonable tax rates.
He gives the repeated history of tax rates getting too high and revenues improving when the rates were corrected and how he the "Laffer Curve" predicts this.
BTW, The Trump tax cuts did improve revenue...here is why.

Zobel said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Before you can say well these people should pay more taxes or they won the parental lottery you need to first establish
a) how that is bad for society if it even is
And
b) how the proposed change is better

---

Well, I think we know:

a) We have a massive and growing deficit and national debt

b) We have two political parties totally unwilling to reign in spending.

c) We know that wealth is more concentrated in fewer hands today versus most of the latter half of the 20th Century by mostly every measure.

d) We have steadily diminished both income and capital gains tax rates over the last 50 years. Long Term Cap Gains was 35% in the late 1970s and 20% today. The top brackets for individual income taxes were slashed consistently to the current levels that started in the 1980s.

So this is the reality of things . . . . .if we are serious about fiscal prudence and reigning in debt, we have to tax something and the ultra-rich have it better right now than they ever had both in terms of net worth and a friendly tax code so they are the obvious targets.

---

The problem is the conclusion "therefore we need to tax the rich more" does not follow from a-d. The bold part of your statement is just wrong because ineffective.

If we took ALL the wealth from ALL US billionaires it would be $5.7 trillion. Our deficit is $1.8 trillion. So that gets you through three years without further deficit. And that ignores the very real problem of capital flight a wealth tax would cause - likely resulting in LESS revenues, not, not more - much less the economic impact. It's not like that money is liquid cash!!

There is not enough wealth to confiscate to cover what we're doing. The problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This is like being overweight - you can't outrun your diet, and you can't out-tax your spending.

I am not even sure how c and d are related to an and b.

---

Exactly.

Zobel said:

---

Related:
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2023/06/15/norway_provides_a_stark_reminder_of_the_wealth_taxs_folly_940719.html

---

Facts should trump emotion every time. But they do not.

And I am still trying to understand how taking money from the rich (however that is defined) to reduce "income inequality" does anything to help the non rich. They are not increasing their income and wealth, correct? Just seems illogical.

Try looking at it this way.

Decades ago, income inequality was much less of a problem, in the USA at least.

Now, it's a huge problem.

And it directly correlates with policies that heavily benefited the richest in society, and major corporations.

Going back to the way things were isn't "taking money from the rich," it's righting a wrong that has had disastrous results.

But that is not logical. It does not help out the poor or middle class. It is all emotion based.

The only way it makes sense is if you passed higher taxes on the "rich" and use the tax revenue only to help pay off the debt.

but there are other policies that certainly do help the poor and middle class. Examples include medicaid expansion, the American Rescue Plan, expanding the child tax credit, increasing FEMA funding, passing hurricane relief bills.

But the objection we hear every time is "how we gunna pay for it." The same people who say that never have any problem with the economic cost of cutting taxes for the wealthy and loosening regulations that allow them to cheat taxes, thereby contributing to the deficit. It's all purely about priorities.

It's not emotional. It's perfectly factual and logical.

barbacoa taco said:

---

but there are other policies that certainly do help the poor and middle class. Examples include medicaid expansion, the American Rescue Plan, expanding the child tax credit, increasing FEMA funding, passing hurricane relief bills.

But the objection we hear every time is "how we gunna pay for it." The same people who say that never have any problem with the economic cost of cutting taxes for the wealthy and loosening regulations that allow them to cheat taxes, thereby contributing to the deficit. It's all purely about priorities.

It's not emotional. It's perfectly factual and logical.

---

How about we pay off the debt first? We can not afford what we are spending now.

If my family had debt and I got extra money, it seems
Logical to pay off any debt before spending more on things.

Basically you want to redistribute wealth without saying it.

I used to believe in the Laffer Curve, and I do think some of the logical constructs in it are rather obvious on their face but it is not a precise or helpful theoretical framework for where we are right now.

When I took up my graduate studies, I was surprised that most all of the economics profession had rejected it as a usable policy took. It core message is undeniable. . . .the 0 and 100% bounds result in no revenue . . .that makes sense. At extremely high rates, taxes are a disincentive. That makes sense.

But it also is kind of a useless statement because we operate in the vast middle ground and most empirical studies show it doesn't have any dependable correlation. Even the most conservative of economic institutes did not take the Laffer Curve seriously . The 2012 University of Chicago survey was the final nail in the coffin for me.

"A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut?" That was the question posed and literally not one economist agreed with that statement.

Greg Mankiw, a conservative economist who worked in the George W. White House, I think said it best in his 2006

https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/12/supply-side-economics.html

Quote:

---

Economists continue to debate Laffer's argument. Many believe that subsequent history refuted Laffer's conjecture that lower tax rates would raise tax revenue. Yet because history is open to alternative interpretations, other economists view the events of the 1980s as more favorable to the supply siders.

Some economists take an intermediate position. They believe that while an overall cut in tax rates normally reduces revenue, some taxpayers at some times may find themselves on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Other things equal, a tax cut is more likely to raise tax revenue if the cut applies to those taxpayers facing the highest tax rates. In addition, Laffer's argument may be more compelling when considering countries with much higher tax rates than the United States. In Sweden in the early 1980s, for instance, the typical worker faced a marginal tax rate of about 80 percent. Such a high tax rate provides a substantial disincentive to work. Studies have suggested that Sweden would indeed have raised more tax revenue if it had lowered its tax rates.

Economists disagree about these issues in part because there is no consensus about the size of the relevant elasticities. The more elastic that supply and demand are in any market, the more taxes in that market distort behavior, and the more likely it is that a tax cut will raise tax revenue. There is no debate, however, about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax change affects people's behavior.

---

We are in that middle position, where the traditional supply side arguments are basically exhausted, hence my point earlier that you need to think of things on a spectrum rather than either or. We had way to much gov't involvement in the economy in the 60s and 70s and deregulation under Jimmy Carter provided huge benefits to economic growth and dynamism. Those gains crapped out after awhile. Same for tax policy given the direction of tax rates over a multi-decade period.

Do you think money works best in the private sector or government?

And personally. If I advocated higher taxes on the rich, I would rather just give the cash directly to the poor. Much cheaper and less wasteful than
a government program.
Just cut them a check.

Quote:

---

The problem is the conclusion "therefore we need to tax the rich more" does not follow from a-d. The bold part of your statement is just wrong because ineffective.

If we took ALL the wealth from ALL US billionaires it would be $5.7 trillion. Our deficit is $1.8 trillion. So that gets you through three years without further deficit. And that ignores the very real problem of capital flight a wealth tax would cause - likely resulting in LESS revenues, not, not more - much less the economic impact. It's not like that money is liquid cash!!

---

So a) capital flight is easier than it sounds and the costs of exiting the country are pretty exorbitant if you want to set up shop in Singapore from al legal and tax jurisdiction perspective.

and b) Agree that it is not a cure-all and any fiscal sanity has to be achieved through less spending primarily.

But after watching the Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush and Trump administrations accelerate spending just like the Dems, I don't have any hope that politicians will try to fix things and therefore shrink the conversation down from that.

And just because confiscating all wealth doesn't fix our deficit overnight doesn't mean you can't discuss more optimal and intelligent tax policies. That is a distraction of a statement.

Quote:

---

And personally. If I advocated higher taxes on the rich, I would rather just give the cash directly to the poor. Much cheaper and less wasteful than
a government orogram.
Just cut them a check.

---

That is the Friedman negative income tax argument in a nutshell. Don't waste time with inefficient government transfers and instead just give cash.

I am very sympathetic to that argument . . . . which means I think markets are better tools than government for helping welfare of every man and woman.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

And personally. If I advocated higher taxes on the rich, I would rather just give the cash directly to the poor. Much cheaper and less wasteful than
a government orogram.
Just cut them a check.

---

That is the Friedman negative income tax argument in a nutshell. Don't waste time with inefficient government transfers and instead just give cash.

I am very sympathetic to that argument . . . . which means I think markets are better tools than government for helping welfare of every man and woman.

---

If I was elected President, the first thing I would do is cut every government program 25% and fire 25% of government employees. Split the money saved in half with half going towards the debt and the other half a direct cash payment to the poor.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Trump does exaggerate, but that would be okay if he were a Dem.
Because he is a Pub, he has had to spend over a $million defending
himself in various Dem controlled courts because they hate him.
If he wins, you can bet that there will be riots, stealing and burning.

---

If he loses there will as well...at least riots. I think if it happens for either side it will only be small groups relatively to the entire population and usually made up of those who have just been waiting for an excuse to be those kinds of protestors/patriots. Most people will stay out of it.

Any violence, destruction etc. should be met with immediate justice, I don't care who it is. The hate is real for some small groups on both sides. The problem is that they have been given tacit consent to act that way (both in the ANTIFA riots by not arresting everyone and by the Jan 6. rioters through the promise of pardons.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

And personally. If I advocated higher taxes on the rich, I would rather just give the cash directly to the poor. Much cheaper and less wasteful than
a government orogram.
Just cut them a check.

---

That is the Friedman negative income tax argument in a nutshell. Don't waste time with inefficient government transfers and instead just give cash.

I am very sympathetic to that argument . . . . which means I think markets are better tools than government for helping welfare of every man and woman.

---

The problem is that government will never give up the control they get with programs, etc.

barbacoa taco said:

---

yeah, the "all politicians lie" excuse. There's no both-sidesing Trump's aggressive disinformation campaign.

The storm is a good example of this. Trump is knowingly lying for his own political benefit, even possibly at the expense of hurricane victims, at a time when politics should be set aside and there should be unity. Kamala is not.

---

Actually there is both-sidesing the mis or disinformation. The democrats are trying to play like they've become more centric on things like immigration, economy, but history shows they have ticked further to the left the last few years. And the republicans, at least those that continue to kiss the Trump ring are often saying what they need to to stay in their seat. At this point so close to the election, anyone who believes everything being spouted for either side is fooling themselves. They are trying to garner more votes.

We don't elect people who have genuine integrity and are consistent with their policies and statements. The divide in national politics has forced our political opponents to do almost anything to win.

I can't stand Trump, but at least we know how crazy he is because he doesn't hide it when he speaks. I believe and support conservative policies but I do not support Trump or trust he'll be able to do it. I do not believe in liberal policies and though I don't support Harris, I do think she'll do some of what she claims and fall back to the left with other things once she's in office.

dermdoc said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

And personally. If I advocated higher taxes on the rich, I would rather just give the cash directly to the poor. Much cheaper and less wasteful than
a government orogram.
Just cut them a check.

---

That is the Friedman negative income tax argument in a nutshell. Don't waste time with inefficient government transfers and instead just give cash.

I am very sympathetic to that argument . . . . which means I think markets are better tools than government for helping welfare of every man and woman.

---

The problem is that government will never give up the control they get with programs, etc.

---

Truth. And to add, most politicians will do most anything to never give up the power they have until they are voted out. Which means they will also tend to keep the benefits they enjoy in those rolls flowing for themselves. Some folks with the best intentions have turned into what they initially despised once they've been elected. That's partly the fault of the system that is perpetuated. They can talk all day about term limits but they'll never vote themselves out of such a powerful role

BluHorseShu said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

yeah, the "all politicians lie" excuse. There's no both-sidesing Trump's aggressive disinformation campaign.

The storm is a good example of this. Trump is knowingly lying for his own political benefit, even possibly at the expense of hurricane victims, at a time when politics should be set aside and there should be unity. Kamala is not.

---

Actually there is both-sidesing the mis or disinformation. The democrats are trying to play like they've become more centric on things like immigration, economy, but history shows they have ticked further to the left the last few years. And the republicans, at least those that continue to kiss the Trump ring are often saying what they need to to stay in their seat. At this point so close to the election, anyone who believes everything being spouted for either side is fooling themselves. They are trying to garner more votes.

We don't elect people who have genuine integrity and are consistent with their policies and statements. The divide in national politics has forced our political opponents to do almost anything to win.

I can't stand Trump, but at least we know how crazy he is because he doesn't hide it when he speaks. I believe and support conservative policies but I do not support Trump or trust he'll be able to do it. I do not believe in liberal policies and though I don't support Harris, I do think she'll do some of what she claims and fall back to the left with other things once she's in office.

---

Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I wish DeSantis was the repub candidate.

Mockery of the Eucharist by a sitting Dem governor is very on-brand.

Let’s be clear what’s happening in this video.

Gov. Whitmer of Michigan is pretending to give communion to an leftist podcaster on her knees, using a Dorito as the Eucharist while wearing a Harris-Walz hat.

Do they want ZERO Catholic votes for Harris?pic.twitter.com/daUTNX9vNn

— Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) October 10, 2024

barbacoa taco said:

---

Try looking at it this way.

Decades ago, income inequality was much less of a problem, in the USA at least.

Now, it's a huge problem.

And it directly correlates with policies that heavily benefited the richest in society, and major corporations.

Going back to the way things were isn't "taking money from the rich," it's righting a wrong that has had disastrous results.

---

So, slavery was less of an economic inequality than the current very rich paired with vast numbers of working class and poor who receive benefits such as food, housing, medicine, education, national defense etc?

Quote:

---

So, slavery was less of an economic inequality than the current very rich paired with vast numbers of working class and poor who receive benefits such as food, housing, medicine, education, national defense etc?

---

I don't think you have to go back to the civil war . . . .more the 1970s. The advent of Reaganomics coincided with an explosion in the Gini coefficient, which is the governments preferred measure of inequality.

And there is also the widely accepted fact that higher income earners have seen a much more robust gain in household income since that same 1980 starting point.

Windy City Ag said:

---

I used to believe in the Laffer Curve, and I do think some of the logical constructs in it are rather obvious on their face but it is not a precise or helpful theoretical framework for where we are right now.

When I took up my graduate studies, I was surprised that most all of the economics profession had rejected it as a usable policy took. It core message is undeniable. . . .the 0 and 100% bounds result in no revenue . . .that makes sense. At extremely high rates, taxes are a disincentive. That makes sense.

But it also is kind of a useless statement because we operate in the vast middle ground and most empirical studies show it doesn't have any dependable correlation. Even the most conservative of economic institutes did not take the Laffer Curve seriously . The 2012 University of Chicago survey was the final nail in the coffin for me.

"A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut?" That was the question posed and literally not one economist agreed with that statement.

Greg Mankiw, a conservative economist who worked in the George W. White House, I think said it best in his 2006

https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/12/supply-side-economics.html

Quote:

---

Economists continue to debate Laffer's argument. Many believe that subsequent history refuted Laffer's conjecture that lower tax rates would raise tax revenue. Yet because history is open to alternative interpretations, other economists view the events of the 1980s as more favorable to the supply siders.

Some economists take an intermediate position. They believe that while an overall cut in tax rates normally reduces revenue, some taxpayers at some times may find themselves on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Other things equal, a tax cut is more likely to raise tax revenue if the cut applies to those taxpayers facing the highest tax rates. In addition, Laffer's argument may be more compelling when considering countries with much higher tax rates than the United States. In Sweden in the early 1980s, for instance, the typical worker faced a marginal tax rate of about 80 percent. Such a high tax rate provides a substantial disincentive to work. Studies have suggested that Sweden would indeed have raised more tax revenue if it had lowered its tax rates.

Economists disagree about these issues in part because there is no consensus about the size of the relevant elasticities. The more elastic that supply and demand are in any market, the more taxes in that market distort behavior, and the more likely it is that a tax cut will raise tax revenue. There is no debate, however, about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax change affects people's behavior.

---

We are in that middle position, where the traditional supply side arguments are basically exhausted, hence my point earlier that you need to think of things on a spectrum rather than either or. We had way to much gov't involvement in the economy in the 60s and 70s and deregulation under Jimmy Carter provided huge benefits to economic growth and dynamism. Those gains crapped out after awhile. Same for tax policy given the direction of tax rates over a multi-decade period.

---

Glad you posted that, it is something I had suspected but not actually researched.

invoking slavery in response to my comment seems like grasping at straws. The New Deal through the postwar economic boom led to an era of low income inequality that lasted until the 80s, and then became a distant memory after Reagan. And now we live in a time where a bunch of rich powerful people have convinced people with low to middle incomes that poor people, rather than rich people, are the problem.

Quote:

---

So a) capital flight is easier than it sounds and the costs of exiting the country are pretty exorbitant if you want to set up shop in Singapore from al legal and tax jurisdiction perspective.

---

you didn't really address the issue. wealth taxes are not simple, and are economically disadvantageous because typically wealth isn't liquid. even if you can first find it, then second value it, you generate all kinds of problems when you actually require the tax to be paid on illiquid assets.

and it doesn't matter if it is expensive or not, capital flight just becomes a question of cost benefit.

you say this is 'easy' but can you give a single example of a wealth tax that you think works well?

Quote:

---

and b) Agree that it is not a cure-all and any fiscal sanity has to be achieved through less spending primarily.

---

ok.. so.. what are we arguing about then? if it doesn't actually solve the problem it sounds more like punitive posturing for politics sake than it does an actual responsible position. when billionaires sell assets they have either income or capital gains, and those are taxed like everyone else (higher, really). it has already been shown that the upper class bears the brunt of taxation - the 1% pays 45% of all income tax! How much should they pay? 75%? All of it?

Quote:

---

But after watching the Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush and Trump administrations accelerate spending just like the Dems, I don't have any hope that politicians will try to fix things and therefore shrink the conversation down from that.

---

Spending comes in styles, and acceleration is not binary. Yes, they all spend, but no they don't all spend the same. Yes, any deficit is too much. But again, this is kind of a nonsense idea - your argument is something like all politicians spend irresponsibly, our current tax structure doesn't support the spending, so we should tax more, even though we all know that even if we taxed everything it wouldn't support our spending. How does that make sense?

Quote:

---

And just because confiscating all wealth doesn't fix our deficit overnight doesn't mean you can't discuss more optimal and intelligent tax policies. That is a distraction of a statement.

---

"Optimal and intelligent" is a presumption. You are starting with the idea that we should tax more money, which I don't take for granted as an unmitigated good.

Again, what is the problem you are trying to solve and how does taxing more money solve it?

Quote:

---

Split the money saved in half with half going towards the debt and the other half a direct cash payment to the poor.

---

bad bull, doc. not your money to give to the poor. this is the action of a king, not a president.

every governmental asset belongs to the people collectively, not the government. let that be a law passed - if the people want it. i suspect they'd rather have their own money back. AND i suspect that charitable contributions would skyrocket.

this seems like correlation without causation.

youre an economist, right?

what's the real value of manual farm labor today vs the year of the invention of the tractor? if you charted it out on a graph like this, there would be a discontinuity. we need fewer laborers, and their labor is devalued by the efficiency gain of technology.

one way to understand this graph is supply and demand - that the demand for the skills and abilities of the median and 20th percentile is reduced relative to the demand for the skills and abilities of the 95th percentile.

dermdoc said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

yeah, the "all politicians lie" excuse. There's no both-sidesing Trump's aggressive disinformation campaign.

The storm is a good example of this. Trump is knowingly lying for his own political benefit, even possibly at the expense of hurricane victims, at a time when politics should be set aside and there should be unity. Kamala is not.

---

Actually there is both-sidesing the mis or disinformation. The democrats are trying to play like they've become more centric on things like immigration, economy, but history shows they have ticked further to the left the last few years. And the republicans, at least those that continue to kiss the Trump ring are often saying what they need to to stay in their seat. At this point so close to the election, anyone who believes everything being spouted for either side is fooling themselves. They are trying to garner more votes.

We don't elect people who have genuine integrity and are consistent with their policies and statements. The divide in national politics has forced our political opponents to do almost anything to win.

I can't stand Trump, but at least we know how crazy he is because he doesn't hide it when he speaks. I believe and support conservative policies but I do not support Trump or trust he'll be able to do it. I do not believe in liberal policies and though I don't support Harris, I do think she'll do some of what she claims and fall back to the left with other things once she's in office.

---

Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I wish DeSantis was the repub candidate.

---

As do I. Unfortunately the cult of personality is strong for some. Hopefully 2028

Quote:

---

this seems like correlation without causation.

youre an economist, right?

what's the real value of manual farm labor today vs the year of the invention of the tractor? if you charted it out on a graph like this, there would be a discontinuity. we need fewer laborers, and their labor is devalued by the efficiency gain of technology.

one way to understand this graph is supply and demand - that the demand for the skills and abilities of the median and 20th percentile is reduced relative to the demand for the skills and abilities of the 95th percentile.

---

Lots of people think that . . .you can't blame tax policy for inequality with all the offshoring that has occurred and many blue collar industries ranging from steel to coal to autos being gutted by foreign competition.

But there is a debate if we as a society have not forced a pivot quickly enough with the results being opiod and unemployment wastleands in many parts of the country.

Certainly labor unions and the government have been unhelpful, unions because they want to pretend nothing is changing while demanding big raises every year and congress because the spending we have done is wasteful and ineffective, we for a time until the Gingrich Clinton bi-partisan welfare reform incentivized idleness, and more conservative legislators in many cases didn't want to fund anything.

Most of what has kept the U.S. as the world's premier economy is our willingness to raze entire industries to the ground and redirect the capital tied up there to Silicon Valley or the Biotech industry or Wall Street Banks, etc. That is no doubt a great thing given the productivity and wealth gains but a lot of wreckage was left by the road in that process.

I saw it here in the 80s after the S&L crisis. Many of my Dad's friends lost their jobs in banking or real estate and did not see anything come back for more than a decade. Some re-trained and figured something out but many of them struggled mightily for a long period.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Split the money saved in half with half going towards the debt and the other half a direct cash payment to the poor.

---

bad bull, doc. not your money to give to the poor. this is the action of a king, not a president.

every governmental asset belongs to the people collectively, not the government. let that be a law passed - if the people want it. i suspect they'd rather have their own money back. AND i suspect that charitable contributions would skyrocket.

---

I think you could do both with what you and Doc offered. The you could apply the offset of the employment cost reduction via lower tax rates for a period.

I also think charitable contributions can be spread so think as to not help the poor specifically. I look at organizations like Feed the Children etc that water down what actually makes it to the children. The problem with many charities is the oversight or lack their of. Or like an unnamed politician who used his charitable foundation funds for his own personal benefit.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

So, slavery was less of an economic inequality than the current very rich paired with vast numbers of working class and poor who receive benefits such as food, housing, medicine, education, national defense etc?

---

I don't think you have to go back to the civil war . . . .more the 1970s. The advent of Reaganomics coincided with an explosion in the Gini coefficient, which is the governments preferred measure of inequality.

And there is also the widely accepted fact that higher income earners have seen a much more robust gain in household income since that same 1980 starting point.

---

I remember the seventies, I was working then and there was still some of that frontier equality floating around, but the big corps were becoming international, and overpopulation was starting to squeeze.
The Chinese and other competitors were just getting strong after WW2 left America dominant.
I think the poor now have many more social programs, and if female or minority, quite a lot of favoritism under the current laws. Households are much more likely to suffer divorce now which has to hurt income comparisons.
I think not actually being drafted is nice for everybody.
Yes, technology has allowed vast accumulations of wealth but is also a tool governments use to make life better even if not equal. How much cash does someone like Elon Musk have? Way more than everyone I know put together, but he is investing and working and improving many things so most of his money is tied up or involved in loans - which is typical of the smart, hardworking types at the top of the heap.

nortex97 said:

---

Mockery of the Eucharist by a sitting Dem governor is very on-brand.

Let’s be clear what’s happening in this video.

Gov. Whitmer of Michigan is pretending to give communion to an leftist podcaster on her knees, using a Dorito as the Eucharist while wearing a Harris-Walz hat.

Do they want ZERO Catholic votes for Harris?pic.twitter.com/daUTNX9vNn

— Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) October 10, 2024

---

I really don't think the intent there was to mock the Eucharist. She was actually mocking Fox News which for some odd reason made a big deal about Kamala Harris eating Doritos.

Fox News slams Harris for eating Doritos.

That was a lot of words but not a lot of concrete arguments.

So far you've explained that by:
Reagan
Offshoring
Globalization
Opioids
Unemployment
Labor unions
The government
Welfare
Wall Street
Silicon valley
Biotech

People can choose their charities. If someone wants to donate to a crappy one it seems that's between them and the charity.

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Before you can say well these people should pay more taxes or they won the parental lottery you need to first establish
a) how that is bad for society if it even is
And
b) how the proposed change is better

---

Well, I think we know:

a) We have a massive and growing deficit and national debt

b) We have two political parties totally unwilling to reign in spending.

c) We know that wealth is more concentrated in fewer hands today versus most of the latter half of the 20th Century by mostly every measure.

d) We have steadily diminished both income and capital gains tax rates over the last 50 years. Long Term Cap Gains was 35% in the late 1970s and 20% today. The top brackets for individual income taxes were slashed consistently to the current levels that started in the 1980s.

So this is the reality of things . . . . .if we are serious about fiscal prudence and reigning in debt, we have to tax something and the ultra-rich have it better right now than they ever had both in terms of net worth and a friendly tax code so they are the obvious targets.

---

People seem to forget this part. And those in power have been so successful in gaslighting the public into thinking that going back to the way things were is: 1) punishing success and 2) rewarding laziness. The sad thing is people who would most benefit from this often vote against their own interests

---

Please link to any post on here calling people lazy or say punishing success.

Thanks.

---

You said I was lazy for using the term "Christian Nationalist."