They used to take more. They make up for the tax breaks on the top earners, by raising it on the middle class.

AggieShanks said:

---

I work in philanthropy. The top givers have been giving more, but they give to specific institutions. As a whole, there are less participants in philanthropy and less gifts. It's a problem industry wide.

---

I doubt your anecdotal experience is pervasive. But to the extent that it is, socialistic governmental policies cause it. 100%, not really even discussable. The more the government takes, the less people have to give. And, the promotion of socialistic policies causes a "I gave at the office" mentality in the individuals that would otherwise give.

AggieShanks said:

---

They used to take more. They make up for the tax breaks on the top earners, by raising it on the middle class.

---

The top earners pay way more in total taxes than the middle class. We should go with a flat tax where everyone pays the same rate.

Ah the pyramid scheme of taxing entities more, so they are incentivized to invert to foreign countries or invest and expand in other countries instead of here, as well as raise prices of goods and services to meet the margin expectations of their investors, then tax those same dollars again when paid to their employees as income. Ever increasing the corporate double taxation will never help daddy government pay for itself without hurting people more.

AggieShanks said:

---

I work in philanthropy. The top givers have been giving more, but they give to specific institutions. As a whole, there are less participants in philanthropy and less gifts. It's a problem industry wide.

---

That's what happens when the savings rate goes to the single digits and more people live paycheck to paycheck. And THAT is occurring because the government has pushed our cost of living through the roof.

Name a new problem, and the cause will likely be a policy that you support.

Squadron7 said:

---

AggieShanks said:

---

I think you can also solve our debt by raising taxes on our highest bracket, increasing corporate taxes if they aren't going to raise pay for the middle and lower levels of their models, and closing IRS loopholes.

---

So....raise prices for earnings, raise prices for products, and closing "loopholes" like, say, depreciation on large capital items?

Sounds legit.

That should cover about half of our yearly interest payment on our debt.

---

You seriously can't debate idiots like this, sorry. They lack serious logic and knowledge on said topics. They live in a fantasy bubble. As long as you don't impede on their personal life, fiscally speaking, they are ok with tossing the hand grenade. Israel is a perfect example.

Sigh. Find better sources. Growth is being driven by grant making organizations and Giving isn't keeping up with inflation.

https://afpglobal.org/FundraisingEffectivenessProject

https://philanthropy.indianapolis.iu.edu/news-events/news/_news/2024/giving-usa-us-charitable-giving-totaled-557.16-billion-in-2023.html#:~:text=Key%20findings%20from%20Giving%20USA,new%20high%20by%20that%20measure.

AggieShanks said:

---

They used to take more. They make up for the tax breaks on the top earners, by raising it on the middle class.

---

Again, completely false.

The top 25% of earners pay almost 90% of income taxes paid..

The bottom 50% pays 2.3% of income taxes paid.

The "rich" carry much more than their "fair shar". This ridiculous trope that democrats spout is insulting and is unworthy of posting on a site full of college grads.

nu awlins ag said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

AggieShanks said:

---

I think you can also solve our debt by raising taxes on our highest bracket, increasing corporate taxes if they aren't going to raise pay for the middle and lower levels of their models, and closing IRS loopholes.

---

So....raise prices for earnings, raise prices for products, and closing "loopholes" like, say, depreciation on large capital items?

Sounds legit.

That should cover about half of our yearly interest payment on our debt.

---

You seriously can't debate idiots like this, sorry. They lack serious logic and knowledge on said topics. They live in a fantasy bubble.

---

He's a marxist. He wants your money. He didn't earn it. He also didn't learn that "Thall Shalt Not Covet" is the 10th Commandment.

I mean spending will have to drop at some point. I don't disagree. The programs are stop-gap solutions to the growing wage stagnation in America. We fix that, then I'm fine with those programs going.

Yep. Raise taxes and threaten corporations to pay people what they don't deserve because of "feels"

AggieShanks said:

---

Giving isn't keeping up with inflation.

---

That is a consequence of the Big Government you voted for. You did that.

People shouldn't earn more because you think they should. Most people aren't doing what it takes to move ahead. That's on them

AggieShanks said:

---

Sigh. Find better sources. Growth is being driven by grant making organizations and Giving isn't keeping up with inflation.

https://afpglobal.org/FundraisingEffectivenessProject

https://philanthropy.indianapolis.iu.edu/news-events/news/_news/2024/giving-usa-us-charitable-giving-totaled-557.16-billion-in-2023.html#:~:text=Key%20findings%20from%20Giving%20USA,new%20high%20by%20that%20measure.

---

...sigh... learn more about human nature and basic economics. (see, I can do snark as well, but it's not very productive)

We can play dueling links all day. It's an absolute certainty that if you take more of people's money, either through taxation or inflation, they are able to give less will give less.

And if we're gonna do snark, maybe your organization just isn't worthy?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

AggieShanks said:

---

I think you can also solve our debt by raising taxes on our highest bracket, increasing corporate taxes if they aren't going to raise pay for the middle and lower levels of their models, and closing IRS loopholes.

---

So....raise prices for earnings, raise prices for products, and closing "loopholes" like, say, depreciation on large capital items?

Sounds legit.

That should cover about half of our yearly interest payment on our debt.

---

You seriously can't debate idiots like this, sorry. They lack serious logic and knowledge on said topics. They live in a fantasy bubble.

---

He's a marxist. He wants your money. He didn't earn it. He also didn't learn that "Thall Shalt Not Covet" is the 10th Commandment.

---

Totally agree, that's why you can't debate idiots like that. Hell, it's not their money….

AggieShanks said:

---

I mean spending will have to drop at some point. I don't disagree. The programs are stop-gap solutions to the growing wage stagnation in America. We fix that, then I'm fine with those programs going.

---

Wrong. Those programs will ensure any purported wage stagnation will persist. Government programs, worldwide, ALWAYS DO.

What's odd about these conversations, is that it exposes just what a poor opinion of human nature liberals have. They're just sure, that left to their own devices individuals won't do the right thing.

On the other hand, their just certain that investing great power in a tiny number of individuals, they WILL do the right thing.

cecil77 said:

---

AggieShanks said:

---

They used to take more. They make up for the tax breaks on the top earners, by raising it on the middle class.

---

Again, completely false.

The top 25% of earners pay almost 90% of income taxes paid..

The bottom 50% pays 2.3% of income taxes paid.

The "rich" carry much more than their "fair shar". This ridiculous trope that democrats spout is insulting and is unworthy of posting on a site full of college grads.

---

40% of our population doesn't pay a dime now. All government dependent, free handout, welfare state socialist voters and it's increasing by design from our Marxist regime. Importing more poor government dependent people by the millions per year, intentionally devaluing the currency to create more poverty. It's how the socialist party gets 81 million votes so only the political elite get power and wealth while the middle class disappears and the populous gets poorer and poorer. It's how socialism works and today's democrats are executing to perfection. Venezuela just went through this in our lifetime.

The top rate in the "golden age" of America as you all refer to had the top rate being taxed at 94 percent. The 1% couldn't even spend all of their money if they tried, and I'm speaking strictly on earned income from work. I can care less about that stock earnings.

So what if they can't spend all their money. That doesn't mean the government should redistribute it. Flat tax all the way.

AggieShanks said:

---

I think you can also solve our debt by raising taxes on our highest bracket, increasing corporate taxes if they aren't going to raise pay for the middle and lower levels of their models, and closing IRS loopholes.

---

You are out of your F'ing mind? The top earners already pay most of the taxes and you have over half of earners paying net zero federal taxes.

I'm going to pay close to 300k this year. It is theft. Until the bottom half of earners start paying their fair share, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Universal suffrage was the single biggest mistake ever made in the country. The founders knew better.

AggieShanks said:

---

The 1% couldn't even spend all of their money if they tried, and I'm speaking strictly on earned income from work. I can care less about that stock earnings.

---

Get your hands out of other people's pockets, you greedy little ghoul.

AggieShanks said:

---

The top rate in the "golden age" of America as you all refer to had the top rate being taxed at 94 percent. The 1% couldn't even spend all of their money if they tried, and I'm speaking strictly on earned income from work. I can care less about that stock earnings.

---

I'm in the top 1% and I spend most of what I make after taxes.

There are no signs that either party given even complete control of all three branches will reduce the national debt in any meaningful way.

Even if you didn't why does someone else get to take the money you don't spend. Envy of the rich is such a big problem in this country.

I don't hate the idea of a flat tax. I haven't ever seen someone really do the math on it.

Because resources are finite. The system can only hold so much money because it is built on finite resources. So, if the top percent is making all of the money and not spending it, then there is 0 chance for anyone else to make money. That isn't a society.

Everyone no matter class pays the same rate.

Money isn't finite.

AggieShanks said:

---

The top rate in the "golden age" of America as you all refer to had the top rate being taxed at 94 percent. The 1% couldn't even spend all of their money if they tried, and I'm speaking strictly on earned income from work. I can care less about that stock earnings.

---

Once again, your conclusions are invalid.

NO ONE paid that top rate. There was also a plethora of deductions and loopholes.
This jealousy of "the rich" is juvenile. IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOT PART IN DETERMINING HOW AN INDIVIDUAL SPENDS THEIR MONEY. So it doesn't matter what "the 1%" can and can't spend. Even societally it would only be have a hint of a notion of an issue if "the rich" were stuffing cash in their mattresses. They're not. It's all invested, earning, providing salaries and growing the economy.

My gut tells me you're a very accomplished troll. No thinking person could actually espouse most of what you post.

Quote:

---

Because resources are finite.

---

OMG, that is patently false on every level. One, wealth and value are constantly created. There's more now than 10 years ago and more then than 10 years before that. And again, money is not stored in mattresses, it's all in the economy. You're economic understanding is that of a five year old. C'mon man!

What color is the sky in your world?

AggieShanks said:

---

Because resources are finite. The system can only hold so much money because it is built on finite resources. So, if the top percent is making all of the money and not spending it, then there is 0 chance for anyone else to make money. That isn't a society.

---

What if all of the money is going to servicing the debt from spending too much money in the past? Is that a society?

AggieShanks said:

---

Because resources are finite. The system can only hold so much money because it is built on finite resources. So, if the top percent is making all of the money and not spending it, then there is 0 chance for anyone else to make money. That isn't a society.

---

Money isn't finite and people are not naturally good.

AggieShanks said:

---

I don't hate the idea of a flat tax. I haven't ever seen someone really do the math on it.

---

Have you seen YOUR math is the real question. Even if shown, you wouldn't agree with it because 1+1=5 in your opinion. Facts are your worst enemy…..

I am all for a flat tax, but you guys are coming way close to a Libertarian view.

Hornbeck said:

---

I am all for a flat tax, but you guys are coming way close to a Libertarian view.

---

Different rates for different incomes. Flat tax would never work. A better solution is a "use tax". Spend more pay more. If I want a BMW and can afford it and the use tax, go for it. With an absolute flat tax, there will still be many not paying anything and some paying too little. Create 2-3 brackets and I think you have a solid point.