YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

My argument is that that's fine and absolutely yes. But we've passed a threshold of debt and we're starting to see the Fed not totally able to bring down yields alone. In the short run, we need all tools on the table and the intestinal fortitude to un* ourselves.

---

First tax increase I would do is tax the bottom half of the country that currently pays nothing or gets money back. No more free rides.

---

Yep, politicians will never be under any pressure to lower spending as long as half the country benefits from that spending.

Federal income tax is my single biggest expense and I'm not rich. But I guarantee that I will be classified as "rich" by Romney the fake conservative and his liberal friends. When they say rich they mean middle class.

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHHAAHAAHHAH

This is funny.

Esp when I see brainwashed programmed lolpoors here defending the "rich"

LOL

And when he was the GOP candidate, and I was calling him a liberal, I got the usual...."But he's the candidate, he's better than the alternative!". HE's proven to be white Obama all his career, literally writing ObamaCare as Gov of Mass.

BigRobSA said:

---

LOL

And when he was the GOP candidate, and I was calling him a liberal, I got the usual...."But he's the candidate, he's better than the alternative!". HE's proven to be white Obama all his career, literally writing ObamaCare as Gov of Mass.

---

Never heard it put that way, but you are so right. Incisive analogy.

YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

My argument is that that's fine and absolutely yes. But we've passed a threshold of debt and we're starting to see the Fed not totally able to bring down yields alone. In the short run, we need all tools on the table and the intestinal fortitude to un* ourselves.

---

First tax increase I would do is tax the bottom half of the country that currently pays nothing or gets money back. No more free rides.

---

At the very least, stop giving "refunds" to those who pay no taxes.

infinity ag said:

---

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHHAAHAAHHAH

This is funny.

Esp when I see brainwashed programmed lolpoors here defending the "rich"

---

The problem is Dems define the "rich" as pretty much anybody who works for a living. We are the "haves," and they expect us to fund the "have nots" through taxes.

So yes, cut taxes for the "rich." All federal taxes are being paid for by the "rich" under their standard.

Mittens has binders full of women who can now pay taxes. All of the taxes.

infinity ag said:

---

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHHAAHAAHHAH

This is funny.

Esp when I see brainwashed programmed lolpoors here defending the "rich"

---

It's not defending the rich. It's mathematical reality. Taxing them even more does nothing. They already cover 40% of tax receipts. In California, a few hundred people cover 50% of their annual spend. Not much runway left to tax them even more.

Malibu said:

---

Guys, we're $38T in the hole right now and rising, and the wealth gap and affordability crisis is getting worse and worse. We have large bills to pay, and only in fantasyland will our insolvency be solved solely be tightening our belts and not raising revenue (taxing the rich) as well.

We bailed out Wall Street. We bailed out Auto. We bailed out all small businesses and big business (CARES ACT). We bailed out the military industrial complex (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). Lots of people got rich on the backs of US debt. Those that get rich off of our debt ought to pay some of that debt off too.

---

Maybe we just don't bail them out.

Quit picking Winners and Losers because of political influence.

The "rich" already pay more than their fair share while also being directly, or indirectly, creating almost all nongovernment jobs via their own businesses or providing capital for others to do so.

The bottom 50% should all be paying something. Do away with refundable tax credits. And cut spending on everything, Not a cut in the rate of spending, but actually cut spending. Do away with handout programs, and ferret out waste and fraud, the big budget items, including defense, are overflowing with wasteful spending.

It's not really targeted at the rich, but Trump has found a clever way to tax us all through the tariffs. It's probably the only broad based tax increase he could roll out that his base would support.

"Rich" is not the same as "high wage earners."

Romney is rich. He isn't proposing taxing the rich.

Romney... who doesn't make a huge Income, but grows his wealth through long-term Cap Gains... wouldn't support eliminating the long-term Cap Gains tax (19%) in favor of 35%+ Income Tax.

Romney can also borrow against his wealth at a nominal rate significantly below LT Cap Gains.

Rich and Wealth are not the same.

I could see Trump abolishing individual income taxes and the IRS altogether next year in favor of an external revenue service, aka tariffs.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

"Rich" is not the same as "high wage earners."

Romney is rich. He isn't proposing taxing the rich.

Romney... who doesn't make a huge Income, but grows his wealth through long-term Cap Gains... wouldn't support eliminating the long-term Cap Gains tax (19%) in favor of 35%+ Income Tax.

Romney can also borrow against his wealth at a nominal rate significantly below LT Cap Gains.

Rich and Wealth are not the same.

---

I'm not defending Romney at all; I disagree with his call for higher income tax.

But I am calling out cap gain taxes... much of that gain can be due simply to inflation.

Why should anyone pay tax on inflation?

Answer: no one should.

Solution: index cap gains for inflation and pay tax only on the gain above inflation.

boulderaggie said:

---

I could see Trump abolishing individual income taxes and the IRS altogether next year in favor of an external revenue service, aka tariffs.

---

He literally can't. Maybe you will see this in your drunken dreams.

YouBet said:

---

boulderaggie said:

---

I could see Trump abolishing individual income taxes and the IRS altogether next year in favor of an external revenue service, aka tariffs.

---

He literally can't. Maybe you will see this in your drunken dreams.

---

after today's game, all i have are drunken dreams! Let me dream damnit!

YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

My argument is that that's fine and absolutely yes. But we've passed a threshold of debt and we're starting to see the Fed not totally able to bring down yields alone. In the short run, we need all tools on the table and the intestinal fortitude to un* ourselves.

---

First tax increase I would do is tax the bottom half of the country that currently pays nothing or gets money back. No more free rides.

---

Exactly this. That is the only tax increase I would favor, the getting of everyone on the tax roll. And no tax credits at all, certainly no refundable tax credits.

Then cut spending in every area. Hit the free stuff first.

Over_ed said:

---

His argument is that we won't cut spending, so to save the country we need to tax more.

In most cases I would rather deal with liberal Dems, at least these guys don't pretend to be rational. Getting left in the lurch by Maga broke a lot of "conservatives". They should be honest about it and register democratic.

Who here thinks that raising taxes is the answer? I don't - I know that higher taxes are just going to be used to justify increased spending. Will make the deficit worse, not better.

Stupid!

We’ve reached a point where any mix of solutions to our nation’s economic problems is going to involve the wealthiest Americans contributing more. https://t.co/m0zXuXeC43

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) December 19, 2025

---

Hey, Mitt...

You're a billionaire.

You go first.

Over_ed said:

---

His argument is that we won't cut spending, so to save the country we need to tax more.

In most cases I would rather deal with liberal Dems, at least these guys don't pretend to be rational. Getting left in the lurch by Maga broke a lot of "conservatives". They should be honest about it and register democratic.

Who here thinks that raising taxes is the answer? I don't - I know that higher taxes are just going to be used to justify increased spending. Will make the deficit worse, not better.

Stupid!

We’ve reached a point where any mix of solutions to our nation’s economic problems is going to involve the wealthiest Americans contributing more. https://t.co/m0zXuXeC43

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) December 19, 2025

---

He is an idiot
As of 2024, there are 813 billionaires in the United States. They collectively hold a wealth of approximately $5.7 trillion.

We could seize all $5.7 trillion and it wouldn't pay the debt off. It would result in the complete destruction of the stock market as most of that wealth is corporate stocks & investments.
Mitt Romney needs to go back to school & study economics.
Here's a clue Mitt you nitwiit, we have a spending problem not a tax problem.

infinity ag said:

---

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHHAAHAAHHAH

This is funny.

Esp when I see brainwashed programmed lolpoors here defending the "rich"

---

If you liquidated the nation's billionaires how much do you have? Hint, it's one or two posts above mine? Ok, so we've taxed the rich 100% of their wealth. What's your wealth look like? You like to tell us how you've become wealthy through investing and that's great but guess what? In this hypothetical you're completely wiped out. Poor. Your investments are gone because their values collapsed in the process of liquidating those evil billionaires.

Malibu said:

---

Guys, we're $38T in the hole right now and rising, and the wealth gap and affordability crisis is getting worse and worse. We have large bills to pay, and only in fantasyland will our insolvency be solved solely be tightening our belts and not raising revenue (taxing the rich) as well.

We bailed out Wall Street. We bailed out Auto. We bailed out all small businesses and big business (CARES ACT). We bailed out the military industrial complex (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). Lots of people got rich on the backs of US debt. Those that get rich off of our debt ought to pay some of that debt off too.

---

And we let billions get stolen through fraud.

YouBet said:

---

OTH, RINO Mitt is not wrong; we are not ever going to cut spending. OTOH, raising taxes won't do dick but he can volunteer to pay more if he would like.

At this point, I would rather just wait until depopulation starts happening rather than have to give more of my money to the government.

---

My name is reek...

Romney is a fraud. He draws out of a trust.

BTKAG97 said:

---

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

The ONLY thing raising taxes will accomplish is INCREASED spending.

---

End of thread. That's my issue as well. If the federal government actually ran a lean enterprise then raising taxes might get more support.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

DallasAg 94 said:

---

"Rich" is not the same as "high wage earners."

Romney is rich. He isn't proposing taxing the rich.

Romney... who doesn't make a huge Income, but grows his wealth through long-term Cap Gains... wouldn't support eliminating the long-term Cap Gains tax (19%) in favor of 35%+ Income Tax.

Romney can also borrow against his wealth at a nominal rate significantly below LT Cap Gains.

Rich and Wealth are not the same.

---

I'm not defending Romney at all; I disagree with his call for higher income tax.

But I am calling out cap gain taxes... much of that gain can be due simply to inflation.

Why should anyone pay tax on inflation?

Answer: no one should.

Solution: index cap gains for inflation and pay tax only on the gain above inflation.

---

Strongly disagree with your solution. Govt cannot be trusted to index anything to the inflation it creates. It's a perfect example of trusting a fox to guard the henhouse. Official inflation numbers are already laughably low and probably by at least 3-4x.

IMO, there are only two ways to "fix" our monstrosity of a tax system. First and foremost it must be simple. National sales tax or a flat income tax. I hate the idea of any kind of income tax as it puts the incentive/disincentive in the wrong place.

In regards to the OP and other posters agreeing we need to raise taxes, the answer is not no but hell no. Govt brings in ~$5 trillion a year. IMO, the burden/cost of government should be a tiny fraction of that. The federal government should be so small and limited that we barely even notice the taxes needed to fund it. Eliminate entire departments and agencies wholesale. Take a chainsaw to spending and then slash it some more. Return everything to states rights. If California wants to tax its residents to death then let them at it. But no bailouts from big daddy fedgov which is really just prudent states bailing out the irresponsible ones. Bottom line is we need a MUCH smaller and weaker fedgov….like it was supposed to be.

Romney literally cried about a Trump phone call to Ukriane, while saying nothing about the FBI/CIA attempted coup on a POTUS.

How do we get these losers in the GOP? The dems never get people who go against their basic (sick) values.

ts5641 said:

---

The dems never get people who go against their basic (sick) values.

---

That's because the dems have no values.

Malibu said:

---

I'm just a simple accountant, but to increase profit, you usually need to raise revenue and cut costs. The US needs to do both immediately.

It wont though, so I recommend hard assets and low leverage because the reckoning is coming.

---

I never thought I'd agree with you on something.

MRB10 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

I'm just a simple accountant, but to increase profit, you usually need to raise revenue and cut costs. The US needs to do both immediately.

It wont though, so I recommend hard assets and low leverage because the reckoning is coming.

---

I never thought I'd agree with you on something.

---

I like the simple analogy, but what if…and I'm just spitballing here…revenue is more than enough and it's the COSTS that are astronomical? What if a huge portion of that spending is entirely unnecessary? Is it possible in that scenario that you could balance the equation without having to steal more money from people?

Here's a hypothetical for you accountants. Let's say I run a business with $1M in revenue and $1.2M in expenses. You take a look at my expenses and discover I've spent $750k on totally useless crap like expensive lunches, a fancy company vehicle, "business trips" that serve no useful purpose, etc. What would your advice be in this scenario? Seems to me the business would be doing just fine if I simply tightened the belt. That is the situation our government is in.

Exactly and this is known to all regarding our federal government. The amount of waste and graft is easily $2T per year.

See Minnesota as a primary example. And that's just one that we know about. Looking back to Covid, we had all kinds of reports and audits telling us that up to half of Covid aid was fraudulent and/or intercepted and diverted to foreign interests.

I was more responding to the "own hard assets" and "low leverage" part. There are many ways to analyze the income statement.

FobTies said:

---

Romney literally cried about a Trump phone call to Ukriane, while saying nothing about the FBI/CIA attempted coup on a POTUS.

---

He's too rich for a two-door, sedan or GTFO.

I have an idea. Steal Social Security from those that have already paid for it.

That will do it.