Biden Tax Increases

[firegiver]

It’s hard for me to imagine taking money from the government or asking other people to pay for government programs that I want. Call it self-respect or whatever. I’m kinda shocked there are Clemson fans ITT who are totally okay asking others to pay for things they want.

And I don't understand how so many have their heads in the sand around many of the issues in our country that cannot, will not be solved by cutting taxes and cutting spending.
There is an epidemic of drug addiction in this country that is a sickness that must be dealt with. There is an epidemic of over incarceration in this country that must be dealt with and there are children and the elderly that are in poverty. Of course medical bills are far too expensive and needs remediation. The government should, with obvious over sight, be allowed to research these problems and do the best to solve them. Educating the public about these things and discussing them and enacting policies to resolve these issues is very important.
I feel like we are stuck right now because market shaping disruptions are coming from technology. We are going to lose transportation jobs by the millions in a few years. We are going towards a post scarcity society, and it just seems like American society especially on the right has NO INTEREST in studying our society and improving it, or preparing it for what's coming. Just an I've got mine go fvck yourself attitude. The right wing media has demonized 'socialism' (whatever that means anymore) and also attacked science and journalism. The affect is that now people dismiss science, journalism and whatever else if it doesn't click with their pampered world view.

The republican party has one trick: Deregulation and cutting taxes. These policies happily enrich corporate citizens who never die and live forever, hoarding their wealth. Screw all that.

 

[nytigerfan]

It’s hard for me to imagine taking money from the government or asking other people to pay for government programs that I want. Call it self-respect or whatever. I’m kinda shocked there are Clemson fans ITT who are totally okay asking others to pay for things they want.

Who is asking you to pay for what they want? What did I miss?

 

[Willence]

nd I don't understand how so many have their heads in the sand around many of the issues in our country that cannot, will not be solved by cutting taxes and cutting spending.

There is an epidemic of drug addiction in this country that is a sickness that must be dealt with. There is an epidemic of over incarceration in this country that must be dealt with and there are children and the elderly that are in poverty. The government should, with obvious over sight, be allowed to research these problems and do the best to solve them. Educating the public about these things and discussing them and enacting policies to resolve these issues is very important.

I feel like we are stuck right now because market shaping disruptions are coming from technology. We are going to lose transportation jobs by the millions in a few years. We are going towards a post scarcity society, and it just seems like American society especially on the right has NO INTEREST in studying our society and improving it, or preparing it for what's coming. Just an I've got mine go fvck yourself attitude.

Instead of hurling things at one another, let's try talking. Because I don't believe in the things you do doesn't mean I have no interest in helping people. It's because I don't believe doing this through government works. For example, it's a fact to state we've spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. That's societal engineering at the government level which is what you're talking about here. It's also a fact that less than 30% of those dollars actually go to help people. Over 70% goes to fund the enormous apparatus that facilitates these programs. And for all those efforts, things are generally worse not better because we have an even lower skilled work force than before this. We've also managed to destroy families, create generational poverty, even worse schools, etc. than before we started. Why do you want to keep doing this? Do you genuinely want to help people or do you want to just keep throwing money at things not caring who it helps or how much?

We are stuck as you said because people want to keep trying the same insane solutions to everything when they NEVER EVER work. And the argument against those who oppose this madness is that we just want what's ours and screw everyone. That's just not true. It's a baseless charge that is used to stop any discussion. If these ideas you mention are so great, they should be able to bear scrutiny and healthy debate. But instead we get things like "the science is in" and "this isn't up for debate." It's a bunch of hogwash.

So to you I say if you really want to make a difference, you'll start by realizing the government should have NO role in "educating the public" on much of anything. People crave power on both sides and we have allowed them to have far too much of it. They become wealthy and powerful while those they claim to serve because poorer and less educated. That isn't progress. Time for a different way!

 

[firegiver]

Instead of hurling things at one another, let's try talking. Because I don't believe in the things you do doesn't mean I have no interest in helping people. It's because I don't believe doing this through government works. For example, it's a fact to state we've spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. That's societal engineering at the government level which is what you're talking about here. It's also a fact that less than 30% of those dollars actually go to help people. Over 70% goes to fund the enormous apparatus that facilitates these programs. And for all those efforts, things are generally worse not better because we have an even lower skilled work force than before this. We've also managed to destroy families, create generational poverty, even worse schools, etc. than before we started. Why do you want to keep doing this? Do you genuinely want to help people or do you want to just keep throwing money at things not caring who it helps or how much?

We are stuck as you said because people want to keep trying the same insane solutions to everything when they NEVER EVER work. And the argument against those who oppose this madness is that we just want what's ours and screw everyone. That's just not true. It's a baseless charge that is used to stop any discussion. If these ideas you mention are so great, they should be able to bear scrutiny and healthy debate. But instead we get things like "the science is in" and "this isn't up for debate." It's a bunch of hogwash.

So to you I say if you really want to make a difference, you'll start by realizing the government should have NO role in "educating the public" on much of anything. People crave power on both sides and we have allowed them to have far too much of it. They become wealthy and powerful while those they claim to serve because poorer and less educated. That isn't progress. Time for a different way!

To your first paragraph I would ask how much of that money was spent on the War on Drugs? Why is it illegal for the goverment to do studies on the benefits of Marijuana? Do you think that if the government enforces a harmful health policy, that society should not be allowed to learn from it? Shouldn't we be expecting our government to actually get better? I point squarely at the war on drugs, the Regan policies and Clinton policies that exacerbated poverty and crime problems in our country. Did those governments misplace spending due to bad science and policing methods: YES. That doesn't mean the government forever in the future must never spend money because of some mistakes. You learn from your mistakes and do better.

Government solutions in USA have been very successful. Hwy systems, public health, social safety nets. Just because you don't seek them out doesn't mean you can't see plain as day that as a whole, the federal government can get some stuff done effectively.

The government does need to educate people on things. Especially in a time when the right doesn't even want to live in a world with science. People need to stop over politicizing things that shouldn't be politicized. When the CDC comes out and makes suggestions about corona virus, stop politicizing it because its inconvenient for your tribe.

The corporate citizens of utmost power you speak of are born out of the military industrial complex and the Citizens United rulings and other policies that allow corporations to run this country. Wealth is all they care about, they are sucking the wealth out of our tax dollars and our spending dollars. We can argue about all of this, but to change it you definitely need an informed population, and you aren't going to get one from private dollars.

 

[Willence]

To your first paragraph I would ask how much of that money was spent on the War on Drugs? Why is it illegal for the goverment to do studies on the benefits of Marijuana? Do you think that if the government enforces a harmful health policy, that society should not be allowed to learn from it? Shouldn't we be expecting our government to actually get better? I point squarely at the war on drugs, the Regan policies and Clinton policies that exacerbated poverty and crime problems in our country. Did those governments misplace spending due to bad science and policing methods: YES. That doesn't mean the government forever in the future must never spend money because of some mistakes. You learn from your mistakes and do better.

So just to get this right, you think government policies directly caused people to commit crimes? How about the reality that if the government wasn't involved in this crap already, we'd have less issues. The drug situation is a complicated one for me. I am against drugs for recreational use but I also don't believe the government should have control over all of this. Drugs are bad and that's a demonstrable thing but at the same time, putting people in jail for this crap is also not the answer.

Government solutions in USA have been very successful. Hwy systems, public health, social safety nets. Just because you don't seek them out doesn't mean you can't see plain as day that as a whole, the federal government can get some stuff done effectively.

Are you referring to our crumbling infrastructure with poor funding because we're too busy fighting social policy wars? The highway system literally falls under government authority mandated in the Constitution. We can certainly argue about the general welfare clause dealing with public health, etc. Social safety nets don't work as current constructed. We can do a lot better and to call these things effectively done by government is a big stretch.

The government does need to educate people on things. Especially in a time when the right doesn't even want to live in a world with science. People need to stop over politicizing things that shouldn't be politicized. When the CDC comes out and makes suggestions about corona virus, stop politicizing it because its inconvenient for your tribe.

I don't know how to help you here my friend. This science argument is just so crazy...especially when weighed against actual reality. I guess it's what you need to believe to justify your views. I am not anti-science. If anything, our response in this country, especially in states like California and New York, was almost entirely political and not based in science. Yet that's what continues to be said to justify this massive power grab.

The corporate citizens of utmost power you speak of are born out of the military industrial complex and the Citizens United rulings and other policies that allow corporations to run this country. Wealth is all they care about, they are sucking the wealth out of our tax dollars and our spending dollars. We can argue about all of this, but to change it you definitely need an informed population, and you aren't going to get one from private dollars.

The left has such a hard time understanding things like Citizens United. They demonize as though the Court should have ruled the other way. It was the right ruling but it doesn't make it the right thing for our country. In our Constitution, there's a process for amendments to allow us to advance ourselves toward being a more perfect union. We used to use this process as it was intended but we stopped. SCOTUS tells us what the Constitution says and then we can decide what to do about it. They didn't say Citizens United was right. They said it was Constitutional at this time. Now if we don't like it, let's go amend the Constitution to make it such that isn't OK.

As for the corporate citizens you referred to. Almost all are leftist. Just look at the most powerful corporations in America and you'll see nothing but leftist influence. Why are you complaining about this? If it means so much to you to change it, let's get to work. I am with you 100%. There are far too many big corporations and they have far too much influence. I am for getting rid of that in every possible way. Our military is corrupt and bloated. Let's deal with that too! You have a willing partner in these areas with conservatives like me. I guess you just never stopped to realize that.

 

[firegiver]

So just to get this right, you think government policies directly caused people to commit crimes? How about the reality that if the government wasn't involved in this crap already, we'd have less issues. The drug situation is a complicated one for me. I am against drugs for recreational use but I also don't believe the government should have control over all of this. Drugs are bad and that's a demonstrable thing but at the same time, putting people in jail for this crap is also not the answer.

No I'm saying over policing locked up drug addicts and set them on the path of becoming career criminals. We have prison systems that produce hardened criminals not rehabilitate them.


Are you referring to our crumbling infrastructure with poor funding because we're too busy fighting social policy wars? The highway system literally falls under government authority mandated in the Constitution. We can certainly argue about the general welfare clause dealing with public health, etc. Social safety nets don't work as current constructed. We can do a lot better and to call these things effectively done by government is a big stretch.

Sure we can always do a lot better. SC particularly has bad infrastructure and that was decided by the voters to be ok since they continually vote people into office that make sure not to fund infrastructure.


I don't know how to help you here my friend. This science argument is just so crazy...especially when weighed against actual reality. I guess it's what you need to believe to justify your views. I am not anti-science. If anything, our response in this country, especially in states like California and New York, was almost entirely political and not based in science. Yet that's what continues to be said to justify this massive power grab.

Idk what to say, science is objective not subjective. Its baked into the sauce that bias is removed. So your distrust in it is maybe being funded by something else, like pedaling from the media that you should distrust it.


The left has such a hard time understanding things like Citizens United. They demonize as though the Court should have ruled the other way. It was the right ruling but it doesn't make it the right thing for our country. In our Constitution, there's a process for amendments to allow us to advance ourselves toward being a more perfect union. We used to use this process as it was intended but we stopped. SCOTUS tells us what the Constitution says and then we can decide what to do about it. They didn't say Citizens United was right. They said it was Constitutional at this time. Now if we don't like it, let's go amend the Constitution to make it such that isn't OK.

Cool then lets get rid of it. Corporate citizens living forever, funding their own super pacs is a great recipe for disaster.


As for the corporate citizens you referred to. Almost all are leftist. Just look at the most powerful corporations in America and you'll see nothing but leftist influence. Why are you complaining about this? If it means so much to you to change it, let's get to work. I am with you 100%. There are far too many big corporations and they have far too much influence. I am for getting rid of that in every possible way. Our military is corrupt and bloated. Let's deal with that too! You have a willing partner in these areas with conservatives like me. I guess you just never stopped to realize that.

I agree the military spending is way out of control, and we should also cut spending on the expansion in The Patriot Act and defund the militarization of our police. As far as corporations being leftist... I just don't know what that means. I guess you'd have to expand on what that means really for you. To me, even if Twitter is kicking people off their platform for saying things that they either don't agree with or think harms their bottom line it doesn't make them 'leftist'. All moves are about the money. Anyway we are talking about Facebook, microsoft and twitter as leftists... They are not the only corporations. Either way, corporations are not leftists, they all have the charter to make money for their share holders. Thats not really a partisan thing.

 

[Willence]

"No I'm saying over policing locked up drug addicts and set them on the path of becoming career criminals. We have prison systems that produce hardened criminals not rehabilitate them."

100% agree. We do a very poor job with this and it should have changed a long time ago.

"Idk what to say, science is objective not subjective. Its baked into the sauce that bias is removed. So your distrust in it is maybe being funded by something else, like pedaling from the media that you should distrust it."

I respect you may truly believe this but this isn't reality. I am not sure exactly what "science" you're referring to here.

"I agree the military spending is way out of control, and we should also cut spending on the expansion in The Patriot Act and defund the militarization of our police. As far as corporations being leftist... I just don't know what that means. I guess you'd have to expand on what that means really for you. To me, even if Twitter is kicking people off their platform for saying things that they either don't agree with or think harms their bottom line it doesn't make them 'leftist'. All moves are about the money. Anyway we are talking about Facebook, microsoft and twitter as leftists... They are not the only corporations. Either way, corporations are not leftists, they all have the charter to make money for their share holders. Thats not really a partisan thing."

I support us having the best military in the world. In a world with China, I think it's imperative. What I struggle with is the cronyism that exists in our spending. Far too much money with far too little accountability.

As for corporations, name one that's a right wing group spending millions or more to corrupt society. Just take a look at what you'd do to your world if we got rid of these donations:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[scotchtiger]

And I don't understand how so many have their heads in the sand around many of the issues in our country that cannot, will not be solved by cutting taxes and cutting spending.
There is an epidemic of drug addiction in this country that is a sickness that must be dealt with. There is an epidemic of over incarceration in this country that must be dealt with and there are children and the elderly that are in poverty. Of course medical bills are far too expensive and needs remediation. The government should, with obvious over sight, be allowed to research these problems and do the best to solve them. Educating the public about these things and discussing them and enacting policies to resolve these issues is very important.
I feel like we are stuck right now because market shaping disruptions are coming from technology. We are going to lose transportation jobs by the millions in a few years. We are going towards a post scarcity society, and it just seems like American society especially on the right has NO INTEREST in studying our society and improving it, or preparing it for what's coming. Just an I've got mine go fvck yourself attitude. The right wing media has demonized 'socialism' (whatever that means anymore) and also attacked science and journalism. The affect is that now people dismiss science, journalism and whatever else if it doesn't click with their pampered world view.

The republican party has one trick: Deregulation and cutting taxes. These policies happily enrich corporate citizens who never die and live forever, hoarding their wealth. Screw all that.

I don't have my head in the sand and I don't disagree with some of the issues you highlight. If you've read my posts on here, you know that I'm actually pretty moderate and support proactive policies that prevent societal issues.

But our federal government is spending nearly $5 TRILLION dollars per year. The issue is not spending too little - it's what we're spending it on. We spend on reactive entitlement programs. Your party is proposing more reactive entitlement programs like student loan forgiveness rather than addressing the cause - the cost of higher ed. Handouts instead of solutions.

We can have a real conversation about the problems in the country and the ways to address the root causes. To tie to the point of this thread though, we can address those problems without taking more money away from simple upper class families. I assure you that hard-working families facing the full brunt of the progressive tax scale with no way to "hide" are not the issue here. But for whatever reason, that's where Obama/Biden drew the line years ago ($250K+) and Biden is drawing the line now ($400K+).

 

[hopefultiger13]

Well, unlike almost everyone on here, my wife and I don't make $400K+. In fact we don't even make half that (although to be fair, we are pretty close).

There are a lot of ways to handle taxes and most of them work to an extent...

The thing is that no one likes paying taxes and most folks are more than willing for the "other" tax group to pay a little more and their own group to play a little less.

Personally, I tend to take more of a macro point of view. The reality of the situation is that a successful country/society is going to have to have the poor, the middle class, and the rich. To get everything done there's going to have to be that. I'd also say that to be fair, there needs to be a way for people to move between those classes.

When a country starts to get unbalanced is where you start to run into trouble. Right now, we are unbalanced. While it's easier to move into the richer classes, it's also much easier to sink into the poor classes. That's what we've been seeing in this country since the mid 80s... the middle class slowly shrinking while the ranks of the haves and have nots grow. History shows that when the middle class (people living "comfortably") starts to shrink a country is in trouble. When the wealth of a country shifts to the wealthy away from the middle class, problems coming.

The wealthy in our country own a larger percent of the wealth than ever before. I know that I'm middle class (see the paragraph above about no one wanting to pay taxes). But the wealthy in this country were doing just fine BEFORE Trump's tax cuts.

I'm not looking to hurt small or medium businesses. Hell, I'm not looking to hurt big business. But when the super rich are paying little to no taxes, something is out of line. When Amazon isn't paying taxes... something is wrong. There's a way to make this work.

I'm all about balancing the budget and cutting out wasteful spending. I'm also all about helping the poor advance and rewarding hard work with success. I have no problem with NOT rewarding not working.

 

[scotchtiger]

Who is asking you to pay for what they want? What did I miss?

If someone wants more government spending and programs and supports tax policies that raise my taxes and not their own, they are asking me to pay for what they want.

 

[scotchtiger]

But when the super rich are paying little to no taxes, something is out of line. When Amazon isn't paying taxes... something is wrong. There's a way to make this work.

I agree here, but my general point is that those two examples have nothing to do with where Biden has drawn the line. It's super typical of the left's talking points - Wall street billionaires, Buffett's secretary paying more than him, Amazon not paying taxes, general super rich comment. Then, turn around and tax your kid's orthodontist or the dual-income family down the street.

Why not design a tax plan that addresses the actual inequities in revenue collection? It's not people making 4, 6, 8 hundred K per year.

 

[Willence]

The wealthy in our country own a larger percent of the wealth than ever before. I know that I'm middle class (see the paragraph above about no one wanting to pay taxes). But the wealthy in this country were doing just fine BEFORE Trump's tax cuts.

First of all, this isn't true. They don't own a larger percentage of the wealth. It has been much higher in our past. However, it is true to say it's been steadily increasing over the past few decades. Heavy investment in the stock market has driven that. There's no way you can stop it when people can gain exponentially in these areas. It has nothing to do with taxes or tax policy. It has everything to do with massive investment in our markets and the reality that those with more income to invest are going to benefit exponentially more.

The Trump tax cuts benefited the middle class more as a percentage than it did the wealthy. This is just one of a million lies perpetuated by Democrats and the media. However, when measured in total dollars, it didn't. If you take 50% of $5 and only 10% of $50 you are going to give double the benefit in total dollars to the person with $50 even though the actual benefit to the person with $5 is 5 times higher. In this scenario, the Democrats will say that all the cuts went to the person with $50 even though that's patently false. Stop falling for this garbage. It just isn't real.

 

[Willence]

I'm not looking to hurt small or medium businesses. Hell, I'm not looking to hurt big business. But when the super rich are paying little to no taxes, something is out of line. When Amazon isn't paying taxes... something is wrong. There's a way to make this work.

Best solution is not to tax businesses. That's always been the most sensible path but we never seem to take it. Taxation on businesses is one of the primary drivers of poverty in this country. It hurts poor people at both ends and it's just bad for everyone. It's hard to grasp how this hasn't occurred to people yet. We should have a 0% tax rate for businesses in this country.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Maybe start by not spending $2T on a bloated covid bill? And then end the ridiculous notion of even more entitlement programs?

If you want to raise taxes, maybe actually focus it on those used in talking points about the evil rich?

And yea, we need to find a way to cut spending and address entitlements, but you are correct, neither party will actually fix it. Which is why it's incredibly stupid to consider adding more entitlements.

Bingo. The US is being put on a glide pattern to socialism. The great reset you keep hearing about is the deep state/globalist solution to whats coming that neither party or nothing can stop at this point and thats a world economic reset. Think about this juicy morsel of the great reset.....no one would own property...wow!! We are in scary times and I think Trump's economic ideas are the best for this country. He came in with a national debt around 21T and its now near 30T due to the mass of money spent on covid relief but also the huge interest payment on the national debt. The US at some point will either hyper inflate or repudiate the debt. The deep state players in the republican and dem party have been promised golden parachutes for delivering a socialist US to its globalist leaders without a doubt. We have been taken over for a long time by greedy and blackmailed traitors.

 

[scotchtiger]

Bingo. The US is being put on a glide pattern to socialism. The great reset you keep hearing about is the deep state/globalist solution to whats coming that neither party or nothing can stop at this point and thats a world economic reset. Think about this juicy morsel of the great reset.....no one would own property...wow!! We are in scary times and I think Trump's economic ideas are the best for this country. He came in with a national debt around 21T and its now near 30T due to the mass of money spent on covid relief but also the huge interest payment on the national debt. The US at some point will either hyper inflate or repudiate the debt. The deep state players in the republican and dem party have been promised golden parachutes for delivering a socialist US to its globalist leaders without a doubt. We have been taken over for a long time by greedy and blackmailed traitors.

I mean I don't believe in the great reset, but I don't think it's hard to see the following trends:

• Increasing reliance on the government
• Increasing acceptance of big government
• Expansion of government entitlements (healthcare, free college, UBI, etc)
• Transition from private sector to government for key services (ex. healthcare)
• Vilification of successful income earners (it's even ITT)
• Above results in significantly more spending and need for more tax revenue (also supported here)
• Sharp tax increases on high earners, which are supported by the masses because they don't want to pay and have been told rich = bad
• Even consideration for wealth/property confiscation (as proposed by Liz Warren)

We're trying to get it while I can because I'm guessing the world looks quite a bit different in 20 years.

Again, I don't understand it. I would be embarrassed to rely on the government. I would be embarrassed to support policies under which other people pay for what I want. I would be embarrassed to advocate taking money from someone else's family.

But we've seen a shift away from self-respect, self-sufficiency, limited government, personal responsibility, grit and all of the things that allowed the US to lap the world up to this point.

 

[WapPride]

I mean I don't believe in the great reset, but I don't think it's hard to see the following trends:

• Increasing reliance on the government
• Increasing acceptance of big government
• Expansion of government entitlements (healthcare, free college, UBI, etc)
• Transition from private sector to government for key services (ex. healthcare)
• Vilification of successful income earners (it's even ITT)
• Above results in significantly more spending and need for more tax revenue (also supported here)
• Sharp tax increases on high earners, which are supported by the masses because they don't want to pay and have been told rich = bad
• Even consideration for wealth/property confiscation (as proposed by Liz Warren)

We're trying to get it while I can because I'm guessing the world looks quite a bit different in 20 years.

Again, I don't understand it. I would be embarrassed to rely on the government. I would be embarrassed to support policies under which other people pay for what I want. I would be embarrassed to advocate taking money from someone else's family.

But we've seen a shift away from self-respect, self-sufficiency, limited government, personal responsibility, grit and all of the things that allowed the US to lap the world up to this point.

****ing L O L

do you think people who are hurting financially have no self-respect? do you think they enjoy being on government assistance programs? that is such a close-minded statement that i don't even know where to begin.

maybe it has something to do with the fact that the members of our society with the lowest % income haven't seen any growth at all in the last 50 years while the middle class has grown at a ridiculously low rate while the highest earners have seen a massive increase.

the fact of the matter is over the past 50 years it's been harder and harder for americans to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" because of legislature that favors the top earners.

thanks to the great recession in 2008 we've ****ed over the next few generations as people now in their 30s and 40s aren't able to climb up the corporate ladder since the boomers in charge lost their asses in 2008 and weren't able to retire on time like previous generations did.

i recommend taking some time and reading this pew article so you can better understand some of the problems middle and lower class people are dealing with

1. Trends in income and wealth inequality

Barely 10 years past the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the U.S. economy is doing well on several fronts. The labor market is on a job-creating

www.pewresearch.org

 

[nytigerfan]

I mean I don't believe in the great reset, but I don't think it's hard to see the following trends:

• Increasing reliance on the government
• Increasing acceptance of big government
• Expansion of government entitlements (healthcare, free college, UBI, etc)
• Transition from private sector to government for key services (ex. healthcare)
• Vilification of successful income earners (it's even ITT)
• Above results in significantly more spending and need for more tax revenue (also supported here)
• Sharp tax increases on high earners, which are supported by the masses because they don't want to pay and have been told rich = bad
• Even consideration for wealth/property confiscation (as proposed by Liz Warren)

We're trying to get it while I can because I'm guessing the world looks quite a bit different in 20 years.

Again, I don't understand it. I would be embarrassed to rely on the government. I would be embarrassed to support policies under which other people pay for what I want. I would be embarrassed to advocate taking money from someone else's family.

But we've seen a shift away from self-respect, self-sufficiency, limited government, personal responsibility, grit and all of the things that allowed the US to lap the world up to this point.

Again, I don't understand it. I would be embarrassed to rely on the government.

You should be embarrassed then, because you do rely on the government. As do I. As does everyone. Every day that you back out of your driveway, the second your tires hit the pavement, you rely on the government.

I would be embarrassed to support policies under which other people pay for what I want.

Did you attend Clemson? Because if you did you should be embarrassed. Because other people, whose kids did not attend clemson were helping pay for what you wanted.

I would be embarrassed to advocate taking money from someone else's family.

In this very thread you have advocated for people making seven figures to pay more than you. How is that different? Even billionaires? Are you embarrassed?

 

[TigerGrowls]

Not good.

"Monetizing the Debt - You Pay for the Debt by Printing More Money" - Economist Steve Moore on What's Going on Today | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

Economist Steve Moore was on with Steve Bannon and his War Room this morning and he discussed the economic consequences of the Democrats’ massive spending policies.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[scotchtiger]

****ing L O L

do you think people who are hurting financially have no self-respect? do you think they enjoy being on government assistance programs? that is such a close-minded statement that i don't even know where to begin.

maybe it has something to do with the fact that the members of our society with the lowest % income haven't seen any growth at all in the last 50 years while the middle class has grown at a ridiculously low rate while the highest earners have seen a massive increase.

the fact of the matter is over the past 50 years it's been harder and harder for americans to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" because of legislature that favors the top earners.

thanks to the great recession in 2008 we've ****ed over the next few generations as people now in their 30s and 40s aren't able to climb up the corporate ladder since the boomers in charge lost their asses in 2008 and weren't able to retire on time like previous generations did.

i recommend taking some time and reading this pew article so you can better understand some of the problems middle and lower class people are dealing with

1. Trends in income and wealth inequality

Barely 10 years past the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the U.S. economy is doing well on several fronts. The labor market is on a job-creating

www.pewresearch.org

Well we're wandering off topic here. I don't disagree that there's a growing income gap, but the tax rates on people making $400K don't have anything to do with that. I'd say it has a lot more to do with technology and the ability to magnify/multiply the value an individual can add in certain areas relative to someone in a more blue collar setting.

For example, I can add 10s of millions of dollars of revenue to my company and 100s of millions to its valuation in a single year. That magnitude of value creation was generally unachievable prior to somewhat recent times. It's also not even fractionally repeatable in more traditional jobs.

Said differently, the ability for a single person to add exponential value has risen with technology, while the value of commoditized labor has decreased with outsourcing and automation. How do you account for that with income? Income really is a factor of scarcity and value creation.

And I'm not suggesting that people hurting financially have no self-respect. Not at all. Do people who want the government to pay off debt that they willingly took on lack some self-respect? Maybe. Do people who want the government to take care of them lack self-respect? Probably.

The income gap issue is a real one as is the types of jobs available to workers in the future. Again, how does taxing a hard-working family more solve that?

 

[scotchtiger]

Again, I don't understand it. I would be embarrassed to rely on the government.

You should be embarrassed then, because you do rely on the government. As do I. As does everyone. Every day that you back out of your driveway, the second your tires hit the pavement, you rely on the government.

I would be embarrassed to support policies under which other people pay for what I want.

Did you attend Clemson? Because if you did you should be embarrassed. Because other people, whose kids did not attend clemson were helping pay for what you wanted.

I would be embarrassed to advocate taking money from someone else's family.

In this very thread you have advocated for people making seven figures to pay more than you. How is that different? Even billionaires? Are you embarrassed?

To clarify, there are two underlying assumptions here. The government should provide a limited amount of basic public services, including infrastructure. We have generally accepted the concept of a progressive income tax structure.

To your points, I pay an outsized share of money needed to fund the pavement behind my driveway. That is also a reasonable government service that goes to everyone. If the government wants to contribute to public education, that's fine too. I contribute an outsized share through taxes and paid tuition with no government assistance.

RE: Billionaires and my tax suggestion. If you believe in a progressive income tax structure, then you accept that effective rates should go up as income goes up. The problem with our current system is that the bottom pays virtually nothing, middle income earners pay very little, effective rate rapidly increase for upper earners and then effective rates level off or even decrease for the very wealthy. I'm merely suggesting that if you insist on raising taxes, perhaps consider adjusting the code for a more reasonable and level effective rate trend across income levels.

 

[scotchtiger]

thanks to the great recession in 2008 we've ****ed over the next few generations as people now in their 30s and 40s aren't able to climb up the corporate ladder since the boomers in charge lost their asses in 2008 and weren't able to retire on time like previous generations did.

I would also like to point out that my wife and I are in our late 30s. We were hit hard by the recession (we were in finance and real estate). The economic growth on the backside of the recession provided lots of career opportunity. I think your sentence here highlights the culture of victimhood that has been created.

 

[Willence]

In the last day or so, Ford Motor Company announced they are not going to be expanding their plant in Ohio as previously agreed back in 2019. This has infuriated the UAW because instead, Ford is going to build a plant in Mexico. Ford announced that circumstances had changes since this plan was put into place. Guess what that changing circumstance is? Now we have less jobs, less opportunity and this trend will repeat itself all over the country. It just shows there's no limit to stupidity. We need to stop messing with the tax code and instead look at spending. But somehow, people have been convinced it's better to tax the rich and greedy companies instead. No one cares about those folks until it starts costing jobs. These are good jobs we're losing. Go go progressive policies!

 

[scotchtiger]

In the last day or so, Ford Motor Company announced they are not going to be expanding their plant in Ohio as previously agreed back in 2019. This is infuriated the UAW because instead, Ford is going to build a plant in Mexico. Ford announced that circumstances had changes since this plan was put into place. Guess what that changing circumstance is? Now we have less jobs, less opportunity and this trend will repeat itself all over the country. It just shows there's no limit to stupidity. We need to stop messing with the tax code and instead look at spending. But somehow, people have been convinced it's better to tax the rich and greedy companies instead. No one cares about those folks until it starts costing jobs. These are good jobs we're losing. Go go progressive policies!

Hold the phones. There will be consequences if we raise taxes on businesses, add burdensome regulation and increase the cost of unskilled labor?

 

[WapPride]

I would also like to point out that my wife and I are in our late 30s. We were hit hard by the recession (we were in finance and real estate). The economic growth on the backside of the recession provided lots of career opportunity. I think your sentence here highlights the culture of victimhood that has been created.

i don't think it's so much victimhood as pointing out an obvious difference between generations now and ones prior. it's a fact that boomers are staying in the workforce longer than past generations. i'm sure there's multiple reasons behind, but studies show that the 2008 recession has absolutely been a driving cause of it.

Effects of the Great Recession on Older Americans' Health and Well-Being

Informing a Smarter World

www.prb.org

Baby Boomers are staying in the labor force at rates not seen in generations for people their age

The majority of Baby Boomers are still in the labor force: In 2018, 53% of adults ages 54 to 72 were still working or looking for work.

www.pewresearch.org

.

i'm also not complaining about a lack of options for younger generations; i'm saying the recession directly lead to a shakeup in the traditional timeline of the workforce. it's also why you see the average age of first time home owners being higher than any other point in history - the '08 recession had a ripple effect that we're still feeling today, and will probably still feel in the near future. the combination of wage stagnation, student and medical debt, and older generations staying in the workforce longer are all driving some of the issues young folks are seeing today

edit: i'm in my mid-late 30s so we're not all that off age-wise.

 

[Willence]

Hold the phones. There will be consequences if we raise taxes on businesses, add burdensome regulation and increase the cost of unskilled labor?

Funny how the threat of higher taxes would have such an impact. Just like people are paying $1 more for a gallon of gas now. It doesn't impact me but it sure does hurt the people who are in the bottom 50% of wage earners. We are going to pay so huge for the two Senate seats that were lost in Georgia. Biden would have been much better served to have to work with a Republican Senate.

 

[nytigerfan]

To clarify, there are two underlying assumptions here. The government should provide a limited amount of basic public services, including infrastructure. We have generally accepted the concept of a progressive income tax structure.

To your points, I pay an outsized share of money needed to fund the pavement behind my driveway. That is also a reasonable government service that goes to everyone. If the government wants to contribute to public education, that's fine too. I contribute an outsized share through taxes and paid tuition with no government assistance.

RE: Billionaires and my tax suggestion. If you believe in a progressive income tax structure, then you accept that effective rates should go up as income goes up. The problem with our current system is that the bottom pays virtually nothing, middle income earners pay very little, effective rate rapidly increase for upper earners and then effective rates level off or even decrease for the very wealthy. I'm merely suggesting that if you insist on raising taxes, perhaps consider adjusting the code for a more reasonable and level effective rate trend across income levels.

I think you should lay off on shaming people who make less than you for wanting you to pay more, especially when you want the people above you to pay more.

You have not always been in the position that you are in now. At some point you also relied on the contributions of others to get what you wanted. In fact, you still do.

We cannot expect the poorest 50% of our population to pay taxes. Inflation has far outpaced income and they are struggling to stay afloat as is. Especially if you are against paying them a living wage.

We need to have a real discussion about tax reform. The problem is that when the dems bring it up, the cons start yelling "socialism" at the top of their lungs to shut down any discussion. Should the $400K threshold be higher? yes IMO. Should that vary based on location and coast of living (per @jakefest suggestion)? Yes IMO. But since the two parties wont work together (b/c neither side wants to give the other a win) we wont be having those discussions.

I finalized my own taxes today. I was thrilled with the numbers but also felt a little guilty when I saw what my federal tax rate was after all deductions and everything else. I pay the same rate in the end of someone who makes 10 times less than me. The system is flawed and not really completely fair.

 

[Willence]

I think you should lay off on shaming people who make less than you for wanting you to pay more, especially when you want the people above you to pay more.

You have not always been in the position that you are in now. At some point you also relied on the contributions of others to get what you wanted. In fact, you still do.

We cannot expect the poorest 50% of our population to pay taxes. Inflation has far outpaced income and they are struggling to stay afloat as is. Especially if you are against paying them a living wage.

We need to have a real discussion about tax reform. The problem is that when the dems bring it up, the cons start yelling "socialism" at the top of their lungs to shut down any discussion. Should the $400K threshold be higher? yes IMO. Should that vary based on location and coast of living (per @jakefest suggestion)? Yes IMO. But since the two parties wont work together (b/c neither side wants to give the other a win) we wont be having those discussions.

I finalized my own taxes today. I was thrilled with the numbers but also felt a little guilty when I saw what my federal tax rate was after all deductions and everything else. I pay the same rate in the end of someone who makes 10 times less than me. The system is flawed and not really completely fair.

Can't speak for @scotchtiger but I will say that while I understand your perspective here, we just come at this from different angles. I don't think it's the role of government to decide what an acceptable percentage of my income they should take. Especially considering the massive waste, tremendous corruption and overt cronyism we have in every part of our government. If they were running a super tight ship with no waste and efficient use of funds, it would be different.

What I don't understand is why people don't look at simple realities like we've spent $22 trillion on anti-poverty and less than 30% of the funds actually reach the people. Why doesn't that piss people off to want to do something? Hell we could just send direct payments, eliminate poverty and save a ton of cash. That's how insane all this is.

News flash sir, what we're heading toward is Socialism. In many ways, we're already there. That isn't how the United States was supposed to be. There are lots of countries doing it so people can go where it is and immigrate there instead of to here if that's what they want. What made the US such an economic powerhouse and so desirable to come to is what we're destroying now. That's not to say we haven't had problems with equal opportunity because that's just not true. We have had major issues. Nevertheless, equal opportunity was supposed to be the goal. Now we're doing equitable results and that's just not possible.

This class warfare serves no one and the government has no right to our money at the level they are taking it. We're not a centrally planned society. Concerns about inflation outpacing income aren't things that can be fixed with more government. I would argue they could easily be fixed with far less government though. Maybe we should try a different way instead of continuing to do more of what has already been demonstrated to be a bad result.

 

[WapPride]

no matter how many times you guys claim WE'RE GOING TO SOCIALISM (and keep in mind the right has been tooting that horn since the 50s), it's not going to happen.

the republican party is the furthest right major party in the world and the american democratic party is essentially a center-right party. the american democratic party has more in common with right wing parties in other countries than it does with "socialist" parties elsewhere in the world.

Republicans closely resemble autocratic parties in Hungary and Turkey – study

Swedish university finds ‘dramatic shift’ in GOP under Trump, shunning democratic norms and encouraging violence

www.theguardian.com

 

[scotchtiger]

I think you should lay off on shaming people who make less than you for wanting you to pay more, especially when you want the people above you to pay more.

You have not always been in the position that you are in now. At some point you also relied on the contributions of others to get what you wanted. In fact, you still do.

We cannot expect the poorest 50% of our population to pay taxes. Inflation has far outpaced income and they are struggling to stay afloat as is. Especially if you are against paying them a living wage.

We need to have a real discussion about tax reform. The problem is that when the dems bring it up, the cons start yelling "socialism" at the top of their lungs to shut down any discussion. Should the $400K threshold be higher? yes IMO. Should that vary based on location and coast of living (per @jakefest suggestion)? Yes IMO. But since the two parties wont work together (b/c neither side wants to give the other a win) we wont be having those discussions.

I finalized my own taxes today. I was thrilled with the numbers but also felt a little guilty when I saw what my federal tax rate was after all deductions and everything else. I pay the same rate in the end of someone who makes 10 times less than me. The system is flawed and not really completely fair.

You are right that I wasn't always in the position I am in now, but even then, I never asked for someone else to pay more for government programs I supported. I've always been an advocate for limited government.

I'm not asking for people above me to pay more. I'm simply saying that if you want to increase taxes somewhere, that's a more logical and reasonable place than the people actually paying large effective rates relative to their income. It's my attempt at the working together point in your post. Not dismissing the idea of higher taxes, but redirecting to a more appropriate place.

Unfortunately, I'm just a regular old employee, so I don't get all of the pass-thru and deduction treatment of a business owner. So there will be no guilt when my taxes are filed.

 

[nytigerfan]

Can't speak for @scotchtiger but I will say that while I understand your perspective here, we just come at this from different angles. I don't think it's the role of government to decide what an acceptable percentage of my income they should take. Especially considering the massive waste, tremendous corruption and overt cronyism we have in every part of our government. If they were running a super tight ship with no waste and efficient use of funds, it would be different.

What I don't understand is why people don't look at simple realities like we've spent $22 trillion on anti-poverty and less than 30% of the funds actually reach the people. Why doesn't that piss people off to want to do something? Hell we could just send direct payments, eliminate poverty and save a ton of cash. That's how insane all this is.

News flash sir, what we're heading toward is Socialism. In many ways, we're already there. That isn't how the United States was supposed to be. There are lots of countries doing it so people can go where it is and immigrate there instead of to here if that's what they want. What made the US such an economic powerhouse and so desirable to come to is what we're destroying now. That's not to say we haven't had problems with equal opportunity because that's just not true. We have had major issues. Nevertheless, equal opportunity was supposed to be the goal. Now we're doing equitable results and that's just not possible.

This class warfare serves no one and the government has no right to our money at the level they are taking it. We're not a centrally planned society. Concerns about inflation outpacing income aren't things that can be fixed with more government. I would argue they could easily be fixed with far less government though. Maybe we should try a different way instead of continuing to do more of what has already been demonstrated to be a bad result.

What I don't understand is why people don't look at simple realities like we've spent $22 trillion on anti-poverty and less than 30% of the funds actually reach the people. Why doesn't that piss people off to want to do something? Hell we could just send direct payments, eliminate poverty and save a ton of cash. That's how insane all this is.

Sounds like you are advocating for universal basic income. And at the same time complaining about socialism.

I also find it interesting that you claim we are "heading to" socialism because there is a talk of a modest tax increase. We have historically had even higher tax rates in the past (you know, back when America was great). You guys called Obama a socialist, and there really wasnt much difference between Obama and Reagan.

 

[Willence]

What I don't understand is why people don't look at simple realities like we've spent $22 trillion on anti-poverty and less than 30% of the funds actually reach the people. Why doesn't that piss people off to want to do something? Hell we could just send direct payments, eliminate poverty and save a ton of cash. That's how insane all this is.

Sounds like you are advocating for universal basic income. And at the same time complaining about socialism.

I also find it interesting that you claim we are "heading to" socialism because there is a talk of a modest tax increase. We have historically had even higher tax rates in the past (you know, back when America was great). You guys called Obama a socialist, and there really wasnt much difference between Obama and Reagan.

This is why it's so irritating to get into any kind of a discussion with you. You don't have any actual points. you just like to take everything and people say out of context and then extrapolate it to some ridiculous extreme. I never said I was advocating for universal basic income. I simply stated that it would be cheaper to do that then do what we're doing now. Of course you have no answer because you don't want to address actual issues.

I'm not talking about a tax increase reflecting us heading towards socialism. Again that's another extrapolation that's just flat wrong. What I am saying is that the safety net and social policies that we are trying to bring about in this country are headed towards socialism. It's not a good path to be on. But again you can't argue on the merits so you have to try and play gotcha and take statements out of context so you can bend them to what you want them to say. You're really not good at this. Go learn and come back.

 

[nytigerfan]

This is why it's so irritating to get into any kind of a discussion with you. You don't have any actual points. you just like to take everything and people say out of context and then extrapolate it to some ridiculous extreme. I never said I was advocating for universal basic income. I simply stated that it would be cheaper to do that then do what we're doing now. Of course you have no answer because you don't want to address actual issues.

I'm not talking about a tax increase reflecting us heading towards socialism. Again that's another extrapolation that's just flat wrong. What I am saying is that the safety net and social policies that we are trying to bring about in this country are headed towards socialism. It's not a good path to be on. But again you can't argue on the merits so you have to try and play gotcha and take statements out of context so you can bend them to what you want them to say. You're really not good at this. Go learn and come back.

You "got into a discussion with me" in this thread by insulting me. I have plenty of points, you just dismiss them as totally wrong. You see, you are what we call condescending. Anyone who disagrees with you doesnt understand how it works. You state your beliefs as facts without providing any data to support them. I am often able to find some middle ground with other posters in this thread that I disagree with. But with you it is always "I am right and you are wrong". What is the point of discussion?

You will notice that I never ask you to "get into a discussion with me"

 

[Willence]

You "got into a discussion with me" in this thread by insulting me. I have plenty of points, you just dismiss them as totally wrong. You see, you are what we call condescending. Anyone who disagrees with you doesnt understand how it works. You state your beliefs as facts without providing any data to support them. I am often able to find some middle ground with other posters in this thread that I disagree with. But with you it is always "I am right and you are wrong". What is the point of discussion?

You will notice that I never ask you to "get into a discussion with me"

Other than on moral issues, there's never a time I don't support my views with data. Ever.

I can be condescending. You're right about that. It's a very unattractive quality and it's something I fight constantly. I admit I am not always the nicest to you. I struggle with you greatly but that's no excuse for being an ass. That being said, I educate myself on the issues and have very strong views based on the facts you seem to ignore. Doesn't always make me right. I learn a lot and there are folks on this board who have backed me down and forced me to see I am wrong about some things. That's the beauty of discussion. We're never done learning.

It'd be nice if you realized that you also are quite condescending at times. Also, you've still neglected to address one single data point I listed in this thread. If you don't care to, that's fine. But understand if you think you have a valid argument, you should be able to rebut someone else's arguments with actual facts. That doesn't come from you very often. Hence why I said I struggle with you. I'm sorry for insulting you. That's wrong of me and it doesn't help facilitate anything positive. I will try to do better.