Nope .... they would rather stop the SS checks to people who depend on them to survive.
The Debt Ceiling
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Then you would support a flat tax where there are no loopholes? Of course, exempting some at the bottom of the scale so they don't have to pay taxes.
Immediate bills & interest = 46% of our annual expenses below......
SS=21%
Vet benefits = 7%
Econ Security Benefits for poor= 11%
Interest on Debt= 7%
Other items are not immediate or can be paid later.. they have some wiggle room So yes, we get enough tax $ in to handle above.
Last edited:
Duh . . . I wonder why . . . .
Here's where we'll have to agree to disagree again.
Where is this chart wrong? (Taken from Hickory's post #101) Looks like to me that the deficits are growing, and would expand drastically with the banking crisis that unfolded at the end of W's term:
https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-content.duckduckgo.com%2Fiu%2F%3Fu%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fimages.dailykos.com%252Fimages%252F817436%252Fstory_image%252FdebtbypresidentJune2020B.jpg%253F1591970563%26f%3D1%26nofb%3D1%26ipt%3D346657d3aa56f9f51a737eef007bd6653b695507495be6390d82cf25931b02e3%26ipo%3Dimages&hash=5d1aa963065a9aee91ecb047c306a1e7
I would support different tax brackets with no loopholes whatsoever other than maybe a refund based on number of dependents.
Wouldn't be any need for tax preparers or all the crap we do now. People could have their percentage taken off the paycheck and come April, there would be nothing to do. People who are self employed or have to self-report their stuff would of course.
There are obviously places where I would change things if I could. For example here is something I would change to make the rich pay more. Notice how the rate for Medicare coverage goes up until a person reaches $750,000 then it stays flat. A person having an income of 10 million dollars pays the same premium as someone having an income of $750,000.
If you look at the chart below you can see that the top 10% of earners pay approximately 70% of the taxes so the loopholes must not be saving them too much.
Of course the deficits are growing. We’re spending too much money. This isn’t difficult to figure out. In the last 93 years the U.S. government has never collected more than 20% of GDP in taxes. Not one damn year.
Since 2008 the federal government has spent more than 20%, of GDP, every year. The projections are around 24% the next few years, but it assumes no recession. The federal government expenditures needs to be cut around 20-25% to get to a reasonable level.
We’re spending more today, as a percentage of GDP, than we did in 2009 when we were going through the financial crisis recession. Its insanity, unless your trying to bankrupt the country.
Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays: | The American Presidency Project
www.presidency.ucsb.edu
Last edited:
You say how much Trump paid in taxes. There are some wealthy that play the system very well.There are obviously places where I would change things if I could. For example here is something I would change to make the rich pay more. Notice how the rate for Medicare coverage goes up until a person reaches $750,000 then it stays flat. A person having an income of 10 million dollars pays the same premium as someone having an income of $750,000.
If you look at the chart below you can see that the top 10% of earners pay approximately 70% of the taxes so the loopholes must not be saving them too much.
Wealth Inequality - Inequality.org
The United States exhibits has more inequality and disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation.
inequality.org
Paying more taxes doesn't seem to be doing much to address the skyrocketing wealth gap. The richest 5% of Americans hold 2/3 of the wealth.
Here's a relevant chart also showing how the very top aren't paying as much of a percentage as they used to as their wealth increases.
Anyway, the wealthy pay most of the taxes because they have hoarded most of the wealth. You can't expect poor people to pay much in taxes.
The only difference between now and medieval times is that we aren't forced to call them "My Lord".
IUH, often ask myself whether the super rich, who you point out seem to own more of their share than what might be considered equitable or fair, accumulate this wealth at the expense of others.You say how much Trump paid in taxes. There are some wealthy that play the system very well.
Wealth Inequality - Inequality.org
The United States exhibits has more inequality and disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation.
Paying more taxes doesn't seem to be doing much to address the skyrocketing wealth gap. The richest 5% of Americans hold 2/3 of the wealth.
Here's a relevant chart also showing how the very top aren't paying as much of a percentage as they used to as their wealth increases.
Anyway, the wealthy pay most of the taxes because they have hoarded most of the wealth. You can't expect poor people to pay much in taxes.
The only difference between now and medieval times is that we aren't forced to call them "My Lord".
This is a different question than whether they should be taxed more heavily.
There's only so much money to go around. If a CEO / upper management take more money, then that is less money available for wages for those lower down the chain so to speak or more money taken from customers.
Sports teams are a great example of the lopsided way things are setup. Billionaires make most athletes millionaires. But yet the wealthy people can't pay for their stadium to actually fund this endeavor. Nope, that is for the less wealthy (taxpayers) to pay for that. And then fans pay the salaries via increased cost of tickets/merchandise that have to be raised.
TV stations payout millions to get content (always increasing) and then charge ever increasing amounts to service providers who then charge every increasing amounts to their subscribers flowing money generally from the have nots to the haves in every increasing amounts. The money schools are swimming in that comes from the BTN which in turn comes from all of us peons who are paying more for our tv subscriptions. Money flowing generally from the have nots to the haves.
Papa John's complaint a while ago also illustrates the issue. He said if minimum wage was increased, then he would have to raise prices that were charged to consumers. Of course, lowering his salary or that of upper management wasn't on the table. As always, It would be a choice between taking from the haves or the have nots and the haves usually get to decide who gets to take the cuts.
Then we have the tipping phenomenon that exists to a larger extent in America than anywhere else in the world. Management wants to get around minimum wage by having customers pay tips to subsidize employee wages. They get the benefit of lowering salaries for the bottom dwellers by making them dependent on the generosity of consumers. It also adds the benefit of making your prices look lower because most customers likely don't do the math in their head. Sorta like hidden fees that hotels, airlines and ticketmaster try/succeed to get away with. Make stuff look cheaper than it is.
On a final note, often time people's raises are based on percentages and not flat amounts. The claim is everyone is getting a 3% raise or whatever so it is fair. However, 3% for someone at $30k is a lot less than 3% for someone at $200k. It does nothing but increase the gap and I'm betting those who want to go with percentage are fully aware of that fact and unfortunately they are the decision makers.
Person A = Upper management (aka Decision Makers)
Person B = Workers
Person C = Customers
For Person A to make more, either person B has to make less or person C has to pay more. Given person A makes decisions, they tend to make more and more at the expense of B and C. If capitalism fails, it would be due to greed.
Last edited:
I couldn’t disagree with you more on just about everything you wrote here - although I basically just skimmed it. Just a quick hit and run stadiums are complicated and subsidization is a choice. It was nixed here so privately funded. Disagree with everything you write but commend you on a content-based thoughtful post
Don’t get excited. It’s a long holiday weekend. I’ll be motherf*ucking someone for sure.
Don't worry, you disagree with anything i write because you don't get past who wrote the post.
Subsidizing stadiums isn't a choice other than the choice to vote out the people that actually made the choice at the next election (after the choice was already made).
Incorrect. Voters are often given a chance to vote. The resolution here for public financing was voted down by about 3,000 votes. That’s why it later went forward with private financing.
Stadiums MAY also bring benefits to a city that are ancillary to taxation etc. Business generation for instance. Perception. Pro teams give an impression of a more vibrant city that can help lure businesses.
Again it’s a complicated issue. I usually disagree with you because you know so little. Your post was at least an effort , despite being wrong, per usual
If the Dems are truly about equity, why not a push for a flat tax for all? Why should I pay more than anyone else? Shouldn’t we all pay the same?I'll tell you what, when you start griping about the debt ceiling and spending when a republican is president, I'll start taking you more seriously.
Here's 1... cut out the tax breaks for the wealthy
Market reacting as if a deal has been or is very close to being resolved.
Hickory, all your examples illustrate how the wealthy and their hired management take advantage of their wealth and position at the expense of others. As you say, "There's only so much money to go around".
This article, however, reminds us of the following,,,
There are two ways one can obtain more wealth. It can be taken from someone else, or it can be created.
But this doesn’t explain what has been happening to net wealth in history. Net wealth has increased throughout history, especially in the last two hundred years despite the population of the world increasing dramatically.
Consequently as we look at wealth creation and taxes shouldn't we be looking into all the new wealth which will be created in the future ? As a country shouldn't we be looking at how government and the private sector can create wealth in a world economy for the benefit of the as many as possible ?
Unfortunately our system of governing looks primarily to the next election and the present. Long term wealth creation with private and governmental investing over the long term takes a backseat to divisive issues such as those which have been described as culture wars.
So the rich should pay the same as the poor? Lmao. How much do you think you can squeeze out of the poor?
Equity isn't about how much you pay in taxes. We should be trying to help people below the poverty line, not those worried about what color their yacht is.
There is zero evidence that a Supreme Court Justice opinion was paid for by anyone.
There are clearly ethics questions, but that’s all so far.
If they make that much they don’t need Medicare at all. The super rich may self insure, the government self insures similarly. I don’t think raising their premiums is an answer. I’m not saying that because I’m close to making that much either. 😉There are obviously places where I would change things if I could. For example here is something I would change to make the rich pay more. Notice how the rate for Medicare coverage goes up until a person reaches $750,000 then it stays flat. A person having an income of 10 million dollars pays the same premium as someone having an income of $750,000.
If you look at the chart below you can see that the top 10% of earners pay approximately 70% of the taxes so the loopholes must not be saving them too much.
What if they got their yacht through hard work and inventiveness. What’s equitable about making them pay more
Even at the lower level most millionaires are made not born
We should get rid of income tax altogether and have a Value Added Tax. Then everyone pays into our federal revenue, including tourists and illegal immigrants. Those below a certain income level could get a monthly check from the government to offset living expenses.
Most proposals for a flat tax exempt people at lower income levels. So like now, the poor would actually pay no income taxes.
OMG, the people who don't want to borrow more money so we can get out of debit are a threat to democracy and are terrorist. All they think about is their money that they work their asses off to earn. Why don't they want to forfeit that to people who can't walk up 1 flight of stairs and have 10 kids on medicaid? Selfish bastards.
But I think people are forced to take Medicare aren't they.... not sure what the rules are but hopefully you got the idea. It's like the place I used to work at would tell us what we should donate to United Way. Of course the more you made the more they expected us to donate. The problem I had with it is that when it got to management levels the table stopped. I made an Excel spreadsheet that extrapolated what they should be paying but never got the nerve to bring it up in a meeting.
It also allows people to make a choice when paying taxes. Don't want to pay taxes then decrease frivolous spending.
I think groceries should be tax exempt.
The VAT tax will happen eventually. You know why.... because politicians see all that Roth money that was never supposed to be tax and the VAT tax is a way to get taxes out of it even though a lot of it has been taxed before.
But don't a VAT tax make more poor people pay more taxes unless they get some kind of No VAT tax card or something to exempt them.
Why are ordinary public servants limited to gifts they can take while our Supremes didn't have any restrictions ?
Business profits and taxes have one thing in common.
They both come from what was once other people's money.
Big difference, however, nobody enjoys paying taxes and some pleahough some payments to businesses
Banks loan out other people's money for a profit.
Hadn't thought of them as being liberal.
I'd almost guarantee you if a VAT tax comes it will be an additional tax and not a replacement for the income tax.
I was a youngster, but am old enough to remember when Indiana instituted it's first sales tax (2%) back in the 60s. ICBW, but I believe at the time it was an additional tax, sold as an alternative to raising income taxes and property taxes.
I'm on record as saying that everyone should have some skin in the game, no matter how small. When nearly half of earners don't pay any federal income tax -- myself included -- there's something wrong. A Federal sales tax with very few, limited exemptions (food, utilities, medicines) would lessen that discrepancy.
Agrrement in principle reached per CNN:
Jordan is key to our military operations in the Middle East... That's money well spent if it keeps us in their good graces...
There are plenty of other international money pits we could cut back on but that's not one of them... You always need to balance the cost of not doing something too...
Heard the same. No details tonight … three generalizations: ‘lower’ discretionary spending, no new taxes, incentives to lift people out of poverty.
