-
Elizabeth Warren proposes “wealth tax”
[link=https://thehill.com/policy/finance/427075-warren-courts-progressives-with-wealth-tax-proposal]https://thehill.com/polic…th-wealth-tax-proposal[/link]
[b]Warren proposes “wealth tax” on ultra-wealthy[/b]
The Massachusetts senator, who recently announced an exploratory committee for president, is calling for a special annual tax for those with a net worth that exceeds $50 million. The proposal quickly caught the attention of progressives, who praised Warren for floating taxes as a way to tackle wealth inequality.
Warren said in an MSNBC interview on Thursday that the tax could raise revenue to help build opportunity for the rest of America.
University of California, Berkeley, economics professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman told Warren that the tax would raise about $2.75 trillion over 10 years.
Warrens proposal, which shes calling an ultra-millionaire tax, would apply a 2 percent tax annually on net worth between $50 million and $1 billion, and a 3 percent tax above $1 billion.
[/QUOTE]
-
213 Replies
-
Will just change how people structure their assets. Won’t do anything in reality. Just like the 70% thing, a nothing burger.
You have to make the current rates effective or it does nothing. Liberals don’t even understand how to enact the policy changes they want. You could save a ton of money on the IRS and increase tax revenue just by removing deductions.-
adding on more and more rates is like giving blood to the patient that is bleeding out, instead of fixing why they are bleeding out.
-
I personally think a “wealth tax” is likely easily gamable. This is a political statement that has virtually no chance of becoming law.
The way to get at this through the tax code is simply by making all income subject to the same progressive rates. No difference between W2 wages, dividend income, capital gains, and pass-though.
If you did that you would get enough revenue to lower the income tax rates significantly, especially on the “working” upper-middle class.
You could also couple that with a further reduction in corporate rates. Now you have the shareholders paying the taxes but still encourage business to on-shore, build and hire inside the US.
-
Quote from dergon
I personally think a “wealth tax” is likely easily gamable. This is a political statement that has virtually no chance of becoming law.
The way to get at this through the tax code is simply by making all income subject to the same progressive rates. No difference between W2 wages, dividend income, capital gains, and pass-though.
If you did that you would get enough revenue to lower the income tax rates significantly, especially on the “working” upper-middle class.
You could also couple that with a further reduction in corporate rates. Now you have the shareholders paying the taxes but still encourage business to on-shore, build and hire inside the US.
Rich will continue to defer and amass wealth in a corporate envelope. Buffett was great at this.
-
Buffett also is one of the people saying out loud he wants to be taxed more. There’s some low hanging fruit like making corporations that pay no taxes actually pay some damn taxes. Now is the time to bump the tax rate too. We should be going into a boom of pent up demand. businesses are going to be making bank bro.
-
-
-
Quote from IR27
adding on more and more rates is like giving blood to the patient that is bleeding out, instead of fixing why they are bleeding out.
We know why. revenues are less than outlays and have been the deliberate practice by Republicans since Reagan. As Chaney said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” Republicans believe that except only when there is a Democratic President in office.
We’ve had a deliberate Republican strategy to create YUGE deficits since Reagan to run in tandem with “drowning government in a bathtub.”-
This is gonna be easy.
-
like the shutdown was I assume.
-
Dergon I showed you how the middle tax pay essentially 0 income tax right now so I have no idea what you’re taking about with reducing rates in middle class. They pay nothing now
-
If dergon saw it he has better eyes than I because other than a mere bold statement you have not shown anything of the sort. “Essentially” is not zero.
-
Do we have to go over the math again, do you understand how tax deductions and credits work?
You get 24k in standard deduction for being married and 4k in tax credits for 2 kids. So if you make 100k you pay less than 4k in tax. That’s essentially nothing. Less than 4% of income for a family that makes double average household income.
-
-
Quote from IR27
Dergon I showed you how the middle tax pay essentially 0 income tax right now so I have no idea what you’re taking about with reducing rates in middle class. They pay nothing now
I consider myself middle class. I pay a bunch of tax IMO and this year I appear to be getting less $ on my refund.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It’s a bit over $7K in Federal income taxes for a family of 4 with no other deductions for a $100K household income.
As for the spread of taxes paid by households by income groups, here, from CBO:
[link=https://infogram.com/share-of-federal-taxes-by-quintile-1ho16vzlppjv2nq]https://infogram.com/shar…intile-1ho16vzlppjv2nq[/link]
You can propose higher taxes for the middle class but this is the income distribution across the quintiles per CBO:[link=https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-11/54646-Distribution_of_Household_Income_2015_0.pdf]https://www.cbo.gov/syste…hold_Income_2015_0.pdf[/link]
As you can see the income distribution is greatly weighted to the top against the lower 3 quintiles. And after transfers and taxes, the upper quintile is doing very well compared to the lower 3 quintiles!
[attachment=0]
-
Right so 7% with no kids. For a family that makes double average household income. Tell me how that is sustainable. Rich need to pay more but so does middle class.
-
2 kids, household of 4 is what I said. And you are completely neglecting other payroll taxes that also take $ away for income.
Look at the graphs I supplied. The lower 3 quintiles still pay almost 1/2 of all taxes with the upper quintile paying 54% alone. That is not sustainable in that deficits are increasing as the upper quintile just got another tax cut while also gaining much more in income than the lower 3 quintiles by a large margin.
Answer me, how is that very unequal distribution of wealth sustainable? It is robbing the “poor” and middle classes to give to the already rich to make them even richer. They are getting rich on the back of the poorer.
Even Warren Buffet thinks he and others pay much too little in taxes. As he said in 2009, he paid less taxes than did his secretary.
This is from 2011:
[link=https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/21/does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/]https://www.politifact.co…her-taxes-millionaire/[/link]
So instead, we checked[link=https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/] Buffett’s statement[/link] that the “mega-rich” pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class “fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.” We rated the statement True.
We don’t know the taxes paid by Buffett’s secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet’s secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let’s say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We’re talking about the secretary to one of the richest people [link=https://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Warren-Buffett_C0R3.html]in the world[/link].) In that case,[link=http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html] marginal tax rates[/link] of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretarys overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600.Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan[link=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2971&DocTypeID=7] Tax Policy Center[/link].
Which leads us to another fact-check of ours. We fact-checked Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who said, “[link=https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/]Fifty-one percent[/link] — that is, a majority of American households — paid no income tax in 2009.” We rated that True.So why do so few people pay income tax at all? The answer is because of the exemptions, deductions, and tax credits that are part of today’s tax code.
According to the report, there are several groups that don’t owe.Of all the people who don’t owe income taxes, about half of them qualify for very basic exemptions for people with very low incomes. Standard deductions and exemptions for dependents send these people’s overall tax burden to zero.
The next largest groups of people who don’t owe taxes are senior citizens, who get extra exemptions, and low-income working families with children, who get earned income tax credits and child tax credits.
After that, some middle-income households don’t owe taxes because of itemized deductions and credits for children and education.
Finally, there a few high-income households that benefit from reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends combined with itemized deductions.
-
And, BTW, a better income calculation would NOT be $100K for a household but the median household income which is substantially lower, about $61K.
Yes, they pay lower federal income taxes but their after tax income is also significantly lower than those with higher incomes.-
Dude I’m not saying the rich don’t pay enough. Again idk if you can read. I’ve said over and over removing deductions and simplify it, which results in rich paying more. I have no idea what about that isn’t clear. If you remove deductions it overwhelmingly hurts the rich. That is my recommended action.
However the middle class should pay more too.
-
Dyde, how would removing all deductions solve the issue? Median & even households earning $100k would still be paying what you say are rates that are still too low.
Dude, you need to think out your arguments a bit better. My comprehension is pretty good, its your reasoning that needs some work.
-
Dude, how would removing all deductions solve the issue? Median & even households earning $100k would still be paying what you say are rates that are still too low.
Dude, you need to think out your arguments a bit better. My comprehension is pretty good, its your reasoning that needs some work.
-
Dude, how would removing all deductions solve the issue? Median & even households earning $100k would still be paying what you say are rates that are still too low.
Dude, you need to think out your arguments a bit better. My comprehension is pretty good, its your reasoning that needs some work.
As for simplifying the code, sure. Simple. Im sure thats an easy thing to do.
-
Actually Dude, you have said something about raising taxes destroying the wealthy class.
Dude, how would removing all deductions solve the issue? Median & even households earning $100k would still be paying what you say are rates that are still too low.
Dude, you need to think out your arguments a bit better. My comprehension is pretty good, its your reasoning that needs some work.
As for simplifying the code, sure. Simple. Im sure thats an easy thing to do.
-
Do you understand how tax deductions work and who they help? It would hugely increase tax revenue and not allow guys like buffet to pay 10% effective tax.
Were arguing for somewhat similar things you just can’t realize it because you don’t understand how tax system works.
I’ll say it again, deductions overwhelmingly favor the rich. So if you remove deductions and make it simple then you will increase tax revenue and effectively tax rich people a lot more.
-
As for getting rid of deductions, which? All? Mortgage, state & local taxes? I’m sure about these.
How about charitable giving. I think those should stay.
How about 401k, 403b, IRAs? Make all saving after taxes?
Capital gains and carry interest as normal income?
Schedule C & F & E? Any I missed?
How about medical?
How about employer provided health insurance? And other employer provided tax deductible perks?
Real Estate tax deductions. You know, especially Trump’s favorites?
No children or personal deductions or child care, etc.
Just kind of a graduated flat tax rates.
Is that the ideal?
While you’re at it, what about a flat graduated tax with zero deductions (except for charity) for all business?
-
Lol so now you are arguing buffet pays enough taxes?? Just want to get that straight. You just want to argue. Your viewpoint is we should tax the rich more. I tell you how to accomplish that and then change your mind and says he’s taxed enough?
Yes I would get rid of basically all deductions. It is a joke the system is as complex as it is.
You are all over the place.
-
So you want people to be taxed 70% and then in same breath one of the richest guys pays 15 before charitable deductions but that is enough according to you? There’s 0 consistency.
-
The whole point is the vast discrepancy between their nominal interest rate and their effective interest rate is because of the plethora of deductions we allow. If you remove deductions, then the nominal rate because the effective rate and tax revenue dramatically goes up. He’d literally be paying double to triple what is paying now. But apparently that wouldn’t make him wince.
It’s like talking to a wall.
You say tax rich people more, I tell you how to do it, and you say they pay enough?
-
Buffet is a lefty so Frumi doesn’t consider his wealth immoral.
-
If you want to talk about Warren Buffet he’s signed on to give most of his wealth away. He also talks about not being taxed enough.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
If you want to talk about Warren Buffet he’s signed on to give most of his wealth away. He also talks about not being taxed enough.
His tax load is low due to a specific rule about the treatment of income from certain investment funds. If his wealth growth had been taxed the same as my W-2 and K-1 income, he would see a significant tax load. 1/2 of the New Yorkers who bankroll the docratic party would see the same increase so it won’t happen.
No need for a wealth tax. Just treat the top 0.01% the same as the teacher/cop couple that makes 200k.
-
Don’t waste your time trying to have a
reasonable discussion with Frumi. If you don’t agree
with his radical left ideology you are racist and
wrong. It’s that simple. -
Buffet is free to write a check to the
US treasury any time he wishes. Keep us updated. -
Dan said it correctly, Buffet says he’s not taxed enough & has said he will give away his money when he dies. He’s also given away a lot now while he lives.
So Consult, he has given a hell of a lot more money away than you I’m sure. Guess you can’t afford to give much away by flying out to Russia, etc.
Yes, I think the rich should be taxed a lot more. including Buffet. I used Buffet as an example because it was he himself who said he’s undertaxed. So while personally I would not like to lose the capital gains advantage, I will live if my capital gains are taxed as regular income.
I think I explicitly stated above that capital gains and carry interest should be eliminated and taxed as regular income. I support the 70% marginal rate and I support paying middle class people better wages. Incuding Walmart Associates and MacDonald employees and all the rest. If my burgers increase in price by 50 cents & WaMart is not the cheapest Chinese goods anymore, I will live with that. I recall a lot of things being better in the 1960’s when my 1st job paid $4/hour allowing me to have an apartment, pay for college, have a car, take vacations, etc.
So what’s your points, you 2? Oh you made it?
Rather lame both of you IR people. Is there something about IR that makes people lame and greedy? -
Quote from IR_CONSULT
Buffet is free to write a check to the
US treasury any time he wishes. Keep us updated.Is there a mechanism for the treasury to accept donations? Also why write the check the US government and not just give it to the charity of choice. Writing it to the US might as well be whomever is servicing the debt.
-
Well if your position is the government is great and helping everyone out, then wouldn’t that be a worthy charity?
-
By taking tax deduction for charitable giving you are effectively saying I think this charity can do more good with this money than the government can. So it’s pretty hypocritical to be for big government and then take charitable tax deductions.
-
Yes there is a mechanism for the US treasury to accept donations. It’s complicated, you write amount, pay to US treasury, sign and mail.
-
WTF ever, I mean ever pointed to Venezuela as a success????
You need to postrhose links because in all my decades I never recall Venezuela being held up as some sort of ideal. I think the best youll find is Tucker Carlson making some sort of bogus claim as you without any facts backing that fantasy up.
Show us please.
-
Whats Norways immigration laws got to do with anything you argued about earlier?
SQUIRREL!
Stop deviating by throwing BS distractions into argument.
-
Ok, if you are not able to understand how Norway’s immigration laws are related to all the the things you love about Norway, I guess we can’t have an intelligent conversation. Regarding Venezuela, whether you have mentioned Venezuela specifically is irrelevant. You support the policies and ideals that has caused the absolute failure of a once prosperous country.
-
^ Far too much reality and logic for the likes of kpack and Frumizzle
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
Ok, if you are not able to understand how Norway’s immigration laws are related to all the the things you love about Norway, I guess we can’t have an intelligent conversation. Regarding Venezuela, whether you have mentioned Venezuela specifically is irrelevant. You support the policies and ideals that has caused the absolute failure of a once prosperous country.
Obviously you are incapable of explaining your point which means you really have no point to make?
Regarding your statement about Venezuela, you have to resort to idiotic statements that are nothing more than alternate facts. Try too come up with arguments that are more than showing us your spleen. -
He is traveling to Norway after he takes the Elon Musk moon shuttle
You didnt know that?
-
I have traveled to Norway before. How weird is that. The fact that you haven’t traveled outside of Florida makes it easy for us to understand your lack of intelligence. Your posts sound like something an 8 yo might come up with. I think the trash can in the reading room needs to be emptied again.
-
I know you have also booked a flight on Elon musks moon beam
You are totally FOS
Do I need to repost The Who are you today thread or are you tired of hearing your bull sheet regurgitated back at you
-
So what’s you point? You’ve been to Russia, you’ve been to Norway. But it sounds like you’ve learned nothing about either place other than you dislike Norway because it “Socialist’ but you like Russia.
Go figure. -
Never said I disliked Norway. Norway understands that you can’t have their government entitlements and open borders.
Can’t have Medicare for all, free tuition, guaranteed salary without a restrictive immigration system. Unfortunately that opinion in our country gets you labeled as a racist by the left. -
Never said I liked Russia. Unless in your mind going
to a soccer tournament in the country hosting the World
cup means declaring your allegiance. Have you ever experienced
any cultural diversity in your life. -
FOS
-
Our resident red neck kpuk just can’t grasp the idea
of anyone traveling. Sad life. -
Ok, let’s make this as simple as possible for you as apparently you just want to play dumb. Adopting the progressive left policies will get you Venezuela.
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
Ok, let’s make this as simple as possible for you as apparently you just want to play dumb. Adopting the progressive left policies will get you Venezuela.
Let me make this simpler for you – uhh, no. Point in fact is that NONE of the Scandinavian countries are similar to failing Venezuela. They are all in fact, very successful. I posted a link to IR27 about the success of Scandinavian countries.
Your arguments are less them empty. You don’t like Liberalism, I get it. We all get it. [size=”0″]You sound anti-democratic because as everyone knows so the argument goes, Democracy is always doomed to Venezuela.You prefer Plutocracy one presumes.[/size]
But Venezuela is not doing anything like Scandinavian countries except in your imagination. Scandinavia will not become another Venezuela.
If you believe what you say explain how Social Democracies will inevitably become Venezuela. More than a single declarative statement please that explains nothing. -
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from IR_CONSULT
Buffet is free to write a check to the
US treasury any time he wishes. Keep us updated.Is there a mechanism for the treasury to accept donations?
There is. They get a couple thousand $$ every year.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Do you really understand anything?
Buffet already pays about 15% based on capital gains and carry interest minus charitable donations, etc. I really doubt removing all deductions will make him wince at all from the extra taxes.
Buffett revealed some additional, little known details about his tax situation. In 2015, Buffett says he paid $1,845,577 in federal income tax. “Returns for previous years are of a similar nature in respect to contributions, deductions and tax rates,” Buffett says in the statement.
Buffett reported adjusted gross income of $11,563,931 and deductions of $5,477,694 in 2015. Of those deductions, $3,469,179 were for allowable charitable contributions and the rest were for state income taxes. Buffett says he has donated more than any taxpayer is permitted to deduct.
-
there is no need to increase the rates. the current rates are seldom used because of the massive amount of deductions there are, as well as creative accounting. if you do get rid of the massive deductions, you will increase tax revenue. again I will repeat is, tax deductions overwhelmingly favor the rich, and the massively rich at that.
again, do you not understand the blood analogy. you are just dumping blood into the person instead of fixing the hole in their leg.
the 70% is a nothing burger. idk what about this is hard to understand. no one will pay it. like kpack said, its just a talking point for politicians to run on.
I have no idea how the amount buffet donates has anything to do with how he should be taxed in this context. so he’s a good dude. great. it still is silly he is paying less than 15 % effective tax.
how am I greedy? I’m literally telling you to raise taxes on the rich. I’m working against my own interest in the common good, and somehow that is greedy? your perception is so warped.-
Hardly anyone pays the top rate? Well, yes, that’s because those in that income bracket are in the minority. It’s simple math. And those that are in that bracket try to use the maximum deductions as expected. But show the numbers of those whose incomes are over $10M who can avoid paying the new tax bracket. Or first, show us some numbers of people earning $10M and over who don’t even pay today’s top tax bracket.
That’s not capital gains or carry interest but income. -
BTW, according to the Tax Foundation, the 70% bracket would bring in a decent amount of revenue. But the devil is in the details & how it would be implemented would determine revenue amounts.
[link=https://taxfoundation.org/70-percent-tax-initial-analysis/]https://taxfoundation.org…-tax-initial-analysis/[/link]
We estimate that applying a new 70% tax rate on ordinary income over $10 million (proposal 1) would raise about $291 billion between 2019 and 2028. While taxpayers would react to proposal 1 by reducing taxable income, the effect wouldnt be significant. As a result, the proposal would still raise revenue each year over the budget window.
On a dynamic basis, we estimate that Proposal 1 (applying the top tax rate to only ordinary income) would raise $189 billion between 2019 and 2028.
Another estimate is for $80B/year or $800B over 10 years.
[link=https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/09/who-would-pay-a-70-tax-rate-on-income-over-10-mill.aspx]https://www.fool.com/inve…come-over-10-mill.aspx[/link]
This proposal would produce around $80 billion in added revenue annually, or $800 billion over the course of a decade. That would equal about half of the roughly $1.5 trillion in Americans owe in college loan debt, which Ocasio-Cortez supports forgiving.
And even in the context of a roughly $4.4 trillion annual federal budget, $80 billion remains a significant number. It would, for example, cover a healthy share of the estimated $1.09 trillion spent by federal, local, and state governments on welfare and Medicaid in 2018.But it is still my opinion that the 70% bracket is more a psychological point as I believe the best way to improve revenue and the economy is to raise everyone else’s incomes to higher levels. It’s inequality we need to reduce. Redistriution goes only so far, it’s actually putting money into people’s pockets that works better & that explicitly does not mean lowering Federal income taxes, it means paying people living middle class wages.
The Walmart family and Jeff Bezos, MacD’s, etc can afford to pay their employees better for example. They will not go bankrupt with the higher wages paid to their employees.
Start directing GDP to more people, not just just skimming the majority of wealth to the top.
-
GDP will increase if you lower taxes across the board, this has been proven as well, and the Trump tax changes also showed it, again. Yes, Walmart and Amazon can afford to pay their employees more and better, but that would take good leadership in politics, business, and the country.
The top earners pay all of the taxes, and we still run deficits. And we are 22 tril in debt. Taxes don’t matter, obviously, just look around.
I don’t understand the fascination with taxing … anyone. If you can run deficits, why even bother talking about taxes? This lack of thinking and discernment about the basics of money, economy, and common sense is breathtaking.-
If you continue to run deficits and cut taxes
Gold will be 3500$
-
What Frumi doesn’t understand (because of his despise for the wealthy) is that you can increase my marginal tax rate to 100 % over 10 million and I will make sure that my salary is no more than 10 million. Very easily done. Frumi, how about you give us an example of a country that prospers under your socialist policies.
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
, how about you give us an example of a country that prospers under your socialist policies.
Venezuela and Cuba are doing just great I hear. They also publish infant mortality numbers that are better than hours so things are just peachy.
-
gotta love the tried and true stat of infant mortality that the UN loves to preach on, especially with how much other countries fudge their numbers
It’s just funny how a lot of things that seem apparent, like comparing apples to oranges is thrown out the window at a national and worldwide policy level. -
Quote from fw
Quote from IR_CONSULT
, how about you give us an example of a country that prospers under your socialist policies.
Venezuela and Cuba are doing just great I hear. They also publish infant mortality numbers that are better than hours so things are just peachy.
How about Norway & Sweden & Denmark for starters? Germany also still doing well.
How about China?
All this Socialism accusations about America. What companies are under socialist control in US exactly?
None.
Hobgoblins.
[attachment=0]
-
Again all those stats are skewed. What we consider infant death in the US is much different than Europe for example. Our definition is much less forgiving. Hence why the stats are worse even tho we have superior care
-
Oh yes Norway. The progressive left had to find a new darling country as they can no longer point to Venezuela as an example of socialist success. Norway has a population of just over 5 million. I have more than that living within a mile of me. Very homogeneous population. Norway provides alot of government freebies. This works for Norway because they have some of the most restrictive immigration laws anywhere. Yea….lets become Norway. Should be easy enough.
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
Oh yes Norway. The progressive left had to find a new darling country as they can no longer point to Venezuela as an example of socialist success. Norway has a population of just over 5 million. I have more than that living within a mile of me. Very homogeneous population. Norway provides alot of government freebies. This works for Norway because they have some of the most restrictive immigration laws anywhere. Yea….lets become Norway. Should be easy enough.
Norway is far from socialist. All my rich danish friends live in Norway 😉
The norwegian government sits on a big sovereign wealth fund created out of North sea oil revenue. ‘Freebies’ like subsidized higher education are part of a long term strategy geared towards the day the oil runs out. 30% of government revenue is directly derived from oil/gas extraction. They have the economy of a oil dependent third world cpuntry, but they know it and work hard to reduce that dependency. Not a great example for the sustainability of socialism.
-
I don’t doubt that living in Norway is a pretty good life.
They alway rank very high in happiness. Very high in per capita income.
I think its a bit naive to think a country like the US can just become like Norway. Does Norway have a similar role on the world stage as the US?-
They can’t think about nuances, which is why they love taxes so much. It’s pure gargantuan power trope and covetousness. As if it worked.
-
A trend: the hard, toughened men I know all lean rightward. The soft ones who give the distinct impression of suffering from testosterone deficiency are unfailingly left-wing.
Just a thought.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
What Frumi doesn’t understand (because of his despise for the wealthy) is that you can increase my marginal tax rate to 100 % over 10 million and I will make sure that my salary is no more than 10 million. Very easily done. Frumi, how about you give us an example of a country that prospers under your socialist policies.
SOCIALISM! BOO!
HOBGOBLINS! BOO!
Seems those Socialist countries in Europe are doing quite well. Maybe calling everything “Socialism” is just ignorance.
What apparently you don’t understand is what I already posted from the Tax Foundation people regarding capital gains and deciding when to take them – or not. As for people making over $10M, yes, those making $11M might reduce income to under $10M but it becomes a calculation of does it make sense to reduce income if your taxes still leave you with over $10M; if yes, unlikely that the income would be reduced because why leave money behind?
The question is how the tax would be implemented & then how much revenue would it actually produce. This tax policy will still require increasing wages for the middle class so that their wages are no longer stagnant as they have been for the past decades while the upper quintile has grown YUGELY!
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
But it is still my opinion that the 70% bracket is more a psychological point as I believe the best way to improve revenue and the economy is to raise everyone else’s incomes to higher levels. It’s inequality we need to reduce. Redistriution goes only so far, it’s actually putting money into people’s pockets that works better & that explicitly does not mean lowering Federal income taxes, it means paying people living middle class wages.
The Walmart family and Jeff Bezos, MacD’s, etc can afford to pay their employees better for example. They will not go bankrupt with the higher wages paid to their employees.
Start directing GDP to more people, not just just skimming the majority of wealth to the top.
Great idea!
A living wage is a must. 7.25 an hour is not a living wage.
-
-
-
Quote from IR27
gotta love the tried and true stat of infant mortality that the UN loves to preach on, especially with how much other countries fudge their numbers
It’s just funny how a lot of things that seem apparent, like comparing apples to oranges is thrown out the window at a national and worldwide policy level.
They fudge while we have honest numbers?
Too easy. -
I mean I can recognize a country that is working. The scandanavian countries do pretty well. But yes they are extremely homogenous and I’m not sure the same results would happen in us. It’s like if I do a study on one population, it means the results of that are applicable to that population and possibly other similar ones. But ones that are much different? Can’t be sure.
So the obsession with the European socialist nations seems strange and anti scientific, they are very different than the US and there is no reason to think we’d have the same results.
-
Quote from IR27
I mean I can recognize a country that is working. The scandanavian countries do pretty well. But yes they are extremely homogenous and I’m not sure the same results would happen in us. It’s like if I do a study on one population, it means the results of that are applicable to that population and possibly other similar ones. But ones that are much different? Can’t be sure.
So the obsession with the European socialist nations seems strange and anti scientific, they are very different than the US and there is no reason to think we’d have the same results.
OK, how so? It was Trump who praised Norway for instance as to which kind of people he wanted to see come into the US.
How is US multiculturalism at fault? Canada has a large ethnic mix of different people yet they aren’t doing so badly either like Scandinavia.
You need to explain in more than a single declarative sentence. Show some supporting arguments and facts. What are you saying?
-
-
You never post anything of substance on the general board
So I doubt that you are even a physician
You are FOS troll
-
Hahahaha
Then you have grandma Nancy Pelosi all 98 lbs of her Dropkicking 290lb Donald trump and knocking his fat arse out
Yes twitter talking tough guys usually do lean right
-
As one of my old football coaches use to say
Everyone is a tough guy……. until they get hit in the mouth
-
Knob says:
A trend: the hard, toughened men I know all lean rightward. The soft ones who give the distinct impression of suffering from testosterone deficiency are unfailingly left-wing.Just a thought.
Lets not forget the incels who also all lean Right. And all the couch warriors.
You people sure are concerned with testerone levels.
Hey, how about Nancy! She sure kicked Trumps tiny, uh, hands. Didnt she.
Guess she has more testosterone than all you boys.
-
It’s funny that you think Pelosi or Schumer did anything to win the shutdown. There are two reasons why Trump had to cave (and there’s no denying that it was a bit of a cave). First, he (unwisely) owned it before it started. Second, the media were running full-blast against Trump during the shutdown’s entirety, hiding the fact that the Democrat Party now demonstrably prioritizes illegals over American citizens. Period. Fortunately, more and more people are growing wise to the fact that the media lie frequently, but not enough people are “woke” yet.
-
Its all the mean ole medias fault that grandma Nancy Bullied poor little Donald
Ya bunch of Candy arses
-
Do you guys watch FOX
Do you not consider FOX media?
They are the most biased pro republican and anti democrat outfit there is
But for some reason the media is anti trump
I never got the whole media argument
Just another crock of sheet excuse
-
-
Quote from Knob Creek Rye
It’s funny that you think Pelosi or Schumer did anything to win the shutdown. There are two reasons why Trump had to cave (and there’s no denying that it was a bit of a cave). First, he (unwisely) owned it before it started. Second, the media were running full-blast against Trump during the shutdown’s entirety, hiding the fact that the Democrat Party now demonstrably prioritizes illegals over American citizens. Period. Fortunately, more and more people are growing wise to the fact that the media lie frequently, but not enough people are “woke” yet.
the border is a manufactured crisis. I’m not sure how keeping the government open favors illegals. How about the boat load of necessary people that weren’t getting paid in the airports alone? They’re citizens right?
It would be better to do immigration reform and make smart investments on the border. That does not equal a wall, slats, or whatever BS Trump says as the wind direction changes.-
Trump lost because about 20-25% of our population wants a wall
The other 75% of Americans either dont care…. thinks its an ineffective waste of money or immoral symbol
Thats why he lost
It is not the medias fault
That is a lame arse argument
More people dont want it or dont care
-
Knob is a faithful follower, like cigar/F@gan/Fartiblartfast. Of the same cloth if not even the same person considering their obsession with testosterone and view of women.
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from kpack123
Hahahaha
Then you have grandma Nancy Pelosi all 98 lbs of her Dropkicking 290lb Donald trump and knocking his fat arse out
You seem to really like to hear yourself when you say that. This must be the tenth post of yours with that phrase.Yes twitter talking tough guys usually do lean right
You are the resident expert on ‘talking tough on the internet’.-
Honestly I would say the same things to you or others to your face
If you have problem with it thats your problem
Im
Sorry if you do
-
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
the border is a manufactured crisis. I’m not sure how keeping the government open favors illegals. How about the boat load of necessary people that weren’t getting paid in the airports alone? They’re citizens right?
It would be better to do immigration reform and make smart investments on the border. That does not equal a wall, slats, or whatever BS Trump says as the wind direction changes.
It’s cute to watch you parrot the buzz-term handed out to all the media outlets: “manufactured crisis.” Having hundreds of thousands to millions of people pouring into the country unchecked is a crisis. Suffering tens of thousands of deaths/year from drug ODs/misuse is a crisis. Having gang fights and rivalries that make American cities unsafe is a crisis.
What the sane want is a structure to give us control over whom to allow into our country. That’s not extreme; it’s commonsense. Even most Leftists don’t realize the speed at which they’re being pulled leftward by media conditioning. Democrats, too, supported border barriers just a few years ago.
You say “immigration reform.” Fine – to me, that means sending all the illegals home and having them reapply. That’s “reform”behind which I can stand.
And the wall [b][i]would [/i][/b]work, which is why the Democrats now oppose it so vehemently. But their bet is that all the illegals that make their way over will eventually be granted voting rights (already happening in Cali), ensuring permanent Democrat rule. “Smart” solutions and technologies are hot air at best; given a left-leaning administration, the drones and cameras could simply be turned off with the flick of a switch.
No, we need an imposing physical barrier.-
Having hundreds of thousands to millions of people pouring into the country unchecked is a crisis. Suffering tens of thousands of deaths/year from drug ODs/misuse is a crisis. Having gang fights and rivalries that make American cities unsafe is a crisis.
2 questions
1. Where do you live …, you dont have to be overly specific
2. In what country is this happening
You cant just lie like this and expect people to believe you
Millions are not coming
Tens of thousands of deaths per year are not happening
Gang fights are not making cities unsafe
Cmon man
-
Honestly I will call a truce on the snarking for now but answer those 2 questions
I am really curious to know where you get your information that leads you to those conclusions
-
* when I say 10s of thousands of deaths are not happening Im specifically speaking about drugs being smuggled over currently unfenced or unwalled border
Everything Im seeing hearing and reading says that over 90% are coming in through ports of entry
Just wanted to clarify
-
-
Quote from kpack123
Having hundreds of thousands to millions of people pouring into the country unchecked is a crisis. Suffering tens of thousands of deaths/year from drug ODs/misuse is a crisis. Having gang fights and rivalries that make American cities unsafe is a crisis.
2 questions
1. Where do you live …, you dont have to be overly specific
2. In what country is this happening
You cant just lie like this and expect people to believe you
Millions are not coming
[link=https://cis.org/Report/New-Data-Immigration-Surged-2014-and-2015]https://cis.org/Report/Ne…n-Surged-2014-and-2015[/link]
“Our preliminary estimate is that, of the 3.1 million immigrants who arrived in that last two years, about one-third, 1.1 million (or 550,000 annually) were new illegal immigrants, a significant increase from the 700,000 illegal immigrants (350,000 annually) who entered in 2012 and 2013.”
Quote from kpack123
Tens of thousands of deaths per year are not happening
[link=https://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2018/august2018/illegally-produced-fentanyl-a-growing-cause-of-synthetic-opioid-deaths]https://www.pharmacytimes…ynthetic-opioid-deaths[/link]
“China and Mexico appear to be the main sources of illicit fentanyl, according to the DEA. Based on seizures, the agency indicates that China supplies lower volumes of high-purity fentanyl and Mexico supplies higher volumes of fentanyl that is lower in purity.”
[image]https://pharmacytimes.s3.amazonaws.com/v1_media/SafeImages/Screen%20Shot%202018-08-07%20at%205_05_55%20PM.png[/image]Quote from kpack123
Gang fights are not making cities unsafe
Cmon man
[link=http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-most-dangerous-gangs-in-america.html]http://www.criminaljustic…-gangs-in-america.html[/link]
-
For starters may people states and organizations consider the Center for immigration Studies a hate group
Did you know that????
That being said they are a far right extremist fringe group….. you may want to find other statistics
As for gang Violence….. are you old enough to remember the late 1980s to late 90s
Organized gang activity is much less today
Im not sure where you live or travel but do you run in with gangs
I have a kid LA, a kid in New York and another in Chicago. When my wife and I travel there we never hear about much violence. My kids dont either
Maybe Im mistaken but I just dont see it
And again yes opioid overdoses are up but almost everyone believes those are coming through ports of entry?
I dont agree with your points and you have shown nothing backing up your claims that illegals are causing a crisis
I dont see it… I dont feel it and know one I know really believes that
The biggest thing I disagree with is that a wall will somehow change this
Honestly you want to stop them from coming in……. then you crack down on those who hire them
Until you punish the people who hire them we will have this problem and thats why this is a bullsheet argument
If you hate the immigrant and dont want them here then enforce the laws and put those who hire them in jail
Illegal immigration will dry up overnight
Build a wall and they will keep coming…. its s dumb idea that is just a symbol and it solves nothing
-
Your comment about dropping the legal hammer on those who hire illegal aliens is one with which I agree, kpack. It’s an important element of border security, but is opposed by the profit-seeking factions of the Democrats and Republicans. With that said, a physical barrier is also important, in order to shield the country’s security from political whims of those who would allow illegal “immigration”to go unchecked. E-Verify can be ignored. A wall cannot (so easily) be torn down – at least, not without video evidence and public awareness.
-
A physical barrier is not only a waste of money but the next generation will tear it down anyway because of the symbolism it represents
If you want to waste a lot of money then build the wall. It will accomplish nothing and be another example of wasted government spending
-
-
Quote from kpack123
For starters may people states and organizations consider the Center for immigration Studies a hate group
Did you know that????
Lol.
‘Some people say’, you know that that’s a trump line, right ?
-
fw, he hasn’t claimed we are the same poster, at least
the stupid runs deep in that one, and also the paranoia
“Hate” group, gimme a break-
Ok
We will have it your way
Millions of illegals are coming here every single year
Flooding through our pourus border
Dumb Fng people
-
kpack, where were you born?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CIS is a well known anti-immigration organization. They are the opposite of objective.
-
They are a hate group
Of course they have an agenda
-
Yeah, Leftists call everyone with whom they disagree “hateful.” Old news.
*Yawn*-
See this the problem
Your side makes sheet up
And when called out
You lash out
You are not entitled to your own facts
Facts are for everyone
-
Over 90% of drugs come in through ports of entry
….. but a wall in the isolated dessert will keep drugs out
Who is fooling who
-
Honestly using CIS propaganda is like asking the Nazis about Jews or the KKK about minorities
They just make sheet up to shovel
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rural Pennsylvania
-
Not sure “some people say” or ” some states and organizations consider it a hate group” means that something is that. “some people thought he was guilty” doesn’t mean they are guilty.
Ok well “some states say” that illegal immigration isn’t a thing and that they won’t enforce it. That doesn’t make it acceptable.
kpack and frumi how do you feel about sanctuary cities/states?
-
Sanctuary cities
Honestly I could give a flying F
I could care less
This is a manufactured crisis playing to emotional people
I really could care less
-
It’s not manufactured when an illegal is let out of custody and back into your country after comitting violent crimes, then kills your kid.
Ask the multiple parents of such instances if that’s manufactured. I can give you their names and addresses. But reality isn’t your thing, I get it. That’s because [i]you are so good[/i] at [i]manufacturing it[/i].
-
-
-
-
David Leonhardt places what happened to the middle class over these past decades correctly, the redistribution of money and wealth and GDP from the middle class to the upper income groups.
High time to reverse the flow back into the middle class and bring up the bottom as well. The upper income groups have sponged off of everyone else for far too long at the expense of the US economy. The time to give Supply-Side trickle down economics the execution it deserves and return to more equal distribution of wealth to all Americans but even better than the past had done between WWII and Reagan.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/opinion/democrats-wealth-tax.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ocrats-wealth-tax.html[/link]
Imagine for a moment that a presidential candidate made this speech:
[i]My fellow Americans, Im here today to tell you about my economic plan. Each year, I will require every middle-class family across this great country to write a check. We will then pool the money and distribute it to the richest Americans among us the top 1 percent of earners, who, because of their talent, virtue and success, deserve even more money.[/i]
[i]The exact size of the checks will depend on a familys income, but a typical middle-class household will hand over $15,000 each year. This plan, I promise all of you, will create the greatest version of America that has ever existed.[/i]
You would consider that proposal pretty radical, wouldnt you? Politically crazy. Destructive, even. Well, Ive just described the actual changes in the American economy since the 1970s.
Economic output known as G.D.P. per person has almost doubled over this period. But the bulk of the bounty has flowed to the very rich. The middle class has received relative crumbs.
If middle-class pay had increased as fast as the economic growth, the average middle-class family would today earn about $15,000 a year more than it does, after taxes and benefits.
The extreme redistribution of income upward has multiple causes. Some of them, like technological change, stem mostly from private-sector forces. But government policy plays a crucial role. Tax rates on the wealthy have [link=https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/taxing-the-rich-over-time/]fallen sharply[/link]. The United States [link=https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm]has lost[/link] its lead as the most educated country in the world.
[attachment=0]-
[url=https://www.vox.com/2019/2/4/18210370/warren-wealth-tax-poll]AOC’s high rates poll well, Warren’s wealth tax poll’s even better[/url]
[img]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/A2tUu_nX_f8YSB3TqYvLAICucG4=/0x0:2600×1560/920×0/filters:focal(0x0:2600×1560):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13736061/190203_Tax_Comparison_fullwidth.png[/img]
Americans are open to the idea of [link=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/4/18168431/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent]hiking the top marginal income tax rate back up to 70 percent[/link], as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has suggested, and are positively enthusiastic about Sen. [link=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/24/18196275/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax]Elizabeth Warrens proposal to institute a wealth tax on large fortunes[/link], according to a new poll from Morning Consult.
…
[link=https://morningconsult.com/2019/02/04/warrens-proposed-tax-on-wealthy-draws-more-support-than-ocasio-cortezs/]Their survey[/link] finds that higher marginal tax rates are favored by 45 percent of the public over 32 percent who say its a bad idea, while the wealth tax scores a crushing 60-21 victory that includes majority support from Republicans.
Abstracting away from specifics, the Morning Consult poll shows that 57 percent of the public says the poor pay too much in taxes, 58 percent believe the same about the middle class, and while 63 percent say that rich people are paying too little.
This suggests that the public opinion sweet spot is probably to soak the rich, and then use the revenue for things like a [link=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16552200/child-allowance-tax-credit-bill-michael-bennet-sherrod-brown]universal child allowance[/link] and an [link=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/19/17995374/kamala-harris-lift-act-basic-income-cash-eitc]expansion[/link] of the earned income tax credit that would directly push cash into the hands of low- and middle-income families rather than necessarily paying for big new social services.-
Show me a candidate that will actually cut spending and I’ll give you the 2% wealth tax. The AOC 70 thing is just stupid, again no one will pay it.
Have to cut spending as well. Can’t just keep raising taxes. The boat is taking on water. At some point you have to stop bailing the water out and fix the hole. -
In related news, more americans prefer death by cholera over bubonic plague.
Push-polling the uninformed.
-
I’ll say it again. If you really want to boost the economy get more money flowing to the bottom 99% of workers. If people have money to spend into the economy that tide is going to lift all the boats. There’s only 2 ways I see to do that. Corporations needs to pay less to the very top earners, and more to the bottom. Maybe make less profit. Alternatively the government steps in in mandates wages, taxes the bejesus out of the top, and redistributes via social programs, the right tax breaks etc…
-
Yes
The only reason this is an issue is because the average person still hasnt gotten a real raise in 30 years if you factor in inflation cost of living etc.
Basically you have a few thousand people buying yachts and 25 million dollar homes ……… and millions who can barely afford a decent lunch
That unfortunately is the problem and until these people get raises the class war will get stronger
-
I half suspect things are looking iffy. We’ve been getting yearly raises for the most part and this year they’re budgeted but coming later than usual. So I’m thinking business is hedging on having to tap that money.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fox News poll
Today say 65% of people want raise taxes on those who make more than one million a yearI dont think the tax argument works for republicans anymore
-
What does raise taxes mean? The goal is to collect more tax revenue, which isn’t the same as raising rates.
Remove deductions
-
I didnt write the fng poll
FOX did
-
-
-
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/31/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-fundraising.html]New York Times[/link]: [b]Why Warren Lags Her Rivals In Fundraising
[/b] She was the first major candidate to announce; she has set the pace on policy, unveiling a series of far-reaching proposals on child care, taxes and the role of large technology companies; and she defied the pleas of her longtime finance director and declared that she would stop pursuing big donations altogether, leading to his resignation.
But as the first fund-raising deadline arrives at midnight on Sunday, Ms. Warren who last year was widely considered a would-be front-runner finds herself in a political vise. Her rivals on either ideological flank will raise substantially more money in the first quarter than she does, and her focus on policy has not yet translated in the polls.
-
Warren Trails Way Behind In Her Home State[/h1]
A new [link=http://emersonpolling.com/2019/04/07/massachusetts-2020-sanders-biden-lead-warren-in-her-home-state-mayor-pete-in-top-four-trump-popular-only-with-his-base/]Emerson Poll[/link] in Massachusetts finds Sen. Bernie Sanders with 26% of the vote in the Democratic field, followed by Joe Biden at 23%, Elizabeth Warren at 14%, Pete Buttigieg at 11%, Beto ORourke at 8%, and Kamala Harris at 7%.-
Quote from dergon
Warren Trails Way Behind In Her Home State
A new [link=http://emersonpolling.com/2019/04/07/massachusetts-2020-sanders-biden-lead-warren-in-her-home-state-mayor-pete-in-top-four-trump-popular-only-with-his-base/]Emerson Poll[/link] in Massachusetts finds Sen. Bernie Sanders with 26% of the vote in the Democratic field, followed by Joe Biden at 23%, Elizabeth Warren at 14%, Pete Buttigieg at 11%, Beto ORourke at 8%, and Kamala Harris at 7%.
In MA, she trails because she is not far left enough. Lol.-
I just don’t get the Bernie stuff. Let’s elect a guy who is 80 years old. I don’t agree with all of Obama policy but at least I don’t have to worry about his brain decaying.
Why are we too scared to say people are too old for office. How many of you would let an 80 yr old operate on you? Why are we OK with the leader of the free world like having cognitive deficits? Same thing for hrc and trump.
-
-
