What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

[LV426]

Tax cuts bring in more business thus more tax revenue.

No they don't.

That's a fucking lie.

We can see it ourselves in the facts that from 2001-2004, the amount of revenue collected was less than what was collected before the Bush Tax Cuts in 2000.

We can also see it happen at the state level in Kansas, where revenue from the Brownback Tax Cut in 2013-2017 was below revenue pre-tax cut in 2012.

There has never been an instance where tax cuts are responsible for an increase in revenues.

There are, however, plenty of instances where tax cuts are responsible for deficits and debt.

 

[LV426]

If we didn't have the democrat created loopholes for their apple and google-silicon valley liberals, we'd have more.

You're the ones who created the loopholes.

The Russia Tax Cut that you supported created more loopholes, you realize...

But you'll never admit you're full of shit...your ego is too fragile because you're a cowardly little snowflake.

 

[cawacko]

if the US was taking 90% of income in taxes would it still be a better place?.........

I’d hide my money off shore and still live here

 

[Getin the ring]

The Russia Tax Cut that you supported created more loopholes, you realize...

.

Da Russians



still can't figure out why nut-bags want to pay more in taxes, and even more curious is that they think the government will spend the extra money wisely

 

[LV426]

still can't figure out why nut-bags want to pay more in taxes, and even more curious is that they think the government will spend the extra money wisely

Pay a bit more in taxes so we don't have to pay a lot more for health care and education.

Then the money you don't have to spend on health care and education out of your own pocket can be spent in the consumer market.

It's really that simple.

Do you want to pay incrementally more in taxes in order to get health care and free higher education, or do you want to have to go into debt, take out a second mortgage on your home, borrow more money from the bank, so you can send your kid to college or afford the health care you need?

 

[Getin the ring]

Pay a bit more in taxes so we don't have to pay a lot more for health care and education. Then the money you don't have to spend on health care and education out of your own pocket can be spent in the consumer market.

a couple of things.

on that idea alone I'm all in.
If I thought for one minute someone had a solvent idea that would allow us to have good healthcare, and free college via taxation with representation I would march with you in the dead of winter.

It sounds good. I think we both know we are a long way from that in the changes that would be required to the monies flowing to doctors, hospitals, pharmacuticals, etc.
needing a major overhaul.
And the same with our education system. But I'm in if someone presents something plausible.

and the second thing, I'm a little worried right up front when this argument is coming from the side of the aisle that claims Obamacare was the fix.

 

[LV426]

if the US was taking 90% of income in taxes would it still be a better place?.........

Was it not a good place in the 1950's when the top rate was 90%?

Were there no rich people in 1955?

 

[LV426]

on that idea alone I'm all in. If I thought for one minute someone had a solvent idea that would allow us to have good healthcare, and free college via taxation with representation I would march with you in the dead of winter.

What is not solvent about the idea? We know that to provide free public college for all students, it would cost about $80B a year. When the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expired at the end of 2012, the annual deficit was reduced by about $400B.

$400B > $80B

 

[LV426]

It sounds good. I think we both know we are a long way from that in the changes that would be required to the monies flowing to doctors, hospitals, pharmacuticals, etc.
needing a major overhaul.

Not really, because the only part of health care that really needs to be reformed is the part of the process of how a provider is reimbursed for the treatment they provide. By shifting the administration of those reimbursements under one single authority (aka a single payor), you completely do away with the need for private administration. We already know that admin costs make up as much as 20% of any insurance company's budget. Which means 20 cents of every dollar you pay an insurance company goes right to their overhead, administration, and profit, not to your care.

My question to you is;How does having a for-profit entity administrate reimbursements to your provider enhance or improve the quality of care your doctor provides you?

 

[LV426]

And the same with our education system. But I'm in if someone presents something plausible

Real simple fix there: raise taxes on the rich incrementally in order to afford the $80B a year it would cost to provide free public colleges.

When Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expire, the annual deficit was reduced by nearly $400B.

$80B < $400B

We can easily afford free public colleges, we're just choosing to prioritize the comfort of a small percentage of wealthy people for no reason.

 

[LV426]

and the second thing, I'm a little worried right up front when this argument is coming from the side of the aisle that claims Obamacare was the fix.

Obamacare got 24,000,000 more people covered and the premium increases -on average- are lower than what they were pre-ACA.

The ACA was a Conservative idea, so if you don't think it works, then that's because Conservatism doesn't work.

The ACA is doing what it should; establishing a standard benchmark for all insurance products, creating a marketplace for consumers to shop (a marketplace no different than the SHOP one for employers), protecting those with pre-existing conditions, and funding it with nominal tax increases on the wealthy and their luxury insurance plans.

If Conservatives had a better plan, they would have put it forth by now. But they don't because Obamacare was their plan.

The intransigence of Conservatism is why we'll get single payer much sooner then expected.

 

[Old Trapper]

still can't figure out why nut-bags want to pay more in taxes, and even more curious is that they think the government will spend the extra money wisely

And I can't figure out how useful idiots seem to think that by giving the wealthy even more it will somehow lower the national debt when it never has in the past. Ever since the Reagan tax cuts the national debt has increased, the middle class has seen its income stagnate, cost of living has increased especially in housing, and nothing has been done about infrastructure. Just last year the national debt increased by 18.6%, and the amount of revenue increased by 4%.

But tell us, when one group of people own 82% of the wealth created what rate should they pay?

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/...nt-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year

 

[Getin the ring]

And I can't figure out how useful idiots seem to think that by giving the wealthy even more it will somehow lower the national debt when it never has in the past. Ever since the Reagan tax cuts the national debt has increased, the middle class has seen its income stagnate, cost of living has increased especially in housing, and nothing has been done about infrastructure. Just last year the national debt increased by 18.6%, and the amount of revenue increased by 4%.

But tell us, when one group of people own 82% of the wealth created what rate should they pay?

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/...nt-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year

I'm not sure you can tax the "rich" and raise another 800 billion, and certainly can't do it without them having to cut jobs or hide their wealth, move their business out of country or otherwise fight back on the idea,
and secondly I'm not sure you can educate every child (free tuition) with only 80 billion without reforming the education system , and having that reform impact the quality

in short your ideas are like a lot of liberal ideas, they sound wonderful

 

[Loving91390]

Well...that WOULD be a step toward Making America Poor Again.

Fixed it for you .....

 

[LV426]

I'm not sure you can tax the "rich" and raise another 800 billion,

Hold up for a second.

The current deficit is $800B only because of the Russia Tax Cut.

Without it, the deficit would be about $500B.

So right away, we can save more than 1/3 of the deficit simply by repealing the Russia Tax Cut.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you think our reason for raising taxes on the rich is guided primarily by deficit concerns. Let me be clear; we do not share your phony baloney concerns about the deficit and never have. The reason we want to raise taxes on the wealthy is to reduce the out of pocket burden facing everyone else when it comes to things like health care and education. Raising taxes on the rich to fund health care and free education for all isn't just good economics, it's the responsible thing for a society to do. And rich people will still be rich...no one's proposed a wealth tax (though that should be in the conversation too), and there are other ways of generating revenue that don't include raising income taxes; like a Carbon Tax. In fact, I'm a proponent of replacing the income tax with a Carbon tax, that way you pay tax on the waste you generate instead of the income you earn.

Thirdly, Trump promised that loweing the corporate rate would result in companies bringing their money back here but that didn't really happen either. And Bush did something similar in 2004, and of the top firms that took advantage of it, they cut jobs, not hired more, with the WSJ calling the policy a failure.

Fourthly, yes you can most definitely provide free higher education to everyone on $80B a year, and you don't really have to reform any part of the education system. It's simply a funding issue. That's all. Really easy to solve.

 

[Getin the ring]

Hold up for a second.

The current deficit is $800B only because of the Russia Tax Cut.

Without it, the deficit would be about $500B.

So right away, we can save more than 1/3 of the deficit simply by repealing the Russia Tax Cut.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you think our reason for raising taxes on the rich is guided primarily by deficit concerns. Let me be clear; we do not share your phony baloney concerns about the deficit and never have. The reason we want to raise taxes on the wealthy is to reduce the out of pocket burden facing everyone else when it comes to things like health care and education. Raising taxes on the rich to fund health care and free education for all isn't just good economics, it's the responsible thing for a society to do. And rich people will still be rich...no one's proposed a wealth tax (though that should be in the conversation too), and there are other ways of generating revenue that don't include raising income taxes; like a Carbon Tax. In fact, I'm a proponent of replacing the income tax with a Carbon tax, that way you pay tax on the waste you generate instead of the income you earn.

Thirdly, Trump promised that loweing the corporate rate would result in companies bringing their money back here but that didn't really happen either. And Bush did something similar in 2004, and of the top firms that took advantage of it, they cut jobs, not hired more, with the WSJ calling the policy a failure.

Fourthly, yes you can most definitely provide free higher education to everyone on $80B a year, and you don't really have to reform any part of the education system. It's simply a funding issue. That's all. Really easy to solve.

you're entire argument that what Trump is doing is not working or doing what he said it was doing is based on you somehow believing that it could happen instantly,
which really tells us you don't understand the subject,
just sayin

 

[LV426]

you're entire argument that what Trump is doing is not working or doing what he said it was doing is based on you somehow believing that it could happen instantly,

You're mistaken.

You're the ones who want instant gratification, which is why you voted for Trump, and why you defend the Russia Tax Cut.

So you're now trying to move the bar and make it an issue of instant gratification when again, that's a straw man no one is making but you.

So you stall and you deflect and you duck out of debates because you simply lack the cognitive ability to discuss anything honestly or in good faith.

I believe that's because you've lived your life almost exclusively in bad faith and you simply don't know what it means to be honest anymore.

 

[volsrock]

In my opinion:

Taxing income at a much greater rate as the income goes up...MAKES SENSE. It should be done starting tomorrow.

Taxing capital gains at the same rate as regular income...MAKES SENSE. It should be done starting tomorrow.

Taxing inherited money at a MUCH HIGHER RATE as the amount of the inheritance goes up...MAKES SENSE. It should be done starting later today!

Do the 45% that pay ZERO income tax pay their fair share?

 

[Old Trapper]

I'm not sure you can tax the "rich" and raise another 800 billion, and certainly can't do it without them having to cut jobs or hide their wealth, move their business out of country or otherwise fight back on the idea,
and secondly I'm not sure you can educate every child (free tuition) with only 80 billion without reforming the education system , and having that reform impact the quality

in short your ideas are like a lot of liberal ideas, they sound wonderful

And you, being so well educated, did not even bother to attempt to answer the question asked of you. Typical for the right wing batch of low IQ citizens. And while the wealthy may "fight back" they have their trillions offshore in accounts (both legal and illegal) created by Republicans in the past. Problem you have is that you cannot grasp the concept that lowering the tax rate for the wealthy is creating that imbalance in revenue/debt. It is not creating increased income for the middle class, nor is it creating new jobs.

Obamacare is another example of the failed policies of the Repugnant party. Since 1994 the right wing has "promised" healthcare reform, and never did anything to accomplish that purpose. When they passed Medicare Part D it was so fucked up even Boehner claimed it as dead. However, Democrats worked with the Repugnants, and now we have a fairly good program. Fast forward to Obamacare. The Repugnant ones decided to destroy the program rather then help to fix it. And w=even though they found a way to give the wealthiest Americans an additional 1.5 Trillion dollars, they could not find a way to do so for Obamacare saying the country could not afford it. And now they have no plan to replace it, and the average American cannot afford the rising costs. Cost of drugs went up an average of 6% this year, and wages have gone up 0%.

Thomas Jefferson, with the support of others, proposed the free educational system. Ben Franklin, with the support of the First Congressional Congress, established free health care for the poor. It ws also Jefferson that proposed taxing only the wealthy, and the poorer would pay nothing thus placing the cost of government on the backs of the wealthy leaving the poor to improve their lives. That was also the philosophy of Christ.

You can make all of the excuses you want for your support of the wealthy, the bottom line remains not the lack of ability to establish a fair system, it is only greed, and ignorance, that prevents it from being done.

 

[Old Trapper]

Do the 45% that pay ZERO income tax pay their fair share?

Since they pay State, County, and local taxes, yes. Ask Jefferson.

Do the wealthy that pay ZERO in taxes, or even less then the legal rate (what is called the "effective tax rate"), pay their "fair share"?

As I asked before, since it is a proven reality that the 1% take in 82% of the wealth created, what is their "fair share"?