• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The "Tax The Rich" Delusion on the Left

cpwill said:
From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.
Click to expand...

They don't want to tax just for the benefit of a nanny state. They want to tax because their goal is income equality. They simply see people with the means to be independent as a threat to their political ideal. It's about control, not the well being of the controlled.
 
cpwill said:
From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.
Click to expand...

...and the problem is????

Taxes are ok if their are valuable services behind them, like healthcare. Does it really matter if you pay $24,000 per year to Aetna or the marginal tax rate by 10-20 points?

Europeans are fundamentally happier people than their American counterparts....

Lutherf said:
They don't want to tax just for the benefit of a nanny state. They want to tax because their goal is income equality. They simply see people with the means to be independent as a threat to their political ideal. It's about control, not the well being of the controlled.
Click to expand...

Its really more about less wealth inequality, which is at unhealthy levels in the US. A consumer economy requires a vibrant middle class, which has been eroding in this country ever since the Reagan tax cuts. Mexico has less of an issue with wealth inequality than the US.

Wealth Inequality: U.S. Wealth Gap Is Worse Than In Russia or Iran | Fortune
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauren...um-income-inequality-capitalism/#47da486d5dd3
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2013/09/the-problem-with-wealth-inequality/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/06/why-income-inequality-is-bad-for-growth/
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/political-issue-wealth-gap
http://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/237
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
...and the problem is????

Taxes are ok if their are valuable services behind them, like healthcare. Does it really matter if you pay $24,000 per year to Aetna or the marginal tax rate by 10-20 points?
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read the article, or even the OP, you would have noticed that it's a lot more than a higher marginal rate by 10-20%.

to cite:

doubling the top two tax brackets, to 70 percent and 74 percent, would raise at best 1.6 percent of GDP, and that’s probably optimistic. Alternatively, the popular liberal Social Security solution of eliminating the payroll tax wage cap of $128,400 would close barely half of the system’s long-term shortfall of 1.5 percent of GDP. It would also bring marginal tax rates (including state taxes) above 60 percent in some states, thus leaving little room for additional income taxes to close the much larger Medicare shortfall or finance new spending...

In reality, spending like Europe requires taxing like Europe. This means, in addition to federal and state income taxes, a value-added tax (VAT)—essentially a national sales tax—that affects all families. CBO data estimates that raising 15 percent of GDP would require imposing an 86 percent VAT rate, or hiking the payroll tax from 15.3 percent to 56.5 percent.​


So.... no. I do not want a massive VAT to be applied to my attempts to feed, clothe, and take care of my family, and I do not want the payroll tax to rise to half our income.




Its really more about less wealth inequality, which is at unhealthy levels in the US.
Click to expand...

I am glad to see someone admit that it's not about providing for the poor so much as it is about taking from those who are more successful than others, but I see no particular reason to conclude that current wealth inequality is "unhealthy".

A consumer economy requires a vibrant middle class, which has been eroding in this country ever since the Reagan tax cuts.
Click to expand...

:lol: the middle class has been shrinking mostly because people have been moving up.

Mexico has less of an issue with wealth inequality than the US.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Don't we wish we all had the income and living standards of Mexico :roll:
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I think we need to reimpose the property for franchise requirement.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. Right now the progressive income tax doesn't give the middle class enough feedback over the cost of government and does nothing to deter the lower classes demanding more and more handouts
 
Conservative said:
The grass is always greener on the other side until you get their. Want to pay European Taxes including their VAT taxes? Doesn't seem that Europeans are happier as you claim

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...atings-tower-above-embattled-european-leaders

Do you people ever admit when wrong?
Click to expand...

the income redistribution fans always talk about the uber rich-those making over 50 Million a year but their schemes always fall heaviest on those who are the most taxed cohort in america-those making 800K-5 million a year. People in that group don't have the power to influence government etc but they pay the highest proportion of their income in federal taxes compared to any other group.
 
Conservative said:
The grass is always greener on the other side until you get their. Want to pay European Taxes including their VAT taxes? Doesn't seem that Europeans are happier as you claim

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...atings-tower-above-embattled-european-leaders

Do you people ever admit when wrong?
Click to expand...


In an idyllic scene below, happy French citizens express their joy with their nation's tax scheme:



GettyImages-1067260116_dep6bc
 
I'm a total cynic. People at the top ranks of income and scaling down to say the top 25% have most of the disposable income. Corporations the same. Those same people and corporations are not spending it. They buy back stock and save it or invest to increase their wealth even more. People in the bottom 75% if they have disposable income spend it to power the economy. Nothing ever seems to change under Democrat or Republican leadership. There are only minor fluctuations when Democrats throw the masses a bone or when Republicans give the top 25% a tax reduction gift. Meanwhile we have no choice but to spend on defense in a world that is increasingly dangerous. Our infrastructure is crumbling. We spend more per capita than anyone in the world on health care for not even the best outcome. We already have Medicare for all THE EMERGENCY ROOM! the most expensive form of health care that exists in a country that has the most expensive health care. We begrudge spending on anything that isn't defense related to the detriment of schools, colleges, Universities, and young people. We deserve to be the 17th happiest nation on the planet. We deserve to fall behind in Science and Tech. We deserve to not have the best health care for the money we spend. All we can do is argue over who should pay tax. No, nothing ever changes, doesn't matter what set of characters are put in charge. I guess if you are warm in winter, cool in summer, eat, have shelter, and some form of health care you have achieved this America's dream. We deserve every calamity that falls upon us if we are not willing to do anything about it but argue and wag fingers. To some the status quo is just fine, why change anything.
 
Myview said:
I'm a total cynic. People at the top ranks of income and scaling down to say the top 25% have most of the disposable income. Corporations the same. Those same people and corporations are not spending it. They buy back stock and save it or invest to increase their wealth even more. People in the bottom 75% if they have disposable income spend it to power the economy. Nothing ever seems to change under Democrat or Republican leadership. There are only minor fluctuations when Democrats throw the masses a bone or when Republicans give the top 25% a tax reduction gift. Meanwhile we have no choice but to spend on defense in a world that is increasingly dangerous. Our infrastructure is crumbling. We spend more per capita than anyone in the world on health care for not even the best outcome. We already have Medicare for all THE EMERGENCY ROOM! the most expensive form of health care that exists in a country that has the most expensive health care. We begrudge spending on anything that isn't defense related to the detriment of schools, colleges, Universities, and young people. We deserve to be the 17th happiest nation on the planet. We deserve to fall behind in Science and Tech. We deserve to not have the best health care for the money we spend. All we can do is argue over who should pay tax. No, nothing ever changes, doesn't matter what set of characters are put in charge. I guess if you are warm in winter, cool in summer, eat, have shelter, and some form of health care you have achieved this America's dream. We deserve every calamity that falls upon us if we are not willing to do anything about it but argue and wag fingers. To some the status quo is just fine, why change anything.
Click to expand...

Now isn't that special, always easy blaming someone else for all the problems liberals have created and creating a human punching bag claiming that will solve all your problems, the evil rich and corporations. Some are truly clueless about our economy our country and even basic economics and civics. How do those rich people and corporations keeping more of what they earn hurt you, your family, or the country? Apparently you never learned the true role of the federal govt. and the fact that people keeping more of what they earn benefits the state and local communities. Where does the money for local programs come from when the federal govt. takes more of it?
 
cpwill said:
From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.
Click to expand...

I think they should try it in one or two states first and see how it works out. We can pick California and New York.
 
cpwill said:
From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.
Click to expand...

You certainly don't mean "tax relief", what you mean is "revenue reduction". Isn't that right.
 
cpwill said:
In an idyllic scene below, happy French citizens express their joy with their nation's tax scheme:



GettyImages-1067260116_dep6bc
Click to expand...

What that means in France is that storming the Bastille, like the American Revolution should be, is fixed in the front of people's minds and just like in 1789, those in control capitulated. So Storming the Bastille once in a while is a good idea. The oligarchy needs to be reminded from time to time.
 
cpwill said:
From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.
Click to expand...

And yet, just look at those Europeans. LOOK at them. They are much healthier, happier, more productive, more time off. no medical bankruptcies.

They all live 4-5 years longer without going broke doing it.

Nonetheless, America has that great social welfare state...for the rich and by borrowing trillion$ from our kids and their kids...and their kids and their.....
 
jet57 said:
And that's going to work - because?
Click to expand...

People who pay next to nothing in taxes won’t get to demand tax increases


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Moderate Right said:
I think they should try it in one or two states first and see how it works out. We can pick California and New York.
Click to expand...

Well if you are correct, then Calif. and NY should cut off all of the red state welfare they pay.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
People who pay next to nothing in taxes won’t get to demand tax increases


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

People like who for example? And should the government revenue be reduced to nothing?
 
Coming from the guy who claimed Nazis were "socialists"...
 
jet57 said:
People like who for example? And should the government revenue be reduced to nothing?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not?

I’d rather have it be nothing then trillions of dollars
 
Pedestrian said:
Well if you are correct, then Calif. and NY should cut off all of the red state welfare they pay.
Click to expand...

Big city welfare dollars faaaaaaaaaaaaar exceed welfare dollars spent in red states. It's not even close. In fact, I bet just California and New York alone dish out more welfare dollars than all of the red states combined.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... did we have massive federal income redistribution spending during the 50's? It is amazing that folks who praise the federal taxation levels (as a percentage of GDP) in past decades completely ignore the federal spending levels (as a percentage of GDP) in those same decades.

The OP notes that ever more federal spending is being proposed even as we refuse to tax enough to support our current federal spending. As a practical matter, why don't we (meaning our congress critters who allegedly represent our wishes) first raise federal taxation (rates?) to cover all current federal spending and start to reduce the national debt? Only then should we debate adding even more federal spending programs and start to discuss the additional taxation (rates?) required to actually fund them.
Click to expand...

If you really want to reduce the Federal debt (even though our huge unpaid debt from WWII proves we don't really need to pay it down) the only logical and fair way to do it would be a 30% wealth tax on estates of the top 10% or so. It was the tax cuts that made the debt so the ones who benefited from them the most should be the ones to pay it back. David Stockton has proposed just that.

David Stockman: I think everybody in this generation, and I’m the leading edge of the baby boom — I was born in 1946 — has benefitted from a 30-year explosion of debt, which created temporary but unsustainable economic prosperity and a financialization of the system through lower, and lower, and lower interest rates that has created massive rewards to speculation but not real investments so I benefitted from it. Almost everyone who has been in the market has benefitted but they didn’t earn it.

Paul Solman: You didn’t earn it either?

David Stockman: No. One of the things I say in my book is we need a wealth tax that on a one-time basis is going to take back at least some small fraction of the great windfall that the upper 1 percent, or 5 percent and pay down the government debt, pay back the federal debt because we can’t put this on the next generation or they’re going to be buried paying taxes.
Click to expand...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/david-stockman-were-blind-to-t
 
Moderate Right said:
Big city welfare dollars faaaaaaaaaaaaar exceed welfare dollars spent in red states. It's not even close. In fact, I bet just California and New York alone dish out more welfare dollars than all of the red states combined.
Click to expand...

LOL You are sooo wrong.


As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
Click to expand...

https://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Sure, why not?

I’d rather have it be nothing then trillions of dollars
Click to expand...

Okay; well you've not named anybody and I guess no military, no services, no VA, no free education, no roads, or maintenance thereof, etc etc etc. Just a collection of states with no funded governments either then...

Anarchy.

Well, I don't agree.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL You are sooo wrong.




https://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG
Click to expand...

Cherry picked stats. Look at the total dollars spent on welfare in California and New York (164 billion dollars).

Here’s a look at the total public welfare expenditures in every state, ranked from lowest to highest: https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/economy/states-spend-least-amount-welfare/#2

Wyoming: $843M
South Dakota: $1.1B
North Dakota: $1.6B
Montana: $1.8B
Vermont: $1.8B
Alaska: $2.2B
Delaware: $2.4B
Idaho: $2.5B
New Hampshire: $2.6B
Rhode Island: $2.6B
Nebraska: $2.7B
Hawaii: $2.9B
Maine: $3.4B
Utah: $3.6B
Kansas: $4.2B
Nevada: $4.2B
West Virginia: $4.4B
New Mexico: $5.7B
Mississippi: $6.3B
Iowa: $6.5B
Oklahoma: $6.6B
Arkansas: $6.9B
Alabama: $7.2B
South Carolina: $7.4B
Connecticut: $7.5B
Colorado: $8.5B
Louisiana: $8.7B
Missouri: $8.9B
Oregon: $10.4B
Kentucky: $11.2B
Tennessee: $11.5B
Georgia: $11.7B
Maryland: $12.1B
Virginia: $12.1B
Wisconsin: $12.3B
Indiana: $12.7B
Washington: $12.9B
North Carolina: $13.4B
Arizona: $14.0B
Minnesota: $15.6B
Michigan: $16.9B
New Jersey: $17.7B
Massachusetts: $19.9B
Illinois: $20.2B
Ohio: $26.2B
Florida: $26.7B
Pennsylvania: $30.3B
Texas: $36.9B
New York: $65.6B
California: $98.5B

Now tell me what I posted wasn't right without spinning it.
 
Pedestrian said:
Well if you are correct, then Calif. and NY should cut off all of the red state welfare they pay.
Click to expand...

that's a bit fraudulent given many red state residents are retirees or military. And according to you liberals-states don't matter-its only the popular vote (ie individuals). Which party caters to the net tax payers like Me? Which party panders to those who are net tax consumers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom