• 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

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.



https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/david-stockman-were-blind-to-t

That sounds like as good a plan as any but I doubt that 'our' congress critters will go after their donor class in order to do so.
 
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.



https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/david-stockman-were-blind-to-t

yeah that's going to happen given every congressman and senator would get raped by that nonsense. Its time for those sucking on the public teats to stop demanding others fund their sucking.
 
That sounds like as good a plan as any but I doubt that 'our' congress critters will go after their donor class in order to do so.

anyone making a congressional salary is in the top 10%/
 
anyone making a congressional salary is in the top 10%/

Which is why tax "the rich" is only mentioned on the campaign trail and not included in actual legislation. Meanwhile, congress has decided that 2/3 of all 'discretionary' federal spending is best covered by borrowing rather than taxation.
 
That "50's middle class expansion" was due in great part to the fact that the USA was the sole industrial power in the world after WWII, and much of our production and investment was being used to rebuild everywhere else in the world.

There was plenty of work in a growth market, and not enough bodies to fill the need...so wages were "good."

That began to change after Europe and Japan re-industrialized and became competitors, and worse when China shifted from a controlled economy to a mixed controlled-capitalist one becoming a major competitor all it's own.

There are all sorts of other economic factors (monetary policy, EPA and other regulatory efforts, immigration issues, automation, etc.) that also led to the current shaky economic situation shrinking the middle class.

Add to that all the social welfare program spending, requiring more taxes on those who earn over a certain amount (not just the "rich") and you get where we are today.

Things are not going to be made simpler by just "taxing the rich."

Another factor not mentioned about the 1950s was stronger union representation and (I believe) higher real wages.
 
Well if you are correct, then Calif. and NY should cut off all of the red state welfare they pay.

Which is none, so that’s a non argument


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

No, that’s the wrong analysis. Federal spending includes military spending, spending on programs and facilities (like the Idaho National Labratory or Yellowstone National Park) that benefit the entire nation, also to that end federal land use policy actually creates many poor communities that would be wealthy if they made their own land decisions, but I digress. It includes programs that local legislators have no control over, federal dollars spent per tax dollars collected is a poor argument. Most people in red states don’t want the money and it comes with strings that keep poor people poorer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

Not many folks in those countries are eager to exchange their system for one like ours.
 
Calling the left delusion with the tax cuts create jobs crowd. hysterical how right wingers have absolutely no shame, just continue to throw **** and hope it sticks

Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, the rich had high tax rates. country thrived. When the rich have all the wealth, we get the great depression and the great recession and the **** country we have now where most of the country are barely getting by while the rich continue to stockpile wealth

And were the extremely high tax rates demonstratively a major cause for why the middle class grew in the 1950s, Sampson Simpson? Because unless one can demonstrate that the high tax rates correlating with the increased productivity and expansion of the American middle class was the cause for such expansion, to point to that is rather inane. It would make just as much sense as saying "Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, racial segregation in the South and de facto racial segregation in the North was in full swing. country thrived." or "Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, polio had not yet been cured. country thrived." Correlation does not equal causation.
 
Last edited:
No, that’s the wrong analysis. Federal spending includes military spending, spending on programs and facilities (like the Idaho National Labratory or Yellowstone National Park) that benefit the entire nation, also to that end federal land use policy actually creates many poor communities that would be wealthy if they made their own land decisions, but I digress. It includes programs that local legislators have no control over, federal dollars spent per tax dollars collected is a poor argument. Most people in red states don’t want the money and it comes with strings that keep poor people poorer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL Spoken like a true heartless Conservative and so appropriate for the season too. May the ghost of Christmas Past go easy on you this year.:lol:
BTW We let people be homeless and starving for at least the first 150 years in his country and guess what? There were still multitudes that didn't "lift themselves up by their bootstraps".... they just kept starving and dying from exposure. The truth is the Red States are more dependent on the Feds because they do so little at the State level. They are too busy selling tax breaks to big Corporations. That is why they are the "Welfare Queens" of the States.
 
LOL Spoken like a true heartless Conservative and so appropriate for the season too. May the ghost of Christmas Past go easy on you this year.BTW We let people be homeless and starving for at least the first 150 years and guess what? There were still multitudes that didn't "lift themselves up by their bootstraps".... they just kept starving and dying from exposure. The truth is the Red States are more dependent on the Feds because they do so little at the State level. They are too busy selling tax breaks to big Corporations. That is why they are the "Welfare Queens" of the States.

There has never been mass famine in the United States
 
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.
  • I agree that if one wants the benefits some European nations' citizens enjoy, one, the nation, must pay for them.
  • I don't agree that "taxing the bejesus out of the middle class" is the only way to obtain them; however, I agree that is a way to obtain them.
 
You hawks are oddly silent when the military budget is increased by hundreds of billions over just a few years, you never ask how that could be paid for. When it comes to things like UHC which are CHEAPER than what we have now, you suddenly become fiscally conservative and ask stupid questions like "How ya gonna pay for that, comrade??"

You'll declare there's always, always enough money for guns, but never enough for butter. For you guys it's truly purely about priorities, not about feasibility.

The Cold War saw a steady decline in defense spending as a share of federal spending, down to a 52 percent share in 1969. But when the Vietnam War wound down defense share dropped rapidly, and bottomed at 28.5 percent share in 1979-80.

In the early 1980s defense spending recovered a larger share of federal spending, reaching 32 percent in 1987. Then it declined to 20 percent share by the late 1990s.

The War on Terror of the 2000s saw an increase in defense spending share, peaking at 24.5 percent share in 2010. Defense share of federal spending is expected to decline to 21.6 percent share in 2015 and 17.4 percent share by 2020.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending

Seems like we are spending less on military then we used to and its declining. So why you so mad at how high it is when its projected to continue to go down.
 
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.

So true.

When the left complained about Regan's tax cuts, my middle class taxes went down. When they were raised again, my taxes went up. My taxes went down for this year significantly with president Trump. When the liberals have their way again, my taxes will go up. I will gave to remember to budget for around $300 less monthly when the demonrats have their way again.
 
Fed spending as a percentage of gdp is about the same as it was in the 50s. Just slightly lower
United_States_Federal_Spending_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP.png

This graph clearly shows that taxes are not the problem. Spending is.
 
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.

We should switch over to a state system where the federal government handles foreign policy, military, trade, and civil rights. The states handle healthcare, welfare programs, education, regulations, etc. If we do need a federal policy in these areas, they should be only enacted with a super-majority.
 
We should switch over to a state system where the federal government handles foreign policy, military, trade, and civil rights. The states handle healthcare, welfare programs, education, regulations, etc. If we do need a federal policy in these areas, they should be only enacted with a super-majority.
How would that work, exactly? Poor states, like Mississippi and Louisiana would fund their own versions of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Snap, without the tax base? What happens when people move from one state to another?

We have federal programs because it is uniform and doesn’t require 50 sets of rules.
 
We should switch over to a state system where the federal government handles foreign policy, military, trade, and civil rights. The states handle healthcare, welfare programs, education, regulations, etc. If we do need a federal policy in these areas, they should be only enacted with a super-majority.

sort of like what the founders intended.
 
How would that work, exactly? Poor states, like Mississippi and Louisiana would fund their own versions of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Snap, without the tax base? What happens when people move from one state to another?

We have federal programs because it is uniform and doesn’t require 50 sets of rules.

his idea puts very realistic checks and balances on state politicians trying to buy the votes of the many by promising the wealth of the few.
 
his idea puts very realistic checks and balances on state politicians trying to buy the votes of the many by promising the wealth of the few.
Ah. So, candidates promising to pass laws that make the lives of voters better, is buying votes? What do you call it when billionaire donors fund candidates who promise to lower taxes on billionaire donors?
 
Ah. So, candidates promising to pass laws that make the lives of voters better, is buying votes? What do you call it when billionaire donors fund candidates who promise to lower taxes on billionaire donors?

telling a million people they will get say free healthcare and it will be paid for by jacking up the taxes on the top 3% or so is buying votes. And if a STATE does that-what will happen=the takers will flock to that state and that state will have to keep raising taxes on the top 3%. And when it gets too parasitic, those being parasitized by politicians will leave the state. And then those politicians will have to figure a way to keep pandering to the public teat sucklers when those who paid for the milk are no longer under their jurisdiction. Left-wingers love the federal government doing this because its much harder to leave the USA than it is say california or NY
 
  • I agree that if one wants the benefits some European nations' citizens enjoy, one, the nation, must pay for them.
  • I don't agree that "taxing the bejesus out of the middle class" is the only way to obtain them; however, I agree that is a way to obtain them.

As far a Health Care, our costs will be less than we already pay now. That's the irony of this entire thread. That and the farce that the rich cannot afford to pay more, much more. We have been transferring wealth to them for nearly 40 years and not a bit has "trickled down". It's time we moved it the other way.
 
Back
Top Bottom