• 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

iguanaman said:
Yes the wealthy always need another million in the bank or the other millions get lonely.
Click to expand...
Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn. you guys never get tired on spewing the bull**** line, do you? Mindless or not it's like a loony lib article of faith.
 
iguanaman said:
Right they make YOU money...we get it. But projected revenue for the GOVERNMENT in 2019 is down to 16.3% of GDP, a record low. That equate to deficits nearing a trillion dollars that you are on the hook for.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
Click to expand...

tax cuts decentralize power. they mean the federal government has less money and those who made the money has more. I find it amusing you try to speak for the government while I speak for myself
 
iguanaman said:
Yes the wealthy always need another million in the bank or the other millions get lonely.
Click to expand...

we really don't care what you think others NEED. what we do know is the government wastes billions of dollars a year.
 
TurtleDude said:
we really don't care what you think others NEED. what we do know is the government wastes billions of dollars a year.
Click to expand...

Government waste would still do more good for the economy than a rich man saving half of his tax savings.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Government waste would still do more good for the economy than a rich man saving half of his tax savings.
Click to expand...

that depends on whether you worship government or freedom I suppose. what do us "rich men" do with our money that we "save"?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Government waste would still do more good for the economy than a rich man saving half of his tax savings.
Click to expand...
LOL, you one of those people who think "the rich" hide their money in a basement swimming pool or bury it in the back yard?
 
cpwill said:
We are borrowing trillions to keep Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid afloat.

However, your complaint is irrelevant to the point that every state that has tried to quickly jack up revenues by killing the goose laying the golden egg has only seen capital flight, followed by collapse. The "just confiscate all the rich people's stuff" plan will make us as wealthy as Venezuela.

And, in the meantime, it still won't fund the liberal wish list.
Click to expand...

Social Security and Medicare are funded by their OWN revenue stream, and the Federal government having spent the money making it a debt owed by the government rather than the public. When the spending of either or both those programs exceed the incoming revenue, the difference is made up by transferring the debt to the public, which is where the "debt buck" always 'eventually' stops.

As it is the Fed who is responsible for controlling inflation, with an annual target rate of about 2%, it might help if all the trust fund excesses were deposited directly into the Fed requiring IT by law to pay a fixed rate of return slightly greater than the inflation rate, keeping the government from spending it, and only withdrawing from the Fed when the spending of those programs exceeds the incoming revenue stream.

We really need to get control of Federal government spending, but so many people have become accustomed to living far beyond their means making it extremely difficult to accomplish in what has increasingly become a centralized collective form of democracy instead of a republic comprised of 50 individual democratically run republics.
 
Bullseye said:
LOL, you one of those people who think "the rich" hide their money in a basement swimming pool or bury it in the back yard?
Click to expand...

That would be a blessing compared to investing it in hedge funds that use that money to bid up the price of commodities we all use. That is what many do with their savings.
 
TurtleDude said:
that depends on whether you worship government or freedom I suppose. what do us "rich men" do with our money that we "save"?
Click to expand...

Bullseye said:
LOL, you one of those people who think "the rich" hide their money in a basement swimming pool or bury it in the back yard?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "freedom," whatever you mean by that. It is a simple matter of more money becoming part of aggregate demand, and less money being taken out of circulation. Money saved in the bank does nothing for the economy. Even money that you consider "invested" probably never gets used for consumption or real investment; if you are just swapping stocks with other "investors" on the secondary market, those guys probably aren't spending/investing that money either.

Money "wasted" by the government, however, usually ends up in the hands of people who spend it. Add to that the multiplier effects of that money being re-spent, and the difference becomes even greater.
 
Individual said:
Social Security and Medicare are funded by their OWN revenue stream, and the Federal government having spent the money making it a debt owed by the government rather than the public. When the spending of either or both those programs exceed the incoming revenue, the difference is made up by transferring the debt to the public, which is where the "debt buck" always 'eventually' stops.

As it is the Fed who is responsible for controlling inflation, with an annual target rate of about 2%, it might help if all the trust fund excesses were deposited directly into the Fed requiring IT by law to pay a fixed rate of return slightly greater than the inflation rate, keeping the government from spending it, and only withdrawing from the Fed when the spending of those programs exceeds the incoming revenue stream.

We really need to get control of Federal government spending, but so many people have become accustomed to living far beyond their means making it extremely difficult to accomplish in what has increasingly become a centralized collective form of democracy instead of a republic comprised of 50 individual democratically run republics.
Click to expand...

Yes blame the worker for being paid so little that they need to borrow to make a life for their family. It didn't used to be that way before tax cuts made it easy for the CEO's and managers to sock away millions every year at low low tax rates. The people who built this country used to get raises with that money now they get blamed for not being "thrifty" enough. That's Reaganomics in a nutshell.
 
Last edited:
JohnfrmClevelan said:
It has nothing to do with "freedom," whatever you mean by that. It is a simple matter of more money becoming part of aggregate demand, and less money being taken out of circulation. Money saved in the bank does nothing for the economy. Even money that you consider "invested" probably never gets used for consumption or real investment; if you are just swapping stocks with other "investors" on the secondary market, those guys probably aren't spending/investing that money either.

Money "wasted" by the government, however, usually ends up in the hands of people who spend it. Add to that the multiplier effects of that money being re-spent, and the difference becomes even greater.
Click to expand...

yeah its great having government handouts being spent on smokes, drugs etc. Using your logic, no one should be able to save or invest anything-rather the government should take it and give it to people too lazy or untalented-in many cases-to earn it themselves.
 
Individual said:
Social Security and Medicare are funded by their OWN revenue stream, and the Federal government having spent the money making it a debt owed by the government rather than the public. When the spending of either or both those programs exceed the incoming revenue, the difference is made up by transferring the debt to the public, which is where the "debt buck" always 'eventually' stops.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect.


Individual said:
We really need to get control of Federal government spending, but so many people have become accustomed to living far beyond their means making it extremely difficult to accomplish in what has increasingly become a centralized collective form of democracy instead of a republic comprised of 50 individual democratically run republics.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a reasoned explanation on this.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah its great having government handouts being spent on smokes, drugs etc. Using your logic, no one should be able to save or invest anything-rather the government should take it and give it to people too lazy or untalented-in many cases-to earn it themselves.
Click to expand...

A) You are painting all recipients of government money with a broad brush. You are also giving yourself (and, I suppose, everybody else that makes a good living) credit for making it on your own, while dismissing actual socioeconomic difficulties faced by others as them being lazy and/or untalented. Life looks pretty simple from third base.

B) You can still save plenty for yourself. (Don't even bother using the word "investment," because it's misleading. A grandiose term for money-hoarding and rent-seeking, because none of it goes toward real investment in production.) But there is a real cost to the economy as a whole when you save too much. That lost demand has to be made up by increased debt, either by the private sector or the government.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
A) You are painting all recipients of government money with a broad brush. You are also giving yourself (and, I suppose, everybody else that makes a good living) credit for making it on your own, while dismissing actual socioeconomic difficulties faced by others as them being lazy and/or untalented. Life looks pretty simple from third base.

B) You can still save plenty for yourself. (Don't even bother using the word "investment," because it's misleading. A grandiose term for money-hoarding and rent-seeking, because none of it goes toward real investment in production.) But there is a real cost to the economy as a whole when you save too much. That lost demand has to be made up by increased debt, either by the private sector or the government.
Click to expand...

hypocrisy at its worst with a large dose of Irony thrown in. what you are really saying is that you excuse sloth and a lack of ambition or poor life choices, while damning investment and ambition

bottom line-your argument is that all wealth really should belong to the government and you don't like those who do well.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah its great having government handouts being spent on smokes, drugs etc. Using your logic, no one should be able to save or invest anything-rather the government should take it and give it to people too lazy or untalented-in many cases-to earn it themselves.
Click to expand...

When the vast majority of voters pay no tax, little tax, or receive a refund or benefit exceeding any taxes paid, are they likely to support politicians who campaign on more government spending, higher taxes, more deficits and debt or less?
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - Margaret Thatcher
But most people today simply feel the solution to that is to just print more of it, and then complain about the growth of disparity between the rich and the poor.
If we continue along the lines we're following today, eventually the poor will have a 6 or more digit annual income, and complain about those with 9 or more digit annual incomes.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
It has nothing to do with "freedom," whatever you mean by that. It is a simple matter of more money becoming part of aggregate demand, and less money being taken out of circulation. Money saved in the bank does nothing for the economy.
Click to expand...
Nonsense - it goes out as loans and investments.

[quote[JohnfrmClevelan]
Even money that you consider "invested" probably never gets used for consumption or real investment; if you are just swapping stocks with other "investors" on the secondary market, those guys probably aren't spending/investing that money either. [/quote] Those "swaps" finance a lot of retirements, home improvements, college educations and much more.
JohnfrmClevan said:
Money "wasted" by the government, however, usually ends up in the hands of people who spend it. Add to that the multiplier effects of that money being re-spent, and the difference becomes even greater.
Click to expand...
That same "multiplier effect" happens in public transactions too. The money I pay for a good or service is re-spent by the business for supplies, wages, rent and profit - which is, in turn, spent and on and on.
 
Individual said:
When the vast majority of voters pay no tax, little tax, or receive a refund or benefit exceeding any taxes paid, are they likely to support politicians who campaign on more government spending, higher taxes, more deficits and debt or less?
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - Margaret Thatcher
But most people today simply feel the solution to that is to just print more of it, and then complain about the growth of disparity between the rich and the poor.
If we continue along the lines we're following today, eventually the poor will have a 6 or more digit annual income, and complain about those with 9 or more digit annual incomes.
Click to expand...

the progressive income tax is a creature of political pandering and expediency. By relieving most voters of paying their real share of what they use, the politicians can continue to buy their votes with more government goodies while not alienating them by charging them fully for what they get. The solution to this pandering can be done by a NST or a flat tax where everyone loses more income whenever there is a tax hike. Or even better-though not possible given the pandering interests-representation proportionate to taxation.
 
TurtleDude said:
hypocrisy at its worst with a large dose of Irony thrown in. what you are really saying is that you excuse sloth and a lack of ambition or poor life choices, while damning investment and ambition
Click to expand...

You mean like the poor life choice of being born to poor parents? How Republican of you to chalk that up to something nobody has any control over.

TurtleDude said:
bottom line-your argument is that all wealth really should belong to the government and you don't like those who do well.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong. But my arguments, unlike yours, do take other people into consideration. And I have no problem with a lot of people who do well; I just don't like naked selfishness.
 
Individual said:
When the vast majority of voters pay no tax, little tax, or receive a refund or benefit exceeding any taxes paid, are they likely to support politicians who campaign on more government spending, higher taxes, more deficits and debt or less?
Click to expand...

Again, you are flat-out incorrect here. How do you expect anybody to take your posts seriously when you say stuff like this?
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense - it goes out as loans and investments.

[quote[JohnfrmClevelan]
Even money that you consider "invested" probably never gets used for consumption or real investment; if you are just swapping stocks with other "investors" on the secondary market, those guys probably aren't spending/investing that money either.
Click to expand...
Those "swaps" finance a lot of retirements, home improvements, college educations and much more.
That same "multiplier effect" happens in public transactions too. The money I pay for a good or service is re-spent by the business for supplies, wages, rent and profit - which is, in turn, spent and on and on.[/QUOTE]

The basis of the argument is that banks loan money, requiring the borrower to repay with interest, while government simply provides money with no strings attached. A form of freedom without responsibility.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You mean like the poor life choice of being born to poor parents? How Republican of you to chalk that up to something nobody has any control over.



Wrong and wrong. But my arguments, unlike yours, do take other people into consideration. And I have no problem with a lot of people who do well; I just don't like naked selfishness.
Click to expand...

let me see-it is selfish to oppose a parasitic government that always wants more but its not selfish to want others to have more taken from them so you can pat yourself on the back and pretend you are helping, or because it slakes your envy of those who are more prosperous?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Again, you are flat-out incorrect here. How do you expect anybody to take your posts seriously when you say stuff like this?
Click to expand...

half the voters don't pay Federal income taxes.
 
Bullseye said:
Nonsense - it goes out as loans and investments.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Banks don't lend out your deposits. Google it.

Bullseye said:
Those "swaps" finance a lot of retirements, home improvements, college educations and much more.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Those swaps are merely swaps. They don't finance anything. You might come out ahead when you play the stock market, but others lose out. Most of the gains are merely increases in the amount of savings that find their way into buying stocks. Part zero-sum, part Ponzi, but not productive.

Bullseye said:
That same "multiplier effect" happens in public transactions too. The money I pay for a good or service is re-spent by the business for supplies, wages, rent and profit - which is, in turn, spent and on and on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it doesn't happen unless you spend your money, which was my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom