The "Tax The Rich" Delusion on the Left

[TurtleDude]

Actually what you are saying is the opposite of any Country no less the USA. It's sounds like a wild west free for all where the strong are free to prey on the weak, the rich free to use the poor. That's why we have a strong Federally enforced Bill of Rights because the Founders hated how the European aristocracy used it's poor. In order enforce our equal rights and freedoms in all States we need a strong Federal Govt.

the really "strong" federal government didn't come from the words or documents of the founders but rather the mutations and contortions of those words by Progressives like Wilson and of course FDR

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm OK with repealing the 17th. I am in full favor of going back to state legislators deciding who to put in the senate. The 16th would require a replacement tax, without a serious disruption of the economy.

the big push for the idiotic 16th amendment was the temperance movement: opponents noted that banning alcohol would cost the government millions in revenue taxes so the do-gooders-along with the early progressive/socialist movement pushed for the income tax. Power hungry politicians then realized the sort of power that they would get from an income tax and that was that

 

[iguanaman]

especially other peoples' dollars!

You didn't get money from voting for Trump?....or GW Bush? You know you did. What is that old adage? A Pot calling the Kettle Black? Yeah that is it.

 

[iguanaman]

It mitigates future actions. And to trust the perspective of The Guardian...

Wow...

So tell me. You disagree with my method of reducing people living in poverty. What is your solution that doesn't involve stealing from others?

Taxing incomes of individuals in a society at a rate they can afford to pay is hardly "stealing". Your benefits far exceed anything you pay and the wealthier you are the better the deal you are getting. Stop the whining.

 

[Individual]

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.

For the time being Social Security and Medicare would remain as they are, primarily BECAUSE people are free to move from one State to another. The States should collect ALL the taxes, including FICA, but the FICA taxes would be placed into a common pool to be spent from with a uniform set of rules applied and maintained for taxation/payment.
Medicare, SNAP, and ALL other social spending programs would become a responsibility of individual States, funded by their citizens/occupants/taxpayers. State and local governments would be made more responsible for creating jobs and/or an environment conducive to such happening.

 

[iguanaman]

the really "strong" federal government didn't come from the words or documents of the founders but rather the mutations and contortions of those words by Progressives like Wilson and of course FDR

The Founders were the Progressives of their time and many went as far as to say this about inheritance....

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

How do you like "them apples"? :lol:

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

 

[Individual]

Actually what you are saying is the opposite of any Country no less the USA. It's sounds like a wild west free for all where the strong are free to prey on the weak, the rich free to use the poor. Some vision there... a real "City on the Hill" :lol: Besides there is far more "corruption" in State Govt. Too often gerrymandering and voter repression has kept minorities in power in States That's why we have a strong Federally enforced Bill of Rights because the Founders hated how the European aristocracy used it's poor. In order enforce our equal rights and freedoms in all States we need a strong Federal Govt. Weakening it endangers our rights....ask the Blacks in Mississippi.

I disagree with that opinion.

 

[Individual]

I'm OK with repealing the 17th. I am in full favor of going back to state legislators deciding who to put in the senate. The 16th would require a replacement tax, without a serious disruption of the economy.

Repeal of the 16th amendment would initially only change where the taxes currently collected by the Federal government are sent and the annual tax forms are sent. Taxes would continue to be collected, but sent to the State tax agency who would keep what would be returned to them by the Federal government and send the remainder to the Treasury. Congress would indeed become made busy eliminating/reducing Federal agencies and employees, and perhaps State government would add some employees to their agencies. I won't deny it would produce a great many changes taking place, but it could be done calmly, efficiently, and more cost effectively.

Perhaps repeal of the 17th amendment being made effective prior to repeal of the 16th amendment would be a good way to go, and soften the blow to the Federal government who could prepare for a rational downsizing as a result.

 

[Conaeolos]

Taxing incomes of individuals in a society at a rate they can afford to pay is hardly "stealing". Your benefits far exceed anything you pay and the wealthier you are the better the deal you are getting. Stop the whining.

How can you not see such thinking can only lead to dystopia?

You think the modern level of wealth was build on fair taxation? It was mix sure, one factor of which is IOUs, debt to people/organizations that can't be paid back, a house of cards. Not to mention Oil[something that can/will go scarce]. We don't get that luxury going forward.

Even inflated by debt for 80 years, we still have public bills covered by debt year after year, nothing saved for retirees, out of date infrastructure, the demographic time-bomb on our front step, impossible underfunded liabilities, plus a 250 year official debt from just the last two generations. You think, going forward that 5% that grossly subsidizes most Americans tax contributions is just going to give more and more forever even when the real bills start coming due? The 99%+ tax rates? I mean they can afford it right? They are relatively doing better than that 95%. Recessions don't effect the top? There is no more bubbles ready to burst?

It is not about what someone can afford. It's about keeping up with the perception of value from your tax base which is the 20% not the 80%. We need to get back to sustainability and that means curbing spending and getting more done with less. A process proven time and time again in the private sector.

 

[jdog21]

the really "strong" federal government didn't come from the words or documents of the founders but rather the mutations and contortions of those words by Progressives like Wilson and of course FDR

Not to mention the 40 straight years of democrat control of the House and 26 straight years of democrat control of the senate that followed FDR.

 

[Lord of Planar]

the big push for the idiotic 16th amendment was the temperance movement: opponents noted that banning alcohol would cost the government millions in revenue taxes so the do-gooders-along with the early progressive/socialist movement pushed for the income tax. Power hungry politicians then realized the sort of power that they would get from an income tax and that was that

I would like to go to a national sales tax, that only taxed items not needed. Do away with normal income tax. Capital gains, and other non-income taxation would need to be figured in somehow.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Taxing incomes of individuals in a society at a rate they can afford to pay is hardly "stealing". Your benefits far exceed anything you pay and the wealthier you are the better the deal you are getting. Stop the whining.

Spoken like a true Marxist!

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Founders were the Progressives of their time and many went as far as to say this about inheritance....


How do you like "them apples"? :lol:

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

My understanding from reading Jefferson's words is that the practice of "entails" would end. Land would not automatically go to the oldest male son, but divided among the sons.

Bill for Abolition of Entails | Teaching American History

 

[ttwtt78640]

Taxing incomes of individuals in a society at a rate they can afford to pay is hardly "stealing". Your benefits far exceed anything you pay and the wealthier you are the better the deal you are getting. Stop the whining.

I agree that income taxes should not prevent anyone from affording basic necessities. I also see no reason to have different 'bracket rates' or to allow any deductions other than having a truly standard deduction.

The federal individual income tax system should have only two numbers: a truly standard deduction amount (the FPL for a 4 person household?) and a flat tax rate (20%?) applied to income from all sources above that amount. This method still results in a fairly "progressive" taxation system, except for "the very rich", yet would not place undo stress on "the poor".

Why it is deemed "fair" to tax the (net) income of Walmart and a small mom & pop business at the same (flat) rate but not two households is a great mystery to me.

 

[SheWolf]

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.

Why is it, that the right wing is never pressured to answer how to pay for their spending, their wars, or their tax cuts? The deficit is actually exploding right now, and you are trying to hold democrats and their possible agenda accoubtable?

It's like Trump says, he doesn't care about the budget, because once it gets really bad, he will be gone. Then you can attack democrats for it, and act like a budget hawk again.

As for middle class spending on healthcare and college, and taxation, our costs our out of control and most of us have horrible healthcare that pays for nothing. If instead of paying an insurance company my premium, and I paid a tax, and got real coverage, well, then, that would be a net gain for me. I am spending over $20,000 a year on health care and college as it is, and I have horrible health insurance.

 

[Individual]

My understanding from reading Jefferson's words is that the practice of "entails" would end. Land would not automatically go to the oldest male son, but divided among the sons.

Bill for Abolition of Entails | Teaching American History

"On the 12th, I obtained leave to bring in a bill declaring tenants in tail to hold their lands in fee simple."
"For this would authorize the present holder to divide the property among his children equally, as his affections were divided; and would place them, by natural generation, on the level of their fellow citizens."
Thomas Jefferson 'Bill for Abolition of Entails, 11-12 August 1776'

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why is it, that the right wing is never pressured to answer how to pay for their spending, their wars, or their tax cuts? The deficit is actually exploding right now, and you are trying to hold democrats and their possible agenda accoubtable?

It's like Trump says, he doesn't care about the budget, because once it gets really bad, he will be gone. Then you can attack democrats for it, and act like a budget hawk again.

As for middle class spending on healthcare and college, and taxation, our costs our out of control and most of us have horrible healthcare that pays for nothing. If instead of paying an insurance company my premium, and I paid a tax, and got real coverage, well, then, that would be a net gain for me. I am spending over $20,000 a year on health care and college as it is, and I have horrible health insurance.

We will soon see what demorat majority in the House offers us as a federal 'budget' solution - any bets on how much more taxation of "the rich" it will include?

 

[cpwill]

Why is it, that the right wing is never pressured to answer how to pay for their spending, their wars, or their tax cuts? The deficit is actually exploding right now, and you are trying to hold democrats and their possible agenda accoubtable?

It's like Trump says, he doesn't care about the budget, because once it gets really bad, he will be gone. Then you can attack democrats for it, and act like a budget hawk again.

Actually I was pretty consistent on attacking Trump for being a big-spender since, oh, he started running in the Primary. Republicans should have pushed to reform our entitlements, not expanded our spending.

As for middle class spending on healthcare and college, and taxation, our costs our out of control and most of us have horrible healthcare that pays for nothing. If instead of paying an insurance company my premium, and I paid a tax, and got real coverage, well, then, that would be a net gain for me. I am spending over $20,000 a year on health care and college as it is, and I have horrible health insurance.

I like how you completely fail to address the point that the MASSIVE programs being proposed have no way of even being close to paid for....

....unless we massively hike taxes on the middle class.

If instead of paying an insurance company my premium, and I paid a tax, and got real coverage, well, then, that would be a net gain for me. I am spending over $20,000 a year on health care and college as it is, and I have horrible health insurance

That's deeply unfortunate - I'm sorry that the Affordable Care Act has turned out to be not so affordable for you .

So if we increased the payroll tax to ~50% (one of the options), or slapped an ~80% sales tax on everything you buy (another option), that would be easier on you than paying for your own health insurance?

 

[eohrnberger]

Military as a % of GDP has remained pretty flat

The other thing that has to be considered is the job that the US military is asked to do.

For example: Why the United States Needs a 355-Ship Navy Now

As cited in the article, as US Navy spending was cut, the number of smaller and medium patrol boats, their patrol areas and frequency was reduced, bad actors moved in an threatened maritime peace, commerce and the principal of free passage.

Which other nation's Navies patrol as large and as many areas as the US Navy is being ordered to?
Are the principals maritime peace, commerce and free passage and more peaceful and safe oceans 'worth' it?

Historically the answer was yes. Going forward, I think this answer needs to remain yes.

It's interesting to note that the left complains about the US military expenditures, and when the President pushes NATO to pay their fair share, with a possible opportunity to reduce the US military expenses, they complain about that as well. :roll:

It's also interesting to note that the left never considers rationalizing government spending on, and cutting, many of the failed and ineffective more left leaning government programs, preferring to take all the spending out of the US military.

 

[SheWolf]

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

Despite cpwills position, most republican are tired of struggling, and working harder than ever, while their quality of life declines more and more. That's a big reason why Trump won, and the establishment and elites are so unpopular, but the right wing is unique in also scapegoating minorities, immigrants, and illegals for the ills. The real problem is the system only serves the people bribing it, the donors.

I was just telling somebody who voted for Trump, he is a liar and a demagogue. He promised the most ridiculous stuff from building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, to replacing Obamacare with something cheaper and better. He never said how he would do it. At face value, his promises were ridiclous, but he promised it to people desperate to believe in something, so despite they would turn on their values like free trade. Trump is just a demagogue exploiting desperate people living in a system that is pressing down on us.

 

[eohrnberger]

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.

And you don't think that the election of Trump isn't some sort of 'storming the Bastille' ?

 

[SheWolf]

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.

I don't think the GOP really cares about spending or balancing the budget. It's that obvious. They only pretend to care, when a Democrat is in charge, and even then, it's not about the budget, it's about impeding their goals and agenda. That's why they never move the discussion towards benefits their constitutes may or may not experience, but instead, stay focused on the balance sheet and numbers. Then when the dems are gone, they explode the deficit again.

It's really that simple. They don't care about deficits. They pretend to care as a means to thwart Democrat goals.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Founders were the Progressives of their time and many went as far as to say this about inheritance....


How do you like "them apples"? :lol:

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

I am sure we aren't going to see you praise his views on say guns and those without property voting, etc. But remind me where in the Constitution the anti estate views are incorporated

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't think the GOP really cares about spending or balancing the budget. It's that obvious. They only pretend to care, when a Democrat is in charge, and even then, it's not about the budget, it's about impeding their goals and agenda. That's why they never move the discussion towards benefits their constitutes may or may not experience, but instead, stay focused on the balance sheet and numbers. Then when the dems are gone, they explode the deficit again.

It's really that simple. They don't care about deficits. They pretend to care as a means to thwart Democrat goals.

We will soon see if the House demorat majority actually demands a tax increase on "the rich" or simply that their favorite increased federal spending gets included in the (bipartisan?) 'budget' deal.

 

[SheWolf]

1. Whether or not a nation is compassionate is not determined by the extent to which the government exercises control over our lives and holds us down. More socialist countries actually tend to be LESS compassionate when measured in terms of actual compassion, vice government programs.

2. Government transfer programs do not seem to produce happier citizens. They instead seem to produce entitlement and anger.

First of all, you're confusing socalism and communism, which almost all right wingers tend to do.

Secondly, the American system is already holding millions of people down. This system is not compassionate towards anybody, but wealthy, elite, donors. Lobbyist wrote nearly everything in Congress. There really should be more balance in the American system than there is. Everything shouldn't be tippedin favor of the wealthy or poor. It shouldn't be a matter of choosing in side over the other, but that seems to be what we have in America.

Third, the Trump base is entitled, angry, and scapegoating. Their jobs are gone, they are struggling, and like the rest of us, have crap health. The gains in America are going to the very top, not the very poor, and now they are becoming the very poor. They are blaming it on immigrants, minorities, and illegals, but they could very well be feeling this pinch in an America without the demographic changes.