2018 mid-term

[BigRedBuster]

The income someone brings in doesn't, and shouldn't have any impact on the costs of goods/services, and what an individual pays for them. 

THEIR additional money shouldn't be required to aide in that support, because it's no more their responsibility than it is that of the rest of us. They should have the right to set up their family for generations, if they so choose.... Because it's their money.

It's completely unreasonable, considering that the top 1% pay roughly 40% of the taxes in this country, and the top 10% pay nearly 80%.... Not to mention that 44% of the country didn't pay anything in taxes in 2016.

There's a lot that I can agree with you on in terms of taxes.  I think it should be criminal for the government to take what some people propose.  There's a lot of RedDenver's post that leaves me uneasy.

However, to the bolded, that stat is totally meaningless in this discussion and it's totally misused and misrepresented by the right. LINK

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

There's a lot that I can agree with you on in terms of taxes.  I think it should be criminal for the government to take what some people propose.  There's a lot of RedDenver's post that leaves me uneasy.

However, to the bolded, that stat is totally meaningless in this discussion and it's totally misused and misrepresented by the right. LINK

Yeah, I should of worded it as "federal income tax", but it doesn't negate my overall point that the rich carry much of the tax burden, and that can't be discounted, even if they do have the means to afford it. Even so, 1/3 of American workers receiving more in refundable credits (according to the TPC), than they paid in payroll taxes is alarming.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Yeah, I should of worded it as "federal income tax", but it doesn't negate my overall point that the rich carry much of the tax burden, and that can't be discounted, even if they do have the means to afford it. Even so, 1/3 of American workers receiving more in refundable credits (according to the TPC), than they paid in payroll taxes is alarming.

I would need to have more information before I got alarmed.

 

[knapplc]

I would need to have more information before I got alarmed.

This is why you'd be a terrible Republican.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

I would need to have more information before I got alarmed.

In and of itself? No. But when it's some of the same people demanding that "rich" people pay more in taxes than they already do? Well, I don't like it.

To the point, I just have a huge problem with the left saying "Because you, and/or your family have been more successful than the rest of us, you MUST contribute an obscene amount of money to the government to help towards making up for the shortcomings of other citizens".

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Because full-fledged socialism is something that should be feared. I assume you mean social programs like welfare, WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, and public schools etc.

Most of the programs are abused, and are a microcosm of what socialism would do to this country.

The only such tendencies I can get along with are those that we all benefit from (roads, schools, social security)

Again, if we can pinpoint the time when America was Great, a time we yearn to return to, we will find a country with a robust free-enterprise system, big government, and much higher taxes than we have today, all somehow managing to work together. 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

Again, if we can pinpoint the time when America was Great, a time we yearn to return to, we will find a country with a robust free-enterprise system, big government, and much higher taxes than we have today, all somehow managing to work together. 

Government spending, both excess and what they choose to spend it on, are a much larger issue than our "low" tax rate. I'd like to see people take more issue with that, than continue to push for further unbalanced wealth redistribution.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Government spending, both excess and what they choose to spend it on, are a much larger issue than our "low" tax rate. I'd like to see people take more issue with that, than continue to push for further unbalanced wealth redistribution.

Big Government wealth distribution is often a lot more balanced than people think. Free-enterprise corporations are often the beneficiary of trade protection, copyright protection, incentives, subsidies, CRADAs, and the kind of massive contracts only Big Government can provide. Not to mention the physical infrastructure that lets them move their products, the educational infrastructure that provides their employees, and the various safety nets that keep customers out of poverty and able to purchase their goods and services.

Big Business never complains about all the Big Government perks they receive, and prefers you to think they're being crippled by taxes and regulations. The sweet spot is an honest understanding of how the system works, and a non-polarizing commitment to Smart Government as opposed to the self-serving definitions of Big and Small. 

When they take over the banks, seize your property, and assign your profession, you can worry about encroaching Socialism. Government and private enterprise working together on things like affordable healthcare, education, and renewable energy is not a threat to the Republic and may be the only thing that will save us.

 

[methodical]

The U.S. oversaw massive prosperity and growth for the middle class during the FDR/Truman/Eisenhower administrations when the top marginal tax rate hovered in and around the 90s. Both parties maintained it at or around 70% until Reagan.

Given that and that I'm a major skeptic of untethered supply-side economics, I'm not sure the decades-long postwar consensus got that one wrong.

Also, you're not taking most of their money. You're taking most of their money above $500 or 600K. I don't know how the extremely wealthy structure their taxes, but I'm sure there's probably a way to minimize the losses. 

If you have another mechanism to prevent the ultrawealthy from buying our politics, I'd be open to it. 

Publicly funded elections with any outside extra contribution labeled what it is "a bribe" and prosecuted as a federal crime for both the politician accepting it and the person funding it.  Have the people fund elections and be done with it.  Organizations are all made up of people, there's absolutely no reason why they should allow corporate donations or PACs to even exist, if Koch or some other wealthy business owner wants to call up a representative he's already got disproportionate representation as they'll actually take his call and hear him out there's no need for that to also be tied towards their re-election funds.

That and lifetime bans for lobbying for anyone who has held a mid to high level federal office or federal regulatory agency position.  Trying to end regulatory capture.

Finally re-framing the debate.  This whole "all government is bad, all regulations are bad and all taxes are bad" mantra the GOP has successfully pushed for so many years should simply be: "The government is the people of this country trying to do the best for ourselves as a society, we pass regulations to protect ourselves from things bad actors have done TO US in the past and WILL do in the future again if they are removed, and we all pay taxes but those of us with the greatest wealth pay a larger percentage on their highest income since this society gives us all opportunity to thrive and we all benefit more when we lift each other up."

That's a few ideas, although I also agree with a higher tax on the largest incomes.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Finally re-framing the debate.  This whole "all government is bad, all regulations are bad and all taxes are bad" mantra the GOP has successfully pushed for so many years should simply be: "The government is the people of this country trying to do the best for ourselves as a society, we pass regulations to protect ourselves from things bad actors have done TO US in the past and WILL do in the future again if they are removed, and we all pay taxes but those of us with the greatest wealth pay a larger percentage on their highest income since this society gives us all opportunity to thrive and we all benefit more when we lift each other up."

The government should always be as small as possible with the least amount of intrusion into our lives as possible and the lowest taxes possible.

Now, the government still needs to do what it needs to do and be funded.  This is where Republicans falter.  They believe that all government is bad....which isn't true.  It's actually a necessary part of any society.  The debate should just be about what the government needs to do and how to fund it.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The government should always be as small as possible with the least amount of intrusion into our lives as possible and the lowest taxes possible.

Now, the government still needs to do what it needs to do and be funded.  This is where Republicans falter.  They believe that all government is bad....which isn't true.  It's actually a necessary part of any society.  The debate should just be about what the government needs to do and how to fund it.

Actually, the Republicans use Big Government to spend recklessly, funnel taxpayer money to their own people, and blow up the deficit bigger than any Democrat.

They just don't call it "wealth redistribution." 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

Actually, the Republicans use Big Government to spend recklessly, funnel taxpayer money to their own people, and blow up the deficit bigger than any Democrat.

They just don't call it "wealth redistribution." 

This is interesting considering President Obama had the largest deficit increase under any President ever, and the 3rd largest percentage increase. I guess reckless spending is relative to what you believe to be reckless.

 

[ZRod]

This is interesting considering President Obama had the largest deficit increase under any President ever, and the 3rd largest percentage increase. I guess reckless spending is relative to what you believe to be reckless.

That's an extremely disingenuous argument if you're really trying to make it.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

This is interesting considering President Obama had the largest deficit increase under any President ever, and the 3rd largest percentage increase. I guess reckless spending is relative to what you believe to be reckless.

Okay. Fine. "Any Democrat" is an exaggeration, but I think we can still put to bed the myth that Republicans are the party of small government. It's just not true at all. 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

As for "reckless" I'd say history won't look kindly on G.W. Bush, and Barack Obama inherited a s#!tshow of historic proportions, including mandates already established by Republicans.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#371c4fbc1917

 

[BigRedBuster]

Okay. Fine. "Any Democrat" is an exaggeration, but I think we can still put to bed the myth that Republicans are the party of small government. It's just not true at all. 

I would agree with this. We really don’t have a smaller government party. They each just have their pet projects they want to spend billions on.