The Republican Utopia

[suh_fan93]

 

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

She sounds like a fifth-grader pretending to be an adult.

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

In addition, you do seem to think that raising taxes on the wealthy turns the economy into a socialist hellhole, typical of Republican voters and is not based in reality. Raising the tax rates of incomes at $400k from 35% to 40% will not turn this country into Sweden. 

I’m saying why stop at 40%?   Who needs more than $400k to survive?    More taxes means better lives for everyone so let’s take it all after $400k.   Give the people what they want. 
 

5 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

This ignores the basic reality that the wealthy tend to invest their money rather than spend it all on goods and services

You are skipping past the example I gave that talked about net worth not high income.   Investing contributes to the positive net worth side.   Plenty of high income earners having nothing saved but a 401k.  So are they wealthy or just high income earners?   

[suh_fan93]

[Dr. Strangelove]

11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m saying why stop at 40%?   Who needs more than $400k to survive?    More taxes means better lives for everyone so let’s take it all after $400k.   Give the people what they want. 
 

I'm saying this is a typical slippery-slope argument unsupported by reality. In typical conservative fashion, any attempt to raise revenue is treated as a slippery-slope to communism - "if tax rates go from 35% to 39% on the highest earners, that's basically like taxing EVERYTHING" - and is also typical of how unserious Republicans are about the deficit. 

 

16 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You are skipping past the example I gave that talked about net worth not high income.   Investing contributes to the positive net worth side.   Plenty of high income earners having nothing saved but a 401k.  So are they wealthy or just high income earners?   

Withdrawing from a 401(k) is taxed accordingly, so I don't know what you're talking about. If somebody had a 401(k) robust enough that allowed them to withdraw 400k per year for the duration of their retirement, then yes that person is wealthy.

 

If an individual retires with $1 million in their 401(k) and withdraws $50k per year, that person is only being taxed as if they're making $50k per year. Perhaps you're confusing proposed wealth taxes instead of income taxes?

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I'm saying this is a typical slippery-slope argument unsupported by reality. In typical conservative fashion, any attempt to raise revenue is treated as a slippery-slope to communism - "if tax rates go from 35% to 39% on the highest earners, that's basically like taxing EVERYTHING" - and is also typical of how unserious Republicans are about the deficit. 

Again, why stop at 39%.  It shows how unserious Democrats are.  It’s been established that making over $400k is wealthy from your side.  Why do people need to be MORE than the minimum amount of wealthy?   All income over 400k and tax all net worth over $1 million.   Give the people what they want.  

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

27 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Withdrawing from a 401(k) is taxed accordingly, so I don't know what you're talking about. If somebody had a 401(k) robust enough that allowed them to withdraw 400k per year for the duration of their retirement, then yes that person is wealthy.

I’m talking about a family of 5 that makes $400,001 per year in income and has less than 3 months saved in money market accounts and only investments are 401k.  Are they wealthy or are they high income earners. 

7 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

If an individual retires with $1 million in their 401(k) and withdraws $50k per year, that person is only being taxed as if they're making $50k per year. Perhaps you're confusing proposed wealth taxes instead of income taxes?

Your confused with what my example is 

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Again, why stop at 39%.  It shows how unserious Democrats are.  It’s been established that making over $400k is wealthy from your side.  Why do people need to be MORE than the minimum amount of wealthy?   All income over 400k and tax all net worth over $1 million.   Give the people what they want.  

No, this entire argument from you shows how unserious you are in the conversation.  By this train of thought, we can't do anything....because....why stop there?  Who not take it to the ultimate extreme?

 

Why have speed limits at 75 on the interstate?  Why not make it 25?

Why have blood alcohol levels at .08?  Why not .00?

Why have sales tax at 5.5%?  Why not 55%?

etc..etc...etc.

 

Your argument just shows that you aren't actually serious about having a conversation on the subject.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, this entire argument from you shows how unserious you are in the conversation.  By this train of thought, we can't do anything....because....why stop there?  Who not take it to the ultimate extreme?

 

Why have speed limits at 75 on the interstate?  Why not make it 25?

Why have blood alcohol levels at .08?  Why not .00?

Why have sales tax at 5.5%?  Why not 55%?

etc..etc...etc.

 

Your argument just shows that you aren't actually serious about having a conversation on the subject.

 

Exactly. Any tax increase is treated as a stepping stone to taxing away all money. Modest increases in taxes is not going to do that. It's simply returning tax rates to what they were in what,  2015?

 

12 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m talking about a family of 5 that makes $400,001 per year in income and has less than 3 months saved in money market accounts and only investments are 401k.  Are they wealthy or are they high income earners. 

A family of 5 making a combined $400k are high income earners by any measure. That would mean they make more than 97% of households. Additionally, only income AFTER $400k is subject to additional taxes, so in your example that extra $1 is taxed at 40% instead of 35%. I hope losing out on a nickel doesn't break them.

 

17 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Your confused with what my example is 

Articulate it so I can understand better? Perhaps I'm missing something. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Exactly. Any tax increase is treated as a stepping stone to taxing away all money. Modest increases in taxes is not going to do that. It's simply returning tax rates to what they were in what,  2015?

Yep.  I'm, for the most part, of the mindset that tax rates need to be as low as possible.  But, at the same time, there is a reality that bills need to be paid and the government needs to function.  Also, there are times for tax cuts and times for tax increases in the economy.

 

Then, you look at this historically and realize that even with the proposed tax increase, the top rate is fairly low....which is a good thing.

[Archy1221]

59 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, this entire argument from you shows how unserious you are in the conversation.  By this train of thought, we can't do anything....because....why stop there?  Who not take it to the ultimate extreme?

 

Why have speed limits at 75 on the interstate?  Why not make it 25?

Why have blood alcohol levels at .08?  Why not .00?

Why have sales tax at 5.5%?  Why not 55%?

etc..etc...etc.

 

Your argument just shows that you aren't actually serious about having a conversation on the subject.

 

Sorry but your excuse doesn’t fly since leaders of the Democrat party are proposing what I am talking about just with a different income threshold.   Spare me the seriousness speech. 
 

Democrats constantly tell the rest of society that certain people have “enough”. Or that they “don’t need” more.   Fine, $400,00k was established by the leader of the party and the person you voted for.  People don’t need more than $400,000k so let’s give the party what they want and spread the rest around to the rest of society.   
 

This has nothing to do with speed limits or BAC or sales tax (unless you want to start charging sales tax by income levels) 

[Archy1221]

56 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

 

A family of 5 making a combined $400k are high income earners by any measure. That would mean they make more than 97% of households. Additionally, only income AFTER $400k is subject to additional taxes, so in your example that extra $1 is taxed at 40% instead of 35%. I hope losing out on a nickel doesn't break them.

You didn’t answer the question.  Are they wealthy? 
 

57 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Articulate it so I can understand better? Perhaps I'm missing something. 

It was easy to understand so you probably were 

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Sorry but your excuse doesn’t fly since leaders of the Democrat party are proposing what I am talking about just with a different income threshold.   Spare me the seriousness speech. 
 

Democrats constantly tell the rest of society that certain people have “enough”. Or that they “don’t need” more.   Fine, $400,00k was established by the leader of the party and the person you voted for.  People don’t need more than $400,000k so let’s give the party what they want and spread the rest around to the rest of society.   
 

This has nothing to do with speed limits or BAC or sales tax (unless you want to start charging sales tax by income levels) 

You do realize that there is no serious proposal saying Democrats want to take every penny people make above $400,000, correct?

So, if that's true, your response is total nonsense and proves you're not serious about discussion.  I can be for raising the upper tax bracket to 39% and also not support taking every penny above $400,000.

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You do realize that there is no serious proposal saying Democrats want to take every penny people make above $400,000, correct?

You do realize there is one for a higher income threshold (90% not every penny), correct? 
 

 

[BigRedBuster]

23 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You do realize there is one for a higher income threshold (90% not every penny), correct? 
 

 

What proposal are you talking about?  Biden's proposal is for 39.6%.  That is what McCarthy refuses to even consider.