Biden's America

[VectorVictor]

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

And that brings us back to the ancient question: if MAGA wants America to be great Again, what is the time period they want to get back to? 

 

Don't know how many times I've asked it, but it never, ever, ever gets answered.

 

Because, of course, it's a trap. 

 

To be honest, many of the MAGA Boomers don't rightly remember the year they want to go back to, mainly because of long-term lead poisoning. Plus there's lead in boot polish, so...it's not going to get any better soon. 

/s

[DevoHusker]

48 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Bull****. Quit being disingenuous.

 

When you have over 125k households making $400k or more not file or pay taxes (with 25k of those making over $1m) in five or more years and a top income tax rate that is less than a third of what it was under Eisenhower during his administration, it's pretty evident that there isn't an income problem, you have a plutocrat problem.

 

It's telling that the GOP was scared to fully fund the IRS and tried to prevent it. Not only does this directly impact many in their donor base who haven't paid taxes in some time, it will ultimately impact churches who have been able to skirt non-profit laws and hoard wealth. It also has the secondary impact of being able to finally bring the law down on churches that are directly preaching politics from the pulpit, which is not only dispicable, but illegal if you're a non-profit. 

 

If the GOP truly wants to MAGA, then adopting income tax rates from the 1950s (adjusting for inflation, of course) should be paramount. Then a significant portion of this discussion around the deficit would be rendered moot. 

 

WTF are you saying here? I am blaming everyone in Washington since Clinton balanced the budget spending too much...and you go off on me about MAGA? 

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

It is a spending problem more than an income problem. And, everyone since Wild Bill have been culpable. 

Yes, I agree

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

It is a spending problem more than an income problem. And, everyone since Wild Bill have been culpable. 

 

And in fairness, Clinton is credited for tapping the breaks a little on a string of Presidents before him. 

 

Crazy, though, how one party gets labelled as the Tax & Spend excessives, when in fact the other party taxes less and spends more, making them even worse deficit panderers. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

WTF are you saying here? I am blaming everyone in Washington since Clinton balanced the budget spending too much...and you go off on me about MAGA? 

Ahhh, he was on a roll, just let him go.    I guess I didn’t see any relevant sourcing for all those numbers presented though.   Nor the breakdown of Republican tax cheats vs Democrat tax cheats.  

[teachercd]

Popular opinion that some people will pretend they don't agree with...if I was really rich and I could get a badass tax lawyer/accountant to save me a lot of money in taxes because of laws that have been written by our government, I would gladly do it.

 

This is not a political party thing it is a common sense thing.

[Guy Chamberlin]

17 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Popular opinion that some people will pretend they don't agree with...if I was really rich and I could get a badass tax lawyer/accountant to save me a lot of money in taxes because of laws that have been written by our government, I would gladly do it.

 

This is not a political party thing it is a common sense thing.

 

No one is arguing that everyone doesn't cheat on their taxes. Question is whether the rich, who already receive preferential treatment, can get even more preferential treatment exploiting loopholes many of us don't have, or know about, or have the tax attorneys to execute.

 

It's sort of a political party thing in that one party wants the rich to pay their fair share (typically the amount the rest of us pay AFTER we cheat), while the other party wants to claim Tax The Rich! is class warfare.  

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

No one is arguing that everyone doesn't cheat on their taxes. Question is whether the rich, who already receive preferential treatment, can get even more preferential treatment exploiting loopholes many of us don't have, or know about, or have the tax attorneys to execute.

 

It's sort of a political party thing in that one party wants the rich to pay their fair share (typically the amount the rest of us pay AFTER we cheat), while the other party wants to claim Tax The Rich! is class warfare.  

I wonder how much easier it was to cheat on taxes before things like TurboTax and online returns.  

 

I am sure most of us remember going to the library and getting the tax forms and then remember doing your taxes over the phone?  

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

I see Clinton getting praise for balancing the budget....as he should.

 

But, it wasn't all because he held down spending.  In 1993, he signed a bill that created a 36-39.5% tax bracket for high income earners.  Business taxes went to 35%.  Currently, that is 28%.

[ZRod]

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I see Clinton getting praise for balancing the budget....as he should.

 

But, it wasn't all because he held down spending.  In 1993, he signed a bill that created a 36-39.5% tax bracket for high income earners.  Business taxes went to 35%.  Currently, that is 28%.

After his term (and during Obama's) he also became a proponent of reducing corporate tax and capitol gains rates to be competitive in the race to the bottom with other countries.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

No one is arguing that everyone doesn't cheat on their taxes. Question is whether the rich, who already receive preferential treatment, can get even more preferential treatment exploiting loopholes many of us don't have, or know about, or have the tax attorneys to execute.

 

It's sort of a political party thing in that one party wants the rich to pay their fair share (typically the amount the rest of us pay AFTER we cheat), while the other party wants to claim Tax The Rich! is class warfare.  

What would you consider their (who is they) fair share? 50% of the tax burden? 60% 70% of the US tax burden? 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I see Clinton getting praise for balancing the budget....as he should.

 

But, it wasn't all because he held down spending.  In 1993, he signed a bill that created a 36-39.5% tax bracket for high income earners.  Business taxes went to 35%.  Currently, that is 28%.

We won’t see a balanced budget again until yes revenues increase AND expenditures significantly decrease.  We will have to increase taxes at this point unfortunately and people will need to be prepared to pay even more for goods because I doubt companies will absorb it given the inflationary environment the past few years.  Painful budget cuts will need to take place also, though this leads to political demonization unfortunately.  We should also get rid of use it or lose it budgeting and go to zero based budgets.  Start from scratch each year instead of just increasing the previous years budget 
 

SS and Medicare will need the same to happen relatively soon.   Decrease outflows and increase inflows for both programs.   Get rid of the income cap, do some means testing and slightly raise the age I guess (though I hate this one for the blue collar workers who use their body so much.   The body can take only so many years, it really punishes those folks to have to work even longer) 

[BigRedBuster]

54 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

We won’t see a balanced budget again until yes revenues increase AND expenditures significantly decrease.  We will have to increase taxes at this point unfortunately and people will need to be prepared to pay even more for goods because I doubt companies will absorb it given the inflationary environment the past few years.  Painful budget cuts will need to take place also, though this leads to political demonization unfortunately.  We should also get rid of use it or lose it budgeting and go to zero based budgets.  Start from scratch each year instead of just increasing the previous years budget 
 

SS and Medicare will need the same to happen relatively soon.   Decrease outflows and increase inflows for both programs.   Get rid of the income cap, do some means testing and slightly raise the age I guess (though I hate this one for the blue collar workers who use their body so much.   The body can take only so many years, it really punishes those folks to have to work even longer) 

I’m all for taxes being as low as possible. But, this isn’t the time for that. Once we balance the budget and start paying down the debt, then we can start lowering taxes to match the budget…..including debt and interest payments. 
 

Republicans clammer for lower taxes. But, they are just as much to blame for the high debt. So, you want lower taxes?  Start paying down the debt and you’ll get them. 
 

Honestly, I don’t understand why this is the true conservative view. But, they want to slash taxes….and don’t give a crap about paying the bills. I guess that’s one reason they love Trump. He’s good at that. 

[BigRedBuster]

And….one big area to cut is the defense budget. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

What would you consider their (who is they) fair share? 50% of the tax burden? 60% 70% of the US tax burden? 

 

Again, if you remember an earlier America as a Greater and more business friendly America, the top marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was 81% in 1940, 84% in 1950, 91% in 1960, 72% in 1970, 70% in 1980, 28% in 1990, 40% in 2000, and 35% in 2010.

 

Of course they fought those rates, too, and had their lawyers find every loophole possible.

 

Some folks simply wanted Obama to restore the rate from 35% to 37% when the Bush tax cuts went into sunset mode, but Republicans s#!t bricks about the war on the wealthy. Obama chose other battles to lose. Since the wealthy were also quite wealthy in those previous decades when the American economy was cooking, it seems like 35 - 40% isn't exactly class warfare.