Biden's America

[Dr. Strangelove]

15 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Back when we had American Greatness under Bill Clinton and his balanced budget with Newt.  The top 1% paid roughly 34.8% of the total income tax.   Back in that great American timeframe, it seemed 34.8% of the tot income was their fair share and allowed for a balanced budget.   

I get a lot of what you're saying, but the primary driver of budget deficits are because of changing Demographics. Balancing the budget is not possible today. 

 

Simply put, the Demographic pyramid of the Clinton Presidency of the 1990s is much different than the 2020s. The average baby boomer was entering their prime earning years in their 30s and 40s, while the retirement class was much smaller that their taxes needed to support. In sum, the 1990s had a much better ratio of worker/retiree that the United States will never see again. 

 

"Balancing the budget" today would require massive tax increases combined with massive cuts to social security and Medicare which just isn't going to happen. 

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Your suggestion for a more aggressive tax on billionaires is intriguing. Less government spending is good as long as it's smarter and considers the unintended consequences -- which it usually doesn't.

The debt is on such an unsustainable growth factor that I am at the point of joining the soak the rich parade in order to get this under control as long as the budget gets a large haircut.   The general populace isn’t understanding how much of a problem this is.  Especially when the freebies are constantly rolled out and/or their tax bills are next to nothing so they don’t feel the pain of paying so much in only to see economically incompetent politicians on both sides blow it all away.  
I do agree with you that a budget cut down to levels it actually should be at will come with short/medium term pain and consequences.   And that is why politicians don’t get on board.  Anyone who votes for or talks about spending cuts get trashed by their opponents.  Just look at this board as a minor example.  For politicians, they are too worried about getting re-elected than doing what’s right for the long term economy.  
 

 

[teachercd]

Bernie Sanders proposing 32 hour work week and only 4 days a week!

 

YES PLEASE!

[ZRod]

52 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Bernie Sanders proposing 32 hour work week and only 4 days a week!

 

YES PLEASE!

Bernie has some great ideas. This isn't one of them. This is how you continue to have blue and white collar jobs outsourced.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Bernie Sanders proposing 32 hour work week and only 4 days a week!

 

YES PLEASE!

These are the kind of ideas you get from a socialist 80 yr old who has only been in the private sector for 3-4 years of his entire life.   He’s a complete buffoon. 

[teachercd]

40 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

These are the kind of ideas you get from a socialist 80 yr old who has only been in the private sector for 3-4 years of his entire life.   He’s a complete buffoon. 

But 3 day weekends!!!!  Come on!

[Born N Bled Red]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Bernie has some great ideas. This isn't one of them. This is how you continue to have blue and white collar jobs outsourced.

 

Honestly? Even if this passed, it would result in most working class people have two 32 hour/ week jobs instead of one "40" hour per week job that actually requires 60 hrs of work. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

But 3 day weekends!!!!  Come on!

I’m salaried/bonus structure.   No overtime or three day weekends for me

13 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Honestly? Even if this passed, it would result in most working class people have two 32 hour/ week jobs instead of one "40" hour per week job that actually requires 60 hrs of work. 

You probably are right 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

 

[Moiraine]

18 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

 

 

I get tired of dumb people who end their thoughts with stupid trailing words that don’t mean anything. WTF does “but democracy and everything” mean? Democracy is a form of government. Nowhere in the description/definition does it state how taxes will be done in a democracy. They can be as “fair” or “unfair” as whatever the people or the people they vote in decide.

 

Also, Devo, do you not see any problem with the stat they’re sharing that makes it stupid? Income tax is progressive, which I believe is your problem, but the numbers they’re sharing make the problem look worse than it is. The proper numbers to share are the income compared to the income taxes, not the # of people vs. the income taxes. 23% of people pay 98% of income taxes. Okay, neat, how much of the income do they make? Here is what someone who’s not a disingenuous  a$$h@!e would Tweet:

 

 

The top 5% make 38.1% of income and pay 62.7% of income tax

 

The top 25% make 71% of income and pay 88% of income tax. 

 

But sales tax is regressive. 

 

[Archy1221]

56 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

Great visual of why it’s crazy to say some groups aren’t paying their fair share.   If people want them to pay more, just say it and stop with the fair share nonsense 

[Moiraine]

I should amend would I said and say the statement is disingenuous, and I don't know why they're highlighting what they're highlighting. The top 25% made 72.1% of the income and paid 89.2% of income taxes. When you bring sales tax into play, since sales tax is regressive (and income tax is progressive) what happens to the numbers?

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

These are the kind of ideas you get from a socialist 80 yr old who has only been in the private sector for 3-4 years of his entire life.   He’s a complete buffoon. 

 

Well he comes from the same line that got you social security, two day weekends, child labor laws, and Veteran Benefits reform. He can also run circles around you explaining how the private sector actually works. 

[DevoHusker]

58 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I get tired of dumb people who end their thoughts with stupid trailing words that don’t mean anything. WTF does “but democracy and everything” mean? Democracy is a form of government. Nowhere in the description/definition does it state how taxes will be done in a democracy. They can be as “fair” or “unfair” as whatever the people or the people they vote in decide.

 

Also, Devo, do you not see any problem with the stat they’re sharing that makes it stupid? Income tax is progressive, which I believe is your problem, but the numbers they’re sharing make the problem look worse than it is. The proper numbers to share are the income compared to the income taxes, not the # of people vs. the income taxes. 23% of people pay 98% of income taxes. Okay, neat, how much of the income do they make? Here is what someone who’s not a disingenuous  a$$h@!e would Tweet:

 

 

The top 5% make 38.1% of income and pay 62.7% of income tax

 

The top 25% make 71% of income and pay 88% of income tax. 

 

But sales tax is regressive. 

 

I don't disagree with your assertion on other taxes. I shard a stat on income tax. The system needs an entire overhaul, but all I see from the left is tax the rich. When, in reality, top earners already carry more than their fair share, and bottom earners pay nothing. 

So how about we reform the system...but CUT spending first.

 

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

Isn’t it depressing to think that almost 75% of America is too poor to pay taxes?