Joe Biden's Tax Plan

[blackangst1]

So, let's get this straight. If there was a hypothetical law passed that magically set the tax rate for "rich people" to 0 that would not have any consequences for the "poor", as you put it. Am I getting this right?

I have never advocated for 0 taxes for the rich.

 

[ecogen]

I have never advocated for 0 taxes for the rich. And you missed my point completely. If investor A makes 500k in the stock market, no money is taken out of the pockets of the poor. That was my point. Dont twist this into something I never said.

Well, it is the logical conclusion of what you said. If lowering taxes on the rich has no effect on the poor than the rich paying 0 tax also has no effect on the poor. So, what am I missing here?

 

[Atreus21]

Do you similarly oppose all future tax cuts?

Generally no, but certainly I would oppose cutting taxes to zero.

 

[fskimospy]

I didnt say anything about govt debt

Sure, but that’s the logical end game of it.

Cutting taxes on rich people doesn’t take money out of poor people’s pockets but it either leads to reduced services (so basically taking away other things from them) or increased debt.

The only way this isn’t harmful to them is if debt doesn’t matter, which is why I asked.

 

[fskimospy]

Generally no, but certainly I would oppose cutting taxes to zero.

So the end point is the same. You oppose all tax increases due to lack of supposed fiscal responsibility but don’t oppose tax cuts, despite them obviously just being the other side of the fiscal responsibility coin. This is hypocritical. Either you care about fiscal responsibility or you don’t. If you do then you should oppose all tax cuts until the budget is balanced as well.

If taxes can never be raised but can be cut the end result is eventually they are zero. Regardless, I think the idea that the federal government should run a balanced budget is absolute nonsense given current inflation rates and doing so would probably cause a catastrophic depression. I can’t think of a more foolhardy and destructive economic idea than that the federal government should not run deficits when inflation is low.

 

[zinfamous]

Trickle down doesnt work. But I have no problems with tax cuts for the rich. You act like it take money out of the poors pockets. Protip: it doesnt.

Sorry, but it very specifically does. And it is intentional. It's no mystery why wage growth for the middle/blue collar sectors stagnated from normal historical growth right around the time Reagan zealotry become paramount to this country and initiated the greatest era of wealth theft that we have ever seen.

The wealthy jerb creators had a useful tax avoidance system that allowed them to inject their massive wealth back into their companies and their workers. Wages. Pension funds. Cash reserves. You know, the kind of things laborers need when the economy hits the shitter for various reasons, like a pandemic, when certain people really can't be allowed to work for extended periods.

Now, that money just sits at the top. It's been made legal to hoard that wealth and trap it well outside of the economy. One might wonder why, in the last 15 years, there as been this meteoric rise in wealth trap markets that cater only to the ultra wealthy: like art collecting, classic cars. These markets are now valued at something like 300% of what they were a very short time ago; and they only act as sinks to trap massive bags of money, stored as canvas and oil and steel material in climate-controlled, highly secured garages. It is trapped in ultra exclusive gastronimic expeiences that allow the uselessly lazy ignorant children of wealth to gorge on highly endangered species prepared by michelin star chefs in secret bunkers.

You and I are exactly worth ~130% less of what we otherwise would be at this point in time, if Reagan and those chuds never gained power. That is and forever was the destruction of Americna greatness: The GOP adoption of evangelicised capitalism.

 

[blackangst1]

Sorry, but it very specifically does. And it is intentional. It's no mystery why wage growth for the middle/blue collar sectors stagnated from normal historical growth right around the time Reagan zealotry become paramount to this country and initiated the greatest era of wealth theft that we have ever seen.

The wealthy jerb creators had a useful tax avoidance system that allowed them to inject their massive wealth back into their companies and their workers. Wages. Pension funds. Cash reserves. You know, the kind of things laborers need when the economy hits the shitter for various reasons, like a pandemic, when certain people really can't be allowed to work for extended periods.

Now, that money just sits at the top. It's been made legal to hoard that wealth and trap it well outside of the economy. One might wonder why, in the last 15 years, there as been this meteoric rise in wealth trap markets that cater only to the ultra wealthy: like art collecting, classic cars. These markets are now valued at something like 300% of what they were a very short time ago; and they only act as sinks to trap massive bags of money, stored as canvas and oil and steel material in climate-controlled, highly secured garages. It is trapped in ultra exclusive gastronimic expeiences that allow the uselessly lazy ignorant children of wealth to gorge on highly endangered species prepared by michelin star chefs in secret bunkers.

You and I are exactly worth ~130% less of what we otherwise would be at this point in time, if Reagan and those chuds never gained power. That is and forever was the destruction of Americna greatness: The GOP adoption of evangelicised capitalism.

And this is the classic dichotomy between the GOP and the Democrats. Money is better in government's hands than the private sector.

 

[Atreus21]

So the end point is the same. You oppose all tax increases due to lack of supposed fiscal responsibility but don’t oppose tax cuts, despite them obviously just being the other side of the fiscal responsibility coin. This is hypocritical. Either you care about fiscal responsibility or you don’t. If you do then you should oppose all tax cuts until the budget is balanced as well.

That's the whole point though. The federal government isn't interested in balancing the budget. They seem to spend money largely without any heed for tax revenue, and just borrow the rest.

I didn't mind tax increases in Louisiana - we had a budget problem that Edwards was trying to address. When taxes are presented as a means to address budget shortfalls, I'm open to increases or decreases as requirements demand or allow.

Federal tax increases now seem to be billed as an attempt to right social wrongs, or play Robin Hood against the evil rich. That disgusts me.

 

[Fenixgoon]

And this is the classic dichotomy between the GOP and the Democrats. Money is better in government's hands than the private sector.

in some cases it is, in other cases it isn't. it isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.

things like infrastructure and public works are clearly best left to the government - or very heavily regulated by it - since the government exists to work for the citizenry. and yes, this should include internet (which has become a de facto utility) and healthcare (which virtually every other country shows better cost per capita under single payer systems)

for everything else? planes, trains, automobiles, food, clothes, manufacturing, etc.? leave it to private industry.

 

[fskimospy]

That's the whole point though. The federal government isn't interested in balancing the budget. They seem to spend money largely without any heed for tax revenue, and just borrow the rest.

This much is true, although if you care about a balanced budget you would vote for Democrats as their record on this is FAR better than the Republicans.

I didn't mind tax increases in Louisiana - we had a budget problem that Edwards was trying to address. When taxes are presented as a means to address budget shortfalls, I'm open to increases or decreases as requirements demand or allow.

Federal tax increases now seem to be billed as an attempt to right social wrongs, or play Robin Hood against the evil rich. That disgusts me.

Where are you getting this from? The federal tax increases proposed by Democrats are targeted at accomplishing specific policy objectives to improve people’s lives. Nobody is playing Robin Hood, it’s just that it makes the most sense to tax the rich because money is less useful to them and it’s become concentrated in ways that make the economy work worse.

 

[Atreus21]

This much is true, although if you care about a balanced budget you would vote for Democrats as their record on this is FAR better than the Republicans.

Well, you know what fundamentally informs my voting patterns, and it ain't this.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This much is true, although if you care about a balanced budget you would vote for Democrats as their record on this is FAR better than the Republicans.



Where are you getting this from? The federal tax increases proposed by Democrats are targeted at accomplishing specific policy objectives to improve people’s lives. Nobody is playing Robin Hood, it’s just that it makes the most sense to tax the rich because money is less useful to them and it’s become concentrated in ways that make the economy work worse.

Wut?

These tax increases largely don't affect anyone making under $500k.

This whole war of "The RICH need to pay for it!" just isn't going to work. It won't work short term. It won't work long term.

Do like all the countries that you moronic progressives get a hard-on for - lets enact a 20% VAT and eliminate the standard deduction if you want to ever start BEGINNING to address our debt problems.

 

[fskimospy]

Wut?

These tax increases largely don't affect anyone making under $500k.

This whole war of "The RICH need to pay for it!" just isn't going to work. It won't work short term. It won't work long term.

Do like all the countries that you moronic progressives get a hard-on for - lets enact a 20% VAT and eliminate the standard deduction if you want to ever start BEGINNING to address our debt problems.

I don’t think we have debt problems, conservatives do.

And let’s be honest, you’re in no position to call anyone else dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, you know what fundamentally informs my voting patterns, and it ain't this.

Great, so don’t pretend you care about the debt then because Republicans are the ones that blow it up.

 

[zinfamous]

And this is the classic dichotomy between the GOP and the Democrats. Money is better in government's hands than the private sector.

it's funny how you read my post as measures that incintivized employers to put their wealth in the hands of their employees--the PEOPLE--as giving it to the government. (and yes, this was actual policy. It gave us our greatest economy and proper share of GDP)

funny fucking stuff. But then, you are a very stupid person.

 

[zinfamous]

Great, so don’t pretend you care about the debt then because Republicans are the ones that blow it up.

He does spend a lot of air talking about it, like it matters, but as he will kindly remind you, he only ever cares about the cells. That's all that matters.

It's sad, because it seems that everyone but him understands that this desire of his is never ever going to happen. But he prays and wishes for it anyway, all the while deficits and debt, his own personal wealth suffers because he keeps voting for the people that only ever make life worse for him...because they just promise the one thing that they will never do.

People are really very stupid.

 

[Atreus21]

Great, so don’t pretend you care about the debt then because Republicans are the ones that blow it up.

I don't pretend.

 

[dank69]

And this is the classic dichotomy between the GOP and the Democrats. Money is better in government's hands than the private sector.

There is a big difference between the private sector and off-shore accounts.

...

Federal tax increases now seem to be billed as an attempt to right social wrongs, or play Robin Hood against the evil rich. That disgusts me.

They aren't to right social wrongs, they are to right economic wrongs.

 

[ivwshane]

And this is the classic dichotomy between the GOP and the Democrats. Money is better in government's hands than the private sector.

Considering we’ve been under republican rule for a majority of the last 40+ years and the income gap has grown and wage growth has been almost non existent I would say the argument has long been settled, wouldn’t you?

 

[ivwshane]

That's the whole point though. The federal government isn't interested in balancing the budget. They seem to spend money largely without any heed for tax revenue, and just borrow the rest.

I didn't mind tax increases in Louisiana - we had a budget problem that Edwards was trying to address. When taxes are presented as a means to address budget shortfalls, I'm open to increases or decreases as requirements demand or allow.

Federal tax increases now seem to be billed as an attempt to right social wrongs, or play Robin Hood against the evil rich. That disgusts me.

So what you are saying is that you don’t understand what the point of taxes are. Because the very nature of taxes is to redistribute wealth and in the case of the federal government it’s to provide for the general welfare of its citizens. A growing population of poor people and a struggling middle class is hardly good for the country or do you disagree with that?

 

[blackangst1]

Poverty rates as a percentage have been pretty constant since 1970

https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf

 

[Jhhnn]

And this is the classic dichotomy between the GOP and the Democrats. Money is better in government's hands than the private sector.

That's because the govt doesn't hoard it like the Rich.

 

[blackangst1]

edit bad info oops

 

[Paratus]

F Joe Biden!

Free iPod?

 

[HomerJS]

F Joe Biden!

That's some real insight, bro. Prepare for future bruising's because I see you are going to be one of those people.