Vast majority of Americans support paying for BBB ACT by taxing the wealthy

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,636
136
Kind of, but a lot was happening at the time. Recovery from the Great Depression and then WWII in a row. FDR really had only part of the puzzle right

WinklerTestimony33109TheNewDealSenateTestimony.pdf

Keynes advised that the PRIVATE SECTOR to should be the driving force to counter-react.. Only if the PRIVATE SECTOR couldn't muster a strong enough response should the govt get into it. even then, the government should spend money on large public works projects, LOWER taxes, or both. He also talked about "deliberate, sustained countercyclical spending".

The wealth inequality was already diminished by the Great Depression and WWII (men left the workforce for over 4 years). FDR only stabilized the patient so that it could recover.
There are certainly a lot of pieces to the puzzle, and lots of opinions on what caused what, but it can't be denied we had a timespan in our history that lasted several decades where we had high marginal tax rates and relatively low income inequality. During that time, wages of everyday workers kept pace with increases in productivity and general working conditions for everyday Americans improved. My understanding is there is pretty strong agreement among economists today that decreasing taxes for the wealthy and large corporations, weakening labor protections, and general deregulation have all contributed over the past several decades to erode that progress along with a large shortfall in public investment.

Honestly, I think the public investment is the most important piece right now. I'd prefer to do it funded by finding ways to tax the wealthy, but if we can't do that I'm also perfectly happy to simply accomplish it through deficit spending as well.
 

maluckey1

Senior member
Mar 15, 2018
331
144
86
There are certainly a lot of pieces to the puzzle, and lots of opinions on what caused what, but it can't be denied we had a timespan in our history that lasted several decades where we had high marginal tax rates and relatively low income inequality. During that time, wages of everyday workers kept pace with increases in productivity and general working conditions for everyday Americans improved. My understanding is there is pretty strong agreement among economists today that decreasing taxes for the wealthy and large corporations, weakening labor protections, and general deregulation have all contributed over the past several decades to erode that progress along with a large shortfall in public investment.

Honestly, I think the public investment is the most important piece right now. I'd prefer to do it funded by finding ways to tax the wealthy, but if we can't do that I'm also perfectly happy to simply accomplish it through deficit spending as well.
My parents reminded me (being war babies), that during WWII women were rapidly backfilling jobs left by men, and not only that, but they were paid less than the men they replaced. Factories were co-opted for war production, and food and fuel of all sorts was rationed for 4 years. Not much profiteering in that environment.

That being said, I'm all for the government being the leadership portion of economics, since that gives a single vision to rally around. I'm also for large public works, where it takes an immense amount of capital AND labor. What I'm against, is the money going to the government without a solid plan. We've seen that money and national level management of it doesn't mix. Nation governments should think big, provide oversight for the money, then let the businesses that perform the work worry about the rest. A good example are all the new space companies popping up after NASA allowed it. That technology will trickle down to other areas. Lead and inspire, not do the work.

Just for starters, what I'd like to see is something like 2 percent business loans for companies to modernize assembly lines, and/or grants to advance nuclear fusion power technology. I can almost hear Elon Musk banging on the door to help out.

It would also be a perfect opportunity to look at ecology as a national project. Cleaning up the mess is going to be cost prohibitive, but with low interest loans, companies will find a way to make it work.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,345
2,705
136
A raise in corporate tax rates to sane levels is regressive?

Man you right wing sheep are so brainwashed.
it's amazing that right wingers have no idea what regressive tax rates and progressive tax rates are.

they are just repeating right wing talking points
I have brandon on ignore because I could no longer take his stupidity.

just for clarification to the idiot, progressive tax rates are when you pay more as you earn more and regressive when you pay less as you earn more and pay more when you earn less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,091
136

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
Again you act like the .8% of the population this will affect slightly are all voting for Dems already and we are going to lose them. And the ones that do vote for Dems know what the Dems are about. This won't be the losing issue. The Republicans are going to call the Dems tax and deficit irresponsible socialists and communists no matter what they actually do, might as well implement what is good policy, and coincidentally, very popular policy.

0.8%? You think opinions are limited to just the sliver that would be impacted by big tax hikes?

I don't know how you come out of the election results today and think that promising to raise people's taxes is a winning plan for 2022.

It's a joke. All the taxes on the actual rich are being cut out of this Bbb bill, and still has no path to passing yet. Oh, but we'll still target this sliver of upper middle class and think we've done something.

Months and months of public promises of tax increases, with no results is a disaster of a platform.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,476
3,314
136

You know, there’s something to be said for real conservatives like Manchin. I’d be good with drastically reducing federal spending with corresponding increases to my home state’s taxes to make up for the lack of federal funding. Kind of tired of sending my tax money to moocher states like West Virginia. I would totally vote for this platform at a federal level along with responsible state and local government.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
You know, there’s something to be said for real conservatives like Manchin. I’d be good with drastically reducing federal spending with corresponding increases to my home state’s taxes to make up for the lack of federal funding. Kind of tired of sending my tax money to moocher states like West Virginia. I would totally vote for this platform at a federal level along with responsible state and local government.

Good news is that the SALT deduction is back in the bbb bill for now.

Benefit here would be that these desired social programs and spending can be more localized. Trying to do them federally, is too much of a lift rn, plus it means it's a few prosperous blue states end up carrying the bill for moochers like WV.

Probably also a reason Manchin will opposite it and it will be out again.

Taxes and affordability was (once again) a big issue in the NJ race, and Murphy was tone deaf. These social programs are even a stretch in NJ.

“People are paying $4 a gallon for gas, and they bring in two guys who want to raise taxes and increase spending?” Golden said of Biden and Sanders.

“If you were upset because you can’t afford gas and you can’t afford to buy a new car because both are too expensive right now, this was your first chance to go to a poll and express your frustration,” Dworkin said. “If you’re upset about your kids’ education and mask requirements and learning loss, this was your chance to vote.”


https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/11...ey-how-the-2021-election-redefined-crazy.html

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/11/...rsey-its-always-because-of-taxes-opinion.html

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/11/...-the-end-of-the-sweeney-era-in-nj-senate.html

Q. Democrats in both states tried to tie Republicans to Donald Trump. Why didn’t that resonate?

Mike (R): Because voters look forwards not backwards. Donald Trump is yesterday. Joe Biden and Phil Murphy are today. Voters are focused on tomorrow.

Julie (D): Exactly right. New Jersey voters have always -- always -- cared about affordability issues. They feel property taxes are too high. They feel college is unaffordable. They feel they can’t retire here. What does that have to do with Donald Trump?
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
I "might be" leery of new entitlements costing a lot of money had those huge Trump tax cuts not been rushed thru and passed. Giving a billionaire a massive tax cut is an entitlement too. That cut goes on and on and on just as any other entitlement. So I guess it comes down to which side are they on? The billionaires side or the middle class working mother's side?

Typically, republicans will say WE WILL SUPPORT THIS ONLY IF SOMETHING ELSE CAN BE CUT TO PAY FOR IT. The "something else" always being the cutting of some social safety net, like food stamps. So here with Biden's BBB plan, democrats are saying the same.... WE WILL PASS THIS IF BILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS CAN BE REDUCED TO PAY FOR IT. And so, what's the difference? Republicans insist on cutting something to pay for stuff and that cutting is always cutting that effects the middle class. Democrats insist on cutting stuff too, but that cutting of stuff only concerns billionaires.
And republicans think they don't engage in socialism. :rolleyes:
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,426
10,320
136
Once again Sinema continuing to prove that being an ex-Green isn't going to get the results you would expect.

Kyrsten Sinema boldly fights her own party — to save another tax break for the rich | Salon.com

Sinema, who already killed Democratic efforts to roll back some of the Trump-era tax cuts for the ultra-rich and big corporations — a proposed change that even fellow "centrist" holdout Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia supported — is the only Democrat opposed to cracking down on abuse of the conservation easement tax deduction, three sources told The Daily Beast.