Democratic Debate Thread

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A small business owner (like me) who earns $350,000 (for example), but has a shit-ton of expenses, gets an after Fed taxes gross of $146,300, but has $105,000 in expenses, so only takes home $41,000? Maybe $65,000 with some tax-deductible expenses? BEFORE State and Local taxes? With all that risk and responsibility?

FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!

I will go to fucking war before I accept that bullshit.

.

You have no state income tax in TX. And you also do not need to concern yourself with paying 70%.

That's your response?



Please never vote.

.

 

[Penelope]

To recap, a doctor who earns $300,000 per year after 20+ years of education and lots of debt can only hope to take home $131,000 based on this 70% marginal tax rate.

Nobody will EVER be a doctor. EVER!!!

.

Well, if Medicare-for-all is implemented that $300,000 will become $150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

I have no issue with 70% tax rate for the top 5-10%.

also your post has no link. I doubt anyone said abortion for men, or take guns away, but no one in the US should have an assault weapon, if you want to fire one join the military.

And yeah you are saying that because you are a gop-her.

You apparently dont know what the top 5 and 10 percent make.
You wont be taking 70% of my money.

We will if the Democrats get in. Or perhaps you can move to China or India or hey NK.

Not going to happen.
There'd be an uprising the likes of which you've never seen.
People would quit high paying jobs and work the bare minimum to avoid those taxes so then where's the money going to come from?
Just like NY and California taxing the shit out of people to the point they pack up and leave.

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

 

[Penelope]

A small business owner (like me) who earns $350,000 (for example), but has a shit-ton of expenses, gets an after Fed taxes gross of $146,300, but has $105,000 in expenses, so only takes home $41,000? Maybe $65,000 with some tax-deductible expenses? BEFORE State and Local taxes? With all that risk and responsibility?

FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!

I will go to fucking war before I accept that bullshit.

.

You have no state income tax in TX. And you also do not need to concern yourself with paying 70%.

That's your response?



Please never vote.

.

I have been voting for years, decades even. Now, are you one of the lucky ones that pays state income tax in texas. If so, perhaps you should not vote.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Pretending to be stupid?

Ocasio-Cortez wants a progressive system where her 70 percent rate would apply only to “your 10 millionth dollar.” So, no, Rep. Scalise, she is not proposing to take 70 percent of everyone’s income. In fact, she wouldn’t even take 70 percent of total income from those making more than $10 million. Remember, they’d be paying lower tax rates on their first $10 million and, as far as we know, they’d still benefit from deductions, exclusions and credits.

Now let’s look at some history. The US had a top rate that exceeded 90 percent through the 1950s and early 60s and a 70 percent top tax rate from 1971 through 1980. Then President Reagan got Congress to cut it to 50 percent starting in 1982.

About Representative Ocasio-Cortez's 70% Tax Rates

I was talking about Penelope, who said she had no problem with 70% on the top 10%. I said nothing about AOC, but that is still a bad idea. Nobody is going to bust ass or invest (which is necessary for a good economy) when the return on the investment is NOTHING or a fucking LOSS!!!

.

 

[BlindBoo]

$150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

So is that 150,000 dollars over the first 10,000,000 dollars? Because the proposed 70% tax rate only applies to income over 10 million.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

To recap, a doctor who earns $300,000 per year after 20+ years of education and lots of debt can only hope to take home $131,000 based on this 70% marginal tax rate.

Nobody will EVER be a doctor. EVER!!!

.

Well, if Medicare-for-all is implemented that $300,000 will become $150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

I have no issue with 70% tax rate for the top 5-10%.

also your post has no link. I doubt anyone said abortion for men, or take guns away, but no one in the US should have an assault weapon, if you want to fire one join the military.

And yeah you are saying that because you are a gop-her.

You apparently dont know what the top 5 and 10 percent make.
You wont be taking 70% of my money.

We will if the Democrats get in. Or perhaps you can move to China or India or hey NK.

Not going to happen.
There'd be an uprising the likes of which you've never seen.
People would quit high paying jobs and work the bare minimum to avoid those taxes so then where's the money going to come from?
Just like NY and California taxing the shit out of people to the point they pack up and leave.

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A small business owner (like me) who earns $350,000 (for example), but has a shit-ton of expenses, gets an after Fed taxes gross of $146,300, but has $105,000 in expenses, so only takes home $41,000? Maybe $65,000 with some tax-deductible expenses? BEFORE State and Local taxes? With all that risk and responsibility?

FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!

I will go to fucking war before I accept that bullshit.

.

You have no state income tax in TX. And you also do not need to concern yourself with paying 70%.

That's your response?



Please never vote.

.

I have been voting for years, decades even. Now, are you one of the lucky ones that pays state income tax in texas. If so, perhaps you should not vote.

We still have state and local taxes. They are not cheap, but admittedly much better than the horse shit in CA or MI.



You still think it's a good idea to tax all income over $118,000 at 70%?

.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A small business owner (like me) who earns $350,000 (for example), but has a shit-ton of expenses, gets an after Fed taxes gross of $146,300, but has $105,000 in expenses, so only takes home $41,000? Maybe $65,000 with some tax-deductible expenses? BEFORE State and Local taxes? With all that risk and responsibility?

FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!

I will go to fucking war before I accept that bullshit.

.

You have no state income tax in TX. And you also do not need to concern yourself with paying 70%.

That's your response?



Please never vote.

.

I have been voting for years, decades even. Now, are you one of the lucky ones that pays state income tax in texas. If so, perhaps you should not vote.

There is no state income tax in Texas.

 

[Richard-H]

Was that a joke?

I just listened to the Democrat presidential debate for the first time.

Wtf was that.

If a playwright wrote that as comedy twenty years ago, it wouldn't have even been considered funny since no one ever thought that that could actually happen in real life.

Seriously what kind of a fucking joke was that.

I'm not saying this because I'm conservative.

I'm saying this as a someone who just heard candidates discussing abortion rights for transgender "men."

I just heard candidates give more than 2/3 of the airtime in spanish.

I just heard 70% tax rates.

I just heard take the guns.

Why do you want our guns?

Why do you want our money?

Why are you speaking in spanish?

Why on earth are you talking about transgender abortion rights?

What kind of a fucking joke was that.

I still believe in a single payer healthcare system...but holy shit, there's nothing else I agree with this new "Democrat?" party on. Is it even the Democrat party? Wtf is this shit.

After what I saw, I don't even think the new Democrat party could evne implement a single payer helathcare system anyway.

I think the left leaning Republicans are going to become the new "rational" left of America. Probably gonna turn into a three party system.

Republicans, Centrists (left republicans) and Socialist (communists?)

Mark my words.

I cannot comprehend what i just watched.

wtf was that shit.

You hear crooked!

 

[Penelope]

To recap, a doctor who earns $300,000 per year after 20+ years of education and lots of debt can only hope to take home $131,000 based on this 70% marginal tax rate.

Nobody will EVER be a doctor. EVER!!!

.

Well, if Medicare-for-all is implemented that $300,000 will become $150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

I have no issue with 70% tax rate for the top 5-10%.

also your post has no link. I doubt anyone said abortion for men, or take guns away, but no one in the US should have an assault weapon, if you want to fire one join the military.

And yeah you are saying that because you are a gop-her.

You apparently dont know what the top 5 and 10 percent make.
You wont be taking 70% of my money.

We will if the Democrats get in. Or perhaps you can move to China or India or hey NK.

Not going to happen.
There'd be an uprising the likes of which you've never seen.
People would quit high paying jobs and work the bare minimum to avoid those taxes so then where's the money going to come from?
Just like NY and California taxing the shit out of people to the point they pack up and leave.

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

People will always create jobs.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

$150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

So is that 150,000 dollars over the first 10,000,000 dollars? Because the proposed 70% tax rate only applies to income over 10 million.

Again, you still can't see how that is also a bad idea?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, if Medicare-for-all is implemented that $300,000 will become $150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

You apparently dont know what the top 5 and 10 percent make.
You wont be taking 70% of my money.

We will if the Democrats get in. Or perhaps you can move to China or India or hey NK.

Not going to happen.
There'd be an uprising the likes of which you've never seen.
People would quit high paying jobs and work the bare minimum to avoid those taxes so then where's the money going to come from?
Just like NY and California taxing the shit out of people to the point they pack up and leave.

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

People will always create jobs.

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

 

[Penelope]

We will if the Democrats get in. Or perhaps you can move to China or India or hey NK.

Not going to happen.
There'd be an uprising the likes of which you've never seen.
People would quit high paying jobs and work the bare minimum to avoid those taxes so then where's the money going to come from?
Just like NY and California taxing the shit out of people to the point they pack up and leave.

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

People will always create jobs.

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

What is your financial incentive. To make a living. Not to make a killing.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well, if Medicare-for-all is implemented that $300,000 will become $150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

You apparently dont know what the top 5 and 10 percent make.
You wont be taking 70% of my money.

We will if the Democrats get in. Or perhaps you can move to China or India or hey NK.

Not going to happen.
There'd be an uprising the likes of which you've never seen.
People would quit high paying jobs and work the bare minimum to avoid those taxes so then where's the money going to come from?
Just like NY and California taxing the shit out of people to the point they pack up and leave.

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

People will always create jobs.

Why would they if the gov is going to take 70%?
If you're adding more employees you're making more money.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not going to happen.
There'd be an uprising the likes of which you've never seen.
People would quit high paying jobs and work the bare minimum to avoid those taxes so then where's the money going to come from?
Just like NY and California taxing the shit out of people to the point they pack up and leave.

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

People will always create jobs.

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

What is your financial incentive. To make a living. Not to make a killing.

They're already making a living.
Why bother expanding their business if they wont make any money?

 

[emilynghiem]

I have no issue with 70% tax rate for the top 5-10%.

also your post has no link. I doubt anyone said abortion for men, or take guns away, but no one in the US should have an assault weapon, if you want to fire one join the military.

And yeah you are saying that because you are a gop-her.

Dear Penelope:
I could understand if you were in the top 5-10% and your whole group
AGREED to be taxed at a higher rate.

But if you object to other people making policies for you,
that's where this disagreement is coming from.

Taxation has to represent the people being taxed in order to be REPRESENTATIVE.

Govt cannot punish people by taking away income, labor, liberty or property
UNLESS there is DUE PROCESS to PROVE they owe some penalty or payment for something.

Creating more wealth is NOT A CRIME to be punished,
just like BEING POOR is not a crime that merits losing rights or equal protections under law.

Penelope my concern is that we be consistent:
if "being poor" is not justification for making laws that target poor people
then "being wealthy" is not justification for making laws that target rich people either!

We should craft laws where the people ABUSING laws to STEAL or COST taxpayers
for CRIME, CORRUPTION or VIOLATIONS are the ones compelled to pay back taxpayers.
NOT PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO WRONGS.

 

[DBA]

I have no issue with 70% tax rate for the top 5-10%.

also your post has no link. I doubt anyone said abortion for men, or take guns away, but no one in the US should have an assault weapon, if you want to fire one join the military.

And yeah you are saying that because you are a gop-her.

Top 10% is only about 140k per year. You are ok with a 70% tax rate for that amount of income? That is NUTS. It is all about perspective, but I can assure you that 140k/yr is nowhere near "rich".

 

[citygator]

To recap, a doctor who earns $300,000 per year after 20+ years of education and lots of debt can only hope to take home $131,000 based on this 70% marginal tax rate.

Nobody will EVER be a doctor. EVER!!!

.

You shouldn’t show your knowledge level, it’s telling. Learn what marginal rate means. After a certain level that incremental income is taxed at that rate. So the first $100k @ 30% then the next $50k at 50% and anything over $150k at 70% would be an example. That doesn’t generate the math you just came up with. I’m not for a 70% top rate nor starting the steep increase at $100k but I am for a much higher rate than it is at top income levels.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not going to happen.
There'd be an uprising the likes of which you've never seen.
People would quit high paying jobs and work the bare minimum to avoid those taxes so then where's the money going to come from?
Just like NY and California taxing the shit out of people to the point they pack up and leave.

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

People will always create jobs.

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

What is your financial incentive. To make a living. Not to make a killing.

If everyone had your mindset, we would still be living a "Little House On The Prairie" lifestyle, rather than arguing about this shit on....THE INTERNET!!!

.

 

[BlindBoo]

I was talking about Penelope, who said she had no problem with 70% on the top 10%.

I think she clarified that she was talking about AOC's plan. I think the people who would have to pay the 70% rate is < .1%

However, imo, without a plan to balance the budget and reduce the debt, raising federal taxes is like pissing in the wind.