Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[task0778]

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

so if they can take in 100% of the peoples money its ok to spend it all???

I highly doubt the federal gov't needs to take in 100% of everybody's income to execute the legitimate functions it needs to perform. Hence the argument about what constitutes legitimate and what doesn't.

well considering that half the stuff they do now is outside their constitutional authority,,,have more faith in them

If half the stuff they do now is outside their constitutional authority, why would I have more faith in them?[/QUOTE]

 

[progressive hunter]

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

so if they can take in 100% of the peoples money its ok to spend it all???

I highly doubt the federal gov't needs to take in 100% of everybody's income to execute the legitimate functions it needs to perform. Hence the argument about what constitutes legitimate and what doesn't.

well considering that half the stuff they do now is outside their constitutional authority,,,have more faith in them

If half the stuff they do now is outside their constitutional authority, why would I have more faith in them?

[/QUOTE]


that they couldnt spend a 100% of the money people make

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

so if they can take in 100% of the peoples money its ok to spend it all???

I highly doubt the federal gov't needs to take in 100% of everybody's income to execute the legitimate functions it needs to perform. Hence the argument about what constitutes legitimate and what doesn't.

Well I don't think the government should be funding PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood, the arts, Cash for Clunkers, Trains to nowhere, subsidies for electric cars, over 1 billion dollars for a trolly in San Diego, a program to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly, 1.5 million to study why gay women are fat and gay men not, a half-mil to promote animal grooming products, a million dollars a year for NASA to create food menus for the mission to mars which will never happen in our lifetime, over a half-mil to conduct research on people who watch reruns on television, and the list goes on and on.

So what is the solution? The solution lies within the words or James Madison:


"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Annals of Congress, 1794.

And if we only adhered to Madison's words, not only would we not have a deficit and debt, we would have a surplus with much lower taxes for everybody.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

 

[task0778]

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

so if they can take in 100% of the peoples money its ok to spend it all???

I highly doubt the federal gov't needs to take in 100% of everybody's income to execute the legitimate functions it needs to perform. Hence the argument about what constitutes legitimate and what doesn't.

well considering that half the stuff they do now is outside their constitutional authority,,,have more faith in them

If half the stuff they do now is outside their constitutional authority, why would I have more faith in them?

that they couldnt spend a 100% of the money people make[/QUOTE]

LOL, I should have more faith in these people cuz they ain't spending 100% of my money? You got a strange way of looking at things.

 

[task0778]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

I am a big fan of Prof Williams, and as usual he's right. We tend to vote for those candidates who will bring home the most bacon so to speak, sad as that is to say. Personally, I vote for the person(s) who will do the best job for the country, and mostly that's a smaller and leaner gov't that finds the most effective and efficient way to solve our problems. Which is just about always less or no gov't intervention at all, at least on the federal level. I totally hate fraud, waste and abuse, and I don't like crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

I am a big fan of Prof Williams, and as usual he's right. We tend to vote for those candidates who will bring home the most bacon so to speak, sad as that is to say. Personally, I vote for the person(s) who will do the best job for the country, and mostly that's a smaller and leaner gov't that finds the most effective and efficient way to solve our problems. Which is just about always less or no gov't intervention at all, at least on the federal level. I totally hate fraud, waste and abuse, and I don't like crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

In order to solve our debt and deficit problems, we not only have to sacrifice, we have to be aware how each of our representative are spending our money, and not just big things either. Open Secretes has lists of wasteful spending the people we vote for might have been in favor of. Accountability is the key.

People on the right are more likely to do that than people on the left who wants government to provide everything from their first diaper to their coffin and everything in between. They seem to have this commune mentality that can't be broken.

 

[U2Edge]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

 

[U2Edge]

Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

If you really believe that, why not lobby for 100% taxes on the rich?

Tax rates at the rates and levels discussed in the past don't hurt the economy. There is a limit though, but it is much higher than most people think. Many economist believe the top federal rate can be 85% without doing any harm to the economy. You want to go right up to that line in order to maximize tax revenue coming into the government.

 

[U2Edge]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

No because that would drive down consumer spending. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class. You want to keep federal taxes away from the lower and middle class or at least keep them low. Its better for GDP growth. Taxes on the rich though don't hurt economic growth which is why its smart to maintain higher tax rates on them to maximize revenue coming into the government.

The goal is maximum revenue for the government without hurting economic growth. Best way that is achieved is by having the lower class pay zero in federal tax, the middle class pay a low federal tax, and the rich pay a high federal tax. It maximizes GDP growth and revenue collection for the government.

I really don't believe you understand how this works.

I own a widget factory. On the market, my widgets sell for $10.00 each, and because everybody needs widgets, I can make a pretty good living selling a lot of them.

The government increases my taxes from 37% to 70%. Now my widgets sell on the market for $15.00 each. How does that not hurt the consumer? And do you really think that I--the wealthy guy is going to have less?

FACT: McDonalds was created and grew into a mega corporation when the top federal tax rate was over 80% back in the 1950s. Most small business's will never come close to paying the top federal tax rate. The top federal rate also only starts to kick in after a certain income level. For example the first $10 million made would be taxed at a much lower rate. After $10 million though, the higher top federal rate would kick in.

 

[U2Edge]

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

First off, again as has been said many many many times.... Our government collects more money in taxes, than the GDP of all the countries of the world minus China, Japan and Germany.

If you need more tax money... you are spending too much. Stop over spending on entitlements, and this problem disappears.

The problem isn't revenue. It's spending.

But let me respond to all that you have said.

I would agree with you that most tax deductions benefit the wealthy rather than the poor.

This is natural. Because tax deductions cost money.

There seems to be some sort of mythology about how tax deductions work. I've even heard people say phrases like "The rich get wealthy off tax deductions".

This is impossible.

For example, if I pay the bank $100,000 in interest on a mortgage on my luxury mansion, I get to a tax deduction of $100,000. That sounds like a lot.... but in reality, that only lowers my taxable income by $100,000. The top marginal rate is 37%, which means I reduced by taxes by $37,000.

So the way a tax deduction works, is I spend $100,000, in order to save $37,000. I'm not getting wealthy off this. I lost $63,000 to get a tax deduction of $37,000. If I had not purchased the manage, and not paid interest, would have saved $63,000, and paid $37,000 in tax.

All tax deductions work this way. If a rich man donates $1 Million dollars to a charity, he lost $630K in order to save $370K in taxes.

No one gets wealthy from tax deductions.

The one thing that people on the left seem to ignore though, is why the deductions exist. Do you know who started pushing for deductions? It was left wingers.

Left-wingers started this whole game of tax deductions, with FDR. The left-wing elites at ivy league schools, requested that there be tax deductions for donations to their schools.

Since then, deductions have been used throughout the left-wing, to get people to act in ways they deem good. Such as wealthy people building windmills on their property, to collect massive tax benefits.

The irony is, while the left-wing routinely pushes tax deductions for everything they want, they turn right around and start screaming that the rich take advantage of these deductions to avoid taxes.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't demand we have deductions for solar panels, and the start crying that the rich are installing solar panels, and not paying any tax. You can't pass tax deductions for energy efficient homes, and then start whining when Bill Gates avoids hundreds of thousands in tax, because he made his mansion more energy efficient.

Total United States tax revenue collection only amounts to 22% of annual GDP, a rate that is lower than 140 other countries in the world, essentially one of the lowest rates in the world.

Maybe because nearly half our citizens pay no income tax at all?

That 22% includes pay role taxes collected for things like social security and medicare, not just the federal income tax.

 

[U2Edge]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

National tax policy is about generating the largest amount of revenue for the federal government without hurting economic growth. Its not about some subjective idea of what is fair for the top income earners to pay in terms of taxes. Its about what is best for the country, not the billionaire individual.

Most of the billionaires make their money on capital gains, not income. And if you raised their capital gains to 70%, then it discourages them from investing which would do severe damage to our stock market where many of us little people keep our retirement accounts.

Half of Americans don't own any stock and yes capital gains tax needs to be increased as well since the rich put a lot of their wealth there. Again, the rich have weathered much higher tax rates on income, capital gains and property in the past. It did not impact their behavior or hurt the economy. That is what the historical record shows. I know it goes against certain peoples personal principles and ideology, but it is sound policy that is good for the government and the country as a whole.

 

[U2Edge]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

National tax policy is about generating the largest amount of revenue for the federal government without hurting economic growth. Its not about some subjective idea of what is fair for the top income earners to pay in terms of taxes. Its about what is best for the country, not the billionaire individual.

excuse me but where does the constitution say that???

tax policy is based on what the debts of the country are based on the constitutions limitations

The constitution is not a guide for tax policy. There is NOTHING in the constitution that prevents the government from raising the top federal tax rate to 95%! NOTHING. That's why Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S Truman, two of the greatest Presidents in history, and top federal tax rates that high or nearly that high.

 

[U2Edge]

Excuse me, but this is nonsense. Very few people in Washington base their tax policy on the debt and deficits, one party raises taxes so they can spend more money and the other party cuts taxes to spur economic growth. The tax policy on both sides has everything to do with trying to bolster their chances of getting re-elected. Neither side gives a flyin' fuck about the debt.

And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about tax policy or the debt, limitations or otherwise.

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

I am a big fan of Prof Williams, and as usual he's right. We tend to vote for those candidates who will bring home the most bacon so to speak, sad as that is to say. Personally, I vote for the person(s) who will do the best job for the country, and mostly that's a smaller and leaner gov't that finds the most effective and efficient way to solve our problems. Which is just about always less or no gov't intervention at all, at least on the federal level. I totally hate fraud, waste and abuse, and I don't like crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

In order to solve our debt and deficit problems, we not only have to sacrifice, we have to be aware how each of our representative are spending our money, and not just big things either. Open Secretes has lists of wasteful spending the people we vote for might have been in favor of. Accountability is the key.

People on the right are more likely to do that than people on the left who wants government to provide everything from their first diaper to their coffin and everything in between. They seem to have this commune mentality that can't be broken.

I ask you again, what would you like to cut?
Your pie chart shows that the following 6 items are 86% of all Federal spending per year:
1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits

So again, which of those six areas would you try to cut and by how much?

Cut defense and you hurt national security. Cut social security and you must pick someone who will not receive their social security check or receive a reduced payment. Cut Medicare or Medicaid and your taken away someone's ability to pay a hospital or doctor when their sick. If you don't pay the interest on the debt, it will only make the debt problem worse. Would you really consider cutting or taking away a veterans benefits?

 

[U2Edge]

So for most of us wages have been stagnant for years while the rich keep getting richer. Yeah you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Sounds like some rich guy duped you again.

Just pointing out the obvious. You wealth envy people believe that if we had less rich people, it would benefit you somehow. If anything, it would be just the opposite.

Money always flows upwards and always will. If you want to stop the rich, then quit giving them your money! Get rid of that computer you are on now. That was manufactured by a multi-billion dollar industry. Since you will have no computer, you won't need the internet either. Cable and internet is another multi-billion dollar industry. And don't forget to turn in or destroy your cell phone. I don't have to tell you what the cell phone industry is worth.

Every day of every week, every month and every year, we willingly send our money to the top. You will buy gasoline sometime soon. You will stop at McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's. You might buy a new video game system, new video game, a new program or application. Maybe a new car. But one way or another, you are going to willingly send your money to those millionaires and billionaires. You can't stop yourself unless you are Amish.

Okay, now that we've established the rich got that way by making our lives more entertaining, enjoyable or convenient, is it fair to say now that we've giving them all our money for their services, they should give it back with nothing in return?

Your beliefs are funny. The rich are getting richer and wages for everyone else are stagnant. Sorry, but you are wrong. The rich sure have you duped.

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

So why does none of that happen in Somalia? Because YOU are not the only factor In how much money your going to make in life.

Because few in Somalia have any money to spend?

Right! Your wealth is not just dependent on your talent and hard work. Many people in Somalia have both, but there is no viable MARKET or government to support them.

 

[U2Edge]

Its not about what is best for any ONE individual, but about what is best for the country as a whole.

CONGRATULATIONS. You just aptly defined SOCIALISM, fool.

The United States was founded on personal liberty, meaning that your money is YOUR money, and not subject to what someone else decides would be better for others. Taking YOUR logic to its natural conclusion, ALL income should be paid to the state, then they divide it up EQUALLY so that we all end up with EXACTLY the same amount to live on! So the guy that creates a multi-billion dollar industry employing thousands makes no more than the bum sitting on his couch scratching his ass watching Oprah eating Colonel Sanders.

THAT is the butterfly net of the demented. View attachment 243133

Well, there was once this country called the United States led by President Franklin Roosevelt. It defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and became the most powerful country in the world in 1945. It was the defender of the world against SOVIET communism. It was the protector of democracy, capitalism, and the all important U.S. market. Its top federal tax rate at that time was 94%! It drafted millions of its citizens to serve in the military. It did those things because it was not about what would be best for ONE individual but what would be best for the entire country, whether the people were lower class, middle class, or rich class. It did those things to defend democracy, capitalism and the U.S. market.

THATS NOT SOCIALISM, ITS COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT POLICY. A POLICY THAT ALLOWED DEMOCRACY, CAPITALISM, and THE U.S. MARKET TO SURVIVE NAZI GERMANY, IMPERIAL JAPAN, AND SOVIET COMMUNISM!

 

[toobfreak]

Its not about what is best for any ONE individual, but about what is best for the country as a whole.

CONGRATULATIONS. You just aptly defined SOCIALISM, fool.

The United States was founded on personal liberty, meaning that your money is YOUR money, and not subject to what someone else decides would be better for others. Taking YOUR logic to its natural conclusion, ALL income should be paid to the state, then they divide it up EQUALLY so that we all end up with EXACTLY the same amount to live on! So the guy that creates a multi-billion dollar industry employing thousands makes no more than the bum sitting on his couch scratching his ass watching Oprah eating Colonel Sanders.

THAT is the butterfly net of the demented. View attachment 243133

Well, there was once this country called the United States led by President Franklin Roosevelt. It defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and became the most powerful country in the world in 1945. It was the defender of the world against SOVIET communism. It was the protector of democracy, capitalism, and the all important U.S. market. Its top federal tax rate at that time was 94%! It drafted millions of its citizens to serve in the military. It did those things because it was not about what would be best for ONE individual but what would be best for the entire country, whether the people were lower class, middle class, or rich class. It did those things to defend democracy, capitalism and the U.S. market.

THATS NOT SOCIALISM, ITS COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT POLICY. A POLICY THAT ALLOWED DEMOCRACY, CAPITALISM, and THE U.S. MARKET TO SURVIVE NAZI GERMANY, IMPERIAL JAPAN, AND SOVIET COMMUNISM!

SOCIALIST! Those were highly irregular, extenuating circumstances during a World War! It wasn't common sense, you dumb jackass, it was a nation simply putting 100% of its resources under an emergency into trying to defeat global domination by the Nazis. Is it WWIII now? Are we under a crisis? If you say yes, the southern border, then yes, I'll agree to that and ask that Trump orders an executive order to use emergency funds and procedure and the military to immediately build an impregnable wall and fortify the border AS NEEDED to do whatever it takes to immediate end the crisis.

Then every last illegal fuck we find in this country especially the criminal ones or crossing the border, throw the bums out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I remember Professor Walter E Williams addressing this when he was filling in for Rush one day. He said "I'm going to run for Congress. My platform is I will bring nothing back from Washington. I will vote every spending bill down. How many people do you suppose would vote for me?"

Well, let's be honest. There are some legitimate functions that the federal gov't has to perform for us that requires revenue and expenditures. I would definitely be down for not spending more money than we take in though.

William's point was that we are all responsible. We all want things from our government in some way or form and will only vote for people that give us those things.

I am a big fan of Prof Williams, and as usual he's right. We tend to vote for those candidates who will bring home the most bacon so to speak, sad as that is to say. Personally, I vote for the person(s) who will do the best job for the country, and mostly that's a smaller and leaner gov't that finds the most effective and efficient way to solve our problems. Which is just about always less or no gov't intervention at all, at least on the federal level. I totally hate fraud, waste and abuse, and I don't like crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

In order to solve our debt and deficit problems, we not only have to sacrifice, we have to be aware how each of our representative are spending our money, and not just big things either. Open Secretes has lists of wasteful spending the people we vote for might have been in favor of. Accountability is the key.

People on the right are more likely to do that than people on the left who wants government to provide everything from their first diaper to their coffin and everything in between. They seem to have this commune mentality that can't be broken.

I ask you again, what would you like to cut?
Your pie chart shows that the following 6 items are 86% of all Federal spending per year:
1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare
4. Medicaid
5. interest on the debt
6. Veterans Benefits

So again, which of those six areas would you try to cut and by how much?

Cut defense and you hurt national security. Cut social security and you must pick someone who will not receive their social security check or receive a reduced payment. Cut Medicare or Medicaid and your taken away someone's ability to pay a hospital or doctor when their sick. If you don't pay the interest on the debt, it will only make the debt problem worse. Would you really consider cutting or taking away a veterans benefits?

Slowly get rid of Social Security. Move that, Medicare and Medicaid to the states if they want those programs. We can't cut people who contributed to those programs all of their lives, but for people 25 and younger, start a different system with private markets that allow people to buildup money as they go along.

You can't keep these programs going at current pace because we are finding more ways to keep people alive. We are living longer. EVERYBODY needs to start paying federal income tax to support what we have. I don't care if you're a billionaire or homeless. A consumption tax of five cents on the dollar should help greatly. We also need a law that anybody in child bearing years has to be fixed first before they can collect one dime of an social benefits. No more having kids while on welfare to get more of whatever.

 

[Flash]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

You are really confused about this. . You need to understand the concept of reading comprehension.

I said combined cost of government. That includes State and Local, which combined with Federal is about 40% of the friggin GDP.

This country spends more money on the cost of government than the GDP of all but the top four richest countries in the world according to the CIA Fact Book. That is despicable! If you only count Federal government it only adds a couple of more countries to the list.

When you look at the direct and indirect cost of government to Americans you see that it is usually the highest household expenditure even if you are in the group that doesn't have to pay into that filthy ass income tax. No wonder Americans have such a difficult time meeting ends.

I am retired now but when I worked as an Engineering Director and my wife was a teacher the combined indirect and direct taxes for my household was about what my wife brought home in pay. In other words we had two working adults and the salary of one was needed just to pay the frigging taxes. Talk about despicable.

Even now in retirement our combine direct and indirect cost of government is an enormous household expense every year.

If you think the shithass government is entitled to 70% of a person income then why don't you be a sport and give the government 70% of what you make? Put your money where your mouth is for a change? I suspect being a greedy Moon Bat you don't want to pay that amount but you want others to do it.

If you take money away from the investors and job creators and give it to the welfare queens and Illegals guess what? You have no more investment and job creation.

I will agree to return to that 70% tax if you idiot Moon Bats agree to limit the combined cost of government to what we had when we had those rates.

By the way, it was JFK that changed those rates. Isn't he the darling of you Moon Bats? What did he get wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Tax policy is not about morality. Its about sound public policy. You keep taxes low or non-existent on the lower class and middle class in order to boost national consumer spending. Consumer spending is 70% of what drives GDP growth. You raise taxes on the rich to much higher levels because such tax rates do not lower the rich class's level of consumer spending. Essentially, higher tax rates on the rich don't hurt the economy.

What happens with this policy is that you maximize economic growth while also maximizing revenue going into the government. Its a sound policy and everyone benefits. The country as a whole is better off.

I will gladly return to the system where the rich is taxed at 70% if we can return to the fiscal policy when the combined cost of government was less than 20% of GDP instead of the ridiculous and economy destroying 40% that it is now. That was sound public policy to not have such a bloated cost of government.

However, to address your stupid comment. Bullshit on you confused idea that taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy. The money that the rich has is what drives investment, jobs and economic growth. Poor people don't create jobs except for Liquor stores and crack dealers. Rich people like Bill Gates have created hundred of thousands of jobs and have created billions in tax revenues. If you would have taken 70% of his money to give to the filthy ass welfare queens and illegals he never would have been able to create his Microsoft empire, as an example.

If you ever took a course in Economics and paid attention you would understand things like that.

1. Total Federal Outlays in 2017 were 20.8% of GDP.

2. Most Economist support raising the top federal tax rate well above the current 37%.

3. Paul Krugman and other economist support a top federal tax rate of between 70% and 85%.

4. The strongest annual GDP growth year after year in the United States post World War II was during the 1960s when the top federal tax rate was always above 70%. Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%. Since the year 2000 it has averaged an anemic 1.9%.

5. Consumer demand and consumer spending is what creates jobs. Most consumer spending is done by the lower class and middle class, not the rich class. Nearly 80% of GDP growth comes from consumer spending.

6. The Rich respond to business opportunities created by the demand from the lower and middle classes. The Rich will only build a new Taco Bell or McDonalds when they know that particular geographic area has the money and demand for such a new store. So its the demand and money of the lower class and middle class which makes the new McDonalds or Taco Bell in that particular area possible. McDonalds does have the technical ability to open a store in Somalia, but they won't be at this time and they never have before.

7. The United States has always had rich people and thriving industries. From 1945 to 1980, the top federal tax rate ever year was between 70% and 92%. The rate did not prevent the creation of businesses. Business thrived. Its the time period when McDonalds was started.

Average GDP growth per year in the 1970s was 5.3%.

BS.