Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[BuckToothMoron]

While I agree we have a serious issue with the growing wealth gap, which is not unprecedented btw, the question is how much of the tax burden should be paid by top earners. Let's be clear, it is literally impossible to give a significant tax break to the bottom 50% since they pay nearly nothing already. They are net receivers.
No simple solution. You can't give tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes, and if you over tax the people who do you will disincentives them to earn more and thus reduce the overall tax revenues.

Well, here's the thing; back before trickle-down, when the tax rate on the top was 70%, the tax burden was far more equitable than it is today. But over the last 37 years, as you correctly point out, taxes have been cut, cut, cut to the point where nearly half of all workers don't "pay" taxes. So while the tax burden may have increased on the 1% as a result of the very tax cut policies they support, the tax amount they pay is far, far less than they used to as the top tax rate has gone down from 70% in 1980 to 39.6% today. So I'm not sure what the 1% are whining about. They pay nearly half as much in taxes, despite paying a larger burden. If this disturbs them, then they should stop supporting tax cutting policies, since it was those policies specifically that caused the tax burden to be what it is now.

Their entire argument on this subject is wholly masturbatory; tax cuts result in an unbalanced tax burden, the solution to that is to...cut taxes further? Which then results in a larger tax burden, which causes them to screech, which leads to them proposing the same policies that created the condition they are screeching about in the first place! It's masturbation; creating a problem then complaining about the problem created, and proposing a solution that caused the problem they are complaining about in the first place. Masturbation.

So your solution is what? Raise taxes on the wealthy who already pay the vast majority of taxes. It is not as simple as altering the tax system. We have too much of our wage resources going to non-productive industry. Take a look at Wall Street and the banking industry. Here is an article that touches on what Wall Street has become. And I'm a conservative with 2 kids studying finance in college, for what it's worth.

Can Wall Street be fixed? Ex-banker's memoir examines a broken system

It’s a phenomenon often referred to as “financialization”: the growth in size, rate of growth and overall profitability of Wall Street (and finance in general) as a proportion of our economy. Between 1980 and 2006, GDP increased fivefold. Profits at financial firms increased 16 times, while those at their non-financial counterparts rose sevenfold. Prior to 1980, the rate of growth in the two groups had been roughly equal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

While I agree we have a serious issue with the growing wealth gap, which is not unprecedented btw, the question is how much of the tax burden should be paid by top earners. Let's be clear, it is literally impossible to give a significant tax break to the bottom 50% since they pay nearly nothing already. They are net receivers.
No simple solution. You can't give tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes, and if you over tax the people who do you will disincentives them to earn more and thus reduce the overall tax revenues.

Well, here's the thing; back before trickle-down, when the tax rate on the top was 70%, the tax burden was far more equitable than it is today. But over the last 37 years, as you correctly point out, taxes have been cut, cut, cut to the point where nearly half of all workers don't "pay" taxes. So while the tax burden may have increased on the 1% as a result of the very tax cut policies they support, the tax amount they pay is far, far less than they used to as the top tax rate has gone down from 70% in 1980 to 39.6% today. So I'm not sure what the 1% are whining about. They pay nearly half as much in taxes, despite paying a larger burden. If this disturbs them, then they should stop supporting tax cutting policies, since it was those policies specifically that caused the tax burden to be what it is now.

Their entire argument on this subject is wholly masturbatory; tax cuts result in an unbalanced tax burden, the solution to that is to...cut taxes further? Which then results in a larger tax burden, which causes them to screech, which leads to them proposing the same policies that created the condition they are screeching about in the first place! It's masturbation; creating a problem then complaining about the problem created, and proposing a solution that caused the problem they are complaining about in the first place. Masturbation.

So your solution is what? Raise taxes on the wealthy who already pay the vast majority of taxes. It is not as simple as altering the tax system. We have too much of our wage resources going to non-productive industry. Take a look at Wall Street and the banking industry. Here is an article that touches on what Wall Street has become. And I'm a conservative with 2 kids studying finance in college, for what it's worth.

Can Wall Street be fixed? Ex-banker's memoir examines a broken system

It’s a phenomenon often referred to as “financialization”: the growth in size, rate of growth and overall profitability of Wall Street (and finance in general) as a proportion of our economy. Between 1980 and 2006, GDP increased fivefold. Profits at financial firms increased 16 times, while those at their non-financial counterparts rose sevenfold. Prior to 1980, the rate of growth in the two groups had been roughly equal.

not sure what that means. the world is far richer now with lots of surplus capital, plus it is far more globalized, meaning that those who put together people who have money with those who need it are playing an increasingly important and difficult role.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One of the dumbest threads ever and has gone 11 pages.

most threads are the same: freedom versus govt. Make sense?

 

[The Derp]

It has everything to do with that Apple has 5000 employees there and that's huge in the tiny nation of 5 million people now certainly even you understand

A tiny nation would have a lower unemployment rate, wouldn't it? In fact, Ireland has a higher unemployment rate than many major European powers: UK, Scotland, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, and Hungary,

 

[The Derp]

A lot more than what we get

Like what?

 

[The Derp]

With Social Security you get an average of 1100 a month which is really dog food money if you live long enough to even collect a penny of it

So then raise the SS benefit by raising or removing the cap on taxable income. Right now, the cap is around $120K/yr.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It has everything to do with that Apple has 5000 employees there and that's huge in the tiny nation of 5 million people now certainly even you understand

A tiny nation would have a lower unemployment rate, wouldn't it? In fact, Ireland has a higher unemployment rate than many major European powers: UK, Scotland, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, and Hungary,

No the rate or percentage of unemployment would be the same throughout Europe regardless of whether the population is 5 million is in Ireland or 300 million is in Europe 1+1 = 2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

With Social Security you get an average of 1100 a month which is really dog food money if you live long enough to even collect a penny of it

So then raise the SS benefit by raising or removing the cap on taxable income. Right now, the cap is around $120K/yr.

You presented Sosa security as an example of a good liberal program when I pointed out how paltry the payout was versus what you'd have an a private account with 15% of your lifetime income you then agreed and suggested it needed to be fixed so that it wasn't a complete rip off. Do you understand how you contradicted yourself

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A lot more than what we get

Like what?

As I said if an average American put 15% of his lifetime earnings in private accounts he would retire with Estate of $1.4 million ratherb then the dog food money he gets now from Social Security if he lives long enough to collect a penny from social security Now you understand that this level program is just another rip off of the American people it's typical of what impoverished the Soviet union and Communist China and Cuba and Venezuela today. Government monopoly bureaucracies have been the source of evil and inefficiency on earth that is why our founders give us a constitution. Liberals simply live at Iq to understand how freedom works so like little children who believe in Santa Claus they believe in magical government despite the hundreds of millions that magical government has killed

 

[The Derp]

No the rate or percentage of unemployment would be the same throughout Europe regardless of whether the population is 5 million is in Ireland or 300 million is in Europe 1+1 = 2

Population size has little to do with unemployment in this context. The point is that even with their "low" corporate tax rate, Ireland's unemployment is still higher than most of the other European nations, including Great Britain, and the United States, and higher than nations with smaller or equal sized populations (Luxembourg, Iceland, Scotland, Denmark, Norway all have lower unemployment rates than Ireland).

 

[The Derp]

You presented Sosa security as an example of a good liberal program when I pointed out how paltry the payout was versus what you'd have an a private account with 15% of your lifetime income you then agreed and suggested it needed to be fixed so that it wasn't a complete rip off. Do you understand how you contradicted yourself

First of all, a "private account" means what? It means handing it over to Wall Street. Over the last 37 years, how many times has Wall Street crashed the economy, flattening those who put their retirements into the markets? At least 3 times; 1989, 2000, 2007. So you put your retirement savings into the stock market, then hope and pray the market doesn't crash. That's not a sound investment strategy, nor does it even matter because half of workers don't even have a 401k because they don't get paid enough to save.

 

[The Derp]

As I said if an average American put 15% of his lifetime earnings in private accounts he would retire with Estate

But that's not what we're talking about. What I am talking about is what do you think you are entitled to for the taxes you pay? You didn't answer that question. Does that mean you don't think you're entitled to anything?

You tried to make this about putting savings into "the market" where it is susceptible to crashes and recessions, just like it was in 1989, 2000, and 2007. Social Security is a defined pension, in a manner of speaking, which means it's guaranteed. 401k's are not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You presented Sosa security as an example of a good liberal program when I pointed out how paltry the payout was versus what you'd have an a private account with 15% of your lifetime income you then agreed and suggested it needed to be fixed so that it wasn't a complete rip off. Do you understand how you contradicted yourself

First of all, a "private account" means what? It means handing it over to Wall Street. Over the last 37 years, how many times has Wall Street crashed the economy, flattening those who put their retirements into the markets? At least 3 times; 1989, 2000, 2007. So you put your retirement savings into the stock market, then hope and pray the market doesn't crash. That's not a sound investment strategy, nor does it even matter because half of workers don't even have a 401k because they don't get paid enough to save.

At least 3 times; 1989, 2000, 2007. So you put your retirement savings into the stock market, then hope and pray the market doesn't crash.

And, if you're properly diversified, your returns still beat the crap out of Social Security.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you put your retirement savings into the stock market, then hope and pray the market doesn't crash..

so what ?? if it crashes it recovers!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they don't get paid enough to save.

everybody pays SS and could be required to put 15% into a private account so they could retire rich rather than on SS dog food money. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Does that mean you don't think you're entitled to anything?

I'm entitled to my fair share of the waste. And?????????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As I said if an average American put 15% of his lifetime earnings in private accounts he would retire with Estate

But that's not what we're talking about. What I am talking about is what do you think you are entitled to for the taxes you pay? You didn't answer that question. Does that mean you don't think you're entitled to anything?

You tried to make this about putting savings into "the market" where it is susceptible to crashes and recessions, just like it was in 1989, 2000, and 2007. Social Security is a defined pension, in a manner of speaking, which means it's guaranteed. 401k's are not.

nobody is talking about 401k's!!!!! Do you have any idea what your point is???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No the rate or percentage of unemployment would be the same throughout Europe regardless of whether the population is 5 million is in Ireland or 300 million is in Europe 1+1 = 2

Population size has little to do with unemployment in this context. The point is that even with their "low" corporate tax rate, Ireland's unemployment is still higher than most of the other European nations, including Great Britain, and the United States, and higher than nations with smaller or equal sized populations (Luxembourg, Iceland, Scotland, Denmark, Norway all have lower unemployment rates than Ireland).

you have learned 121 times now that Ireland is not a scientific experiment with one variable changing( Irish tax rate) and all others held constant by magic. Do you understand this?? A liberal will be 100% anti science -right??

 

[sakinago]

God damn, go ahead and raise taxes.. Then all your going to do is cry where I'd the jobs, where is the revenue idio

Revenue comes from taxes. You raise taxes, you raise revenues. You cut taxes, you cut revenues. Why? Because, math.

But let's get back to the subject you dodged from; McConnell insisting the policies that failed in Kansas are the ones he wants nationwide. Given the poor results from Kansas, why would the same plan work nationally?

No that's not math, that is primary level thinking that happens to be wrong. In all 3 cases of our drastic tax cuts in the past century, tax revenues went up. Why is that? Under our current system, when taxes are raised or lowered, revenues still seem to hang around 18% why is that?

Cutting Taxes Faster Would Help Everyone


Does Cutting Taxes Increase or Decrease Government Revenue?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

But I guess we shouldn't pay attention to history right? It'll be different this time?

 

[Jomama]

Just getting around to this post. I agree with OP that tax cuts are often an erosion of national treasure and not the investment they are promised to be.

The rest, OP blew it - to great a stretch to tie corrupt politicians and their bootlicking of the wealthy (always have been, always will be) into our 30 year wage dislocation. There are MASSIVE structural changes happening in the world economy and corrupt politicians and taxes are a non-event compared to the big stuff going on.