Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah exactly. It’s not even about what is fair - it’s about what is realistic. That revenue is what adequately funds ANY government spending. Relative to their income, the summary of all the taxes poor people pay is still a sizable chunk. Taxing poor people more won’t make a dent in paying for government spending.So you're saying the rich should pay more taxes only because they make more? Is that what you're saying?
There’s a lot to unpack here but what I will actually address is how you could possibly think massive tax cuts cannot be harmful to the deficit. Even if you wanted to pretend that tax cuts create an abundance of revenue in more capital, there would obviously still be a limit to how effective that would be. It really isnt at all effective, but sure you could understand that if a tax cut is big enough, there is no way the revenue generated elsewhere could even come close to offsetting it. Trump’s economy added 8 trillion to the debt. Surely you can see how ineffective tax cuts actually.For starters, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP does not go down under GOP leadership across the board. It only takes a quick glance at Obama’s full term vs Trump’s to see that. Another quick glance reveals that the same can be said for Reagan but to a larger extent. Of course my point is that lowering taxes ultimately leads to a better economy in the long run vs raising taxes which leads a to higher revenue in the short term. You would need to cross reference any tax increases and tax cuts along with their percentages and brackets affected for each president to come to any real conclusion on their affects on revenue.
The bottom line is that taking money out of people’s pockets leads to a slowing economy which leads to less tax revenue. Providing people with more money to spend leads to a growing economy which leads to more tax revenue. This is why, for example, COVID money was called stimulus in the first place. There is, however, a huge long-term fiscal difference in providing “free” money in the form of a payment from the government vs simply allowing people to keep more of what they actually earn.
Yeah exactly. It’s not even about what is fair - it’s about what is realistic.
Taxing the rich more won't make a dent either for two reasons:That revenue is what adequately funds ANY government spending. Relative to their income, the summary of all the taxes poor people pay is still a sizable chunk. Taxing poor people more won’t make a dent in paying for government spending.
You do realize that the rich with an effective tax rate of 25% doesn’t do much to really undercut their wealth right? Because there is a huge difference in income between 2 million and 35k, obviously the latter is going to have a much tougher time surviving with the same tax rate. This is a question of what a rich person can actually afford and how to adequately pay for government spending.So the rich should be treated unfairly for making more money?
Taxing the rich more won't make a dent either for two reasons:
1.) The massive deficit is a result of wanton borrowing and spending, not because the government doesn't get what it needs from tax revenue.
2.) More taxes will only result in even more frivolous spending. This is what our government does and is why we have such a deficit.
You do realize that the rich with an effective tax rate of 25% doesn’t do much to really undercut their wealth right? Because there is a huge difference in income between 2 million and 35k, obviously the latter is going to have a much tougher time surviving with the same tax rate. This is a question of what a rich person can actually afford and how to adequately pay for government spending.
Okay you said the word “borrow”. Let’s focus on that word. “BORROWING”.
How does more borrowing happen? It happens when the government spends more than it has in revenue. That means when huge tax cuts are passed, the government must borrow more. If the tax cut is big enough, the government is going to borrow more regardless of whether or not government spending also increases. This means the deficit is affected by spending just as much as it is by tax cuts. I simply do not understand why you people do not understand this concept. I really don’t. I get that you think huge tax cuts sound great on paper, but surely you can understand that if a tax cut is big enough, it will inevitably have a negative effect on the deficit
You do realize that the rich with an effective tax rate of 25% doesn’t do much to really undercut their wealth right? Because there is a huge difference in income between 2 million and 35k, obviously the latter is going to have a much tougher time surviving with the same tax rate. This is a question of what a rich person can actually afford and how to adequately pay for government spending.
Okay you said the word “borrow”. Let’s focus on that word. “BORROWING”.
How does more borrowing happen? It happens when the government spends more than it has in revenue. That means when huge tax cuts are passed, the government must borrow more. If the tax cut is big enough, the government is going to borrow more regardless of whether or not government spending also increases. This means the deficit is affected by spending just as much as it is by tax cuts. I simply do not understand why you people do not understand this concept. I really don’t. I get that you think huge tax cuts sound great on paper, but surely you can understand that if a tax cut is big enough, it will inevitably have a negative effect on the deficit
I don’t understand why you think I’m trying to skirt around that question. My answer is obviously yes. However you trying to frame it like I’m wanting to punish the rich for being rich is completely fallacious. Again, it’s about what’s realistic and not what is “fair”. All in all, the rich do not at all suffer from paying a higher tax rate given the sheer massive disparity in income you we are talking about. In general I personally do not think it is unfair, but if you want to make the case it is unfair, I suppose you could. It’s just petty given the metrics we are talking about here.You didn't answer the question: So the rich should be treated unfairly for making more money?
Assuming you have a job and pay rent/mortgage, have cable TV, buy groceries, have a car payment, take trips, etc., what would you do if you received a pay cut? That's right, you would cut spending.
Having said that, though I'm not arguing for or against tax cuts in this discussion, I will say that we are taxed too much already. We are taxed too much because the government can't handle money worth a shit. With the countless taxes we pay on various things and introducing new taxes all the time on whatever, the inevitable happened: we pay taxes on money that was already taxed.
Lower taxes stimulate the economy and put more money in the TreasuryI don’t understand why you think I’m trying to skirt around that question. My answer is obviously yes. However you trying to frame it like I’m wanting to punish the rich for being rich is completely fallacious. Again, it’s about what’s realistic and not what is “fair”. All in all, the rich do not at all suffer from paying a higher tax rate given the sheer massive disparity in income you we are talking about. In general I personally do not think it is unfair, but if you want to make the case it is unfair, I suppose you could. It’s just petty given the metrics we are talking about here.
I don’t know why you’re making a comparison of government spending vs one’s personal finances.
I guess you think that I think spending isn’t a factor in the deficit but that isn’t correct. I’m simply telling you spending is only half the problem. The other half is big tax cuts.
It’s always going to feel like we are taxed a lot.
I don’t understand why you think I’m trying to skirt around that question. My answer is obviously yes. However you trying to frame it like I’m wanting to punish the rich for being rich is completely fallacious. Again, it’s about what’s realistic and not what is “fair”. All in all, the rich do not at all suffer from paying a higher tax rate given the sheer massive disparity in income you we are talking about. In general I personally do not think it is unfair, but if you want to make the case it is unfair, I suppose you could. It’s just petty given the metrics we are talking about here.
I don’t know why you’re making a comparison of government spending vs one’s personal finances.
I guess you think that I think spending isn’t a factor in the deficit but that isn’t correct. I’m simply telling you spending is only half the problem. The other half is big tax cuts.
It’s always going to feel like we are taxed a lot.
www.breitbart.com
You’re referring to higher tax receipts which isn’t how you measure the real value of revenue. That stat goes up every year regardless of any policy unless we are in a recession. Because of inflation, more dollars are needed per year to give the same value for a given government program. The way to accurately measure the value of revenue is by computing it as a percentage of GDP.Lower taxes stimulate the economy and put more money in the Treasury
Higher taxes stifle economic activity and result in less chances for growth
I didn't say massive tax cut. Also, you didn't address the very cellular point that covid money was called stimulus, for a reason. Simply, more money in people's pockets means a stimulus to the economy. It really is that simple.There’s a lot to unpack here but what I will actually address is how you could possibly think massive tax cuts cannot be harmful to the deficit. Even if you wanted to pretend that tax cuts create an abundance of revenue in more capital, there would obviously still be a limit to how effective that would be. It really isnt at all effective, but sure you could understand that if a tax cut is big enough, there is no way the revenue generated elsewhere could even come close to offsetting it. Trump’s economy added 8 trillion to the debt. Surely you can see how ineffective tax cuts actually.
In what world do you think we have a flat tax system? It is already been demonstrated that the wealthier you are, the higher the average marginal the tax rate.We have a flat tax system since Raygun, a giveaway to the rich that has given us the worst inequality poverty and homelessness ever. Everyone in the modern world knows except you brainwashed functional moron ignoramuses in the GOP base....
Yes, the nonrich spend any money they get. NOT THE RICH. TRICKLE DOWN IS A CATASTROPHE, DUHHHI didn't say massive tax cut. Also, you didn't address the very cellular point that covid money was called stimulus, for a reason. Simply, more money in people's pockets means a stimulus to the economy. It really is that simple.
I didn't say massive tax cut. Also, you didn't address the very cellular point that covid money was called stimulus, for a reason. Simply, more money in people's pockets means a stimulus to the economy. It really is that simple.
Yeah, that's kind of the way it works in the real world. If you make more, you tend to have more left after expenses. Welcome to reality.Yes, the nonrich spend any money they get. NOT THE RICH. TRICKLE DOWN IS A CATASTROPHE, DUHHH
The real world duhhhh dupe.In what world do you think we have a flat tax system? It is already been demonstrated that the wealthier you are, the higher the average marginal the tax rate.
In what world do you think we have a flat tax system? It is already been demonstrated that the wealthier you are, the higher the average marginal the tax rate.
I don't subscribe to the Washington post. I see that you do. Maybe that is one of your problems.
