Who wants to defend the Federal Income Tax?

[Hector12]

You're not helping yourself any with that codswallop. You're making it worse

What did I say about the civil rights movement that is not true?

 

[Hector12]

That is correct. And that is what I recommend we all do at the Fed level. Today far too many people hate the Feds snooping to our business. And so long as the State or Feds collect taxes, using the system sales taxes use, we can then look forward to balanced budgets by the Feds and the national debt being paid off. Can't happen using the Fed income tax.

The national debt grew to its present size because of Republican tax cuts for the rich.

 

[rightwinger]

All marxists, and their useful idiots, want progressive taxation as a central component of their class warfare and wealth redistribution scams. Which one are you?

You tax where the money is

 

[Hector12]

Time to take a chainsaw to the budget.

Whenever Congressional Republicans try to do that they run into the fact that every item in the budget has a powerful constituency to protect it and the lagest and most expensive programs are the most popular.

Just because you feel something strongly does not mean you have no where near to majority support for what you feel strongly about.

 

[WinterBorn]

Whenever Congressional Republicans try to do that they run into the fact that every item in the budget has a powerful constituency to protect it and the lagest and most expensive programs are the most popular.

Just because you feel something strongly does not mean you have no where near to majority support for what you feel strongly about.

I think part of the reason it is so hard to cut the budget is that constituents watch Congress try to cut programs that are needed. But they refuse to cut the biggest single part of the budget, defense spending.

 

[rightwinger]

I think part of the reason it is so hard to cut the budget is that constituents watch Congress try to cut programs that are needed. But they refuse to cut the biggest single part of the budget, defense spending.

They try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor

Works like this..
Slash taxes on the wealthy.
Then claim you don’t have the money to pay for programs that help the poor

 

[Hector12]

I think part of the reason it is so hard to cut the budget is that constituents watch Congress try to cut programs that are needed. But they refuse to cut the biggest single part of the budget, defense spending.

According to the Stockholm International Peach Research Institute, in 2021
The United States spend $801 billion, or 37.9% of the world total,
China spend $293 billion, or 13.9% of the world total, and
Russian spent $65.9 billion, or 3.1% of the world total.

Ranked: Top 10 Countries by Military Spending

For years I have desired less U.S. military spending. Now I do want the United States to help Ukraine against Russia, Taiwan against China, and Israel against Palestine, so I am divided on the issue.

I do think we can get more power for what we are spending.

The mistake we made in Vietnam is that we were more interested in defending South Vietnam from the Communists than most of the South Vietnamese were.

The mistake we made in Afghanistan is that we were more interested in defending Afghanistan from the Taliban than the Afghans were. After we killed Osama bin Laden there was no longer any reason to stay in Afghanistan.

I am confident that the Ukrainians, the Taiwanese, and the Israelis want our support, and that they will do their fighting.

In a speach before the United Nations President Trump bragged that he increased U.S. military spending while cutting taxes. Republicans still have not learned that it is inconsistent to desire more military spending, less government spending, balanced budgets, and lower taxes.

Republicans want more military spending because military contractors are Republican contributors, and the military is the Republican jobs program.

 

[rightwinger]

For years I have desired less U.S. military spending. Now I do want the United States to help Ukraine against Russia, Taiwan against China, and Israel against Palestine, so I am divided on the issue.

We need to reassess the role of our military as the Worlds Policeman

Push more of the burden onto EU, Japan and S Korea to police their own regions

Once we do that, we can reduce our military budget significantly.

 

[Hector12]

They try to balance the budget on the backs of the poor

Works like this..
Slash taxes on the wealthy.
Then claim you don’t have the money to pay for programs that help the poor

According to Rachel Sheffield and Robert Rector of the Heritage Institute:

"In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, 'This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.' In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution."

The War on Poverty After 50 Years

------------

This is an astonishing assertion, but I have never seen it disproved.

When President Johnson declared the War on Poverty, he placed Sargent Shriver in command of the project. Sargent Shriver announced "a ten year plan to end poverty in America."

Obviously this was not achieved. What did happen was that millions of the working poor were turned into an unemployable underclass, the members of which often supplement their welfare checks with the gains from criminal activity.

The only politically sustainable way to end poverty, or even alleviate it, was to turn the poor until a stable working class whose members obeyed the law and paid taxes.

 

[rightwinger]

In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution."

So, let me get this straight

Spending trillions to kill people half way around the world is more important than spending trillions to feed and house Americans

 

[Hector12]

So, let me get this straight

Spending trillions to kill people half way around the world is more important than spending trillions to feed and house Americans

As far as most Republicans are concerned, it is.

 

[Orangecat]

You use the word "Marxist" the way liberals use the word racist: not as a descriptive term, but as a form of name calling, which is the lowest form of discord.

Do you know what a Marxist is? Have you read Marx? I read some of him in college. I have read The Communist Manifesto several times. When I took a fascinating seminar on Das Kapital given by the American Communist Party I already owned most of the books on the reading list, including all there volumes of Das Kapital, printed in Moscow by Progress Publishers.

When I showed my father the reading list for the seminar, Dad, who was an economist, said, "The man leading the seminar knows a lot about economics."

Indeed. Although the card carrying member of the American Communist Party earned his living as a physicist, he knew a lot about many things. While performing his day job, and leading the seminar, he was translating a book from Russian to Swedish on behalf of the Soviet government.

I believe one should read a political thinker for insight, rather than doctrine.

As I am sure you know, Edmund Burke is considered to the the founder of British conservatism. From him I have learned to be pessimistic about human nature and human potential. I have learned that there is often wisdom in tradition.

I think Marx had two valid insights, and that he was mistaken about everything else. His insights are: the natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth and income at the top; partly as a result capitalism goes through increasingly destructive economic downturns.

That is what did happen from the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848 to the Stock Market Crash of 1929. President Franklin Roosevelt countered these tendencies with steeply progressive taxation, a minimum wage, strong labor unions, and other reforms. As a result the United Stated developed the largest and richest middle class in the world.

President Ronald Reagan countered these reforms by cutting taxes for the rich. Consequently wealth again accumulates at the top. The national debt has grown. Recessions have become longer and deeper. They are often followed by "jobless recoveries" when the gross domestic product (GDP) grows, but unemployment remains high.

Marx also recommended several beneficial economic reforms, such as:

"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax,"

and

"10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’sfactory labour in its present form."

Marx's most egregious error was his assertion, "The working men have no country."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

For most people most of the time loyalties of race, nation, and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class.

Marx explains the Great Depression. He does not explain the First World War, the rise of Italian Fascism, and German Nazism, and the fact that in the United States the white working class is a Republican constituency.

Wall of text = concession.
tl;dr.

 

[Orangecat]

You tax where the money is

Thanks for that insight, Captain Obvious.
Do you know what "progressive tax" means?
Do you know what effect taxation has on an activity, say "generating wealth", for example?

 

[Hector12]

Wall of text = concession.
tl;dr.

What I posted was not a copy and paste job from the internet. It was my own composition from what I already knew. It might be over your head. Nevertheless, if you read it you will learn why I am not a Marxist, and why calling me one is name calling, which is the lowest form of discourse.

 

[Orangecat]

What I posted was not a copy and paste job from the internet. It was my own composition from what I already knew. It might be over your head. Nevertheless, if you read it you will learn why I am not a Marxist, and why calling me one is name calling, which is the lowest form of discourse.

View attachment 840606

I appreciate your efforts, but if you support government that taxes at a higher rate from those with ability, and redistributes to those with perceived needs, you are either a Marxist or a useful idiot. That might be over your head, but it’s true, regardless.

 

[Hector12]

Thanks for that insight, Captain Obvious.
Do you know what "progressive tax" means?
Do you know what effect taxation has on an activity, say "generating wealth", for example?

During the Administrations of President Eisenhower and President Kennedy the top tax rate fluctuated from 91% to 92%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

In many respects the Eisenhower administration and the Kennedy administration were the golden era of America's white working class. Currently they are what today's white blue collar workers think of as the era they want to restore when they respond to Trump's slogan, "make America great again."

 

[Orangecat]

During the Administrations of President Eisenhower and President Kennedy the top tax rate fluctuated from 91% to 92%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

In many respects the Eisenhower administration and the Kennedy administration were the golden era of America's white working class. Currently they are what today's white blue collar workers think of as the era they want to restore when they respond to Trump's slogan, "make America great again."

Irrelevant in response to my post:
If you support government that taxes at a higher rate from those with ability, and redistributes to those with perceived needs, you are either a Marxist or a useful idiot.

 

[Hector12]

I appreciate your efforts, but if you support government that taxes at a higher rate from those with ability, and redistributes to those with perceived needs, you are either a Marxist or a useful idiot. That might be over your head, but it’s true, regardless.

Either you have not read my brief essay, or you did not understand it. I read widely, do my own thinking, and document my assertions. You do not seem to.

 

[Orangecat]

Either you have not read my brief essay, or you did not understand it. I read widely, do my own thinking, and document my assertions. You do not seem to.

Again, irrelevant blather. Get over yourself.

 

[Hector12]

Irrelevant in response to my post.

It only seems that way to you. My point is that most Americans benefited when the U.S. income tax was very steeply progressive.

The following charts demonstrate that most Americans did not benefit from Present Reagan's tax cuts for the rich.

Your mind seems to be the prison of a few right wing cliches, and a fortress against facts that would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the U.S. economy.