"Unexpectedly" poor jobs report...

[BugI02]

I doubt many if anyone here have anything to worry about making more than 500k profit on a real estate transaction or paying capital gains on income over 1 million and yet as a group us blue collar republicans like robots fight tooth and nail over these tax increases. It makes no sense.

IF the wealthy were to not evade the new taxes on those making over $400k per year, they would only raise $370 billion over ten years, call it $37 billion per year

Biden wants to spend at least $6 TRILLION this year alone, or over 160x the projected increase in revenue by 'taxing the rich'

We fight tooth and nail against spending because we know who is really going to end up paying when 'taxing the rich' doesn't pan out. They go after the middle because there are a lot of potential marks and they lack the resources to play the games with their money that insulate the very wealthy from some taxes. Most of savings in those percentiles are in the form of tax deferred retirement accounts and we fear the government may be unable to resist foraging among those accounts

We fight tooth and nail against new taxes for the same reason, no matter what they promise and how much they collect it will never be enough because the appetite is insatiable when government believes any and all problems can be solved by throwing money at it

We played the game well by the rules we were given and resent our hard earned money being used to pay for other's to not work or pay for the college of a stranger (or both). It is just an extension of the resistance to high taxes to pay for other social programs over the years. Government is an enormously wasteful enterprise that cannot solve any problem quicker or more efficiently than private industry, but will never acknowledge its own lack of utility beyond a few basic functions

 

[actaeon277]

Unexpectedly
In air quotes.


On the phone and too lazy to find the meme

 

[Tombs]

IF the wealthy were to not evade the new taxes on those making over $400k per year, they would only raise $370 billion over ten years, call it $37 billion per year

Biden wants to spend at least $6 TRILLION this year alone, or over 160x the projected increase in revenue by 'taxing the rich'

We fight tooth and nail against spending because we know who is really going to end up paying when 'taxing the rich' doesn't pan out. They go after the middle because there are a lot of potential marks and they lack the resources to play the games with their money that insulate the very wealthy from some taxes. Most of savings in those percentiles are in the form of tax deferred retirement accounts and we fear the government may be unable to resist foraging among those accounts

We fight tooth and nail against new taxes for the same reason, no matter what they promise and how much they collect it will never be enough because the appetite is insatiable when government believes any and all problems can be solved by throwing money at it

We played the game well by the rules we were given and resent our hard earned money being used to pay for other's to not work or pay for the college of a stranger (or both). It is just an extension of the resistance to high taxes to pay for other social programs over the years. Government is an enormously wasteful enterprise that cannot solve any problem quicker or more efficiently than private industry, but will never acknowledge its own lack of utility beyond a few basic functions

Well the fight over taxes might be one conservatives might want to consider giving up if we're to assume they care about fiscal responsibility what so ever.

In all honesty, at this point, if fiscal responsibility is to even be considered anymore, a tax hike from the poorest to the richest is absolutely necessary now. No more waiving taxes due to low income, no more tax returns.

After a few decades of that, we might be beginning to see daylight at the end of the tunnel, especially if we cut almost all spending.

Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[churchmouse]

Well the fight over taxes might be one conservatives might want to consider giving up if we're to assume they care about fiscal responsibility what so ever.

In all honesty, at this point, if fiscal responsibility is to even be considered anymore, a tax hike from the poorest to the richest is absolutely necessary now. No more waiving taxes due to low income, no more tax returns.

After a few decades of that, we might be beginning to see daylight at the end of the tunnel, especially if we cut almost all spending.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Its to late. The juice is on. They are drunk on power and spending.

 

[UnknownOne]

Well the fight over taxes might be one conservatives might want to consider giving up if we're to assume they care about fiscal responsibility what so ever.

In all honesty, at this point, if fiscal responsibility is to even be considered anymore, a tax hike from the poorest to the richest is absolutely necessary now. No more waiving taxes due to low income, no more tax returns.

After a few decades of that, we might be beginning to see daylight at the end of the tunnel, especially if we cut almost all spending.

Otherwise, what's the point?

I love the idea of drastically cutting spending. I don't see it ever happening though. Doesn't matter which side is in power.

 

[BugI02]

Well the fight over taxes might be one conservatives might want to consider giving up if we're to assume they care about fiscal responsibility what so ever.

In all honesty, at this point, if fiscal responsibility is to even be considered anymore, a tax hike from the poorest to the richest is absolutely necessary now. No more waiving taxes due to low income, no more tax returns.

After a few decades of that, we might be beginning to see daylight at the end of the tunnel, especially if we cut almost all spending.

Otherwise, what's the point?

There is more than one way to the same destination

Less taxation coupled with government backing away from its non-mandated activities just as good as more taxation so the government can do more

In fact, it is actually better, because government has yet to prove it can do anything better than the private sector and a lower tax burden allows those with the resources to concentrate more upon making money by investing in successful businesses, that coincidently profitably employ people, while keeping more of what they earn to repeat the cycle

Any system in which people need to invest a lot of time and resources to tax avoidance in order to come out ahead is inefficient and counter-productive - unless you advocate for some other system than capitalism, in which case put. down. the pipe.

 

[Tombs]

There is more than one way to the same destination

Less taxation coupled with government backing away from its non-mandated activities just as good as more taxation so the government can do more

In fact, it is actually better, because government has yet to prove it can do anything better than the private sector and a lower tax burden allows those with the resources to concentrate more upon making money by investing in successful businesses, that coincidently profitably employ people, while keeping more of what they earn to repeat the cycle

Any system in which people need to invest a lot of time and resources to tax avoidance in order to come out ahead is inefficient and counter-productive - unless you advocate for some other system than capitalism, in which case put. down. the pipe.

Even if the government spent nothing, at our current rate of taxation it'd take almost a decade and a half to pay off the debt.

 

[BugI02]

Even if the government spent nothing, at our current rate of taxation it'd take almost a decade and a half to pay off the debt.

How long would it take at a 100% taxation rate with no limit on spending?

Logically, if the people making money from investing become so few as to be unable to fend off confiscatory taxation, that should tell you they will also be too few to foot the bill for the spending necessary to prop up those who don't or won't work

 

[Tombs]

How long would it take at a 100% taxation rate with no limit on spending?

Logically, if the people making money from investing become so few as to be unable to fend off confiscatory taxation, that should tell you they will also be too few to foot the bill for the spending necessary to prop up those who don't or won't work

So what's your solution, pretend the debt doesn't exist just like the left does?

 

[jamil]

It doesn’t work. In a study of countries that passed Reagan type tax cuts vs those that didn’t

“Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found. But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered”

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.

www.google.com

why do you just look at a CBS news story and just blindly accept its conclusions? Probably because it tickles your ears.

 

[jamil]

Have you ever listened to the fed president remarks? This is what they are saying not what’s being taught in school. Jpow talks pretty often and the other fed presidents get interviewed regularly. If one wants to stay current then listening to their remarks is the way to do it.

jpow on debt levels.

Current US debt level 'very sustainable', says Fed chairman Jerome Powell

US government debt is on an "unsustainable path", but the current level of debt is fine. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

To "manage" debt they're printing money as fast as they can make ink. That leads to inflation. If the government giving money away is the answer, then how much is enough? Is there too much?

The fed president's remarks are very political. You put an ideologue into such a position and you'll get ideological policies and remarks defending the policy.

Explain how wealth is created.

 

[jamil]

Even if the government spent nothing, at our current rate of taxation it'd take almost a decade and a half to pay off the debt.

Current rate of taxation does not have a direct correlation to revenues received. It correlates. But not as high as you imagine.

 

[BugI02]

So what's your solution, pretend the debt doesn't exist just like the left does?

Stop digging the hole

Find a way to wall off part of the money in Federal coffers from ANY use except for debt reduction - no creative accounting bull**** and then devote a fixed percentage of tax revenue to debt reduction. Generate the money by across the board percentage cuts to the budget of each segment of government and task them to do more with less but still pursue their core purpose. Closing entire departments, moving them out of DC to the countryside etc would be acceptable ways to do this. Then, take a referendum to the people about a small percentage surcharge on their taxes to be used solely for debt reduction, and be honest with the people that the effort would be multi-generational at this point but make damn sure statutorily no one could get their hands on that money except for the stated purpose if you could talk the people into giving it up. Explain the problem to them in unambiguous, understandable terms and include a similar percentage cut from benefits for those who do not pay taxes with that money also transferred from that department to debt retirement

The most recent year that actual tax revenue was available was 2019 at just under $3.5 trillion. Gov't spending was estimated to be $7.3 trillion that year

If you shaved government down 5%, that would be $365 billion

If you could convince people to accept a tax surcharge of 2%, that would be a further $70 billion

Debt clock says we're approaching $28.4 trillion. If $435 billion could be devoted to paying down that structural debt every year, all things being equal the debt would be close to zero in 65 years

Edit: If you shaved 10% of government, you could do it in 35 years. If you shaved government 25% it would be less than 15

 

[buckwacker]

Stop digging the hole

Find a way to wall off part of the money in Federal coffers from ANY use except for debt reduction - no creative accounting bull**** and then devote a fixed percentage of tax revenue to debt reduction. Generate the money by across the board percentage cuts to the budget of each segment of government and task them to do more with less but still pursue their core purpose. Closing entire departments, moving them out of DC to the countryside etc would be acceptable ways to do this. Then, take a referendum to the people about a small percentage surcharge on their taxes to be used solely for debt reduction, and be honest with the people that the effort would be multi-generational at this point but make damn sure statutorily no one could get their hands on that money except for the stated purpose if you could talk the people into giving it up. Explain the problem to them in unambiguous, understandable terms and include a similar percentage cut from benefits for those who do not pay taxes with that money also transferred from that department to debt retirement

The most recent year that actual tax revenue was available was 2019 at just under $3.5 trillion. Gov't spending was estimated to be $7.3 trillion that year

If you shaved government down 5%, that would be $365 billion

If you could convince people to accept a tax surcharge of 2%, that would be a further $70 billion

Debt clock says we're approaching $28.4 trillion. If $435 billion could be devoted to paying down that structural debt every year, all things being equal the debt would be close to zero in 65 years

Edit: If you shaved 10% of government, you could do it in 35 years. If you shaved government 25% it would be less than 15

At least 50%. Go big or go home.

 

[jamil]

I'm still a fan of the jamil tax plan. Flat rate. Maybe 7%. Every one pays, no exceptions. Individuals and businesses. No deductions. No exemptions. If you earn a dollar you pay 7%. Part of that 7% has to go to pay down the debt. But, there's a voluntary tax. You want to pay for whimsical ********? Knock yourself out? Write a check for it. This is also called the PYMWYMI tax plan. (put your money where your mouth is)

 

[rooster]

So what's your solution, pretend the debt doesn't exist just like the left does?

I got some idea of how to save money. At first glance I thought abolish the ATF. 1.27 billion per year saved. Then I googled federal law enforcement agencies. Holy crap look at how long this list is. The bloated management $$ saved by streamlining into one or two agencies would be in the tens of billions.

Federal law enforcement in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Tombs]

I got some idea of how to save money. At first glance I thought abolish the ATF. 1.27 billion per year saved. Then I googled federal law enforcement agencies. Holy crap look at how long this list is. The bloated management $$ saved by streamlining into one or two agencies would be in the tens of billions.

Federal law enforcement in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A better solution would be a 75% tax on all income of political figures. Bye bye lobbying.

 

[rooster]

A better solution would be a 75% tax on all income of political figures. Bye bye lobbying.

To do that we would have to tax the rich on their stock transactions and INGO has already established we can’t get more revenue by taxing the rich
/s

 

[DoggyDaddy]

A better solution would be a 75% tax on all income of political figures. Bye bye lobbying.

Since serving as a representative was originally intended to be a temporary job, after which they would return to their "normal" job, why not 100% taxation?

 

[BigRed]

So what's your solution, pretend the debt doesn't exist just like the left does?

Maybe follow Shakespeare's recommendation!