• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeless in a bull market? Income inequality clearly defined to the max?

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,501
Reaction score
40,153
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I am so tired of this kind of a post that gives misleading information.

Yes, the rich earn 40% of the income and do pay 71% of the taxes, which does suggest they are paying "more than their fair share". Nonetheless, when you consider that the average American only makes $31,000 a year, if they were to pay a higher share of their income to match what the rich pay, they would not be able to survive. On the other side of the coin, if the rich pay just 2% more than they are paying now, all of our ills would be gone. More importantly, taking an additional 2% away from the rich would not cause them to even lose sleep (much less cause them any economic damage). On the other side of the coin, if the average American were to pay 2% more, they would not be able to feed their family or pay their necessary bills.

This is more about the health of the nation than it is about fairness. If there is no nation, how would those rich American make their money?

This is more about balance of the nation that it is about fairness.

Remember that the rich also have a lot more opportunities given to them. Better schools, better living conditions, better wages from the start etc.... As such, it is already unfair to the middle Americans as they do not have the chance to advance like the son of a rich man has.

So, if you are going to talk about fairness, lets start from the get go when you are born. Give the same opportunity to each and every child from the get go and then we can talk about fairness in paying "fair share in taxes". If a person gets the opportunity but does not take advantage of it, then he should pay his "fair share". As long as unfairness starts from the minute you are born, the rich cannot claim unfairness in paying taxes.

Really? Are you asserting a 2% increase in federal income tax revenue from the (naturally, undefined) “rich” would balance the federal “budget”?

Looking at the numbers, even a 2% increase in total annual federal revenue would not eliminate the federal “budget” deficit - that is why Biden wants a 33% increase in ‘corporate’ income tax rates (from a rate of 21% to a rate of 28% - yep, that’s a 33% increase not a 7% increase) just to help cover his new proposed federal spending.
 

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
6,982
Reaction score
2,745
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I would not choose to live in a place that lacked (enforced) building codes or zoning laws, but also would not live anywhere with the added layer of a HOA.

Well, the HOA has a contract so you know what is covered and how much it costs going in.

Building codes are interpreted by the local inspector, and as you already know, what one approves of, another can fail you. I'd guess 90% of building inspectors get their cushy government jobs because of their political connections, so why is his personal opinion worth more than yours?

I have a rental building in a town where the fire marshal retired a few years ago, (and will receive a lifetime pension paid for by the taxpayer) and the new guy does does everything different. The additional sprinter heads in the basement the first jackass made me put in had to come out because the new guy said there are too many (because it lowers the water pressure if they all go off, or something like that). The old guy made me pay for a $200 fire alarm test every year, the new guy doesn't care about it being tested (It's been three years, and he hasn't demanded that I have it tested).

Of course nothing they do surprises anyone. We all know that government is corrupt and incompetent, but everybody wants more government. It's bizarre.
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
15,401
Reaction score
5,636
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Really? Are you asserting a 2% increase in federal income tax revenue from the (naturally, undefined) “rich” would balance the federal “budget”?

Looking at the numbers, even a 2% increase in total annual federal revenue would not eliminate the federal “budget” deficit - that is why Biden wants a 33% increase in ‘corporate’ income tax rates (from a rate of 21% to a rate of 28% - yep, that’s a 33% increase not a 7% increase) just to help cover his new proposed federal spending.
Okay, maybe I got the 2% wrong but the idea still stands. 7% increase is not going to cause rich people to even lose sleep.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,501
Reaction score
40,153
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Okay, maybe I got the 2% wrong but the idea still stands. 7% increase is not going to cause rich people to even lose sleep.

You seem to be using some “new math”. Raising a tax rate from 8% to 10% results in 25% more tax revenue not in 2% more tax revenue.

In a situation with $3T of annual tax revenue and $4T in annual spending, that yields an annual deficit of $1T. To eliminate that $1T deficit would require a 33% increase in tax revenue (with no increase in spending).
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
15,401
Reaction score
5,636
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You seem to be using some “new math”. Raising a tax rate from 8% to 10% results in 25% more tax revenue not in 2% more tax revenue.

In a situation with $3T of annual tax revenue and $4T in annual spending, that yields an annual deficit of $1T. To eliminate that $1T deficit would require a 33% increase in tax revenue (with no increase in spending).
As I stated in that post.

This is not about numbers. It is about the health of the nation.

Unfairness starts from birth and we all need to understand that. If there was no nation, where would these rich people continue to get rich? In most cases, rich people had an opportunity to get rich from the minute they were born and most Americans do not have the same opportunity. If fairness in paying taxes is your goal, it should all start with fairness of opportunity from the moment a person is born.

As such "rich people should just shut up, thank the system for giving them an opportunity others could not get, and pay a bit more than the others who did not get the opportunity they did, so that you can continue to live in a nation that continues to give you the opportunity to gain more wealth.

it really is that simple.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,501
Reaction score
40,153
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As I stated in that post.

This is not about numbers. It is about the health of the nation.

Unfairness starts from birth and we all need to understand that. If there was no nation, where would these rich people continue to get rich? In most cases, rich people had an opportunity to get rich from the minute they were born and most Americans do not have the same opportunity. If fairness in paying taxes is your goal, it should all start with fairness of opportunity from the moment a person is born.

As such "rich people should just shut up, thank the system for giving them an opportunity others could not get, and pay a bit more than the others who did not get the opportunity they did, so that you can continue to live in a nation that continues to give you the opportunity to gain more wealth.

it really is that simple.

Nope, budgeting is all about numbers. You must face the reality that congress critters are not about to gouge (offend?) their donor class when they currently get re-elected at a rate of over 90% by simply continuing to borrow (aka print) and spend instead. That “free money” fuels inflation, which is a very regressive form of taxing the poor.
 

Luckyone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
15,401
Reaction score
5,636
Location
Miami, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nope, budgeting is all about numbers. You must face the reality that congress critters are not about to gouge (offend?) their donor class when they currently get re-elected at a rate of over 90% by simply continuing to borrow (aka print) and spend instead. That “free money” fuels inflation, which is a very regressive form of taxing the poor.
then, we agree to disagree.

Greed, fear, injustice, unfairness and corruptions is a fact of life that exists in great numbers. We all try to fight it to the best of our abilities but the fact remains that it has always existed and will always exist.

The best we can hope for is to have a scenario where we achieve more good than the bad we receive (just like a marriage).

You can complain all you want to and should complain as it is the only thing that allows for things to get better. Nonetheless, the important thing is to stay alive and with more (rather than less), meaning that if the rich have to pay a bit more than they should (for the benefit of the nation), so be it!

For sure, all extremes are bad (your free money fuels inflation for example) but extremes are the exception and not the rule. There is no perfect anywhere or at any time. Better (rather than worse) is what our goals in life should be. This applies to Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc,
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
8,930
Reaction score
3,059
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nope, budgeting is all about numbers. You must face the reality that congress critters are not about to gouge (offend?) their donor class when they currently get re-elected at a rate of over 90% by simply continuing to borrow (aka print) and spend instead. That “free money” fuels inflation, which is a very regressive form of taxing the poor.
It’s never about the numbers for the left or about results. The most important facet of almost any proposed policy is the sense of emotional satisfaction gained by advocating for it.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
80,784
Reaction score
36,188
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not counting those removed from the workforce due to their drug addiction and/or mental illness, that seems to leave (mostly) those with household incomes that have not kept pace with growing housing costs and/or the addition of dependents.

Which is *checks notes* like half the population.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
27,510
Reaction score
14,004
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am so tired of this kind of a post that gives misleading information.

Yes, the rich earn 40% of the income and do pay 71% of the taxes, which does suggest they are paying "more than their fair share". Nonetheless, when you consider that the average American only makes $31,000 a year, if they were to pay a higher share of their income to match what the rich pay, they would not be able to survive. On the other side of the coin, if the rich pay just 2% more than they are paying now, all of our ills would be gone. More importantly, taking an additional 2% away from the rich would not cause them to even lose sleep (much less cause them any economic damage). On the other side of the coin, if the average American were to pay 2% more, they would not be able to feed their family or pay their necessary bills.

This is more about the health of the nation than it is about fairness. If there is no nation, how would those rich American make their money?

This is more about balance of the nation that it is about fairness.

Remember that the rich also have a lot more opportunities given to them. Better schools, better living conditions, better wages from the start etc.... As such, it is already unfair to the middle Americans as they do not have the chance to advance like the son of a rich man has.

So, if you are going to talk about fairness, lets start from the get go when you are born. Give the same opportunity to each and every child from the get go and then we can talk about fairness in paying "fair share in taxes". If a person gets the opportunity but does not take advantage of it, then he should pay his "fair share". As long as unfairness starts from the minute you are born, the rich cannot claim unfairness in paying taxes.

I don't care if you tired of these kind of posts.

The US is plenty fair.

You want everyone to share the same level of suck.
 

bave

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
2,355
Reaction score
425
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am so tired of this kind of a post that gives misleading information.

Yes, the rich earn 40% of the income and do pay 71% of the taxes, which does suggest they are paying "more than their fair share". Nonetheless, when you consider that the average American only makes $31,000 a year, if they were to pay a higher share of their income to match what the rich pay, they would not be able to survive. On the other side of the coin, if the rich pay just 2% more than they are paying now, all of our ills would be gone. More importantly, taking an additional 2% away from the rich would not cause them to even lose sleep (much less cause them any economic damage). On the other side of the coin, if the average American were to pay 2% more, they would not be able to feed their family or pay their necessary bills.

This is more about the health of the nation than it is about fairness. If there is no nation, how would those rich American make their money?

This is more about balance of the nation that it is about fairness.

Remember that the rich also have a lot more opportunities given to them. Better schools, better living conditions, better wages from the start etc.... As such, it is already unfair to the middle Americans as they do not have the chance to advance like the son of a rich man has.

So, if you are going to talk about fairness, lets start from the get go when you are born. Give the same opportunity to each and every child from the get go and then we can talk about fairness in paying "fair share in taxes". If a person gets the opportunity but does not take advantage of it, then he should pay his "fair share". As long as unfairness starts from the minute you are born, the rich cannot claim unfairness in paying taxes.

The average household income in the US is among the highest in the developed world and we have the most progressive tax code in the developed world.

So, how is it that the average middle class french household can afford an effective tax burden of 22% while ours is 2% and unaffordable?
 

ElChupacabra

Me cago en las cabras!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,422
Reaction score
8,703
Location
The Garden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not counting those removed from the workforce due to their drug addiction and/or mental illness, that seems to leave (mostly) those with household incomes that have not kept pace with growing housing costs and/or the addition of dependents.
Depending where you live, that cost may have been off to the races versus other places.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,501
Reaction score
40,153
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Which is *checks notes* like half the population.
I doubt that amounts to half of the homeless population, but housing costs are definitely rising faster than need be.
 

ElChupacabra

Me cago en las cabras!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
16,422
Reaction score
8,703
Location
The Garden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Material costs are rising, as well as land costs, but labor rates are not keeping pace.
In the urban center I'm in the labor rates are keeping pace; the problem is that's for a much smaller subset of the population.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,501
Reaction score
40,153
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In the urban center I'm in the labor rates are keeping pace; the problem is that's for a much smaller subset of the population.
Really? Are you talking about those in the construction trades?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
80,784
Reaction score
36,188
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I doubt that amounts to half of the homeless population, but housing costs are definitely rising faster than need be.
I meant half the population has housing cost rising faster than their pay.

100% of the homeless population definitely has this issue.
 
Top Bottom