Taxation Unfairness Must Stop!

[Lafayette]

Defense spending today: U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

Excerpt:

The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined. While the chart above illustrates last year’s defense spending in dollar terms, the United States has also historically devoted a larger share of its economy to defense than many of its key allies.

Defense spending accounts for more than 10 percent of all federal spending and nearly half of discretionary spending. Total discretionary spending — for both defense and nondefense purposes — is typically only about one-third of the annual federal budget. It is currently below its historical average as a share of GDP and is projected to decline further.

America would be better off with Much Lesser spending on "Defense" and more upon:
*Very low-cost Post-secondary education that prepares its people for the Brave New World of Services Industries that require high-level competence.
*National Healthcare for all at suitable prices assuring easy access to even the poorest Americans

Let's raise upper-income taxation by significantly larger amounts (above 70%). Whyzzat?

From here: America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer

The wealthiest Americans generate the bulk of their income from investments, which, if held longer than a year, are taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top federal income tax rate on wages is 37%, while the top rate on dividends and assets (like stocks and homes) sold for a gain is 20%.Sep 23, 2021

 

[TurtleDude]

Defense spending today: U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

Excerpt:


America would be better off with Much Lesser spending on "Defense" and more upon:
*Very low-cost Post-secondary education that prepares its people for the Brave New World of Services Industries that require high-level competence.
*National Healthcare for all at suitable prices assuring easy access to even the poorest Americans

Let's raise upper-income taxation by significantly larger amounts (above 70%). Whyzzat?

From here: America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer

Many of us in the top one percent pay more federal income taxes than millions of other voters combined. The real tax unfairness is not the rates of the top 400 but the fact that about half of America pays nothing in federal income taxes

 

[NatMorton]

Defense spending today: U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

Excerpt:


America would be better off with Much Lesser spending on "Defense" and more upon:
*Very low-cost Post-secondary education that prepares its people for the Brave New World of Services Industries that require high-level competence.
*National Healthcare for all at suitable prices assuring easy access to even the poorest Americans

Let's raise upper-income taxation by significantly larger amounts (above 70%). Whyzzat?

From here: America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer

It’s important that the US military remain prepared. You just never know when we’ll have to come to France’s rescue, again.

 

[Lutherf]

Defense spending today: U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

Excerpt:


America would be better off with Much Lesser spending on "Defense" and more upon:
*Very low-cost Post-secondary education that prepares its people for the Brave New World of Services Industries that require high-level competence.
*National Healthcare for all at suitable prices assuring easy access to even the poorest Americans

Let's raise upper-income taxation by significantly larger amounts (above 70%). Whyzzat?

From here: America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer

Sure. If we spent less on defense and more on social engineering we could become the “Magic Unicorn Kkngdom” in no time.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Defense spending today: U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

Excerpt:


America would be better off with Much Lesser spending on "Defense" and more upon:
*Very low-cost Post-secondary education that prepares its people for the Brave New World of Services Industries that require high-level competence.
*National Healthcare for all at suitable prices assuring easy access to even the poorest Americans

Let's raise upper-income taxation by significantly larger amounts (above 70%). Whyzzat?

From here: America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer

That has more to do with federal spending priorities than federal income taxation policy. Almost half of federal spending is allocated to entitlements and “safety net” programs with more money borrowed and/or printed annually than is spent on ‘defense’.

Of course, that higher US military spending allows for lower military spending by US allies. It’s far less expensive to have a super-power nation as an ally than to become one.

 

[HIP56948]

The rich pay more in taxes than the bottom half of the nation and a large share of the populace doesn't pay hardly any taxes.
Yeah, maybe it's because the wealthy took all the money, pay off the politicians... to make sure the wealthy stay rich. You can't steal most of the wealth in a country and then whine and bitch about paying taxes.

 

[NatMorton]

the wealthy took all the money

 

[Peter]

It’s important that the US military remain prepared. You just never know when we’ll have to come to France’s rescue, again.

The US entered both WW1 and WW2 late into the conflict so if the objective was to save France why didn't they join straight away when France was first attacked?

 

[Peter]

All the stats about who has the money now show that to be case and the rich have the vast majority of the money.

 

[Peter]

That has more to do with federal spending priorities than federal income taxation policy. Almost half of federal spending is allocated to entitlements and “safety net” programs with more money borrowed and/or printed annually than is spent on ‘defense’.

Of course, that higher US military spending allows for lower military spending by US allies. It’s far less expensive to have a super-power nation as an ally than to become one.

There's also the fact that other nations are not expecting to be in 2 major wars at the same time which is what the US military is prepared for.
I also have a feeling that Europe would all respond if one of the countries was attacked regardless of the US position so we know we'll all have help.

 

[NatMorton]

The US entered both WW1 and WW2 late into the conflict so if the objective was to save France why didn't they join straight away when France was first attacked?

Well, in WWII we first had to save Great Britain with a steady flow of arms and material.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There's also the fact that other nations are not expecting to be in 2 major wars at the same time which is what the US military is prepared for.
I also have a feeling that Europe would all respond if one of the countries was attacked regardless of the US position so we know we'll all have help.

I’m sure that (bolded above) lets Ukraine rest assured that it will not be attacked (again) by Russia.

 

[NatMorton]

All the stats about who has the money now show that to be case and the rich have the vast majority of the money.

The problem with that statement is the verb.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yeah, maybe it's because the wealthy took all the money,

All the stats about who has the money now show that to be case and the rich have the vast majority of the money.

Two examples of the pernicious fixed-pie fallacy.

 

[Peter]

Well, in WWII we first had to save Great Britain with a steady flow of arms and material.

Again the US didn't enter WW2 until late in the game.
The US sold arms to the UK which the UK finally finished paying for in 2006.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK settles WWII debts to allies

news.bbc.co.uk

There was no great push in the US to enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour so the idea that the US was saving the UK is a bit hard to take since you didn't enter into WW2 until after The Battle of Britain where invasion was imminent.

 

[Peter]

The problem with that statement is the verb.

Do you deny that the rich have almost all the money and that indeed they've increased that massively during the pandemic?

 

[NatMorton]

Again the US didn't enter WW2 until late in the game.
The US sold arms to the UK which the UK finally finished paying for in 2006.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK settles WWII debts to allies

news.bbc.co.uk

There was no great push in the US to enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour so the idea that the US was saving the UK is a bit hard to take since you didn't enter into WW2 until after The Battle of Britain where invasion was imminent.

We were certainly late to the party in WWI, but not WWII. In fact, we joined at just about your nation's darkest hour and long before the Axis powers were in retreat.

 

[NatMorton]

Do you deny that the rich have almost all the money and that indeed they've increased that massively during the pandemic?

Yes, I deny that "the rich have almost all the money." It's hyperbole. But again, I was commenting on the verb "took."

 

[Peter]

Two examples of the pernicious fixed-pie fallacy.

There is a finite amount of money in the US and the rich have most of it.
Where's the fallacy?

 

[NatMorton]

There is a finite amount of money in the US and the rich have most of it.
Where's the fallacy?

That there's a finite amount of money in the world.

Wealth is constantly created and destroyed and there's no reason to believe those two dynamics must happen in equal measure.

 

[Peter]

We were certainly late to the party in WWI, but not WWII. In fact, we joined at just about your nation's darkest hour and long before the Axis powers were in retreat.

The US joined after the Battle of Britain finished.
That's what stopped any chance of invasion as they needed air superiority but the UK has never historically had a huge army and the home force in the UK was not massive. Even now if you can manage to land a decent force on UK soil that's the hard bit done.
The UK has always relied on naval power and it's what gave us the empire we didn't win it by land conquest.

 

[Peter]

That there's a finite amount of money in the world.

Wealth is constantly created and destroyed and there's no reason to believe those two dynamics must happen in equal measure.

My point is of the available money in the US most of it is concentrated in a few people and it's not a good thing.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Two examples of the pernicious fixed-pie fallacy.

And why the donor class insists that capital gains income not be taxed using the same progressive rates as other income sources.

 

[Crovax]

Defense spending today: U.S. Defense Spending Compared To Other Countries

Excerpt:


America would be better off with Much Lesser spending on "Defense" and more upon:
*Very low-cost Post-secondary education that prepares its people for the Brave New World of Services Industries that require high-level competence.
*National Healthcare for all at suitable prices assuring easy access to even the poorest Americans

Let's raise upper-income taxation by significantly larger amounts (above 70%). Whyzzat?

From here: America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer

 

[Crovax]

And why the donor class insists that capital gains income not be taxed using the same progressive rates as other income sources.

And yet the middle class would be hurt the most by a long term capital gains tax raise