• 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!

Total taxation in the US is one of the lowest in the developed world

ocean515 said:
Right. Well, noting your sudden lurch into poverty, the US has conducted a war on poverty for 40+ years - Trillions of dollars spent, and no discernable difference in poverty. So, the question becomes, should the government just continue burning money, or is there a different strategy that might provide better results?
Click to expand...

You are not looking in the right place for government waste.

Try rather the DoD, which swallows whole 54% of the Discretionary Budget ...
 
Lafayette said:
Blah, blah, blah.

M r a ...
Click to expand...

Wow, solid response. You live in France, the parasites paradise, and you bitch about America not playing Robin Hood to your liking. How about you mind your own business and not try to destroy our country the way your mooching ideology has ruined Europe.
 
Lafayette said:
You are not looking in the right place for government waste.

Try rather the DoD, which swallows whole 54% of the Discretionary Budget ...
Click to expand...

LOL.

Yea, 54% according to the radicals like the ones below, who post such nonsense.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/

There is most certainly waste in all areas of government, including the DoD. But I'm not attracted to the propaganda radicals attach themselves to, so I'm actually looking in the right place.
 
Lord of Planar said:
My father would disagree with you. He's in his 80's.
Click to expand...

And he is by far the exception. Most people don't take that good of their health. I have been an avid runner, ate a strict whole foods diet, and regularly strength trained my entire adult life. However, most people don't and thus once they get in their 60s and older they often have type 2 diabetes, joint deterioration / mobility issues, heart disease, and high incidences of cancer. All are extremely expensive, and that is why actuarily it would be very difficult to insure them in the private sector absent huge subsidies. Its like trying to get auto insurance for a guy with 5 DWIs.
 
joG said:
You do know, "that the public sector got involved is" is not in any way indication of whether or not the involvement was smart, efficient or even helpful. Just because you know there is a problem does not justify stupid action.
Click to expand...

And once again, please demonstrate how it would be actuarily possible for an individual in their late 60s or older to get health insurance on that private market absent big subsidies. The fact you can't do that demonstrates the absurdity of your argument.
 
joG said:
As large capital accumulations will tend to spend more on further investment than would groups with no capital and lower income, it makes sense to see an increase in the concentration of that limited capital.
Click to expand...

The rich are employing only a small amount of their Net Worth on New Technology and Inventions.

You are kidding yourself.

Prof. Domhoff (UCal) has made a career of inspecting the upper-class riches. His site is worth reading (Who Rules America), and the two pie-charts that started this forum-thread are from there.


Have a good but long read here: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%.

Excerpt:
Last year, the average S&P 500 CEO made $9M in all forms of compensation. One client runs a division of a major international investment bank, net worth in the $30M range and most of the profits from his division flow directly or indirectly from the public sector, the taxpayer. Another client with a net worth in the $10M range is the ex-wife of a managing director of a major investment bank, while another was able to amass $12M after taxes by her early thirties from stock options as a high level programmer in a successful IT company.

The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top 0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial industry and its creations. I find it questionable as to whether the majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the uber-wealthy who hire them. They are, of course, doing nothing illegal.
Click to expand...

And:
I think it's important to emphasize one of the dangers of wealth concentration: irresponsibility about the wider economic consequences of their actions by those at the top. Wall Street created the investment products that produced gross economic imbalances and the 2008 credit crisis. It wasn't the hard-working 99.5%. Average people could only destroy themselves financially, not the economic system. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the collapse was primarily due to the failure of complex mortgage derivatives, CDS credit swaps, cheap Fed money, lax regulation, compromised ratings agencies, government involvement in the mortgage market, the end of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, and insufficient bank capital. Only Wall Street could put the economy at risk and it had an excellent reason to do so: profit.
Click to expand...
 
Lafayette said:
With "adept" income taxation, a progressive tax would more fairly share the burden. But the super-rich absolutely must pay a LOT MORE.

And, for reasons I've explained elsewhere, the Sky Is Not the Limit - as many are trying to prove. It's a game of "Who earns most?"

Here's the solution:
*A progressive annual income taxation that approaches 95% for all income less than 1.5MB.
*This will help prevent a "runaway Finance Industry" that brought the American economy to its knees in 2008 (with the SubPrime Toxic Waste Mess).
*An annual Wealth Tax at 1.5% of the total. ($15K per megabuck - and no exceptions.)
*Inheritance taxation that allows for a 1MB inheritance to direct descendents at zero-percent taxation, and 100% above that amount. Any and all further monetary values may be contributed to an "authorized public entity" at zero taxation. If not they are confiscated.
Click to expand...
I think that's a silly idea, confiscation of 95% at a marginal rate.

I have a better idea.

We start increasing all wages by enough so that the employers payroll tax is given to the employee, then the employee pays the whole 15.3% payroll tax. We then call this a "social tax."

All tax payers pay this new 15.3% tax on income, with no limits.

I would prefer a federal consumption tax to replace income taxes, but that is next to impossible I think to get passed.

We change the income tax so it is flatter, and remove all deductions, credits, etc. We have only one simple tax that takes a straight percentage of income, and no end of year tax return. I would select a minimum 5% for low wage earners and a maximum 18% for those making more than maybe $50k. Of course, these might need to be different than my assessment.

We start reducing social benefits like SNAP, give free baking classes as necessary, and only allowing sensible items to be bought and make their own food from scratch. SNAP would be limited to things like flour, sugar, etc. Not things like microwavable, premade dinners, soda's, candy, etc.

Now if we continue running annual deficits, the social tax will marginally increase over time as necessary. When we start balancing the budget, we can reduce this tax. The less we spend, the less this tax will be. Employers will see the necessity of employing more people as it affects their higher taxes as well. People on SNAP will start wanting to not be limited on food purchases, and this will help provide incentive to find better employment.

There is no solution that will cause no harm, but we need to do better than we are.

Questions?
 
OpportunityCost said:
I see, so you are in denial of reality. He is the President of the US so he is your President whether you admit it or not. Btw, you didn't give an answer, you gave a talking point.
Click to expand...

Take a long walk off a short pier.

I'm done with you ...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And once again, please demonstrate how it would be actuarily possible for an individual in their late 60s or older to get health insurance on that private market absent big subsidies. The fact you can't do that demonstrates the absurdity of your argument.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of the rules the society makes. There are really so many variations of the product/policy mixes available that that question makes no sense, implying as it does there were a simple solution. But that is the way socialist populism works. Propose simple solutions to complex problems.
 
ocean515 said:
But I'm not attracted to the propaganda radicals attach themselves to, so I'm actually looking in the right place.
Click to expand...

Propaganda?

You have written absolutely NOTHING proving the pie-chart is propaganda.

Try harder, you are just spitting sarcasm.
 
Lafayette said:
The rich are employing only a small amount of their Net Worth on New Technology and Inventions.

You are kidding yourself.

Prof. Domhoff (UCal) has made a career of inspecting the upper-class riches. His site is worth reading (Who Rules America), and the two pie-charts that started this forum-thread are from there.


Have a good but long read here: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%.

Excerpt:

And:
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but that is way to generalized to be even remotely interesting. But it is fine for populist agitation.
 
Lafayette said:
Nobody "needs an income" of more than 100K per year to have a decent lifestyle in America. People want more to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack. (Supposedly, they "excel" at what they do. BFD.)
Click to expand...
WTF?

I have earned more than that in tax years. You clearly have no clue of how much more I pay in taxes, and how much less I have to spend after putting money in my retirement account.

What gets me, is in planning for my future, and paying high taxes, I see people on SNAP eating more expensive than I do!

Are you a minimum wage earner, not putting kids in college?

How are you so ignorant to say I don't need to make $118k?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
All are extremely expensive, and that is why actuarily it would be very difficult to insure them in the private sector absent huge subsidies. Its like trying to get auto insurance for a guy with 5 DWIs.
Click to expand...

It is not expensive to give basic care, and not pay for expensive life extending treatments.
 
Lafayette said:
Take a long walk off a short pier.

I'm done with you ...
Click to expand...

I'm not done with you. He was duly elected.

If I can deal with 8 years of Obama, you can deal with 4 or 8 of Trump. How you deal with it is up to you. You aren't off to a good start, criticism should be constructive, you have some work to do to get up to constructive. Better get on with it.
 
Lafayette said:
BS.

About the Federal government civil service, from WikiP:

Yeah, right - private business is suffering from qualified personnel because they all work for the government.

More pathetic BS intended to light fires on the Replicant side of the two-party political coin. The fact of the matter is that hi-tech companies have to hire from abroad to find qualified personnel. And why?

Because a qualified engineer in the US must spend for a degree on average $80K* (state institution fees plus room-'n-board). And since America decided that Donald Dork was a "better choice", Hillary's idea for all tuition paid for any postgraduate degree in families with incomes less than $100K is as dead as a door nail.

Bravo America! Have you ever just shot yourself in both feet ...

*See here: How Much Does it Cost to Study in the US?. Excerpt:
Click to expand...

So shortsighted. Government funds come from the private sector. The private sector pays for the public sector. Replicant? And you want people to take your posts seriously?
 
OpportunityCost said:
So shortsighted. Government funds come from the private sector.
Click to expand...

Well, government funds come through taxation. If government is paying workers to build a road, those workers are still paying taxes on their government wages. Both the private and public sectors support each other, with the government supporting the private sector by way of infrastructure, business charters, and copyright protections, among other things. One really cannot exist without the other. The bargain is what services does the government provide that the private sector also provides at the best cost, and vice-versa. In some cases (health insurance), it makes more sense for the government to be the payor as multiple insurance payors do nothing to improve your care, but do much to increase cost.
 
Lafayette said:
With "adept" income taxation, a progressive tax would more fairly share the burden. But the super-rich absolutely must pay a LOT MORE.

And, for reasons I've explained elsewhere, the Sky Is Not the Limit - as many are trying to prove. It's a game of "Who earns most?"

Here's the solution:
*A progressive annual income taxation that approaches 95% for all income less than 1.5MB.
*This will help prevent a "runaway Finance Industry" that brought the American economy to its knees in 2008 (with the SubPrime Toxic Waste Mess).
*An annual Wealth Tax at 1.5% of the total. ($15K per megabuck - and no exceptions.)
*Inheritance taxation that allows for a 1MB inheritance to direct descendents at zero-percent taxation, and 100% above that amount. Any and all further monetary values may be contributed to an "authorized public entity" at zero taxation. If not they are confiscated.
Click to expand...

You do realize that that is nothing but fantasy and debate fodder, don't you? Not even Democrats would do that.
 
Lafayette said:
The rich are employing only a small amount of their Net Worth on New Technology and Inventions.

You are kidding yourself.

Prof. Domhoff (UCal) has made a career of inspecting the upper-class riches. His site is worth reading (Who Rules America), and the two pie-charts that started this forum-thread are from there.


Have a good but long read here: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%.

Excerpt:

And:
Click to expand...

I don't believe there are any laws on the books as to what anyone should do with the money they have. That's part of being a democracy.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
O don't believe there are any laws on the books as to what anyone should do with the money they have. That's part of being a democracy.
Click to expand...

Right, but if the money is not circulating in the economy and increasing demand, how does that help anything?
 
Lafayette said:
Propaganda?

You have written absolutely NOTHING proving the pie-chart is propaganda.

Try harder, you are just spitting sarcasm.
Click to expand...

Assuming it really is sarcasm, that's not really an unwarranted response to your ridiculously biased and partisan liberal posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom