• 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!

Trump Seeks Tax Hike on Wealthy Earning $2.5 Million or More



*shrug*

Can't really argue with that.
 
George50 said:
If Trump really wanted a tax increase on the wealthy that’s what we would have.
Click to expand...

If Trump wanted that Republicans probably would stand up to him.
 
Variant said:
If Trump wanted that Republicans probably would stand up to him.
Click to expand...
You might be right since tax reductions are a big part of what Republican’s wealthy donors are paying for. Regardless of that Trump saying he wants to increase tax rates for the wealthy is just another con.
 
George50 said:
You might be right since tax reductions are a big part of what Republican’s wealthy donors are paying for. Regardless of that Trump saying he wants to increase tax rates for the wealthy is just another con.
Click to expand...
It is what demagogues always do. They promise bread but just give you a circus.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No one earns their wealth these days. No one. Not you. Not me. Not anybody.
. . .
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there's no agreement from me on this point.

ashurbanipal said:
. . .
Societies earn wealth. Individuals do not.
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong on this point, and I don't think you are accurate here.

ashurbanipal said:
I was talking about you and people who think like you. You do not know or understand what freedom is and what earning is. You work, no doubt. But that is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Still more disagreement.

ashurbanipal said:
No one is confiscating anything. If no one earns their wealth, then by definition, it cannot be confiscation. Societies generate and earn wealth; societies have the first claim on it. Individuals after that.
Click to expand...
Then, clearly, we are not working with a common set of definitions for these words.

ashurbanipal said:
Well...I wouldn't do such a thing (i.e. grant myself loopholes). But perhaps I'm a rarity,
Click to expand...

In your use of terms, 'Society' is AKA the government, and the answer is no, the government didn't. See undue credit statement above.

ashurbanipal said:
I'm sure you don't, but you're just wrong, as you should realize by the fact that you have no substantive reply--"don't want to" doesn't qualify as substantive.
Click to expand...
Given the what progressives tend to do when having political power, previous examples cited, no, I don't want to give progressives more political power, and I think progressives should lose the political power they've already gained.

You are free to think that legislation is like a production line, where simply more is better, but the reality is exactly the opposite (see needing to govern the least prior)

You are free to think that the foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought and cast into a more progressive vision, good luck with selling that to the electorate, as it seems that at least some have caught on to what progressivism is all about = 'bossing people about' justified by unrealistic expectations as to all too human responses to that bossing.



See needing to govern the least prior.

ashurbanipal said:
Not if you change how money works at the most fundamental level.
Click to expand...
Changing how money works at the most fundamental level, is this more of the "The foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought."

ashurbanipal said:
There wouldn't be anything to hide.
Click to expand...
'Nothing to hide' from an all seeing and all knowing government?
An all seeing and all knowing government doesn't sound good in the least to me.
 
ashurbanipal said:
When you say "managed," it sounds like you're agreeing with my view but just insisting on name changes. What is different about managed capitalism as compared to a mixed economy?
Click to expand...
The terms managed capitalism and mixed economy describe economic systems with overlapping features, but they differ in focus, scope, and the degree of government involvement in economic activities.
See needing to govern the least prior.

Hmm. Why am I thinking this is academicians, who've yet to have a brush with reality, and are writing from the purely theoretical?

LOL. Nice try at flipping the script, but I don't believe your assertion that "most legislation" "is written by center-right folks". I think it closer to reality that the entrenched, unidentified, unaccountable politically left leaning regulators are the ones writing the legislation, for all real and practical purposes.

ashurbanipal said:
though progressives generally strike me as fairly principled people
Click to expand...
LOL. That's a laugh.
The same people who proffered 'Defund the police', No Cash bail, progressive DAs releasing violent criminals to continue their crimes, these people as fairly principled'?
I think not.

ashurbanipal said:
who have interest in money only to the extent it is necessary to survive. If I were suddenly given a huge fortune, I'd give most of it away. I have before.
Click to expand...
Well good on you, I suppose.

ashurbanipal said:
I'm not sure how any of that is relevant.
Click to expand...
It is an example of when progressives gain political power, and what they do with that political power.
Now, this isn't limited to any single political faction on the spectrum, but we are discussing progressives.
That said, it appears that progressives are the most prone to using their political power in this way.

No one is purporting to go back to no regulations on industry such as the time frame you are citing.
It is clear that a balance needs to be struck between the extremes. It is further clear that everyone has their own opinions on where this balance point is in the spectrum. Some are far more left leaning, and other are far more right leaning.

I'll further add that the government which is required to govern the least, governs the best. Government regulations should be concise, clear, inexpensive and easy to comply with and demonstrate compliance with. I'd further add that if there are fringe cases, of which there will always be, that rather than to address the few fringe cases, regulations should leave well enough alone.
 
Obama's dismissing of the individual’s role in navigating challenges, taking risks, and creating value. For example, a business owner who invests personal savings, works long hours, and innovates to meet market demands is the primary driver of their success. While infrastructure like roads or public education (funded by taxes, including those paid by businesses) provides a foundation, it is the individual’s initiative that transforms these resources into a successful enterprise. Obama’s comment inverts this relationship, giving undue credit to government.

ashurbanipal said:
Obviously not. But why not--he should be able to, if the conservative claim is correct. That claim, again, was that someone like Elon Musk built his wealth all by himself.
Click to expand...
Shifting goal posts. I never took the position that 'Musk built his wealth all by himself'. This is a unrealistic position that you've assigned to me, one which I haven't taken.

In your use of terms, 'Society' is AKA the government, and the answer is no, the government didn't. See undue credit statement above.

ashurbanipal said:
I'm sure you don't, but you're just wrong, as you should realize by the fact that you have no substantive reply--"don't want to" doesn't qualify as substantive.
Click to expand...
Given the what progressives tend to do when having political power, previous examples cited, no, I don't want to give progressives more political power, and I think progressives should lose the political power they've already gained.

You are free to think that legislation is like a production line, where simply more is better, but the reality is exactly the opposite (see needing to govern the least prior)

You are free to think that the foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought and cast into a more progressive vision, good luck with selling that to the electorate, as it seems that at least some have caught on to what progressivism is all about = 'bossing people about' justified by unrealistic expectations as to all too human responses to that bossing.

That you are free to think these things doesn't mean that you are in the least correct or accurate about them.

See needing to govern the least prior.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Not if you change how money works at the most fundamental level.
Click to expand...
Changing how money works at the most fundamental level, is this more of the "The foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought."

ashurbanipal said:
There wouldn't be anything to hide.
Click to expand...
'Nothing to hide' from an all seeing and all knowing government?
An all seeing and all knowing government doesn't sound good in the least to me.

ashurbanipal said:
When you say "managed," it sounds like you're agreeing with my view but just insisting on name changes. What is different about managed capitalism as compared to a mixed economy?
Click to expand...
The terms managed capitalism and mixed economy describe economic systems with overlapping features, but they differ in focus, scope, and the degree of government involvement in economic activities.
See needing to govern the least prior.

Hmm. Why am I thinking this is academicians, who've yet to have a brush with reality, and are writing from the purely theoretical?

LOL. Nice try at flipping the script, but I don't believe your assertion that "most legislation" "is written by center-right folks". I think it closer to reality that the entrenched, unidentified, unaccountable regulators are the ones writing the legislation, for all real and practical purposes.
 
eohrnberger said:
In your use of terms, 'Society' is AKA the government, and the answer is no, the government didn't.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. I don't make that mistake. It is possible for government to not represent society--our own government is a prime example. Since I'm pursuing a complete re-thinking of the very foundations of Western civilization, there's every reason to rethink how to constitute a government and how to ensure that it will represent society better. I get the impression you think I'm talking about doing a few things different here or there--passing a law that reworks how employment works, or institutes UBI, or some such, on top of our existing framework. That's not going to work.

Our system is doomed. It'll take a while to fully unravel, but history is clear on this point. What we're seeing today has happened, in various guises, numerous times over the last (roughly) 3500 years. I'm working on the principles that will (hopefully) come after, when it is time to pick ourselves back up from the ashes.

That said, of course, we could devote ourselves now to such principles (not necessarily mine, though I would put forward the ones I'm thinking over), and skip the death and terror step that has come after every glorious empire loses its power, possibly leading to a genuine renewal, but I don't think we will do that. We are too fragmented.

eohrnberger said:
Given the what progressives tend to do when having political power, previous examples cited, no, I don't want to give progressives more political power, and I think progressives should lose the political power they've already gained.
Click to expand...
I don't recall you citing any examples. The last time progressives had power (in this country) was the 1940s, with a brief resurgence in the 1960s, though then it was rather diluted and mixed down.

Can you provide an example of bossing people about by a progressive that doesn't lead to an overall increase of freedom (i.e. by legislation--not by simple argument in the public space, which is and should be open to anyone. That is, not by, say, a progressive merely saying to someone "hey, you shouldn't do that, and here's why", but by writing and enforcing a law)? Progressives want to reign in the power of employers, for example, in order to increase the freedom of employees, who are far more numerous.

Actually, I'm not a fan of the proliferation of rules and laws that we have. If I were formulating a new Constitution, I'd first require that it be completely re-written every fifty years (or sooner if certain conditions are met) with the proviso that certain personal rights are never to be violated--that is, a core of rules that would resemble the Bill of Rights would be primary and never re-written, but everything else re-written every fifty years, though there would be an option for delegates to just continue what we had been doing. I'd also require that laws be reduced if it becomes the case that you need specialists in certain areas of law. If you need specialists of law, generally, that's fine--laws need to be roughly that complex and numerous. But if you need a specialist in, say, copyright law, and another in rules of evidence, and another in energy law, and so on, there are too many laws and too much complexity.

eohrnberger said:
Changing how money works at the most fundamental level, is this more of the "The foundations of Western Civilization need to be re-thought."
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly...though money is more universal than western civilization.

eohrnberger said:
'Nothing to hide' from an all seeing and all knowing government?
An all seeing and all knowing government doesn't sound good in the least to me.
Click to expand...
No--I don't mean the phrase "nothing to hide" in the way that most people use it. I mean, literally, there would be nothing in existence in this context that could be hidden. Literally, the thing you're thinking of as people wanting to hide would not exist. It'd be like someone trying to hide a four-sided triangle--there's no such thing to hide in the first place.
 
eohrnberger said:
The terms managed capitalism and mixed economy describe economic systems with overlapping features, but they differ in focus, scope, and the degree of government involvement in economic activities.
Click to expand...
Still not super-clear. The reforms of the 1940s were inspired by socialist reformers. If you manage capitalism from some central authority, that's a socialist modification--i.e. a mixed economy, one in which principles of capitalism and socialism are at work.

eohrnberger said:
Hmm. Why am I thinking this is academicians, who've yet to have a brush with reality, and are writing from the purely theoretical?
Click to expand...
Plenty of academics are more "sleeves up" than you might think. I'm one. I work in the academy now, but have previously worked in a corporate career, and had my own successful consulting business before I gave it all up and decided to go into education.

Not really. See, e.g.:

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scroll down to the section on the United States (the subsection starts with "Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement") and read away. Seems to be well-documented and fairly thorough.

eohrnberger said:
The same people who proffered 'Defund the police', No Cash bail, progressive DAs releasing violent criminals to continue their crimes, these people as fairly principled'?
Click to expand...
Most of those programs are not well understood. Defund the Police movement was, I grant, branded horribly. But the proponents of the program were not looking to disband police departments or some such--they were looking for reforms like sending trained social workers or psychologists out to deal with, say, autistic individuals who were having a moment, rather than police officers who lack the understanding to deal with such people. They were also after more community programs that would reduce the incidence of crime in the first place--and yes, the funding for such would come from police funding, but then, if there's less crime, we shouldn't need as many police officers. Similarly, if the police don't have to respond to incidents of mentally ill people causing some trouble, we shouldn't need as many officers.

Now, can you tell me that those specific ideas are bad ideas?

eohrnberger said:
It is an example of when progressives gain political power, and what they do with that political power.
Click to expand...
OK. I think you'll find most progressives did not support, and do not support, any administration using the IRS to go after a political opponent--though most progressives would also want to see the actual evidence that such is the case. As I understand it, both the FBI and the DOJ investigated and found that what happened was explained either by misunderstanding or institutional inertia.

Raising taxes on the wealthy absolutely is a progressive agenda item; I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a bad thing, though.

eohrnberger said:
No one is purporting to go back to no regulations on industry such as the time frame you are citing.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think there are quite a few who are. Lauren Boebert is on record wanting to completely do away with the EPA and the ATF. Peter Thiel regularly puts forward much more extreme deregulation proposals and rhetoric.

It's not obvious that the government that governs least governs best. Thomas Jefferson thought so, but he doesn't make a good case for it. I would agree that governments that trample basic rights are bad governments. I also agree with what you say about fringe cases, but in an even more general way: we've become too dependent on the exact wording of laws, rather than people grasping the intent of those laws. We should re-think the procedures by which courts and regulatory agencies interpret laws in light of this problem.
 
I'll have to respond to the other two of your posts (the one above included) tomorrow or Monday--I've got meetings the rest of today.
 
Do please proceed with your 'complete re-thinking of the very foundations of Western civilization', and see how many people you can con into supporting your progressive utopia. This has historically failed time and again, as you point out in your own post below (1940's, 1960's), with the claim that 'It wasn't progressive enough'.

The ashes of Western civilization, if they occur, would be caused by progressivism, not saved by progressivism.

 
So insular in your progressive thinking that you can't even imagine that this is the case?
Here, let me help you.

Green New Deal (H.Res. 109, 2019, Reintroduced 2021)​
Source: Congressional Progressive Caucus, Progressive Proposition Agenda (2024); The New Yorker (2021, “The Green New Deal’s Evolution”)​
“Bossing” Element: The proposal mandates sweeping changes to energy use, transportation, and infrastructure, requiring businesses and individuals to comply with strict emissions standards and retrofit mandates. For example, it calls for “upgrading all existing buildings” to meet energy efficiency standards, which critics argue imposes costly requirements on property owners. The Heritage Foundation (2021) estimates compliance costs at $10 trillion over a decade, with mandates limiting consumer choice (e.g., banning gas-powered vehicles).

The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics

There are, of course, many different representations of Progressivism: the literature of Upton Sinclair, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, the history of Charles Beard, the educational system of John Dewey. In politics and political thought, the movement is associated with political...
www.heritage.org

Medicare for All Act (H.R. 1976, 2021, Reintroduced 2023)​
Source: Congressional Progressive Caucus, Progressive Promise (2022); NPR (2021, “More Democrats Embrace Progressive Label”),
Link: progressives.house.gov; www.npr.org​
“Bossing” Element: The bill eliminates private health insurance options, requiring individuals and employers to join a government system. It imposes federal price controls on pharmaceuticals and mandates provider compliance with government-set rates, limiting market-based healthcare choices. The Heritage Foundation (2023) estimates a $32 trillion cost over a decade, with mandatory tax increases. Critics argue it forces patients into a one-size-fits-all system, reducing autonomy over medical decisions.

The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics

There are, of course, many different representations of Progressivism: the literature of Upton Sinclair, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, the history of Charles Beard, the educational system of John Dewey. In politics and political thought, the movement is associated with political...
www.heritage.org

​
 
(Continued)

Consumer Data Tax (Nevada Assembly Bill 421, 2023)
Source: Prosperity Now, States at Work: Shining Examples of Progressive Legislation in 2023 (2023)
Link: prosperitynow.org
Description:​
  • Proposed in Nevada’s state legislature, this bill would impose a tax on companies collecting consumer data (e.g., tech firms like Google, Meta). It mandates data collectors to register with the state, report data collection practices, and pay taxes based on data volume, aiming to fund public services.
“Bossing” Element: The bill requires companies to comply with new reporting and tax obligations, potentially passing costs to consumers. It imposes government oversight on private data practices, which critics like the National Taxpayers Union (2023) argue stifles innovation and burdens small tech startups. Individuals face indirect control through potential privacy disclosures or increased service costs.​

Universal Basic Income for Transition Age Youth (Maryland House Bill 108, 2023)
Source: Prosperity Now, States at Work: Shining Examples of Progressive Legislation in 2023 (2023)
Link: prosperitynow.org
Description:​
  • Proposed in Maryland, this bill would provide $1,000 monthly payments to youth aging out of foster care. It mandates state oversight of recipients’ eligibility and compliance, requiring regular reporting to maintain payments.
“Bossing” Element: The bill imposes bureaucratic oversight on vulnerable youth, requiring them to navigate state monitoring to access funds. Critics argue it creates dependency and micromanages recipients’ lives, with the Tax Foundation (2023) noting administrative costs could exceed benefits. It also mandates state budget reallocations, potentially raising taxes.​


 
A single counter example doesn't establish the norm.

ashurbanipal said:
Most of those programs are not well understood. Defund the Police movement was, I grant, branded horribly. But the proponents of the program were not looking to disband police departments
Click to expand...
No, they were. See the video of them doing so for yourself.

ashurbanipal said:
or some such--they were looking for reforms like sending trained social workers or psychologists out to deal with, say, autistic individuals who were having a moment, rather than police officers who lack the understanding to deal with such people.
Click to expand...
This position / explanation / excuse only adopted after the blowback, so backpedaling from a clearly unpopular position which was taken.

How clueless those progressives in taking the 'defund the police' stance in the first place. Same with the no cash bail, as well as the progressive DAs which Soros help get elected, nothing but bad public policy prescriptions from the progressives.

Here you are defending those specific bad ideas, and then you ask for them, as if they weren't pointed out, as if those bad ideas didn't happen.
 
If you call it 'institutional inertia', I'd revise it to progressive 'institutional inertia'.

ashurbanipal said:
Raising taxes on the wealthy absolutely is a progressive agenda item; I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a bad thing, though.
Click to expand...
The US tax code has been claimed as already the most progressive on Earth.

“America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. Its government is among the least.”
Publisher: The Washington Post
Author: Dylan Matthews
Publication Date: April 5, 2013
Link: www.washingtonpost.com
​
Summary:
  • The article cites a 2008 OECD report showing that the U.S. tax code is the most progressive among developed nations, with the top 10% of earners paying 45.1% of taxes (vs. 31.6% OECD average), despite earning a larger share of income. It compares the U.S. to countries like Sweden, where the rich pay taxes proportional to their income share, arguing the U.S. system is more progressive in taxing high earners.
  • Evidence: The OECD data (2008) indicates the U.S. collects the largest share of household taxes from the richest 10%, with a concentration coefficient showing high progressivity. The article notes low tax rates for middle-income households and no national VAT (unlike Europe’s regressive consumption taxes) enhance progressivity.
And here you are demanding yet more.
Perhaps what is more needed is more publicization and a closer examination of what all this US tax payer money is being spent on?
Oh right. That'd be what DOGE has been tasked with. The response from the left has been predictable, deny, divert, distract, and run a smear campaign. I guess the left loves their fraud, waste and abuse of tax payer monies, well, that's expected, considering the leftist priorities which are being spent on, making the left's NGO buddies running those NGO's rich, at tax payer expense.

eohrnberger said:
Spending other people's money.

― Margaret Thatcher​
Click to expand...
Spot on.

ashurbanipal said:
Oh, I think there are quite a few who are. Lauren Boebert is on record wanting to completely do away with the EPA and the ATF. Peter Thiel regularly puts forward much more extreme deregulation proposals and rhetoric.
Click to expand...

ashurbanipal said:
It's not obvious that the government that governs least governs best.
Click to expand...
What you are saying is that it's not obvious to you.

ashurbanipal said:
Thomas Jefferson thought so, but he doesn't make a good case for it.
Click to expand...
You are declaring someone else's argument for what you don't want and don't agree with as a 'bad case'?
Oh the irony.
I could go around and make my arguments look allot better than what they are just by simply declaring all arguments from the opposition aren't 'a good case'.

 
Greenbeard said:
The taxing-the-rich thing was fake. Trump's bill very much didn't do that.

Click to expand...
beat me to it, it is like the graphs on what level of wealth people believe the 0.1% have and what the reality is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.