Economy Trump tax cuts 6 months later: it was exactly what critics projected - everyone but the rich suffers

[ScottE]

This post is the best example of what has been going on the last few pages. You are 100% correct and it makes perfect sense.

However, the top % already pays a lot on taxes relative to their income. 30%. So if someone makes say 10 million dollars, they pay 3 million in taxes. What justification would there be to say to this guy "no you need to pay more, pay 6 million and take home 4 million because you can still live a nice life with that. Don't worry about what you planned to do with your own money. We need more from you, because the guy 4 miles away only made 30k"? Where do we draw the line with that logic? Billionaires? Multi millionaires? 500,000aires? Who makes the rules in this scenario on who should get taxed much more and by how much more?

You can't abuse tax brackets by telling rich people to be marginally rich.

Or maybe we just don't pass a tax cut that is just making people that are historical levels of wealthy even more wealthy while giving the GOP "cause" to not fund say healthcare for veterans.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...afford-veterans-health-care-without-cuts.html

 

[7437]

I don't remember, but why is that retarded?

it is facially incorrect and stupid? if you leave work your whole life to leave 100k to your children when you die, thats fine. But you would declare it all worthless and do nothing if the government took 1 dollar of that?

Or is the tax rate what makes it a problem

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

it is facially incorrect and stupid? if you leave work your whole life to leave 100k to your children when you die, thats fine. But you would declare it all worthless and do nothing if the government took 1 dollar of that?

Or is the tax rate what makes it a problem

Why not both? .gif

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

So if i enjoyed those services without paying and say instead it was a private not goverment providing them thats also theft too no?

A mob comes in to your neighborhood and declares that they now own the neighborhood. They say they are going to take half of what you earn in order for them to maintain your road and cut your grass every once in a while. If you don't agree with this situation, they will put you in a cage.

How can the ones who don't want to be a part of a mob owning them (or "taking care" of them) be blamed for engaging in that system, since the consequence is being locked in a cage? Maybe they should be blamed, but on the scale of blame, the most guilty are the ones who love their mob overlords and help them subdue their neighbors.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

A mob comes in to your neighborhood and declares that they now own the neighborhood. They say they are going to take half of what you earn in order for them to maintain your road and cut your grass every once in a while. If you don't agree with this situation, they will put you in a cage.

How can the ones who don't want to be a part of a mob owning them (or "taking care" of them) be blamed for engaging in that system, since the consequence is being locked in a cage? Maybe they should be blamed, but on the scale of blame, the most guilty are the ones who love their mob overlords and help them subdue their neighbors.

Your story is real cute and all, but it's nothing more than myopic fiction. If you're taking a serious look at the functions of the government, then you'd admit they do a lot more than mow your lawn and pave your roads.

If you were born in a hospital, the hospital was subsidized by the state, local, or federal government in many ways. The doctor who treated you was likely educated in a public university or a subsidized private university, and the bill for their education may have been as well. After you leave the hospital you enter into an environment that is protected both internally (ie police) and externally (ie soldiers). More than likely, you're also riding in a safe and regulated car that's being driven down a public road. Essentially, the government is providing all these things to you in hopes of you becoming a productive citizen.

If you grow up and find that you don't like these things, then there is a way to opt out and go off the grid, and if that's what you really want, the option is there.

 

[machidafan99]

BS. The cuts have improved my life.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Elected officials, just like with any other policy.

Yeah no thanks. I dont trust the government to decide how much of my own money I should keep. To suggest that would be more equitable than every dollar taxed the same is absolutely laughable.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Yeah no thanks. I dont trust the government to decide how much of my own money I should keep. To suggest that would be more equitable than every dollar taxed the same is absolutely laughable.

First, money you're required to contribute to the system that establishes the rights and obligations of you and your neighbors isn't your own money, by definition. Goods you are not legally entitled to are not your property. Second, with a flat tax (which you support) the government decides what you're required to contribute no less than under progressive taxation. Progressive taxation is the most equitable because it maximizes opportunity for people to flourish.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

First, money you're required to contribute to the system that establishes the rights and obligations of you and your neighbors isn't your own money, by definition. Goods you are not legally entitled to are not your property. Second, with a flat tax (which you support) the government decides what you're required to contribute no less than under progressive taxation. Progressive taxation is the most equitable because it maximizes opportunity for people to flourish.

You're right about most of this. I'm sort of accidentally morphing 2 arguments together. I'm not 100%sold on the validity of mandatory taxes being moral. Allow me to concede that point for now.


Other then charity for the poor, what is the justification to take a higher %? So far nobody has made a legit argument. Pan started to but never returned after my rebuttal

Edit: I'd like to point out that while the government does control the tax rate still for a flat tax situation, when poor people get taxed 40% wed have fucking riots. Natural protection from government abuse. As it is now we say the rich can suck it up

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Other then charity for the poor, what is the justification to take a higher %? So far nobody has made a legit argument. Pan started to but never returned after my rebuttal

Not every rich person sees it as charity for the poor. Many rich people are okay with higher taxes because they see it as beneficial to their enterprises (and as such, a benefit to themselves). They would rather have employees who are smart and productive rather than starving, uneducated, or simply unable to perform their job functions due to stress or unforeseen life circumstances.

They also probably recognize that it's easier in the long run to give the money to the government and let them help the employee take on such issues rather than (a) merely replacing the worker with another untrained worker who might run into the same issues, or (b) try and solve the problems themselves with their own money. They're also hedging their bets (as most societies do with every person the moment they are born) that they might be providing assistance to an exceptional person. I don't think any rich person would rather someone like Einstein slip through the cracks and fail to live up to their potential because their parents made some mistakes when they were born. That is the type of person that you want to ensure has at least a reasonably fair shot at living up to their potential and contributing to society and making everyone "richer".

I do believe that many rich people with their large and complex corporate organizations realize that those operations require a lot of infrastructure in order to work correctly, and it's cheaper in the long run to pay an amount adjusted for how much they use that infrastructure rather than have it not be there when they need it.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You're right about most of this. I'm sort of accidentally morphing 2 arguments together. I'm not 100%sold on the validity of mandatory taxes being moral. Allow me to concede that point for now.

All taxes are mandatory. To say "mandatory taxes" is redundant.

Other then charity for the poor, what is the justification to take a higher %? So far nobody has made a legit argument. Pan started to but never returned after my rebuttal

Taxes should go up as incomes go up because as incomes go up so do people's ability to pay taxes without losing the opportunity to have a good quality of life. Think about it... If someone's annual income is $1 billion, and he has to pay $250 million a year in taxes, his opportunity to have a good quality of life is much less harmed by taxation than someone making $100k having to pay $25,000 in taxes. The billionaire owns multiple homes and has a showroom full of exotic cars, while the person making $100k is struggling to make mortgage payments on a single home, monthly car payments, and put his 2 kids through college. And yet the person making $100k has a better opportunity at a good quality of life paying $25,000 in taxes than someone making $32,000 a year who has to pay $8,000 in taxes. That person lives in an apartment complex and takes the bus to work as he saves money to buy a used car. A flat tax makes taxation more harmful to the pursuit of happiness of people who are already struggling the most.

Edit: I'd like to point out that while the government does control the tax rate still for a flat tax situation, when poor people get taxed 40% wed have fucking riots. Natural protection from government abuse. As it is now we say the rich can suck it up

That's irrelevant.

 

[whougonnacall]

A mob comes in to your neighborhood and declares that they now own the neighborhood. They say they are going to take half of what you earn in order for them to maintain your road and cut your grass every once in a while. If you don't agree with this situation, they will put you in a cage.

How can the ones who don't want to be a part of a mob owning them (or "taking care" of them) be blamed for engaging in that system, since the consequence is being locked in a cage? Maybe they should be blamed, but on the scale of blame, the most guilty are the ones who love their mob overlords and help them subdue their neighbors.

How is that different if the mob is from a private corp

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Not every rich person sees it as charity for the poor. Many rich people are okay with higher taxes because they see it as beneficial to their enterprises (and as such, a benefit to themselves). They would rather have employees who are smart and productive rather than starving, uneducated, or simply unable to perform their job functions due to stress or unforeseen life circumstances.

They also probably recognize that it's easier in the long run to give the money to the government and let them help the employee take on such issues rather than (a) merely replacing the worker with another untrained worker who might run into the same issues, or (b) try and solve the problems themselves with their own money. They're also hedging their bets (as most societies do with every person the moment they are born) that they might be providing assistance to an exceptional person. I don't think any rich person would rather someone like Einstein slip through the cracks and fail to live up to their potential because their parents made some mistakes when they were born. That is the type of person that you want to ensure has at least a reasonably fair shot at living up to their potential and contributing to society and making everyone "richer".

I do believe that many rich people with their large and complex corporate organizations realize that those operations require a lot of infrastructure in order to work correctly, and it's cheaper in the long run to pay an amount adjusted for how much they use that infrastructure rather than have it not be there when they need it.

That's not a justification. That is stating some people are ok with being bent over

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

How is that different if the mob is from a private corp

Because the private Corp has no justification to put you in a cage if you dont want to give up your money

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Taxes should go up as incomes go up because as incomes go up so do people's ability to pay taxes without losing the opportunity to have a good quality of life.

So taxes should go up as long as people can afford to keep up with them? A trillion dollar income could be taxed 99% right? The person would still have a billion dollars to spend. What what makes the government entitled to so damn much of peoples money?

Try that shit on the poor and middle class and they would riot. Forced charity is all you really got

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

How is that different if the mob is from a private corp

Because a private corporation works for and serves the people who voluntarily choose to fund it. And there is no penalty for not wanting to spend your money to use their service. The government has a monopoly on violence. That is the difference between tyranny and freedom. In a voluntary society, people are free to voluntarily associate with who they choose for any service, including security.

 

[jeffk]

I know I will be paying more in taxes and the deficit will be going up.

It looks like the deficit in 2019 will be a trillion dollars. And that is with good economic growth and low unemployment. That isn't a winning tax policy.

 

[jeffk]

It is not surprising that a good chunk of the corporate tax cuts would be used to buy back shares.

But I was hoping real wages would go up some. But that hasn't turned out to be the case.

So wealthy people who own stocks have benefitted.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

So taxes should go up as long as people can afford to keep up with them? A trillion dollar income could be taxed 99% right? The person would still have a billion dollars to spend. What what makes the government entitled to so damn much of peoples money?

Try that shit on the poor and middle class and they would riot. Forced charity is all you really got

Not quite... Taxes should go up as long there are worthwhile endeavors for the government and the government needs more revenue. Taxes shouldn't be raised as an end in itself. I'd have no objection to a 99% tax on income above $1 trillion.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I'd have no objection to a 99% tax on income above $1 trillion.

That's incredibly dumb dude. If some guy could cure cancer and got a 1 trillion payout youd be ok with taxing him 99% for his contribution to mankind?
Or do you pick and choose who's money came from noble causes and exempt them? Who decides? The same people who need the money get to decide how much people can live with? Do you not see the obvious room for corruption?