Law Is there a way to shift the tax burden away from the lower and middle class?

[Jack V Savage]

I don't, I think he's made some very very small shifts against it to try and platacte the progressive wing of his party but left it almost totally intact.

Biden and almost certainly Harris are actually the greatest enemies of the viewpoint you have IMHO, the political force which makes sure any genuine shift towards more progressive economics is politically disenfranchised.

I think this kind of lunatic paranoia from the far left really illustrates the challenge that people have to make progress.

 

[moreorless87]

I think this kind of lunatic paranoia from the far left really illustrates the challenge that people have to make progress.

I think its pretty plain your hiding from that thread because you don't want to face criticism for the blood-soaked actions of the political leaders you slavishly praise and I'm guessing because you know your going to be sharing arguments with a load of strongly Islamophobic right wingers.

Also perhaps half an eye on your media career? afraid you might be associated with "lunatic paranoia" of the "far left" which has a problem with politicians enabling the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents.

 

[Andy Capp]

I agree with some who posted that we need to cut spending. The question I have though is where do we start?

I'd suggest entitlements to rich corporations like Tesla.

 

[Andy Capp]

Trump has been mentioning that he would raise tariffs on China higher to pay for US taxes. When President, Trump's tariffs on China didn't result in high inflation. I thought this an interesting idea ~

China’s Nightmare: A Second Trade War With Trump​

MSN

Canada's nightmare is a second trade war with Trump too. Explain the benefit of illegal sanctions against Canada that were implemented in Trump's first term.

 

[Andy Capp]

They can't just raise prices. If they believed they could do so and not lose money from reduced revenue, they would already have done so. Prices are raised when the costs have reached a point that losses in sales will be (believed to be) offset by increased per unit sales.

Keeping that in mind the "wealthy" won't have to convince anyone of anything. Most of the "richest people" list is sensationalized and heavily centered around stock prices (hypothetical, not manifest, on hand wealth).

Hurting the stock price of major corporations will directly hurt everyone with a 401(k) and up. How do you think those retirement accounts pay returns to investors? They typically have at least a 30%+ stock mix.

I'd be careful with this line of thought. Progressive taxes DO eventually reduce production in an economy. Allow me an example at the micro level to illustrate?

Say you are the world's premiere heart surgeon. A real miracle worker. We all understand your services will be far more in demand than you could ever hope to supply, even if you somehow never slept or left the O.R. How do you decide how many surgeries to perform a year? How many holidays do you agree to work? How many birthday's, etc., do you agree to miss?

Do we agree it is reasonable to assume as more and more of your income is taxed away from you, that you would be less and less likely to forego other choices? That you might choose to take vacation more often? Take Christmas off? We agree that a person who has a comfortable lifestyle will be unlikely to work extra days for very little money vs. a lot of money?

Is that really a net win?

The conservative mind at work, ladies and gentlemen. No way would a highly successful doctor do the job for the love of helping patients. It's all about them Benjamins, and when they stop flowing, fuck that shit putting in a solid day's work for the sake of the people you're helping.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think its pretty plain your hiding from that thread because you don't want to face criticism for the blood-soaked actions of the political leaders you slavishly praise and I'm guessing because you know your going to be sharing arguments with a load of strongly Islamophobic right wingers.

I agree that people on both sides of the issue are awful. Hamas supporters are probably worse than defenders of everything Israel does, but it's a close call.

Also perhaps half an eye on your media career? afraid you might be associated with "lunatic paranoia" of the "far left" which has a problem with politicians enabling the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents.

Seriously?

I think leftist kooks are like Lucy holding the football for sane liberals.

 

[moreorless87]

I agree that people on both sides of the issue are awful. Hamas supporters are probably worse than defenders of everything Israel does, but it's a close call.

Seriously?

I think leftist kooks are like Lucy holding the football for sane liberals.

The "sane liberials" who happily turn a blind eye to the murder of tens of thousands of civilians?

Again Jack it seems like you have a lot to be posting about in the Gaza thread, your views differ from strongly from many, indeed the claim the US aid to is isreal is not important or relevant to the conflict at all is one I think pretty much everyone would disagree with, honestly that to me seems like a rather bizarre fantasy to shield yourself from the reality of what's happening.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The "sane liberials" who happily turn a blind eye to the murder of tens of thousands of civilians?

What does that even mean?

Again Jack it seems like you have a lot to be posting about in the Gaza thread, your views differ from strongly from many, indeed the claim the US aid to is isreal is not important or relevant to the conflict at all is one I think pretty much everyone would disagree with, honestly that to me seems like a rather bizarre fantasy to shield yourself from the reality of what's happening.

Why? I really don't understand why anyone would demand another poster post in a thread they're not interested in. You don't realize how crazy that stuff makes you sound?

 

[moreorless87]

What does that even mean?

I means exactly what you think it means, that your "sensible liberal" involves downplaying US culpability in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, possibley hundreds of thousands.

Why? I really don't understand why anyone would demand another poster post in a thread they're not interested in. You don't realize how crazy that stuff makes you sound?

I'm very much interested in the thread and I think its by far the most important political discussion happening on these forums at the moment, seems that dispite being a very active political poster your avoiding it and I think your doing so because you know your views on the subject will face very strong criticism and you'll be arguing along side mostly right wing bigots.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I means exactly what you think it means, that your "sensible liberal" involves downplaying US culpability in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, possibley hundreds of thousands.

And you think that the U.S. has culpability in all the deaths in a war between two other groups? Why?

I'm very much interested in the thread and I think its by far the most important political discussion happening on these forums at the moment, seems that dispite being a very active political poster your avoiding it and I think your doing so because you know your views on the subject will face very strong criticism and you'll be arguing along side mostly right wing bigots.

I tend to be more interested in U.S. stuff. I assure you that I don't fear criticism from dolts here (no offense).

 

[Cid]

yeah, if you're just a regular high earner you have a very high tax burden (too high as of now) as a % of income. if you're ultra wealthy you shield your earnings and have a very small tax burden.

The ultra wealthy don't have to "shield their earnings" to have a very small tax burden.

I really hate it when people imply the ultra wealthy hardly pay any taxes because of magical accountants or lawyers or hiding assets etc.

The problem we have taxing the rich is that with zero qualifications I could make them $100M in a year and have them paying around $7M in taxes for it.

The idea that we don't tax them effectively because they avoid it with these magical professionals/techniques has been integral to reducing us to the point where a monkey can have them paying a lower % than a middle income earner.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The ultra wealthy don't have to "shield their earnings" to have a very small tax burden.

I really hate it when people imply the ultra wealthy hardly pay any taxes because of magical accountants or lawyers or hiding assets etc.

The problem we have taxing the rich is that with zero qualifications I could make them $100M in a year and have them paying around $7M in taxes for it.

The idea that we don't tax them effectively because they avoid it with these magical professionals/techniques has been integral to reducing us to the point where a monkey can have them paying a lower % than a middle income earner.

The widespread false belief that the rich hardly pay taxes is a contributor to opposition to tax increases on very high income. The thinking goes that it's pointless anyway so it's only upper middle class types who pay high rates. That also relies on people not understanding how brackets work (like someone who makes $600K is barely affected by an increase on the top rate, but someone who makes way more than that really is). People also don't realize that while the rich are richer than the non-rich, they are also a lot less numerous so you can't really raise significant revenue from only the rich.

 

[Cid]

The widespread false belief that the rich hardly pay taxes is a contributor to opposition to tax increases on very high income. The thinking goes that it's pointless anyway so it's only upper middle class types who pay high rates. That also relies on people not understanding how brackets work (like someone who makes $600K is barely affected by an increase on the top rate, but someone who makes way more than that really is). People also don't realize that while the rich are richer than the non-rich, they are also a lot less numerous so you can't really raise significant revenue from only the rich.

What you're saying but with assets, not income.

I never understand why people talk about incomes in wealth gap threads. Very small part of the equation.

 

[Two Crows]

Tax the top 5% enough to pay for the bottom 95%. The top 5% will still end up as millionares, and the bottom 95% won't starve.

Simple on paper, isnt in reality. Still makes me feel weary, but it's the best I can do as a pot smoking sherdogger.

Pay for what?

How much per person?

Keep in mind there are 330,000,000 + people in the US, and the top 5% earn $336,000/year and up. That means their taxes for 313,500,000 have to cover their benefits.

To be clear, that's 1 one hundredth of one dollar per person. IOW, if you took 100% of what the 95th percentile earned annually, you would get 1 dime per person in the US for the entire year.

 

[Two Crows]

Can you name three instances where cutting the tax rate increased tax revenue? There's a reason every time someone attempts the Laffer Curve tax revenue plummets.

Laffer is also not mainstream he's a joke, as is Stephen Moore. And that's coming from someone who's worked with both. Complete dunces.

I assure you, the Laffer Curve is thourghly dogmatic mainstream economic thought.


I don't read blogs or follow podcasts, but I can explain the Laffer Curve as it's taught in grad school at elite universities. If it's acceptable, I'll present how it was shown to me, and anyone in thread can show objections as fit?

The first premise is that a zero percent tax rate results in zero aggregate tax revenue, as no one paying taxes results in no tax income.

The second premise is that a 100% tax rate also results in a zero tax revenue, as the incentive to work/earn is removed if the government takes EVERYTHING.

The third contention, and natural conclusion, is that the maximum tax revenue lays somewhere betwixt these two points.

Thus, using a cartesian coordinate graph of function depicting X as the Tax Rate and Y as the % of taxes; 0 AND 100 are x-intercepts (minima) and some point X(sub zero) depicts a maxima in between those two points (this value, typically called X sub n) is in controversy.

Visualization:

 

[Two Crows]

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-02/58848-Outlook.pdf

You offered nothing but an over 100 page pdf link.

I'm sorry, but I'm not reading all of that trying to source your argument.

What, specifically, are you referring to?

 

[Two Crows]

I'd suggest entitlements to rich corporations like Tesla.

You realize Tesla, the US manufacturer of EV's, has already completely lost the market to the Chinese, right?

Without the 100%+ plus tariff, you could purchase an EV today for ~$12,000 from China.

Given the idiotic allegiance to petroleum in the US, and their incredible market lag in the automotive industry, subsidies are the only thing keeping the nation in the conversation.

What do you suggest? Complete abandonment of the automotive market? I might agree with you, but most people making this argument seem to believe gas powered pickup trucks are going to "keep America great".

 

[Two Crows]

The conservative mind at work, ladies and gentlemen. No way would a highly successful doctor do the job for the love of helping patients. It's all about them Benjamins, and when they stop flowing, fuck that shit putting in a solid day's work for the sake of the people you're helping.

No offense, but you read like a child.

You honestly believe the world functions on good will?
... and you label this stance; the position of all free market Capitalists as "conservative"? You really believe cardiac surgeons do what they do for love?
Which one of us sounds naive?

We've had many Communist who sacrificed more than you ever will in forum post, and we've all seen how that ended. I hope for both your and mine sake nobody is mislead by this line of reasoning any further.

P.S. Remember, you can't spell Communism without "food".

 

[Andy Capp]

You realize Tesla, the US manufacturer of EV's, has already completely lost the market to the Chinese, right?

Without the 100%+ plus tariff, you could purchase an EV today for ~$12,000 from China.

Given the idiotic allegiance to petroleum in the US, and their incredible market lag in the automotive industry, subsidies are the only thing keeping the nation in the conversation.

What do you suggest? Complete abandonment of the automotive market? I might agree with you, but most people making this argument seem to believe gas powered pickup trucks are going to "keep America great".

Tesla was a poor example. I was actually referring to companies far bigger than that. But in any event it was just an example, not an attack on Musk or Tesla in particular. Cool your jets.

 

[Andy Capp]

No offense, but you read like a child.

You honestly believe the world functions on good will?
... and you label this stance; the position of all free market Capitalists as "conservative"? You really believe cardiac surgeons do what they do for love?
Which one of us sounds naive?

We've had many Communist who sacrificed more than you ever will in forum post, and we've all seen how that ended. I hope for both your and mine sake nobody is mislead by this line of reasoning any further.

P.S. Remember, you can't spell Communism without "food".

Your logic is rather poor for someone telling me I read like a child. Let's leave it at that. I'm not interested in addressing all these disingenuous generalisations.