The GOP is great at attracting deniers. It's the only way they can survive.
How can ANYONE look at the facts and not come to the conclusions we do?
Simple really....either lack of reasoning ability or propaganda.
Donald Trump tax plan
- Thread starter Neutron Monster
- Start date
The GOP is great at attracting deniers. It's the only way they can survive.
How can ANYONE look at the facts and not come to the conclusions we do?
Simple really....either lack of reasoning ability or propaganda.
This garbage has gone on for 80 years since FDR started us down this pathetic path. LBJ added his pathetic list of giveaways, and just about every administration since then has piled on.
Once you have given the people a taste of being on the take, they will always want more and more.
Both parties are guilty and neither are serious about fixing anything.
Once you have given the people a taste of being on the take, they will always want more and more.
Both parties are guilty and neither are serious about fixing anything.
This garbage has gone on for 80 years since FDR started us down this pathetic path. LBJ added his pathetic list of giveaways, and just about every administration since then has piled on.
Once you have given the people a taste of being on the take, they will always want more and more.
Both parties are guilty and neither are serious about fixing anything.
Once you have given the people a taste of being on the take, they will always want more and more.
Both parties are guilty and neither are serious about fixing anything.
You're correct in stating that eliminating the IRS is blind hatred for the government. I have a blind hatred for paying more taxes to a government that wastes it's revenue. I wonder if the proponents that make complex tax projections for tax programs like the progressive tax consider the high income tax payers reaction to higher taxes? at any rate we must assume first that the middle class pays too much and the rich pay too little. I agree that I pay too much. I am not rich.
As for the democratic party, I'd like to hear a rational argument either way. Please democrats tell me concretely what do you mean by " the rich" or "fair share". Increasingly these words by the democrats are not used to convey facts they but are used to arouse emotions. The goal of the democrats seems to be to win over a gullible public without clarity as to what they actually mean. What a fair share or progressive tax means is simply more taxes. No matter how high the tax rate is you can simply require more by saying they are not pay their fair shair. I have heard some advocates of higher taxes get real specific. But I don't hear it from the democratic presidential hopefuls.
As for raising taxes on the rich this goes against a mountain of evidence that over many generations means higher tax revenues. People that earn a large sum of cash simply move. They are not going to bend over and take it from the federal gov. Currently there are trillions of American dollars used over seas to create jobs, where taxes are lower. Money can be electronically transferred from country to country. There is nothing inevitable in whether revenues increase when it comes to raising taxes. Do tax revenues increase when tax rates are lower? IDK. But it seems to me if more people are working there's more of a chance to get a piece of their wages. The dems are not about what works, they are about getting elected and if villifying the rich for not paying their fair share works, then they'll keep doing it in 2016.
I don't pretend to know what it was like when FDR was president. My grandparents, grew up in depression farmers in So. Ill. never spoke ill of the FDR and I remember some conversations around the dinner table about FDR. I have to lean toward their perception of FDR as being favorable. Both of them came from farming families each having many siblings (10 and 12). Times were different then. The way I read history, he did what was right for his time. However, I don't think you're too far off in the term piling on. Today, the piling on is get elected, get elite power to push the leftist agenda. It's not about the facts.
I think the repubicans should quit trying to repeal Obamacare. It's here, it's the law, and let's stop wasting time on it. Obama lied, it didn't do what he said it would do, meaning lowering the cost of health insurance.
Bottom line, the health insurance is high because across the board because every level of bureaucracy has a piece of the pie. Drs. have a say in price, hospitals, salaries of Hos. Admin and it goes on and on. Obama was right that more people would be covered, and he didn't say that those working would not pay for those that don't work. At least more people can walk into a hospital and have a way to pay for the cost of their medical care. We can't just blame Obama for the high cost. Or the lack of lowered health insurance costs.
Fdr's team correctly assessed that a demand driven depression needed the government to intervene to provide a lot of demand. Their lessons were heeded by bernanke in 2008-2010.
Fair share is totally subjective, as is the right size of government. There are some answers that are clearly wrong or
silly but many that are reasonable.
Further your opinion on the rich leaving the US leading to lower individual income tax collections is just totally wrong at the level of marginal income at rates in the US. You are right there is a mountain of evidence, but it points the other way for a few reasons:
People are not like corporations. Leaving the US tax system has profound consequences. Such as being limited on the amount of time you can spend in the us and being limited on your use of the us banking system
People, unlike companies, have to pay taxes on overseas income immediately. You don't have the option to leave it offshore.
most developed countries have pretty high tax rates. There aren't a lot of desirable places to go.
Most rich people pay a lot of capital gains, not ordinary income, which are taxed at a lower rate. There are plenty of other tax shelters too.
Rich people can and do move states to lower their tax burden - an option that doesn't exist in other countries where taxation is often only on a national basis
Non citizens still have to pay taxes on us income
You can't simply leave and avoid a giant tax bill. People generally don't have the option to leave because they have a large deferred tax bill that they are avoiding by leaving. Companies do have that. People aren't as global as companies.
In practice, the US could still raise a lot more revenue from rich people if it wanted to. That's not to say they should, but it is to say that part of your post is totally detached from facts. You appear to be mistaking the personal income tax system for the corporate income tax system.
Yes they created the two most successful and popular government programs in history. What terrible people for making sure seniors have pensions and health care.
"In practice, the US could still raise a lot more revenue from rich people if it wanted to. That's not to say they should, but it is to say that part of your post is totally detached from facts. You appear to be mistaking the personal income tax system for the corporate income tax system".
You are correct, I wasn't clear on my point, it isn't feasible for unemployed American workers to transfer themselves to where the jobs have been driven by high tax rates. Corporations can and do take their money a to cheaper corporate tax venues over seas, and pay lower wages.
You are correct, I wasn't clear on my point, it isn't feasible for unemployed American workers to transfer themselves to where the jobs have been driven by high tax rates. Corporations can and do take their money a to cheaper corporate tax venues over seas, and pay lower wages.
That's not really a tax rate issue, that's mostly a wage issue. You move a plant to Mexico because your all-in labor cost is $5/hr instead of $25/hr like here in the US.
Income taxes are marginal compared to that for a business with a decent amount of labor cost. Plus, you can move your tax domicile without moving your operations - there's no need to go through the effort of moving facilities overseas when you can merge with a foreign company to take on their foreign tax domicile.
Keep in mind labor costs are a corporate tax write-off that you can apply against your revenue - the corporate tax rate is not a reason to move jobs overseas; it is a reason to try to move revenue and profits overseas.
Income taxes are marginal compared to that for a business with a decent amount of labor cost. Plus, you can move your tax domicile without moving your operations - there's no need to go through the effort of moving facilities overseas when you can merge with a foreign company to take on their foreign tax domicile.
Keep in mind labor costs are a corporate tax write-off that you can apply against your revenue - the corporate tax rate is not a reason to move jobs overseas; it is a reason to try to move revenue and profits overseas.
Last edited:
Similar threads
