Post Left Wing looniness here

That’s how they justify to their rich friends the tax increase Mc. They simply introduce a new ‘loophole’ deduction for their friends to take advantage of which eliminates their tax liability. Watch.
Yes, but the argument that won in the 1980’s (to decrease the top rate) was that so much time and effort was spent in tax avoidance instead of working and making more income. There are only so many hours in a day. Once again Dems ignore human motivation.
 
I must say that because of the “time and effort” I put into avoiding taxes I shiver at the proposed plan to hire 1,000s more IRS agents. Boo
 
Yes, but the argument that won in the 1980’s (to decrease the top rate) was that so much time and effort was spent in tax avoidance instead of working and making more income. There are only so many hours in a day. Once again Dems ignore human motivation.

That argument was certainly part of the equation. However, I think a big part of the political momentum came from the fact that the top marginal rate was so high. It's easier to convince people that 70 percent of any dollars was too much than that 39.6 percent is.

Of course, what this graph really shows is that the wealthy strongly drive policy regardless what's driving politics. We might elect someone who brings back the 70 percent top rate, but the armies of lobbyists and political donors will always ensure that there are readily available loopholes to keep them from paying much more than that 20-30 percent range. Obviously, the fact that we allow income to be classified as "ordinary" or something else is a major factor in that. It also explains why cutting taxes doesn't hurt revenue.

For example, suppose someone proposed a 25 percent flat tax - meaning that all income regardless of source and without deductions was taxed at 25 percent. Would the wealthy generally support that? Some might, but I'll bet most would not.
 
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/21/ny-ag-james-unveils-bill-to-limit-cops-use-of-force.html

"By establishing a “last resort” standard for the use of force, the legislation would require officers to first exhaust alternative approaches, the attorney general’s office said. Those methods include “de-escalation, lower levels of force, verbal warnings” and other tactics.

The bill would also raise the standard of proof of criminal conduct required to establish justification for lethal force. Current New York law allows officers to use lethal force “based simply on an officer’s reasonable belief” that a person committed a certain category of crime, according to James’ office.

In addition, the bill would allow prosecutors to probe whether an officer’s own conduct led to them later requiring the use of lethal force. It would also impose criminal penalties for officers who “employ force that is grossly in excess of what is warranted under the circumstances,” the press release said."

What can we say? Crime WILL go up and the cops are now going to be sitting ducks on the streets and before the review boards who are stacked with those with a racial axe to grind.
 
That argument was certainly part of the equation. However, I think a big part of the political momentum came from the fact that the top marginal rate was so high. It's easier to convince people that 70 percent of any dollars was too much than that 39.6 percent is.

Of course, what this graph really shows is that the wealthy strongly drive policy regardless what's driving politics. We might elect someone who brings back the 70 percent top rate, but the armies of lobbyists and political donors will always ensure that there are readily available loopholes to keep them from paying much more than that 20-30 percent range. Obviously, the fact that we allow income to be classified as "ordinary" or something else is a major factor in that. It also explains why cutting taxes doesn't hurt revenue.

For example, suppose someone proposed a 25 percent flat tax - meaning that all income regardless of source and without deductions was taxed at 25 percent. Would the wealthy generally support that? Some might, but I'll bet most would not.
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage Foundation
 
That argument was certainly part of the equation. However, I think a big part of the political momentum came from the fact that the top marginal rate was so high. It's easier to convince people that 70 percent of any dollars was too much than that 39.6 percent is.

Of course, what this graph really shows is that the wealthy strongly drive policy regardless what's driving politics. We might elect someone who brings back the 70 percent top rate, but the armies of lobbyists and political donors will always ensure that there are readily available loopholes to keep them from paying much more than that 20-30 percent range. Obviously, the fact that we allow income to be classified as "ordinary" or something else is a major factor in that. It also explains why cutting taxes doesn't hurt revenue.

For example, suppose someone proposed a 25 percent flat tax - meaning that all income regardless of source and without deductions was taxed at 25 percent. Would the wealthy generally support that? Some might, but I'll bet most would not.
They likely would at 20%. All income - give deductions that favor low income folks so they pay zero. Dems don’t like this because it limits how much they can spend.
 
US tax revenue sharply dropped thanks to Trump cuts, new report says (cnbc.com)

FY 2018 $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 $3.25 trillion

So taxes actually increased in 2017 after a tax cut, but as a percentage of GDP taxes went down. Not only did tax revenues increase, but so did GDP. Only a lying Lib media could try and mischaracterize a positive into a negative. For what possible purpose could that be? Oh yeah, fug the people, let's try to elect ignorant Dims.
 
They likely would at 20%. All income - give deductions that favor low income folks so they pay zero. Dems don’t like this because it limits how much they can spend.

Long term I don't think it would even limit spending very much. However, the optics are poor. You can't give the illusion that you're sticking it to anyone.
 
Nothing will limit the spending. That’s certainly been proven by both parties.

What I'd like to see is a balanced budget conditioner constitutional amendment. It wouldn't automatically force down spending, but we'd have to pay for the spending we demand. And that would certainly put a lot more pressure on the spending than what currently exists.
 
Not wishing to enter into argument but my opinion is it could help in the reduction of the God complex which seems to be rampant among US politicians, again just mho. Maybe with less time they wouldn’t forget what they heck they were sent there to do, but maybe not. I doubt we’ll ever know because no way the demigods (self assigned) will allow it (term limits) to be instituted. Just like a balanced budget amendment - ain’t gonna happen.
 
What I'd like to see is a balanced budget conditioner constitutional amendment. It wouldn't automatically force down spending, but we'd have to pay for the spending we demand. And that would certainly put a lot more pressure on the spending than what currently exists.
That would be interpreted as a green light to raise taxes, which would not work. Spending has to be curtailed. Let me handle it for a year. Spending will drop sharply. Of course the unemployment rate will rise significantly for a couple years.
 
Maybe with less time they wouldn’t forget what they heck they were sent there to do, but maybe not.

Are they really forgetting what they were sent to do, or are we electing them to do a bad agenda on fiscal policy? Candidates who are deficit hawks do run from time to time. They almost always lose, because we ultimately don't care. In polls, we'll say we do, but when it comes to actually doing what it takes, we don't.

It's like a 350 pound woman. She wants to lose weight. But if she's not interested in quitting the fried chicken, cheese fries, and ice cream binges, her weight isn't going down.
 
That would be interpreted as a green light to raise taxes, which would not work. Spending has to be curtailed. Let me handle it for a year. Spending will drop sharply. Of course the unemployment rate will rise significantly for a couple years.

It might be interpreted that way in the immediate term, but they'd have to make the math work, and that would force a reality check. Furthermore, to actually get major boosts in revenue through tax hikes, they'd have to be broad-based tax increases or a new, big revenue source like a VAT. The public isn't going to go along with that. (Frankly, I'd go for a VAT if we also dumped the 16th Amendment, but that's a separate issue.)
 
It might be interpreted that way in the immediate term, but they'd have to make the math work, and that would force a reality check. Furthermore, to actually get major boosts in revenue through tax hikes, they'd have to be broad-based tax increases or a new, big revenue source like a VAT. The public isn't going to go along with that. (Frankly, I'd go for a VAT if we also dumped the 16th Amendment, but that's a separate issue.)
It would, at least, be a start to stopping the insanity.
 
It would, at least, be a start to stopping the insanity.

What would be fun is seeing all the backpedaling. All the idiots who say that if we just got rid of the tax cuts (Bush or Trump or Reagan), everything would be ok would have to then have to go cut spending anyway and explain why they were full of **** for so long.
 
What would be fun is seeing all the backpedaling. All the idiots who say that if we just got rid of the tax cuts (Bush or Trump or Reagan), everything would be ok would have to then have to go cut spending anyway and explain why they were full of **** for so long.
I see what you’re going for, but cutting taxes would increase tax revenues.
Edit: Misread it the first time. I agree.
 
Stonewall urges employers to drop mother for 'parent who has given birth' to boost equality ranking

What Liberalism has brought to us is the idea that everything is normalized. Not equality, but instead, demands and affronts. There is no boundary, no rational calm, no difference that cannot be made the equal of all others to the extent that all others are to be subordinated. The inability to handle reality is not considered a form of emotional immaturity that needs to be either medicated or counseled. Instead, it is to be indulged to it's fullest and given the power to destroy all other standards and customs.

And it will never end.

Why?

Because they will seek you out and destroy you if you object.
 
Example of Totalitarian Socialism; meaning we will force you to do it because we are elite progressives and you are idiots and Democracy, which we use as a political tool though we really don't believe in it, doesn't matter.

‘This is not vegan propaganda’: inside Gunda, the pig movie making carnivores eat their words

"And perhaps it’s best that Kossakovsky himself isn't given the reins of power. Channelling Galadriel, he gives a glimpse of the plant-based Dark Lord he would become if handed Russia’s presidency.

In five years’ time, all countries would become vegetarian. In my second term, all countries would become vegan. They would build me a bronze monument, and I will become a monster.”

“We had a sexual revolution, then a technological revolution, now it’s time for an empathy revolution,” he says. “We have to stop killing. We have to stop dominating. We have to find our modest place together with other creatures. We have no other choice.

You see, it's not that the Left is completely off base; it's their methods and their arrogance. That is why they should never be elevated beyond activists. When they are given government power then they become totalitarians. That is their emotional make-up.

In my mind, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
 

100 Day Countdown 2024

Help us count down to game day with your favorite player pics.

100 Day Countdown 2024

Recent Threads

Back
Top