U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-01-2019, 06:16 AM
 
19,788 posts, read 12,447,473 times
Reputation: 10945

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
I did not state that, you are making stuff up, or reading into it.

I DO believe that certain roles of government require funding (infrastructure, defense, etc.). we can argue about how much and for what, but if you are going to play the projection game and try to tell me what I think, then I can do that too (it's not productive).

YOUR presumption that nobody should pay any taxes, EVER, and that infrastructure and defense should be privately funded would cripple our country, and really the world.

In all honesty, I don't think you are saying that, and I hope you don't think I'm saying that our earnings are the government's money. what I AM saying is that Reagan and Trump tax plans shift more of the burden away from the ultra-rich, and ultimately we all pay for it. Their justification for this has been that if you free up the money (funny, it's OK with you when it goes that direction, but not the other?) for the wealthy, that they will buy more and hire more, thus stimulating the economy. As an econ major, I can see how this would work in THEORY. It makes perfect sense. The problem is that it does not happen in PRACTICE. We have 4-decades of data to prove it.
There are two issues here:


1. What tax rate and system "stimulates the economy" the best


2. The right of individuals to retain the money they earn vs the "correct amount" that is necessary to provide services we all use.


The above two issues are debated hotly, with most conservatives (as they support individual liberties more than a strong central government) advocating lower taxes, while liberals (who support a strong central government over the individual) support higher taxes.


So it is an issue of personal liberty vs a government safety net. We all know that eventually a republic will be destroyed when the dependents of the federal government gain control and simply reward themselves with more and more benefits, to the detriment of the nation.


The above is why the US should have a "House of Lords", as well as a "House of Commons". Since all we have is a "House of Commons", the dependents will eventually gain the upper hand and destroy the republic. One cannot have a government that is designed to give out treats and freebies for votes; a government is supposed to create an environment to prosper, not be the daycare center of the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2019, 06:26 AM
 
Location: NC
7,215 posts, read 5,058,511 times
Reputation: 7967
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
There are two issues here:


1. What tax rate and system "stimulates the economy" the best


2. The right of individuals to retain the money they earn vs the "correct amount" that is necessary to provide services we all use.


The above two issues are debated hotly, with most conservatives (as they support individual liberties more than a strong central government) advocating lower taxes, while liberals (who support a strong central government over the individual) support higher taxes.


So it is an issue of personal liberty vs a government safety net. We all know that eventually a republic will be destroyed when the dependents of the federal government gain control and simply reward themselves with more and more benefits, to the detriment of the nation.


The above is why the US should have a "House of Lords", as well as a "House of Commons". Since all we have is a "House of Commons", the dependents will eventually gain the upper hand and destroy the republic. One cannot have a government that is designed to give out treats and freebies for votes; a government is supposed to create an environment to prosper, not be the daycare center of the nation.
Thank you for your response, 1 & 2 are fair comments and make a good point. (We, the people, will never agree on what is the right rate.)

One point I want to make is that in #2, you are talking about the right of individuals, but (for the most part), my complaint is that the tax breaks and the subsidies are going to corporations (and some privately own businesses).

The argument has been made, call it whatever you want, that if we free up these 'entities', that they will be able to make more, spend more and hire more. It has not panned out.


In all honesty though, I 100% agree with the point you are making (I think I read the point right), and that is that there is also a limit on the range of how much we can tax companies and others. Too low, and you get the argument I'm making, but (to your point, I think), too high, and they are suffocated, and/or simply go to another country. Fair point, and one I've also defended heavily with my liberal friends.

Same argument can be made for the environment. If you have no regulations, business will destroy the environment, but if you try to regulate everything, you'll destroy business. I get it.

Anyway, I appreciate that you took the time to reply to what I was actually saying. I probably ought to get back to work now, as it has been established that if I want to eat, I'd better earn my paychec.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 06:26 AM
 
Location: annandale, va & slidell, la
7,614 posts, read 3,130,604 times
Reputation: 6425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
So the whole premise of Trickle Down Economics, and the current Trump Tax increase on the middle class so he can give cuts to the ultra-rich is that if you make the rich, richer, they will create jobs and it will benefit the middle and lower class. Is that right?


So tell me this: If that's what they were going to do with the tax cuts (spoiler: They didn't, they pocketed it and bought back their own stocks), then why would you advocate for the government to forcefully take the money from the middle class, give it to the rich, so they can just give it back to the working class?


Be honest here. If a liberal politician had come up with this plan, to take money from people, give it to other people, and trust them to give it back to the people you forcefully took it from, would you support it? Or do you only support it because it's a Republican plan?


I'm sure many will be tempted to deflect by telling me what the Liberals and Dems would (or do) do, but the question is not about that. Tell me, without deflecting, why it's a good idea to forcefully take money from the working class, give it to the rich, and expect them to give it back to the working class. If you can explain that, then explain to me why they would give it back, and when we might expect that to start. If you can't answer those two questions, then maybe you can tell us why you still think it's a good idea, or alternately, if you've changed your mind about that, tell us why.
Your resentment of those more successful than you has unfortunately shaped your understanding of basic economics.

The money I earn is mine. What I'm forced to give to the government is a continuing struggle. What I net and what i do with it is none of your business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 09:22 AM
 
Location: NC
7,215 posts, read 5,058,511 times
Reputation: 7967
Quote:
Originally Posted by finalmove View Post
Your resentment of those more successful than you has unfortunately shaped your understanding of basic economics.

The money I earn is mine. What I'm forced to give to the government is a continuing struggle. What I net and what i do with it is none of your business.
You have no idea what my lot in life is, or if I have resentment or not.

I agree, your money is yours, but mine is mine too. Why should I be taxed at a higher rate than Amazon to provide the infrastructure they need to deliver their packages? Why should I be taxed at a higher rate than Exxon in order to provide them the military support, infrastructure and subsidized gas prices they have to succeed.

And fwiw (I think I already said this), I am a happy supporter of both companies. I make my living in the O&G sector and have no interest in shutting them down. I like my cheap gas, and have no interest in outlawing fracking. And I realize people are free to work where they want, so I have no angst against Amazon's employment practices as compared to anyone else. So don't try to give me that crap either.

Just tell me why, if your money is yours, then how come your so willing to pay a higher tax bracket so Bezos and Tillerson (now Darren Woods) can rake in millions. My only stance is that they should make whatever the heck they can make, but don't give them handouts at my expense. They can afford to pay their own way, I'm not asking for more. (and they are just two easily identifiable examples. I hate to single them out, the problem is systemic, and a result of many things, including the Right's ilconceived plan to give them handouts to supposedly put more money in my pocket.)


Like you said, the money I make is mine. I'll pay my fair share to get the services and infrastructure needed to make it. Everyone else should do the same. The rich should not be exempt. (and yes, they make more, because they use more, so they should pay more.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 01:44 PM
 
32,668 posts, read 26,683,019 times
Reputation: 19303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister 7 View Post
I'm not saying you do (we are on the same page), but I don't begrudge people for being rich from inheritances.

Their mother or father, etc., somebody worked their azz off and earned it, and all that money was taxed a plenty.

It's stupid for people to be mad and act like people with big inheritances aren't entitled to them.

I think it comes down to jealousy, honestly.

you are right, most people who hammer the rich for being rich are jealous that they are not rich themselves. and that jealousy turns into entitlement at some point where the poor person thinks that the rich "owe" them something and should pay up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,226 posts, read 7,875,657 times
Reputation: 5833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
You have no idea what my lot in life is, or if I have resentment or not.

I agree, your money is yours, but mine is mine too. Why should I be taxed at a higher rate than Amazon to provide the infrastructure they need to deliver their packages? Why should I be taxed at a higher rate than Exxon in order to provide them the military support, infrastructure and subsidized gas prices they have to succeed.

And fwiw (I think I already said this), I am a happy supporter of both companies. I make my living in the O&G sector and have no interest in shutting them down. I like my cheap gas, and have no interest in outlawing fracking. And I realize people are free to work where they want, so I have no angst against Amazon's employment practices as compared to anyone else. So don't try to give me that crap either.

Just tell me why, if your money is yours, then how come your so willing to pay a higher tax bracket so Bezos and Tillerson (now Darren Woods) can rake in millions. My only stance is that they should make whatever the heck they can make, but don't give them handouts at my expense. They can afford to pay their own way, I'm not asking for more. (and they are just two easily identifiable examples. I hate to single them out, the problem is systemic, and a result of many things, including the Right's ilconceived plan to give them handouts to supposedly put more money in my pocket.)


Like you said, the money I make is mine. I'll pay my fair share to get the services and infrastructure needed to make it. Everyone else should do the same. The rich should not be exempt. (and yes, they make more, because they use more, so they should pay more.)
Interesting that you talk about Amazon in a thread where you are arguing that tax cuts don't result in job creation. I haven't looked at the numbers for 2018, but in 2017 Amazon created over 100,000 jobs. Considering their expansion in the last year and their shift to next day/same day delivery, I'd say it's likely that they created even more last year.

As for taxes, I'm a firm proponent of a flat tax for everyone, whether they make $100 or $100m.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 03:04 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,407 posts, read 1,483,395 times
Reputation: 3853
Would this be a bad time to point out to the liberal-fanatic OP that the 99% has gotten a significant increases in wages and prosperity since Trump was elected?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Good news. This is what we want, right?

Deregulation, tax reform works.

The 99% Get a Bigger Raise

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) on Tuesday published its annual revisions to personal income data, and the surprise was the huge jump in disposable income and employee compensation.

The revisions show that employee compensation rose 4.5% in 2017 and 5% in 2018—some $4.4 billion and $87.1 billion more than previously reported. The trend has continued into 2019, with compensation increasing $378 billion or 3.4% in the first six months alone. Wages and salaries were revised upward to 5.3% from 3.6% in May year over year. And in June wages and salaries grew at an annual rate of 5.5%, which is a rocking 4.1% after adjusting for inflation.


Personal savings also increased... revised upward to 8.1% from 6.1% in May, which is much higher than the roughly 5% before the last two recessions.

Why? PAY ATTENTION...

Compensation increased 42% more during the first two years of the Trump Presidency than in 2015 and 2016. This refutes the claim by liberals that the economy has merely continued on the same trajectory since 2017 as it was before.

The economy barely skirted recession in the final Obama years, and economic policy changed in 2017. Deregulation has unleashed repressed animal spirits, especially in energy. Tax reform has also spurred business investment in new facilities and equipment, which over time should translate into higher worker productivity and wages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
1,400 posts, read 634,638 times
Reputation: 1874
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
you are right, most people who hammer the rich for being rich are jealous that they are not rich themselves. and that jealousy turns into entitlement at some point where the poor person thinks that the rich "owe" them something and should pay up.
Yep. Those types want to punish the rich for their success, too. This waiter I know told me (Bernie supporter of course) if I ever made $1,000,000 "I can't wait to tax the F out of you, because you would still live well on $xxx amount."

So losers like that think they can decide how much of my money I get to keep? They know how much it would take me to live well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,715 posts, read 20,278,080 times
Reputation: 8495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Nope. A tax cut is only a cut when the budget has a surplus. When there's a deficit a tax cut is actually a federal subsidy financed by public borrowing.

Your tax cut, and Richie Rich's tax cut, is a subsidy because of how it was funded. It's paid for by additional deficit spending, financed by selling Treasury bonds, adding to the public debt. That extra money in your pocket was borrowed from all of us, and you, me, and our kids will be paying it back for years to come.

Enjoy your tax subsidy.

You might have a point if the federal government were entitled to take 100% of my earnings, but it isn't, so your premise fails.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 06:10 PM
 
19,788 posts, read 12,447,473 times
Reputation: 10945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Thank you for your response, 1 & 2 are fair comments and make a good point. (We, the people, will never agree on what is the right rate.)

One point I want to make is that in #2, you are talking about the right of individuals, but (for the most part), my complaint is that the tax breaks and the subsidies are going to corporations (and some privately own businesses).

The argument has been made, call it whatever you want, that if we free up these 'entities', that they will be able to make more, spend more and hire more. It has not panned out.


In all honesty though, I 100% agree with the point you are making (I think I read the point right), and that is that there is also a limit on the range of how much we can tax companies and others. Too low, and you get the argument I'm making, but (to your point, I think), too high, and they are suffocated, and/or simply go to another country. Fair point, and one I've also defended heavily with my liberal friends.

Same argument can be made for the environment. If you have no regulations, business will destroy the environment, but if you try to regulate everything, you'll destroy business. I get it.

Anyway, I appreciate that you took the time to reply to what I was actually saying. I probably ought to get back to work now, as it has been established that if I want to eat, I'd better earn my paychec.
Good response as well- quite reasonable and I understand your position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top