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.
The United States’s budget outlook is bleak, and it’s only going to get bleaker as the American population ages and debt continues to accumulate. Indeed, within just three decades, spending on Social Security, Medicare, and paying the interest on the debt is projected to exceed total revenues. That means all of your tax dollars will go to those two programs and interest to America’s creditors alone, leaving nothing left for the innumerable other things the federal government spends money on.
...
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, currently has a fortune estimated to be around $190 billion. Even if the federal government managed to confiscate and liquidate Musk’s entire wealth tomorrow, that’s enough money to fund the federal government at fiscal year 2022 spending levels for less than 12 days.
...
Part of the problem is that Americans often assume that the wealthy are a lot more numerous than they are. A YouGov survey at the beginning of the year found that Americans believe that about 20 percent of their fellow citizens have an annual income over $1 million. That number is actually well below 1 percent. Indeed, the annual income threshold to be a part of the “1 percent” is actually about $548,000, not even particularly close to $1 million.
People have no idea how huge the national debt is.
People don't realize that there really isn't that many rich people in the world. Rich people are all over television and various media outlets, so that probably explains the discrepancy.
We need to stop sending money to other countries - including Ukraine.
The government needs to get out of the student loan business, and the mortgage loan business, and the healthcare business.
There are numerous ways to cut spending first before hitting anything essentials.
We need to stop sending money to other countries - including Ukraine.
Right here. This would go a LONG WAY to fixing things. Unfortunately the chances of it actually happenning are somewhere between slim and none. That comedian who runs the Ukraine is laughing at us.
The Daily Caller has published false stories on multiple occasions. [...] Until 2018, the website had also published articles by white supremacists such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow. The website has responded to challenges to these stories in various ways, in some cases defending their claims, and in others expressing regret for story headlines or content. On some occasions, the website has repudiated writers discovered to have unsavory personal connections, and has removed objectionable content.
If "the rich" aren't all that numerous, and restoring their taxation levels to, say, pre-Newt Gingrich-Congress levels (1995) wouldn't make much difference, why do they keep pushing for more tax cuts? Why are they kicking and screaming about the mere idea of rolling back their tax cuts?
Although the scope of this topic is too broad to cover in detail here, as a thorough discussion would have to go all the way back to the Reagan administration, some general points that apply to all the tax cut eras between then and 2017-2018 can be made. Here is what the House Committee on the Budget had to say on the topic of tax cuts in 2019:
Quote:
In a hearing last week, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Keith Hall presented the agency’s updated Budget and Economic Outlook. The report shows a darkening fiscal future, with trillion-dollar deficits and record debt levels expected within a decade.
Republicans tried to use the hearing as an opportunity to tout their 2017 tax law, but they conveniently ignored the role it played in exacerbating our fiscal challenges.
Here is what economists said about the Bush tax cuts (updated in 2017):
Quote:
The biggest tax policy changes enacted under President George W. Bush were the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, [...] High-income taxpayers benefited most from these tax cuts, with the top 1 percent of households receiving an average tax cut of over $570,000 between 2004-2012 (increasing their after-tax income by more than 5 percent each year).[...] evidence suggests that they did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.
[...]
The cost of the tax laws enacted during George W. Bush’s administration is equal to roughly 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010, the year the provisions were fully phased in.[...]
At the time, many policymakers [...]cited projected surpluses and falling debt as a reason to cut taxes. But [...] because the tax cuts were financed by borrowing, they added to a growing national debt. The 2 percent of GDP cost figure does not include the extra interest costs resulting from the required borrowing. In 2013 CBPP estimated that, when the associated interest costs are taken into account, the Bush tax cuts (including those that policymakers made permanent) would add $5.6 trillion to deficits from 2001 to 2018.
An examination of the effects of various rounds of Republican tax cuts on the economy reveal the Republican Party to be the true Party of spiraling debt, incurred for the dubious cause of hobbling the federal budget in order to further enrich the well-to-do.
Whom do we mean by "the rich"? Let us define our terms for the purpose of this debate, since the OP article claims, that "the rich" (a very vague designation) constitute less than 1% of the population.
The Reagan tax cuts reduced taxes not only to the highest earners, but to the upper-middle class as well: doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, who formerly paid roughly 65% of their income in federal tax saw their tax burden reduced first to 50%, then in the second round--to 38.5%, then even to 28%. The number of earners benefiting from the tax breaks therefore goes well beyond a mere 1%.
First off, people need to differentiate the working wealthy from the elite, and place their angst accordingly.
The working wealthy are no different than anyone in the workforce, they just have more money. The elite are the ones buying politicians, and swaying policy.
I think this is a fair point.
People love to have a boogeyman to rally against. So "the rich" becomes this all encompassing thing. Where people envision some dysfunctional old money family meeting in a dimly lit smoking parlor at their estate on Martha's Vineyard plotting their next move for world domination.
When it could (or statistically would probably be more likely) to be a young DINK couple that both happen to get good jobs in tech or finance. That just work and pay their taxes and spend their money. No political ties, not conspiring against the little guy. Just living life and enjoying having some wealth.
If "the rich" aren't all that numerous, and restoring their taxation levels to, say, pre-Newt Gingrich-Congress levels (1995) wouldn't make much difference, why do they keep pushing for more tax cuts? Why are they kicking and screaming about the mere idea of rolling back their tax cuts?
Although the scope of this topic is too broad to cover in detail here, as a thorough discussion would have to go all the way back to the Reagan administration, some general points that apply to all the tax cut eras between then and 2017-2018 can be made. Here is what the House Committee on the Budget had to say on the topic of tax cuts in 2019: https://budget.house.gov/publication...-fiscal-future
Similar alarms were raised back in 1995 about the large tax-cut bill, not only by members of Congress, but by economists.
Here is what economists said about the Bush tax cuts (updated in 2017):
An examination of the effects of various rounds of Republican tax cuts on the economy reveal the Republican Party to be the true Party of spiraling debt, incurred for the dubious cause of hobbling the federal budget in order to further enrich the well-to-do.
Whom do we mean by "the rich"? Let us define our terms for the purpose of this debate, since the OP article claims, that "the rich" (a very vague designation) constitute less than 1% of the population.
The Reagan tax cuts reduced taxes not only to the highest earners, but to the upper-middle class as well: doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, who formerly paid roughly 65% of their income in federal tax saw their tax burden reduced first to 50%, then in the second round--to 38.5%, then even to 28%. The number of earners benefiting from the tax breaks therefore goes well beyond a mere 1%.
Reagan's tax cuts were so deleterious to the economy, that they were followed by tax increases.
A national sales tax is all we need.
Look at much we would save just by the reduction of the IRS.
People love to have a boogeyman to rally against. So "the rich" becomes this all encompassing thing. Where people envision some dysfunctional old money family meeting in a dimly lit smoking parlor at their estate on Martha's Vineyard plotting their next move for world domination.
When it could (or statistically would probably be more likely) to be a young DINK couple that both happen to get good jobs in tech or finance. That just work and pay their taxes and spend their money. No political ties, not conspiring against the little guy. Just living life and enjoying having some wealth.
"The elite are the ones buying politicians, and swaying policy."
They are also the ones who give the most to charities, etc.
Great post, the whole tax the wealthy is complete non-sense. If you didn't tax them, and just confiscate everything they have, you basically have enough to run the government of 12 days.
Well, it’s a good thing it’s not a binary option.
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.
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.
