An idea for bipartisan tax reform

I think anyone who does productive labor is ultimately contributing to society in one way or another. For example, the working poor, although they may not pay income taxes, will pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc., as well as indirectly paying tariffs. Most of the working poor also work for others, rather than themselves, and so they contribute to profits that someone else winds up paying taxes on. In addition, they can contribute in the form of jury duty, voting, military or other public-service jobs, etc.

Those that pay income taxes also pay the taxes you seem to believe should exempt the poor from paying income taxes.

No one is forcing the working poor to work for anyone else. If they think they can do better, they should work for themselves.
 
The rich don't need any tax breaks PERIOD!

In fact, they need to pay back all the taxes they have stolen/gotten a break for, for the last 40 years.

Being bipartisan to spare the feelings of big business is ridic...…….

They need to pay back taxes. No compromise necessary.

If one is keeping their own money that they legally earned, then how is it theft?
 
We'll see. The closest approximation we have for that kind of change was the period between 1933 and 1951 when the GOP was effectively defanged and we did a lot of wonderful things for the nation. But think what was needed to bring about that kind of elevation of political consciousness in this country. That generation that turned its back on the GOP only did so after seeing an utter failure of Republican leadership that puts the current situation in the shade. The three Republican administration that led to the Great Depression gave us widespread crushing poverty, bread-lines, Hoovervilles, etc. The 2008 catastrophe was a lesser version of that, and it wasn't even close to enough to render the GOP inoperative for a generation. I don't imagine Trump's going to do it.

I have to give you leftists credit you are adept at memorizing the talking points your minders give you

You might want to take a look at all of the policies of Hoover during the Depression

He raised taxes. I increased worldwide tariffs. He imposed price controls. All of which are the arsenal of the left.

You should try doing a little deeper research other than an Oped in The Nation. Just sayin
 
American conservatives are suckers...and ass-kissers of people who look down on them with contempt and scorn.

Most can't come in out of rain without asking someone above, "By your leave?"
 
I said it's healthy as in high, not that it's a good number. I'm all for eliminating deductions but it will never come to that and as a result we will continue to have crony capitalism.
If you think of "healthy" and "high" as synonymous, I'd recommend you reconsider what your doctor said about your cholesterol and blood pressure. :laugh:
 
If you think of "healthy" and "high" as synonymous, I'd recommend you reconsider what your doctor said about your cholesterol and blood pressure. :laugh:

LOL, it's funny you say that as my doctor just told me I have high blood pressure and it's the first time I've had it to my knowledge. I told the doctor is was the fault of six years of marriage. :)
 
I knew that

Then shouldn't you have shared the information, rather than asking for it? As a reminder, I was responding to you having asked what the lowest marginal rate was in those years.

I don't understand this conservative tendency to try to make arguments by way of assigning work to others, rather than simply presenting their arguments. Is it laziness on their part?
 
Nice try. 3/4 of our spending is on entitlements. Unfortunately that is where you'd have to cut, but in the case of Bernie like dems they want dramatic increases.

So you have a philosophical problem with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid?

Why?


I'm not sure who has higher taxes and better standard of living. Venezuela certainly doesn't. The USSR, and China surely didn't.

But Canada does. As does Germany, Holland, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, Portugal, South Korea, Ireland, and France.
 
Nice try. 3/4 of our spending is on entitlements.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "our spending" and what you mean by "entitlements." Assuming you're talking about the federal government, and you don't count national defense and paying interest on the debt as "entitlements," though, then no. As for FY 2020, the defense budget is 15.9% of outlays, and net interest payments are 9.7%, so right there you're up over 1/4, before even considering various other budget items few would call entitlements (homeland security, international security assistance, highways, the FAA, the FCC, the SEC, R&D, space exploration, land management, and so on).

Anyway, the US has a very lean budget in most areas, compared to other wealthy nations. When you compare the percentage of our GDP that goes to government spending on social programs, we come in unusually low. Where our spending is unusually high is when it comes to the military. No nation in world history has ever spent as much on its military, relative to the other leading militaries of its time, as we do. We spend twice as much as all our adversaries combined. It's unprecedented. For those who are serious about finding budget savings in a non-counterproductive way, that's where to look.

I'm not sure who has higher taxes and better standard of living.

There's no clear agreed way to measure "standard of living." Do you go with life expectancy, amount of leisure time, poverty rates, educational levels, or what? Is the US's standard of living high because we have fairly high median incomes? Or is it low because we have some of the worst incarceration rates, infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse rates, teen pregnancy rates, and suicide rates of any wealthy nation? Among various wealthy nations, different people will make pitches for different countries, depending on what they think the proper way to think about standards of living is.

However, what's clear is that the US has abnormally low taxes for a wealthy nation. As of 2016 (the last year for which data is available for all OECD nations), the US collected revenues equal to 25.9% of GDP. The only OECD nations that were lower were Turkey, Ireland, Chile, and Mexico. So.... three poor nations and one boutique economy the size of a city that effectively functions as an off-shore tax haven. Every other developed nation has higher taxes. The highest are in Iceland, Denmark, France, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Italy, and Austria -- with tax revenues of between 42.2% and 51.6% of GDP.

So, again, the point is that we have ample reason to believe that we can raise taxes while maintaining high quality of life, since every other major high-quality-of-life country has higher taxes than us. It's less clear we can lower taxes without losing quality of life, since nearly every major country with lower taxes than us is one with a shitty quality of life.... the only exception being Ireland, which has an economic model that can't be emulated at our scale, since a huge portion of its GDP comes from simply being the nominal location of economic activities by corporations fictionally headquartered there for accounting purposes.
 
Last edited:
Those that pay income taxes also pay the taxes you seem to believe should exempt the poor from paying income taxes.

What made you think that I believe it's those other taxes that I think should exempt the poor from paying income taxes? Obviously, that's not at all the argument I made.
 
I have to give you leftists credit you are adept at memorizing the talking points your minders give you

You might want to take a look at all of the policies of Hoover during the Depression

He raised taxes. I increased worldwide tariffs. He imposed price controls.

Why would you imagine I'm not aware of those things? What Hoover didn't do is what FDR did -- massive intervention in the economy, which is what was called for.

You should read up on the topic, rather than assuming that if something came as a revelation for you, it must not be common knowledge.
 
Last edited:
LOL, it's funny you say that as my doctor just told me I have high blood pressure and it's the first time I've had it to my knowledge. I told the doctor is was the fault of six years of marriage. :)

Wildly off the topic, but I've been looking into intermittent fasting. I'm still fairly young, trim, and healthy, but I have family history of Alzheimer's and Parkinsons, so I was looking into the benefits of fasting for autophagy, which some research suggests can help prevent those problems. But as part of that, I was reading up on fasting, generally, and apparently it helps out with insulin sensitivity, weight loss, and lowering blood pressure, too. You might want to read up on it in the context of that blood pressure. My (so far, very limited) experience with intermittent fasting is that it's really easy, so it might be worth a shot.
 
Wildly off the topic, but I've been looking into intermittent fasting. I'm still fairly young, trim, and healthy, but I have some family history of Alzheimer's and Parkinsons, so I was looking into the benefits of fasting for autophagy, which some research suggests can help prevent those problems. But as part of that, I was reading up on fasting, generally, and apparently it helps out with insulin sensitivity, weight loss, and lowering blood pressure, too. You might want to read up on it in the context of that blood pressure. My (so far, very limited) experience with intermittent fasting is that it's really easy, so it might be worth a shot.

Interesting. I've heard of intermittent fasting but never really looked into it. I'll research it, thanks. I generally work out regularly, eat pretty well and am in good shape. We've been going through some family stuff and I've gotten off my routine for a couple of months and think that's what has contributed to it. So I'm open to trying something new as I get back into a routine.
 
Then shouldn't you have shared the information, rather than asking for it? As a reminder, I was responding to you having asked what the lowest marginal rate was in those years.

I don't understand this conservative tendency to try to make arguments by way of assigning work to others, rather than simply presenting their arguments. Is it laziness on their part?

It is a common tactic of a teacher. You learn better if you look it up yourself instead of having me spoon feed you.

It is a common tactic of leftists to only focus on the top marginal tax rate of that time. It is one of the most intellectually lazy and disingenuous arguments one can make.
 
Bottom line...……….white people don't want to pay taxes because they don't want their money going to Blacks and Mexicans.

THAT IS THE ONLY REASON THEY WANT TAX CUTS AND WHY THEY HATE THE GOVERMENT.

Any other excuse they give is lying.


Dying of Whiteness

How the Politics of Racial Resentment Is Killing America's Heartland

"Dying of Whiteness brilliantly demonstrates the tremendous impediment that white racism and backlash politics pose to our society's wellbeing, at a time when many white Americans quite literally would rather die than support policies they see as benefiting people of color. Jonathan M. Metzl issues an urgently needed call to acknowledge the deadly toll of investing in whiteness-and to work collectively toward a just society that would be healthier for everyone."—

"Policy makers, scholars, and the public at large need to read Jonathan M. Metzl's Dying of Whiteness. He forcefully but with empathy demonstrates how poor and working class whites are literally killing themselves by supporting policies on guns, health care, and taxes framed as defending white authority but which, in truth, benefit the white elite."—

The racist right has been lying to white America about their policies and who it effects.

EVERYTHING BOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS A RACIST LIE EVERYTHING!


This author was on morning joe this morning and one of MJ analyst asked " so how do we reach these people to make them feel better"? The answer is WE DONT! Let them wallow in their self hate and pitty and don't cater to them. That's a big problem in America, we cater to white racism.
 
Last edited:
American conservatives are suckers...and ass-kissers of people who look down on them with contempt and scorn.
Most can't come in out of rain without asking someone above, "By your leave?"

You are a raving lunatic who should not be allowed in public.
 
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "our spending" and what you mean by "entitlements." Assuming you're talking about the federal government, and you don't count national defense and paying interest on the debt as "entitlements," though, then no. As for FY 2020, the defense budget is 15.9% of outlays, and net interest payments are 9.7%, so right there you're up over 1/4, before even considering various other budget items few would call entitlements (homeland security, international security assistance, highways, the FAA, the FCC, the SEC, R&D, space exploration, land management, and so on).

Are you purposefully this stupid, or just work at being a dishonest moron?

Medicare, Medicaid and Other healthcare = 28%
Social Security = 24%
Income Security= 17%

For math challenged morons and dishonest asshats, that would be 69% of the budget before "other", "interest" and "military spending." I do wish you leftist morons had brains.

https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/where-does-all-the-money-go/
 
Why would you imagine I'm not aware of those things? What Hoover didn't do is what FDR did -- massive intervention in the economy, which is what was called for.

You should read up on the topic, rather than assuming that if something came as a revelation for you, it must not be common knowledge.

Still bloviating lies I see.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
 
Back
Top