32 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Oh and I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm fine with taxes.

that's the issue, libs don't care about opinions that don't fit their narrative. they are just as dismissive of different ideas and objections as the GOP. the difference is the dems preach they they are the open minded ones when they really aren't. 

1 hour ago, sameaglesfan said:

 

Would that I were a Trumpbot to fit your narrative.

9 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Yeah. And those people don't count at all. Let's take the most progressive tax system in the developed world and make it more reliant on a small group by stealing from them. Makes sense.

Thankfully, it won't pass.

Right now, Joe Manchin is my hero. Keep him in office.

Yeah, they count. However, they can afford higher taxes to help out other people and improve infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. But I guess some feel sorry for people that make $400 thousand dollars a year because they may have to pay higher taxes. Boohoo.

18 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

that's the issue, libs don't care about opinions that don't fit their narrative. they are just as dismissive of different ideas and objections as the GOP. the difference is the dems preach they they are the open minded ones when they really aren't. 

Yeah but I am fine with paying taxes though.

26 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

that's the issue, libs don't care about opinions that don't fit their narrative. they are just as dismissive of different ideas and objections as the GOP. the difference is the dems preach they they are the open minded ones when they really aren't. 

I don't really understand this comment.  He just said he's okay with paying taxes.  How is that being dismissive of someone else's opinion?

26 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yeah, they count. However, they can afford higher taxes to help out other people and improve infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. But I guess some feel sorry for people that make $400 thousand dollars a year because they may have to pay higher taxes. Boohoo.

Its not that anyone feels sorry for them, its actually the 180 degree opposite -- we aspire to be them and acknowledge the overall impact they have on our society where they create jobs that sustain communities

Instead of rewarding them and acknowledging their leadership in the community/economy, you would rather take from them and spend their and our money on your own special interests

We all know that only a small percentage of anything Biden is proposing is actually going to make it where he says it is going.  Lets not fool ourselves for the hundredth time

On 4/26/2021 at 11:32 AM, Lloyd said:

As your article says, it seems the goal (and result) was to give the governors an audience with medical experts rather than politicians.

With that alone, I can see why this would trigger you. 

I think he also missed this part

Quote

And the COVID calls changed, the official added, only after the White House sought input from the states: "We took the feedback from governors in the prior administration that they wanted to have strong, regular, and coordinated response efforts with the federal government, and we’ve been focused on it.”

So like most people on the internet his outrage comes from reading a title, instead of reading the story.

29 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yeah, they count. However, they can afford higher taxes to help out other people and improve infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. But I guess some feel sorry for people that make $400 thousand dollars a year because they may have to pay higher taxes. Boohoo.

Thank you for deciding what I can afford. Just admit you're looking to steal my money to cover for your own failures and satisfy your jealousy.

I'll pay more when EVERYONE pays more. I already represent the only group actually paying anything on a net basis.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Thank you for deciding what I can afford. Just admit you're looking to steal my money to cover for your own failures and satisfy your jealousy.

I'll pay more when EVERYONE pays more. I already represent the only group actually paying anything on a net basis.

You don't get a hard on as you watch your money disappear as others do!? 

4 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Its not that anyone feels sorry for them, its actually the 180 degree opposite -- we aspire to be them and acknowledge the overall impact they have on our society where they create jobs that sustain communities

Instead of rewarding them and acknowledging their leadership in the community/economy, you would rather take from them and spend their and our money on your own special interests

We all know that only a small percentage of anything Biden is proposing is actually going to make it where he says it is going.  Lets not fool ourselves for the hundredth time

Biden’s plan would return the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans to 39.6% after it fell to 37% under the GOP’s 2017 tax law. It would also tax capital gains as income for people making more than $1 million a year ― roughly the wealthiest 0.3% of American households ― and close loopholes used by hedge fund managers and wealthy families to avoid paying taxes.

I see nothing wrong with this at all and If the Infrastructure is improved it will benefit us all. A more efficient power grid, improved roads and bridges, wifi for everyone, etc. It will also be used to help the Environment. It will also create Jobs. 

35 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yeah, they count. However, they can afford higher taxes to help out other people and improve infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. But I guess some feel sorry for people that make $400 thousand dollars a year because they may have to pay higher taxes. Boohoo.

I don't make 400k, but I am in six figures and tired of helping other people out. 

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Thank you for deciding what I can afford. Just admit you're looking to steal my money to cover for your own failures and satisfy your jealousy.

I'll pay more when EVERYONE pays more. I already represent the only group actually paying anything on a net basis.

If you or someone who makes $400 K a year or more can't afford to have their taxes raised by 2.6%, I know a couple Bankruptcy Attorneys you can call. By the way you got a tax cut in 2017 and everyone else didn't. So talk about fair play all you want.

1 minute ago, DaEagles4Life said:

I don't make 400k, but I am in six figures and tired of helping other people out. 

As a couple we are over 300k, and I never said I wanted to pay more taxes. I just clarified what the poster who quoted me said about taxation being theft.

2 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

I don't make 400k, but I am in six figures and tired of helping other people out. 

Sorry your tired. Paying taxes is the law. 

5 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Biden’s plan would return the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans to 39.6% after it fell to 37% under the GOP’s 2017 tax law. It would also tax capital gains as income for people making more than $1 million a year ― roughly the wealthiest 0.3% of American households ― and close loopholes used by hedge fund managers and wealthy families to avoid paying taxes.

I see nothing wrong with this at all and If the Infrastructure is improved it will benefit us all. A more efficient power grid, improved roads and bridges, wifi for everyone, etc. It will also be used to help the Environment. It will also create Jobs. 

If you believe this will cover the trillions and trillions that Biden is proposing in additional spending, I think you're fooling yourself

1 minute ago, Mike31mt said:

If you believe this will cover the trillions and trillions that Biden is proposing in additional spending, I think you're fooling yourself

I guess we shall see. I'm pretty sure Biden used some economists to come up with a plan on how to pay for it. Better then spending the money, kicking the can down the road and increasing the deficit. 

Just now, jsdarkstar said:

If a you or someone who makes $400 K a year or more can't afford to have their taxes raised by 2.6%, I know a couple Bankruptcy Attorneys you can call. By the way you got a tax cut in 2017 and everyone else didn't. So talk about fair play all you want.

I live in CA, so no, I didn't since they capped SALT. But thanks for thinking you know how my taxes work poor guy.

And the debacle is increasing long-term capital gains MASSIVELY. It is one of the dumbest ideas ever floated and will cause a significant slowdown in investments to create new businesses and jobs. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dumbest-tax-increase-11619384611

Quote

 

As a former U.S. President once put it: "The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital from static to more dynamic situations, the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth of the economy.”

That wasn’t Ronald Reagan. It was John F. Kennedy, whose chief economic adviser was liberal Keynesian Walter Heller. A Democrat who said that today would be excommunicated, but it’s nonetheless true.

 

https://medium.com/8vc-news/the-case-for-a-separate-lower-capital-gains-tax-rate-7361cd048af

 

Quote

 

Critics often overlook the fact that the maximum federal LTCG rate in the United States — 23.8% — is one of the highest in the developed world.[1] And our capital gains rate stands in stark contrast to Singapore, Hong Kong, and a dozen OECD countries, which have no capital gains taxes at all.

The reason industrialized countries prefer a separate, lower capital gains rate (or none) is that raising LTCG to the level of the income tax would freeze long-term investments in place. Economists call this capital ice age phenomenon the "lock-in effect”. When the capital gains rate is high, the tax penalty discourages investors from moving their money to exciting, high-growth investments. Consider the following example:

Scenario 1

Suppose Ms. Savvybucks has grown a very small investment into $10M in an asset that she now expects to return about 10% annually. She would like to shift the $10M into an asset that seems likely to return 20% year over year.

In a world with Bernie Sanders’ proposed tax rate of 63.8%, she would have to take an enormous haircut and start over in the new asset with a base investment of $3.62M. Investing $3.62M at the new compounding rate of 20%, it would take her 11.6 years to make up for the massive cut necessary to shift her money into the higher-performing asset. So on any ordinary time frame it’s more reasonable for her to remain "locked-in” to her original, now lower-performing investment.[2]

Scenario 2

In a world with the actual current tax rate of 23.8%, Ms. Savvybucks would take a hit of $2.38M and start her investment in the second, higher-performing asset with $7.62M. In this world, it would only take her about 3.2 years to overtake her original investment, making it more likely that she does so.[3]

The lower the capital gains tax, the more our capital allocation is aligned with higher growth. To drive the point home, consider that over the 11.6 year time frame that would have justified shifting to the more productive investment in Bernie’s capital market dystopia she would have made $63.2M[4] — with all the upside in wages and prosperity that implies for society!

 

 

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I'll pay more when EVERYONE pays more.

 

For the record, I am willing to pay more tax to get better services, I just want the money going to the right places.

 

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I already represent the only group actually paying anything on a net basis.

 

I think you may be overstating this a bit. I am nowhere near your level of income, but I still pay in more than I get back every year. According to Forbes, 47% pay no income tax, which means that a slight majority of us are contributing to the coffers in some way.

 

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

For the record, I am willing to pay more tax to get better services, I just want the money going to the right places.

 

 

I think you may be overstating this a bit. I am nowhere near your level of income, but I still pay in more than I get back every year. According to Forbes, 47% pay no income tax, which means that a slight majority of us are contributing to the coffers in some way.

 

When you net out the amount spent by the government applied over every citizen equally, the number of net payers is tiny.

Joe just keeps getting it done, and America agrees.

 

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

When you net out the amount spent by the government applied over every citizen equally, the number of net payers is tiny.

you're talking people who pay in more than take out in services? given the normalcy of deficit spending I'd expect that to be pretty typical.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

When you net out the amount spent by the government applied over every citizen equally, the number of net payers is tiny.

But the reality is that those services are distributed highly unequally. I can't think of anything in recent memory that the Feds did for me, but they sure do a lot for others. Take the massive amount of farm subsidies, for example. Barely 1% of the nation are farmers, but Trump loaded them up with taxpayer dollars like it was 1933.

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

you're talking people who pay in more than take out in services? given the normalcy of deficit spending I'd expect that to be pretty typical.

It's more extreme in the US than anywhere else in the developed world. We almost uniquely rely on the top 10% to basically fund everything that isn't funded by deficit spending. 

The part the left-wing loons who want Scandinavian style social programs don't say outloud is: (i) they have sovereign wealth funds funded by oil revenues and (ii) EVERYONE pays taxes in those countries. The left's talking point about rich people "not paying their fair share" is ridiculous BS basically on par with the lies of Trump. But it's popular because stealing from a small group of people who you've taught people to hate is always going to be popular (rich people now, Jews in 1930s Germany, etc.). Demonize a group and then constantly get votes by promising to punish them. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

It's more extreme in the US than anywhere else in the developed world. We almost uniquely rely on the top 10% to basically fund everything that isn't funded by deficit spending. 

The part the left-wing loons who want Scandinavian style social programs don't say outloud is: (i) they have sovereign wealth funds funded by oil revenues and (ii) EVERYONE pays taxes in those countries. The left's talking point about rich people "not paying their fair share" is ridiculous BS basically on par with the lies of Trump. But it's popular because stealing from a small group of people who you've taught people to hate is always going to be popular (rich people now, Jews in 1930s Germany, etc.). Demonize a group and then constantly get votes by promising to punish them. 

I don't disagree with you on the general point. Mainly just saying that mathematically, when we're spending more than we're receiving in tax revenue each year, the number of "net contributors" is not only very difficult to pin down but will inevitably mean a very small minority of people who are "net contributors"

I'd imagine it would be very difficult to come to any consensus on how spending is "consumed" passively by the population. By that I mean .. how do you allow how much one "consumes" defense spending? It's a collective benefit to all that, for example, the US Navy secures trade routes not only for ourselves but for the world. I could see an argument that those who benefit the most from this financially - i.e. those who make more - thus benefit more. You could also argue that those who consume more benefit more. Both arguments have a measure of validity. 

Consumption of entitlements is cut and dry. Other collective benefits like infrastructure and defense spending are harder to get to a number on. If that makes sense.