tax bill

[Kpdemello]

Take a look at the white house, dude. Billionaires are the governing class.

Even before the Orange One took office, billionaires were the governing class. Who do you think paid for those multi-hundred-million-dollar campaigns? (Democrats and Republicans)

you are completely out of touch w reality...you keep saying the same thing over and over...politics of envy...got it...

LOL, I'm out of touch with reality? You don't even see the multitude of ways that the uber wealthy are gaming the system to keep and increase their wealth. Remember 2008, when investment bankers created a giant bubble, earned billions (trillions?) then had the government bail them out?

Meanwhile, you argue that tax breaks for people who don't need them are a good idea, while the average middle class family
gets a few hundred bucks, and the federal budget gets f*** for decades to finance it. If you don't see that as a huge money grab by the wealthy class at the expense of the next generation, then you're not really paying attention.

It's not envy. It's fairness. You're getting screwed without lube, but the people doing the screwing have got you believing that it's the best f*** of your life.

[Kpdemello]

yep... remind us all again exactly what of mine you are entitled to and why...

Nothing? I'm talking about tax policy. Everyone pays it.

You keep assuming that when I'm talking about taxing rich people I'm talking about taxing YOU. Do you have $100 million lying around that I don't know about? Are you even worth $5 mil? I can understand your belief that any politician who talks about taxing the rich really ends up taxing the upper middle class. That's probably because that's what Democrats do, but Democrats, like Republicans, are largely servants of the billionaire class that funds their campaigns.

[madhatter]

Take a look at the white house, dude. Billionaires are the governing class.

Even before the Orange One took office, billionaires were the governing class. Who do you think paid for those multi-hundred-million-dollar campaigns? (Democrats and Republicans)

you are completely out of touch w reality...you keep saying the same thing over and over...politics of envy...got it...

LOL, I'm out of touch with reality? You don't even see the multitude of ways that the uber wealthy are gaming the system to keep and increase their wealth. Remember 2008, when investment bankers created a giant bubble, earned billions (trillions?) then had the government bail them out?

Meanwhile, you argue that tax breaks for people who don't need them are a good idea, while the average middle class family
gets a few hundred bucks, and the federal budget gets f*** for decades to finance it. If you don't see that as a huge money grab by the wealthy class at the expense of the next generation, then you're not really paying attention.

It's not envy. It's fairness. You're getting screwed without lube, but the people doing the screwing have got you believing that it's the best f*** of your life.

I don;t feel like I'm getting screwed out of anything but you keep trying...its absolute envy on your part...and you are oblivious to it...cuz you know what fairness is...and you can;t wait to impose it wherever you feel necessary...remind us all again what ANYONE owes you? I'll give you a hint NOTHING....

[Kpdemello]

I don;t feel like I'm getting screwed out of anything but you keep trying...its absolute envy on your part...and you are oblivious to it...cuz you know what fairness is...and you can;t wait to impose it wherever you feel necessary...remind us all again what ANYONE owes you? I'll give you a hint NOTHING....

Yes, I know you don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. I don't think anyone owes me anything, but it makes me really angry when the government goes into debt to finance a tax cut for people earning $500k per year. That is screwing all of us, because all of us (and our kids' kids) will be responsible for paying that debt.

Meanwhile I've been told my entire life that social security will likely not be around when I retire, despite the fact that I've been paying into it for nearly two decades, because the government is too far into debt.

Maybe you don't care about that, or maybe you just don't think about it.. but that doesn't mean you're not getting screwed.

[madhatter]

yep... remind us all again exactly what of mine you are entitled to and why...

Nothing? I'm talking about tax policy. Everyone pays it.

You keep assuming that when I'm talking about taxing rich people I'm talking about taxing YOU. Do you have $100 million lying around that I don't know about? Are you even worth $5 mil? I can understand your belief that any politician who talks about taxing the rich really ends up taxing the upper middle class. That's probably because that's what Democrats do, but Democrats, like Republicans, are largely servants of the billionaire class that funds their campaigns.

same ol sh!t different wrapper...politics of envy in the name of "fairness".... don;t bother re-explaining again... I got it...perhaps you need some one else to explain it to you in order to actually understand...

[madhatter]

I don;t feel like I'm getting screwed out of anything but you keep trying...its absolute envy on your part...and you are oblivious to it...cuz you know what fairness is...and you can;t wait to impose it wherever you feel necessary...remind us all again what ANYONE owes you? I'll give you a hint NOTHING....

Yes, I know you don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. I don't think anyone owes me anything, contradiction immediately following....but it makes me really angry when the government goes into debt to finance a tax cut for people earning $500k per year. and here it is...That is screwing all of us, because all of us (and our kids' kids) will be responsible for paying that debt.

Maybe you don't care about that, or maybe you just don't think about it.. but that doesn't mean you're not getting screwed.

yep yer a leftwing marxist for sure...finance a tax cut...as if it costs the govt to let people keep their own money...

but in your world it;s NOT their money...

[Kpdemello]

yep yer a leftwing marxist for sure...finance a tax cut...as if it costs the govt to let people keep their own money...

but in your world it;s NOT their money...

Bro stop drinking the conservative kool aid. If you cut taxes without cutting spending, that results in a deficit, and an increase in national debt. It's just math.

What they could and should have done was cut spending before cutting taxes. If they did that, I really wouldn't quibble with it. But they didn't, which means those tax cuts have to be financed by debt. That's math, dude, not Marxism.

[madhatter]

yep yer a leftwing marxist for sure...finance a tax cut...as if it costs the govt to let people keep their own money...

but in your world it;s NOT their money...

Bro stop drinking the conservative kool aid. If you cut taxes without cutting spending, that results in a deficit, and an increase in national debt. It's just math.

What they could and should have done was cut spending before cutting taxes. If they did that, I really wouldn't quibble with it. But they didn't, which means those tax cuts have to be financed by debt. That's math, dude, not Marxism.

only the SPENDING takes money...you continually dress up your confiscatory politics of envy in marxist language...there;s really no point in continuing here we all understand what you are after...RICH people's money to fill the govt coffers in order to fullfill your idea of fairness...that you've said it in 20 different ways in an attempt to dress it up as something else is irrelevant...

[Kpdemello]

only the SPENDING takes money...you continually dress up your confiscatory politics of envy in marxist language...there;s really no point in continuing here we all understand what you are after...RICH people's money to fill the govt coffers in order to fullfill your idea of fairness...that you've said it in 20 different ways in an attempt to dress it up as something else is irrelevant...

Right, and you see Marxism behind any argument that doesn't ally with your conservative kool aid colored world view.

Marxists don't usually argue that government should cut its budget, but that's one thing I've been saying consistently throughout this thread. But if the government isn't going to cut its budget, it certainly should NOT cut taxes, and certainly NOT on the wealthiest people in the country. That literally makes no sense, regardless of your politics.

[Kpdemello]

What we really should do is have a graduated estate tax, but honestly rich people hire skilled attorneys and lobbyists to avoid having to pay much in estate taxes anyway. It's been a cat and mouse game between the havesand thethose who envy and want for themselvesfor centuries.

I was actually referring to the history of the estate tax, which started long before Karl Marx was a sperm in his father's ballsack and before capitalism was a thing. Rich nobility were trying to game the estate tax system way back when people like you and me were peasant serfs indentured to feudal lords, and monarchies were trying to raise money to seize real estate in neighboring countries in the name of glory and random deities.

Sorry for the double post but you sneak these things into the quotes and I miss them. Maybe I'm color blind.

[madhatter]

only the SPENDING takes money...you continually dress up your confiscatory politics of envy in marxist language...there;s really no point in continuing here we all understand what you are after...RICH people's money to fill the govt coffers in order to fullfill your idea of fairness...that you've said it in 20 21, and counting...different ways in an attempt to dress it up as something else is irrelevant...

Right, and you see Marxism behind any argument that doesn't ally with your conservative kool aid colored world view. yeah except YOU are teh only one I've ever identified as marxist...that you aren't karl marx himself is not exactly news either...whatever caveats you may include your overall theme is politics of envy , tax the rich for the greater good, marxism...

Marxists don't usually argue that government should cut its budget, but that's one thing big deal...I've been saying consistently throughout this thread. But if the government isn't going to cut its budget, it certainly should NOT cut taxes, and certainly NOT on the wealthiest people in the country. That literally makes no sense, regardless of your politics.

[Kpdemello]

Marxists don't usually argue that government should cut its budget, but that's one thing big deal...I've been saying consistently throughout this thread. But if the government isn't going to cut its budget, it certainly should NOT cut taxes, and certainly NOT on the wealthiest people in the country. That literally makes no sense, regardless of your politics.

Ha... one thing that is completely antithetical to the central theme of Marxism. Perhaps that word does not mean what you think it means.

I'll say again though that Marx was just a philosopher. He had some good ideas, even if his conclusion of communism as a system of government was crap. He's no different than Adam Smith or John Locke. They each had good ideas and shitty ones. It's best to read and study them all, and use the ideas that make the most sense for society.

[Mister Moose]

... But if the government isn't going to cut its budget, it certainly should NOT cut taxes, and certainly NOT on the wealthiest people in the country. That literally makes no sense, regardless of your politics.

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

Not completely related to moving towards a balanced budget. Both optimizing revenue and optimizing investment don't by themselves balance the budget. That doesn't mean they aren't good things. Cutting spending is probably the hardest thing for Washington to do. They even balk at reducing a scheduled increase.

Do Vermonters buy stuff in New Hampshire? You bet. Do retailers build big box stores in Eastern VT? No way. You only need to look at White River Junction vs Lebanon NH to see the effect of tax policy at work.

[madhatter]

... But if the government isn't going to cut its budget, it certainly should NOT cut taxes, and certainly NOT on the wealthiest people in the country. That literally makes no sense, regardless of your politics.

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

Not completely related to moving towards a balanced budget. Both optimizing revenue and optimizing investment don't by themselves balance the budget. That doesn't mean they aren't good things. Cutting spending is probably the hardest thing for Washington to do. They even balk at reducing a scheduled increase.

Do Vermonters buy stuff in New Hampshire? You bet. Do retailers build big box stores in Eastern VT? No way. You only need to look at White River Junction vs Lebanon NH to see the effect of tax policy at work.

it's like east and west berlin...

[XtremeJibber2001]

Except that everyone, including the wealthy, does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to tax policy. People choose to structure their finances to reduce their tax burden. So with higher taxes on the wealthy, they choose where to place their capital based on the current tax structure. If the tax structure is too oppressive, the money goes elsewhere.

So in some cases, yes, it does make sense to cut certain taxes on the wealthy, as it changes the allocation of the their resources, and if that brings more investment and jobs to the US, that's a good thing. For everyone.

By the theme of the thread I assume you're talking income tax cuts for the wealthy, which decreased from 39.6% to 37% for those making $500k (single-filer) to $600k (joint+). Is there a particular study that demonstrates these types of cuts result in the wealthy keeping more of their capital in the US? Personally, I don't buy it.

Now if you're talking the corporate tax rate then I agree it changes the allocation of their resources. However, it does not consistently result in more jobs ... investment, yes. Expect higher dividends, more share buy backs, more returning of profits to shareholders .... one might argue these disproportionately benefit the 'wealthy'.