New Democrat Tax Hikes

[scotchtiger]

Just saw an interview on Squawk Box with senator Van Hollen from MD. Dems proposing an additional 5% tax on income over $1M, 10% over $2M and 12% over $3M.

Meanwhile, ~30 million MORE people would pay zero federal income tax. 30M more people with no skin in the game. Even the CNBC host (Becky Quick) seriously questioned the senator on this.

Holy **** at these losers. Giving more people a free ride while penalizing achievement. Blows my mind.

 

[nytigerfan]

Just saw an interview on Squawk Box with senator Van Hollen from MD. Dems proposing an additional 5% tax on income over $1M, 10% over $2M and 12% over $3M.

Meanwhile, ~30 million MORE people would pay zero federal income tax. 30M more people with no skin in the game. Even the CNBC host (Becky Quick) seriously questioned the senator on this.

Holy **** at these losers. Giving more people a free ride while penalizing achievement. Blows my mind.

you lost me with that last line.

Someone getting a "free ride" would not have income to tax anyway.

I certainly hope you're not insinuating that a single mom working two jobs just to be able to pay her rent and keep her kids fed is getting a free ride.

You are making a gross generalization, as always.

 

[baltimorened]

Just saw an interview on Squawk Box with senator Van Hollen from MD. Dems proposing an additional 5% tax on income over $1M, 10% over $2M and 12% over $3M.

Meanwhile, ~30 million MORE people would pay zero federal income tax. 30M more people with no skin in the game. Even the CNBC host (Becky Quick) seriously questioned the senator on this.

Holy **** at these losers. Giving more people a free ride while penalizing achievement. Blows my mind.

while the tax itself is questionable, the worst part, for me, is that the money just goes more for entitlements instead of paying down the deficit.

For me both parties either have a plan for dealing with the debt that none of us knows, or they totally ignore the elephant in the room, more spending is not what's needed for any additional resources.

 

[baltimorened]

you lost me with that last line.

Someone getting a "free ride" would not have income to tax anyway.

I certainly hope you're not insinuating that a single mom working two jobs just to be able to pay her rent and keep her kids fed is getting a free ride.

You are making a gross generalization, as always.

I don't speak for him, but my interpretation is that all of us, no matter what income, benefit from government spending, so just maybe all of us should contribute something toward that benefit. Because, in reality if we're not benefiting, why would the government spend the money?

 

[scotchtiger]

you lost me with that last line.

Someone getting a "free ride" would not have income to tax anyway.

I certainly hope you're not insinuating that a single mom working two jobs just to be able to pay her rent and keep her kids fed is getting a free ride.

You are making a gross generalization, as always.

Free ride can also include enjoying all that America has to offer without contributing to the tax base.

Single mom example falls on the deadbeat dad not providing for his family. It’s a sad situation usually created by either ****** people (deadbeat dads) or ****** decisions. And the government offers assistance for this in the form of handouts, which for this narrow use case, I support (when paired with aggressive pursuit of dad’s wages to offset expense).

 

[baltimorened]

Free ride can also include enjoying all that America has to offer without contributing to the tax base.

Single mom example falls on the deadbeat dad not providing for his family. It’s a sad situation usually created by either ****** people (deadbeat dads) or ****** decisions. And the government offers assistance for this in the form of handouts, which for this narrow use case, I support (when paired with aggressive pursuit of dad’s wages to offset expense).

you know back in the old days child support was mandatory and enforced by the courts...somehow that concept went off the rails, or so it seems

 

[Rastafarian]

Free ride can also include enjoying all that America has to offer without contributing to the tax base.

Single mom example falls on the deadbeat dad not providing for his family. It’s a sad situation usually created by either ****** people (deadbeat dads) or ****** decisions. And the government offers assistance for this in the form of handouts, which for this narrow use case, I support (when paired with aggressive pursuit of dad’s wages to offset expense).

Seems like you frequently complain about the lack of taxes paid by those who struggle to make ends meet.

Have you ever complained about corporations that make billions but get tax credits? Or have you ever complained about the billionaires who pay a single-digit effective tax rate?

it comes off as someone who doesn’t care about the problem as much as they just hate poor people.

 

[Moogy]

Free ride can also include enjoying all that America has to offer without contributing to the tax base.

Single mom example falls on the deadbeat dad not providing for his family. It’s a sad situation usually created by either ****** people (deadbeat dads) or ****** decisions. And the government offers assistance for this in the form of handouts, which for this narrow use case, I support (when paired with aggressive pursuit of dad’s wages to offset expense).

The very first federal income tax ever levied in the United States excluded lower incomes. This "skin in the game" concept you're perpetuating has never been a part of our federal income tax. So, what you're proposing is a complete reimagining of what has been the American federal income tax, and the justifications behind it.

As to your commentary re single moms, you're showing your bias here a bit ... and your underlying vindictiveness ... perhaps she's a single mom because the dad isn't a deadbeat, but, instead ... he's just dead? Or maybe she's the victim of rape? Or some other circumstance which doesn't necessarily "demand" besmirching or belittling someone? And I would guess your bias wouldn't end there ... it would make you less willing or unable to sympathize or empathize with a good number of cases that result in need, or having less than might be necessary to survive.

It probably also sheds some light on the reasons behind your desire to implement this "skin in the game" aspect to the federal income tax. The "free ride" characterization would tend to support these reasons, as well. It's more a "punishment" to get your way, than anything else. So, at which level of taxation should these folks currently not paying federal income tax be taxed? And, what do you think this will accomplish, practically speaking?

So, this guy/girl/family who is having trouble making ends meet, or can't make ends meet, suddenly has to give X% of their income to the federal government ... now what? Are you hoping this spurs them on to vote against taxes, generally, or against raising taxes? Are you hoping this alleviates tax burden on those in a better position to pay it? Or, do you just want to see them suffer more, and not get that free ride? If they're having trouble making ends meet, and they're getting government assistance ... and now they have to pay more .. that will mean they need even more government assistance ... so what did that change about anything?

 

[firegiver]

Its always interesting to me that when we start talking about increasing tax rates above 10 million dollars, anyone can pretend that it isn't common sense. Historically, we had higher taxes in those brackets, in fact, one could argue that it was one of the most successful economic eras of all time.
Anyway, pretending that people who make 10 million, aren't simply owning assets and aren't actually creating anything of value... is silly. No employer out there is going to pay you 10 million dollars for making a widget. You might get that salary as a movie star, or as a top AI developer in todays world. The rest of the folks making that much, are either CEO's or they own assets. Thats it.

Cutting taxes for these folks hasn't really caused any benefits that I've ever seen. Scotch's argument appears to want to beg the question of ethics or something. But when I see taxes being cut so people as a whole, in this country can have a worse standard of life.. I think the ethics are with those arguing for tax increases.

 

[fatpiggy]

The left thinks people don't pay enough. The right thinks the government is corrupt, fraudulent, and inefficient.

It seems like a fair solution would be to 1) get rid of the corruption and fraud 2) American citizens only 3) See where we stand.

If the programs STILL need more funding after making sure they are run properly, then so be it. You get your tax raise.

But a lot of people know the system is broken. I pay $4200 a month for health insurance (I'm not fat as my username suggests. Maybe a little chunky though, lol). There are so many more just egregious examples that honest people feel tapped out. We see the waste, we see the fraud, and nothing is being done about it. We see the streets full of homeless zombies. We see the increased crime and soft on crime. What are we getting for our increased taxes? We know what the homeless are getting. They are getting $330 a night hotel rooms. They are getting free healthcare. 12% of our population is on SNAP.

I think most people would be fine paying their taxes, probably even a little more if they knew their dollars were being spent efficiently. But they aren't. And people of all stripes will go to great lengths to avoid taxes. I don't know a single solitary person who sends in extra money to the government. Not one.

 

[Chumpsky]

Just saw an interview on Squawk Box with senator Van Hollen from MD. Dems proposing an additional 5% tax on income over $1M, 10% over $2M and 12% over $3M.

Meanwhile, ~30 million MORE people would pay zero federal income tax. 30M more people with no skin in the game. Even the CNBC host (Becky Quick) seriously questioned the senator on this.

Holy **** at these losers. Giving more people a free ride while penalizing achievement. Blows my mind.

Nobody gives a fck about your money, you pompous prick. Seriously, nobody.

 

[Chumpsky]

you lost me with that last line.

Someone getting a "free ride" would not have income to tax anyway.

I certainly hope you're not insinuating that a single mom working two jobs just to be able to pay her rent and keep her kids fed is getting a free ride.

You are making a gross generalization, as always.

He is a gross person. It tracks.

 

[Chumpsky]

Its always interesting to me that when we start talking about increasing tax rates above 10 million dollars, anyone can pretend that it isn't common sense. Historically, we had higher taxes in those brackets, in fact, one could argue that it was one of the most successful economic eras of all time.
Anyway, pretending that people who make 10 million, aren't simply owning assets and aren't actually creating anything of value... is silly. No employer out there is going to pay you 10 million dollars for making a widget. You might get that salary as a movie star, or as a top AI developer in todays world. The rest of the folks making that much, are either CEO's or they own assets. Thats it.

Cutting taxes for these folks hasn't really caused any benefits that I've ever seen. Scotch's argument appears to want to beg the question of ethics or something. But when I see taxes being cut so people as a whole, in this country can have a worse standard of life.. I think the ethics are with those arguing for tax increases.

America achieved more between 1945 and 1980 than any nation ever had because the rich paid through the nose in taxes, as they should.

 

[firegiver]

America achieved more between 1945 and 1980 than any nation ever had because the rich paid through the nose in taxes, as they should.

And then the boomers ruined everything.

 

[Chumpsky]

And then the boomers ruined everything.

Yep. We should all be very thankful that the human lifespan isn't a couple hundred years.

 

[baltimorened]

America achieved more between 1945 and 1980 than any nation ever had because the rich paid through the nose in taxes, as they should.

you might want to go back and look at the years 1960 through 1980 and see how much america achieved. In particular the 1970s we got up to 15% inflation, no growth - coined the phrase "stagflation". First house I bought had a 13% mortgage rate.

We might have had a high marginal rate, but life was not as rosy as you seem to believe.

 

[Chumpsky]

you might want to go back and look at the years 1960 through 1980 and see how much america achieved. In particular the 1970s we got up to 15% inflation, no growth - coined the phrase "stagflation". First house I bought had a 13% mortgage rate.

We might have had a high marginal rate, but life was not as rosy as you seem to believe.

I would ask if you're joking, but I know you're not.

 

[baltimorened]

And then the boomers ruined everything.

in 1960 the first boomers were just about 15 years old so from 1966- 1980 they were in career beginning days 21 to 35. So they really didn't have a chance to ruin anything. They were in the building phases of their lives, just about at the point a lot of you are today. It might surprise you, but back then, boomers had the same complaints about life I read from many of you today. Tax the rich wasn't just invented when AOC was elected. Life really took off for a lot during the Reagan years..investments boomed, dot com etc. And, just so you don't take this as a partisan response, things were good for Americans through Democrat and Republican presidents. And during these years the top marginal rate has been relatively constant.

For some reason, a lot of you have the impression that the 1960s to the 1980s were this great time...for a lot of you had you been born in the 1945 time period in the 1970s you might have been slogging rice paddies in Vietnam.

Yea, boomers have made out very well and that because since about the 1980s economic conditions have been very good for growth and investments. In the 1970s if you were in the stock market real returns were not that good. Some boomers have benefited others haven't. Oh and the kick starter for the boom was reduction in the top marginal rate to 50% and then 28%.

 

[baltimorened]

I would ask if you're joking, but I know you're not.

I was there, complaining about the same things you're complaining about today.

 

[Chumpsky]

I was there, complaining about the same things you're complaining about today.

Living through history doesn't automatically leave one imbued with a thorough understanding of the forces of it. Your mortgage wasn't 13% because of the tax rate.

 

[baltimorened]

Living through history doesn't automatically leave one imbued with a thorough understanding of the forces of it. Your mortgage wasn't 13% because of the tax rate.

that wasn't my point. The topic was about how good things were in the 1945-1980 time period. I was simply pointing out that things back then were not as rosy for those of us living through that period as some who didn't live through it seem to believe.

People back then had basically the same issues as we do today, high prices, taxes, inability to get ahead....you don't recall that President carter's recommended solution to high energy prices and inability to afford heat was to "wear a sweater". Admittedly there was no discussion of gender identity, transgenderism, and homosexuality. Those are 2020- today issues

 

[dbjork6317]

Seems like you frequently complain about the lack of taxes paid by those who struggle to make ends meet.

Have you ever complained about corporations that make billions but get tax credits? Or have you ever complained about the billionaires who pay a single-digit effective tax rate?

it comes off as someone who doesn’t care about the problem as much as they just hate poor people.

Scotch’s whole belief system is built around the idea that someone’s worth as a human being is solely determined by how much money someone makes and that all the world’s problems would be solved if everyone everywhere was just exactly like him.

he’s the kind of persons whose solution to depression is “just be happier.”

 

[Chumpsky]

that wasn't my point. The topic was about how good things were in the 1945-1980 time period. I was simply pointing out that things back then were not as rosy for those of us living through that period as some who didn't live through it seem to believe.

You have, as per usual, either entirely missed my point, or chosen to deliberately obfuscate. I'm talking about what the country achieved in ways that set it apart from every other country on earth. That was the period when the U.S. separated itself in virtually every field of achievement you can imagine. scientific, technological, medical, academic, etc.

I wasn't talking about how great life was for the average U.S. citizen, and I never said or implied it was some sort of utopia. But it was unequivocally better for the middle class, and it was getting better for the lower class. You're a republican, so I know you don't care about poor people, but it is objectively bad to not have a robust middle class, and your party has squeezed it nearly out of existence because you didn't want to pay taxes.

 

[Chumpsky]

Scotch’s whole belief system is built around the idea that someone’s worth as a human being is solely determined by how much money someone makes and that all the world’s problems would be solved if everyone everywhere was just exactly like him.

he’s the kind of persons whose solution to depression is “just be happier.”

******* that's well articulated

 

[baltimorened]

You have, as per usual, either entirely missed my point, or chosen to deliberately obfuscate. I'm talking about what the country achieved in ways that set it apart from every other country on earth. That was the period when the U.S. separated itself in virtually every field of achievement you can imagine. scientific, technological, medical, academic, etc.

I wasn't talking about how great life was for the average U.S. citizen, and I never said or implied it was some sort of utopia. But it was unequivocally better for the middle class, and it was getting better for the lower class. You're a republican, so I know you don't care about poor people, but it is objectively bad to not have a robust middle class, and your party has squeezed it nearly out of existence because you didn't want to pay taxes.

you're right. I interpreted your remarks as economically based....I did miss your point.

I'm not a Republican, posted that many times. I was a registered Democrat until 1985 and then became an independent..been that way ever since. I do care about poor people, in fact I donate to charities to support those working with the poor, and as I posted earlier, you can't get much more poor than a married private E1 that has more money going out than coming in. I, and my wife, just decided we wern't going to stay poor.

That's one reason I posted the YouTube videos "Erin talks money" to show that people who start off at the low end of the economic spectrum can instill some habits to get out. I believe there are statistics that most millionaires are self made that either born that way or got that way via inheritance. Of course I think that will change as the dreaded boomers die off and leave $millions to their heirs. But, in spite of the fact that I'm not a boomer, I'm not going easily.

 

[Chumpsky]

you're right. I interpreted your remarks as economically based....I did miss your point.

I'm not a Republican, posted that many times. I was a registered Democrat until 1985 and then became an independent..been that way ever since. I do care about poor people, in fact I donate to charities to support those working with the poor, and as I posted earlier, you can't get much more poor than a married private E1 that has more money going out than coming in. I, and my wife, just decided we wern't going to stay poor.

That's one reason I posted the YouTube videos "Erin talks money" to show that people who start off at the low end of the economic spectrum can instill some habits to get out. I believe there are statistics that most millionaires are self made that either born that way or got that way via inheritance. Of course I think that will change as the dreaded boomers die off and leave $millions to their heirs. But, in spite of the fact that I'm not a boomer, I'm not going easily.

Appreciate the acknowledgement of that.

If I may ask since 1985, how have your votes for president gone?

I'll tell you mine.
96 - Clinton
00 - Bush
04 - Kerry
08 - Obama
12 - Obama
16 - did not vote
20 - Biden
24 - Harris

 

[baltimorened]

And since 1985, how have your votes for president gone?

Bush 1, Clinton, bush2 obama, Romney, trump, I could give you my logic/reasons if you'd like

 

[Chumpsky]

Bush 1, Clinton, bush2 obama, Romney, trump,

So, if I'm clear here, you've voted for Trump 3 times, yes?

 

[baltimorened]

Bush 1, Clinton, bush2 obama, Romney, trump,

So, if I'm clear here, you've voted for Trump 3 times, yes?

I have yes....want to know why? I'll tell you anyway....

Trump/ Clinton I preferred the trump platform. We were coming off 8 years of Obama and Hillary was basically years 9-12. I did not think Hillary was a good candidate, but like I said the trump/Republican platform was better for me. Plus, I thought that as a businessman he would bring some best practices from business to government.

trump/Biden...I worked with Biden many times when he was senator. if you've read my posts you know my occupation. Biden was even before he ran for president a low energy, lightly engaged person. I really didn't;t think he would have an active make it happen approach to the needs - high deficits/covid. Turns out I was right.

trump/Harris...Harris was to me another really bad candidate. She had nothing to offer of her own but admitted she would just continue Biden's policies which included immigration disasters, high deficits, etc.

Now an unexpected bonus. There is a real chance I would have voted Democrat in 2020 and 2024 had the democrats put up better candidates. Like I said, I knew Biden and his capabilities, and Harris, realistically, was not a good candidate, in my opinion.
Votes for trump those years was more lesser of evils than a "this is my man" vote.

 

[Chumpsky]

I have yes....want to know why?

No, do not give a shitt

 

[LafayetteBear]

So, if I'm clear here, you've voted for Trump 3 times, yes?

Yikes.

 

[Chumpsky]

Yikes.

I know. I certainly wouldn't admit it, let alone attempt to justify it.

 

[baltimorened]

I know. I certainly wouldn't admit it, let alone attempt to justify it.

well humor me, why did you vote the way you did all these years

 

[Chumpsky]

well humor me, why did you vote the way you did all these years

You don't understand. I'm not willing to engage on any serious level with someone who voted for Trump 3 times. I flatly will not do it.

 

[baltimorened]

No, do not give a shitt

chumpsky, you're probably a really nice guy, but you always seem so angry. Are you always this way, or just on this board.

I try to have reasonable conversations, but you just shut me (and others) off with caustic comments with no back and forth.

I have a lot of life experiences that you might find useful, I'm really a nice guy

 

[Chumpsky]

chumpsky, you're probably a really nice guy, but you always seem so angry. Are you always this way, or just on this board.

I try to have reasonable conversations, but you just shut me (and others) off with caustic comments with no back and forth.

I have a lot of life experiences that you might find useful, I'm really a nice guy

See post above yours

 

[flotiger]

while the tax itself is questionable, the worst part, for me, is that the money just goes more for entitlements instead of paying down the deficit.

For me both parties either have a plan for dealing with the debt that none of us knows, or they totally ignore the elephant in the room, more spending is not what's needed for any additional resources.

What entitlements? Leaving out social security and Medicare, these "entitlements" are less than 1.5% of federal budget. Why don't we cut some of the corporate welfare?

 

[baltimorened]

See post above yours

yea, I saw it. so why don't we just agree that you put me on ignore, and I'll do the same for you

 

[baltimorened]

What entitlements? Leaving out social security and Medicare, these "entitlements" are less than 1.5% of federal budget. Why don't we cut some of the corporate welfare?

I'm ok with that. I'm even Ok with raising taxes or a surcharge as democrats are proposing. I just want the revenue to go against the deficits

 

[Chumpsky]

yea, I saw it. so why don't we just agree that you put me on ignore, and I'll do the same for you

I have had you on ignore for months. I took you off today for some target practice.