OT: US 30 year treasury above 5% for the longest period since 2007

[johnson86-1]

It is a realistic solution...in their eyes. It doesnt fully close the funding gap, but it is a way to significantly reduce it.
I am not arguing in favor of it, I am simply pointing out that it is a realistic solution people push for, even if you dislike it.

AGain. It's not a solution. It's a small step towards the smallest problem, and it still is more or less exclusively about having other people pay it. You can get pretty much 100% of voter agreement on other people paying for everything. But the math doesn't work on that.

In their eyes, I bet they would argue that reducing benefit payouts, or extending the collection age to something older like 74, is not a solution.

They can say it's not a solution, but it actually is mathematically. It's probably not politically viable, but at least it's a solution.

This is obviously the issue in a nutshell-
- Your view(which is held by many) want to keep taxes on high income earners low and reduce spending to 'solve' things.

That's not a reasonable interpretation at all. High income earners pay a **** ton of taxes. The issue is we have basically four options: (i) reduce spending, (ii) significantly broaden the tax base (as other high spending countries do, although at a significant negative hit to growth), (iii) continue on the current path to ruin, or (iv) take an intermediate stop at confiscatory taxes on the rich before getting to ruin. The first two are politically impossible in the current environment. So we are looking at (iii) or (iv) unless voters get responsible.

- The other view(which is held by many) want to increase the low taxation cap on those who can most afford it and keep spending the same to 'solve' things.

Again, this is not solving it. It could be part of a solution. But generally it's just an example of the current political environment where I want a **** ton of spending that other people pay for.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

This is correct. The part of fiscal conservatism that is for restrained or budget positive spending no longer exists in American politics.

Conservatives used to be concerned about the debt, the deficit, government overreach and jack booted thugs.

Back in the good old days.

Now they just want to make sure everyone is pi$$ingandsh44ing in the correct bathroom.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

If your model of government is to squeeze as much as possible from the populace, then getting it to that peak is reasonable. If your model of government is to fund necessary services, then trying to have maximize the amount of GDP captured by the government in taxes is not a reasonable measure.

So, no?

and, trying to raise revenue to historical levels is "squeeze as much as possible from the populace"?

reminder, we are judging the seriousness of the "fiscal conservative" view by your responses.

Getting to 17.4% of GDP would be fine.

Dont you think in a "pay down massive debt" period that we should be above the historical average in revenue?

An good place to start would be to include social security payments as straight income. The people that are about to be collecting social security are as culpable as anybody for the state of our finances, and that would be a progressive tax. It'd only really matter for the retirees that are doing well. That seems like the minimum that should be done before asking younger and generally poorer people to pay more taxes to shield affluent retirees.

No objection in principle. Probably more politically difficult than its worth, but i agree. And I dont see it generating much revenue, so I have no idea why we'd start there.

ETA: Other good places to raise revenue:
- Phase out exempt status of state and muni debt. That's virtually all rich people investing in those (and it would also be instructive to get a lot of politicians to discuss tax incidence).

Agreed

- Phase out Salt deduction for personal and business income. Again, mostly rich people and business owners that pay that tax.

Meh. This is just raising taxes on the middle class that pay the highest overall rates already. Not my preference, but id leave it on the table.

- Phase out Mortgage interest deduction. Again, mostly affluent people. The MID is actually fine policy wise but it wouldn't hurt too much to just get rid of it over time.

Sure

- Treat inheritance and gifts as income after the first $10M. Makes a lot more sense to hit people for receiving a lot of money than taxing people for dying with a lot of money. Anybody could avoid the estate tax by spreading their wealth around if they want too. Everybody can receive enough to be wealthy before having to pay taxes.

I guess. Id be more in favor of taxing such that avoided taxes on the front end. Eliminating step up basis, etc. Tax an inherited 401k more than an inherited taxable account, etc.

I'd add taxing loans below market rates as income.

Those are all

 

[JackReacherDawg]

Revenue is absolutely not down. Revenue as a percent of GDP is not the same thing as revenue.

Its the proper way to measure it for this discussion.

So thats a no?

Those are all measures that are progressive (with the possible exception of the last one; would depend on how people responded) that match democrats claimed preference for progressive taxes that are also not terribly destructive and wouldn't have tons of deadweight loss. Of course democrats would fight like hell against all of them, with the possible exception of the last one.

I think my responses before you added this as an edit argues against that conclusion.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

That's not a reasonable interpretation at all. High income earners pay a **** ton of taxes.

Some do. Some dont. Addressing the latter is a necessary part of fixing this problem.

The issue is we have basically four options: (i) reduce spending, (ii) significantly broaden the tax base (as other high spending countries do, although at a significant negative hit to growth), (iii) continue on the current path to ruin, or (iv) take an intermediate stop at confiscatory taxes on the rich before getting to ruin. The first two are politically impossible in the current environment. So we are looking at (iii) or (iv) unless voters get responsible.

Lol, thats hardly the full list of options.

Again, this is not solving it. It could be part of a solution. But generally it's just an example of the current political environment where I want a **** ton of spending that other people pay for.

Most people see it as the opposite. If SS is a welfare system, not a retirement system (which most informed people agree is true), then exempting the rich from paying for it is just a "**** ton of spending that other people pay for". Correcting that wrong is doing the opposite.

But here we see the typical "fiscal conservative" playing games to attempt to have the rich pay less in taxes. Which is what they really want.

 

[Barkman Turner Overdrive]

Asking why about this admin is not going to yield meaningful results. Same reason we have the caveman begging congress for more billions to fight a war they didn’t vote for. Same reason we have tariff roulette with spins every 24 hours to determine what’s on and off, same reason we had caveman and Trump berating our European allies about not pitching in on an ill advised war that we started unilaterally and without any planning or concensus, same reason an 80 yo man acts like a petulant child more focused on themselves, loyalty and revenge than anything else, same reason a bunch of people who voted for “America First” are finding out that the Pentagon is spending all of our money on war mongering while also killing us with inflation, and directly driving up the price of gas, etc. The list is actually quite long and the answer can be found if you google “toxic narcissist”…

You forgot him making a jack@ss out of himself at the World Cup podium looking like Michael Scott with dementia. Also, his family increasing their net worth by billions with their phony baloney Crypto scheme and DoD contracts.

 

[ETK99]

If you think he can even plan your fooling yourself. However the VP can but trumps too busy cuckholding him or anyone in his group with an opinion or truth whatever it may be, Vance has a plan however.

There's a reason there's a new Fed chief and it's Trump. He wanted someone willing to cut rates no matter what and one of the two that were up for it was willing to do it. So it's coming. It might not be much or long lived, but with elections coming, it's almost a certainty.

 

[johnson86-1]

So, no?

and, trying to raise revenue to historical levels is "squeeze as much as possible from the populace"?

You didn't say raise it to historical levels. You said raise it to the top of the chart, which was a one time anomaly that is about 14.4% higher than the historical average. And yes, viewing tax as a GDP is basically seen as "how much can we squeeze without killing the economy". People getting richer as a whole is not a reason to squeeze them more. It's a reason you can squeeze them more. Just embracing the whole stationary bandit approach to governance.

reminder, we are judging the seriousness of the "fiscal conservative" view by your responses.

Dont you think in a "pay down massive debt" period that we should be above the historical average in revenue?

It mathematically has to be. And it already is. Again, inflation adjusted, our revenues how shot up much more than population. All we have to do is keep per person expenditures somewhat close to the historical average (doesn't even have to be below the historical average because revenue has increased so much).

No objection in principle. Probably more politically difficult than its worth, but i agree. And I dont see it generating much revenue, so I have no idea why we'd start there.

Just because it's such an idiotic policy and so inequitable that it'd be morally objectionable to not. You want to reduce services to the poor or raise taxes on less affluent people before taking on a ridiculous tax preference for older rich people?

Agreed

Meh. This is just raising taxes on the middle class that pay the highest overall rates already. Not my preference, but id leave it on the table.

The Middle class do not pay the highest overall rates already. That's an absurd statement. On the individual income tax side, you have have to make pretty good money before not needing the standard deduction and your state and local tax burden becomes a significant deduction. On the business side, this would be a tax increase on certain non-rich people that basically own their job rather than a really successful business. But ultimately this is just preferential treatment to higher tax jurisdictions and would raise good revenue, so it makes sense. Definitely important to phase it in to give people time to adjust.

Sure

I guess. Id be more in favor of taxing such that avoided taxes on the front end. Eliminating step up basis, etc. Tax an inherited 401k more than an inherited taxable account, etc.

Eliminating step up basis is fine. It made sense historically because of the difficulty of determining thte basis, but that isn't a good justification now. Certainly capital gains taxes are bad taxes policy wise, but there's no reason to associate a break from bad tax policy with death rather than just trying to mitigate the bad policy generally. For 401k's, I think for consistency sake (and ease of administration) you should treat say 85% of it or whatever the average tax rate is towards your $10M cap and then still tax it as it's withdrawn as income.

I'd add taxing loans below market rates as income.

They already are treated as income. Unless you are talking about essentially marking loans to market as interest rates change and treating the gain (or loss) as income. I think that'd be too administratively burdensome just like taxing other unrealized gains.

 

[Yeti]

I freaking hate where we are. Both parties are so far left and right it’s stupid. Left wing right wing same nut!

 

[8dog]

You didn't say raise it to historical levels. You said raise it to the top of the chart, which was a one time anomaly that is about 14.4% higher than the historical average. And yes, viewing tax as a GDP is basically seen as "how much can we squeeze without killing the economy". People getting richer as a whole is not a reason to squeeze them more. It's a reason you can squeeze them more. Just embracing the whole stationary bandit approach to governance.



It mathematically has to be. And it already is. Again, inflation adjusted, our revenues how shot up much more than population. All we have to do is keep per person expenditures somewhat close to the historical average (doesn't even have to be below the historical average because revenue has increased so much).



Just because it's such an idiotic policy and so inequitable that it'd be morally objectionable to not. You want to reduce services to the poor or raise taxes on less affluent people before taking on a ridiculous tax preference for older rich people?



The Middle class do not pay the highest overall rates already. That's an absurd statement. On the individual income tax side, you have have to make pretty good money before not needing the standard deduction and your state and local tax burden becomes a significant deduction. On the business side, this would be a tax increase on certain non-rich people that basically own their job rather than a really successful business. But ultimately this is just preferential treatment to higher tax jurisdictions and would raise good revenue, so it makes sense. Definitely important to phase it in to give people time to adjust.



Eliminating step up basis is fine. It made sense historically because of the difficulty of determining thte basis, but that isn't a good justification now. Certainly capital gains taxes are bad taxes policy wise, but there's no reason to associate a break from bad tax policy with death rather than just trying to mitigate the bad policy generally. For 401k's, I think for consistency sake (and ease of administration) you should treat say 85% of it or whatever the average tax rate is towards your $10M cap and then still tax it as it's withdrawn as income.


They already are treated as income. Unless you are talking about essentially marking loans to market as interest rates change and treating the gain (or loss) as income. I think that'd be too administratively burdensome just like taxing other unrealized gains.

The step up in basis is something that actually can really help middle class folks. I‘d like to see it stick around

 

[aTotal360]

We're doomed.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

We're doomed.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

You didn't say raise it to historical levels. You said raise it to the top of the chart, which was a one time anomaly that is about 14.4% higher than the historical average.

Well, within historical levels then. I wouldn't say its an anomaly either. Id say it's a result of runaway private capital showing up in revenue, before policy changes went the other way.

And yes, viewing tax as a GDP is basically seen as "how much can we squeeze without killing the economy". People getting richer as a whole is not a reason to squeeze them more. It's a reason you can squeeze them more. Just embracing the whole stationary bandit approach to governance.

You're going off your rocker here.

It mathematically has to be. And it already is. Again, inflation adjusted, our revenues how shot up much more than population. All we have to do is keep per person expenditures somewhat close to the historical average (doesn't even have to be below the historical average because revenue has increased so much).

This makes no sense. Its just an attempt to not take the rich. Of course our revenues have shot up, we're a wealthier nation! Costs shoot up with wealth too ya know. Why the hell would we keep expenditures the same as when people didn't have electricity or running water?

Just because it's such an idiotic policy and so inequitable that it'd be morally objectionable to not. You want to reduce services to the poor or raise taxes on less affluent people before taking on a ridiculous tax preference for older rich people?

Here we go with the non-seriousness again. Id be fine including it as a small part of a large package. But to tackle it first makes no sense.

The Middle class do not pay the highest overall rates already. That's an absurd statement.

I could have phrased that better. I mean, it hits the subsection of the middle class that is already paying top middle class rates. (Not sure if a Cali middle class person pays more or less than a Mississippi millionaire. Probably some of both with the outrageous variations in our dense tax code.) If you have to raise taxes on the middle class at all (which i dont think we do or should), then it should at least be on those not paying taxes, not those paying the most of anyone in the middle class. But you appear to have a cultural preference to tax these people.

ETA: ok, its tilted more higher income than i realized. 90% or so at incomes around $500k. I would still place this as the cohort thats already paying the top rates. So very low on my list. But nothing i would vote against a bill for including. Im looking first to tax those that get multiple credits and such and end up paying very little. (Hi! This includes me!)

On the individual income tax side, you have have to make pretty good money before not needing the standard deduction and your state and local tax burden becomes a significant deduction. On the business side, this would be a tax increase on certain non-rich people that basically own their job rather than a really successful business. But ultimately this is just preferential treatment to higher tax jurisdictions and would raise good revenue, so it makes sense. Definitely important to phase it in to give people time to adjust.

Partly. Its also an arbitrary distinction of "government" at the federal and lower levels. It's all govt, it's all taxes. True, at the local level some of the higher taxes are due to voter choices. But not all.

Certainly capital gains taxes are bad taxes policy wise

lol

, but there's no reason to associate a break from bad tax policy with death rather than just trying to mitigate the bad policy generally. For 401k's, I think for consistency sake (and ease of administration) you should treat say 85% of it or whatever the average tax rate is towards your $10M cap and then still tax it as it's withdrawn as income.

This is getting at one key plank. Preferential tax treatment of retirement plans is one thing to fund a basic retirement. But once they get outrageously funded, imo they should be taxed.

They already are treated as income. Unless you are talking about essentially marking loans to market as interest rates change and treating the gain (or loss) as income. I think that'd be too administratively burdensome just like taxing other unrealized gains.

No, theyre not treated as income.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Fiscal conservatism has pretty much always meant keep spending and taxes low, not tax and spend. We have lots of things we can cut and clearly there is much more waste than even most cynical people believed. But we're not going to get to a reasonable spending level without cutting actual services.

Just welfare (SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.), national defense, and interest on the national debt exceed revenues. We could stop everything else and still need to cut. We are collecting 67% more per person in the US in taxes than we did in 1980 in inflation adjusted dollars. So it's not that we have a revenue problem. We strictly have a spending problem.

Fiscal conservatism is now pretty much championed only by the Liberatarian party.

I mean, if people really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, a theoretical candidate who wanted cut defense spending in half to around $600B (still twice as much as #2 China), make proportional cuts to safety net programs, and figure out continuous funding for SS, then use that surplus to reduce taxes like crazy to stimulate economic growth should win in a landslide.

But, people are stupid. Most of them, anyway. Hive mind taketh over, and everyone would rather cut off their nose to spite their face than support someone who would benefit almost everyone.

 

[mstateglfr]

Fiscal conservatism is now pretty much championed only by the Liberatarian party.

I mean, if people really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, a theoretical candidate who wanted cut defense spending in half to around $600B (still twice as much as #2 China), make proportional cuts to safety net programs, and figure out continuous funding for SS, then use that surplus to reduce taxes like crazy to stimulate economic growth should win in a landslide.

But, people are stupid. Most of them, anyway. Hive mind taketh over, and everyone would rather cut off their nose to spite their face than support someone who would benefit almost everyone.

I have wondered how we would economically fare overall if $600 BILLION were removed from spending on military/defense, given those cuts would mean reduced employment both directly and indirectly.
There would be fewer active duty military.
There would be fewer vendor employees servicing military purchases and contracts.
There would be lower vendor revenue and profits from servicing military purchases and contracts.

So would the $1700 that could be allocated to each person in the US because $600 billion is saved, end up being enough to stimulate the overall economy and more than offset the lost jobs, lower bonuses, etc?


^ I am not questioning this because I want spending to stay the same or be higher. Its just an interesting mental exercise to think about.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

You forgot him making a jack@ss out of himself at the World Cup podium looking like Michael Scott with dementia. Also, his family increasing their net worth by billions with their phony baloney Crypto scheme and DoD contracts.

Turns out the USMNT has stated that him sticking his nose in that had a very negative impact on the team, while providing motivating fodder for Belgium.

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

I have wondered how we would economically fare overall if $600 BILLION were removed from spending on military/defense, given those cuts would mean reduced employment both directly and indirectly.
There would be fewer active duty military.
There would be fewer vendor employees servicing military purchases and contracts.
There would be lower vendor revenue and profits from servicing military purchases and contracts.

So would the $1700 that could be allocated to each person in the US because $600 billion is saved, end up being enough to stimulate the overall economy and more than offset the lost jobs, lower bonuses, etc?


^ I am not questioning this because I want spending to stay the same or be higher. Its just an interesting mental exercise to think about.

The military-industrial complex is unbreakable without another massive public works program to put in its place that still pays off the right people.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

I have wondered how we would economically fare overall if $600 BILLION were removed from spending on military/defense, given those cuts would mean reduced employment both directly and indirectly.
There would be fewer active duty military.
There would be fewer vendor employees servicing military purchases and contracts.
There would be lower vendor revenue and profits from servicing military purchases and contracts.

So would the $1700 that could be allocated to each person in the US because $600 billion is saved, end up being enough to stimulate the overall economy and more than offset the lost jobs, lower bonuses, etc?


^ I am not questioning this because I want spending to stay the same or be higher. Its just an interesting mental exercise to think about.

The misalignment of resources would result in huge dead weight losses. Lots of professionals whose skills dont transfer well to other work, and worse would be flooding those jobs.

 

[dorndawg]

I have wondered how we would economically fare overall if $600 BILLION were removed from spending on military/defense, given those cuts would mean reduced employment both directly and indirectly.
There would be fewer active duty military.
There would be fewer vendor employees servicing military purchases and contracts.
There would be lower vendor revenue and profits from servicing military purchases and contracts.

So would the $1700 that could be allocated to each person in the US because $600 billion is saved, end up being enough to stimulate the overall economy and more than offset the lost jobs, lower bonuses, etc?


^ I am not questioning this because I want spending to stay the same or be higher. Its just an interesting mental exercise to think about.

Interesting thought exercise, and also the same things start happening to healthcare when you start thinking about what happens if we move from status quo to something more reasonable. Absolutely not without transition costs.

 

[She Mate Me]

Turns out the USMNT has stated that him sticking his nose in that had a very negative impact on the team, while providing motivating fodder for Belgium.

Whatever, Belgium was obviously the far better team. Trump does plenty of stupid stuff without creating inventive, new stupid stuff out of air.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

I freaking hate where we are. Both parties are so far left and right it’s stupid. Left wing right wing same nut!

Ah, radical centrism.

 

[She Mate Me]

This thread feels like a Reddit sub.

 

[Barkman Turner Overdrive]

Turns out the USMNT has stated that him sticking his nose in that had a very negative impact on the team, while providing motivating fodder for Belgium.

Did not know that. I was talking about this. Since I am a heterosexual American man, I don’t watch soccer. I was told the leader of the host country has never handed out the medals or celebrated with the championship team. But Trump has to make it all about him.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Ah, radical centrism.

WTF is radical centrism?

 

[JackReacherDawg]

WTF is radical centrism?

This is hard to put into words. To me, it's a die-hard view of not agreeing with either Party, taken to extremes. Rather than just being an actual moderate, who agrees with one Party on some things, and the other Party on others. Its a view of glorifying not knowing enough about the issues to take a position, on anything. As if thats somehow wiser than these lowly dumb partisans. A view that is then propped up by illogical means. For example, having to engage in false equivalencies and blatantly ignoring reality in order to avoid admitting one side or the other has a point, about anything.

Or out a other way, a view of having no views. No principles. No positions. Simply being in between both sides, and moving with them to maintain that position of not agreeing with either.

Example: the Trump Presidency. Radical centrist response: what bad conduct? Oh. Well, theres some guy somewhere on the left, that has no elective office, and he said something questionable. Both sides! They both suck! Actual moderate response: this is reprehensible and against all standards of conduct that are acceptable, including those that are enabling it. I still dont agree with the Dems on multiple issues, but ill have to heavily take this into account with my future support. That guy on the left that said that, I will never vote for him or anyone that agrees with thay view. It doesnt affect my view of people in that Party that dont agree with it.

IMO, its common around here in people that grew up awash in conservative propaganda and group think, and saw through at least some of it, but cant bear to be a Democrat or even give them an ounce of credit. Being "above it" has become their identity. A moderate responds by pointing out which issues they support which side on. A radical centrist can not.

This is a bit different from professional centrists, that seek office in a Party by hugging the other Party and claiming this makes them better than "those silly partisans", or attacking their own base to appear more moderate. Almost exclusively a Dem phenomenon currently.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

This is hard to put into words. To me, it's a die-hard view of not agreeing with either Party, taken to extremes. Rather than just being an actual moderate, who agrees with one Party on some things, and the other Party on others. Its a view of glorifying not knowing enough about the issues to take a position, on anything. As if thats somehow wiser than these lowly dumb partisans. A view that is then propped up by illogical means. For example, having to engage in false equivalencies and blatantly ignoring reality in order to avoid admitting one side or the other has a point, about anything.

Or out a other way, a view of having no views. No principles. No positions. Simply being in between both sides, and moving with them to maintain that position of not agreeing with either.

Example: the Trump Presidency. Radical centrist response: what bad conduct? Oh. Well, theres some guy somewhere on the left, that has no elective office, and he said something questionable. Both sides! They both suck! Actual moderate response: this is reprehensible and against all standards of conduct that are acceptable, including those that are enabling it. I still dont agree with the Dems on multiple issues, but ill have to heavily take this into account with my future support. That guy on the left that said that, I will never vote for him or anyone that agrees with thay view. It doesnt affect my view of people in that Party that dont agree with it.

IMO, its common around here in people that grew up awash in conservative propaganda and group think, and saw through at least some of it, but cant bear to be a Democrat or even give them an ounce of credit. Being "above it" has become their identity. A moderate responds by pointing out which issues they support which side on. A radical centrist can not.

This is a bit different from professional centrists, that seek office in a Party by hugging the other Party and claiming this makes them better than "those silly partisans", or attacking their own base to appear more moderate. Almost exclusively a Dem phenomenon currently.

Oh hey look, top of my news feed:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/24/politics/joe-manchin-recruit-independent-candidates

Actually in the article: on one hand, the entire Republican Party. On the other, 2 or 3 candidates on the far left. Both sides! I can't be part of either, i just have to be hear in the middle, i'm so wise!

 

[johnson86-1]

Well, within historical levels then. I wouldn't say its an anomaly either. Id say it's a result of runaway private capital showing up in revenue, before policy changes went the other way.

You're going off your rocker here.

This makes no sense. Its just an attempt to not take the rich. Of course our revenues have shot up, we're a wealthier nation! Costs shoot up with wealth too ya know.

Revenues have shot up on an inflation adjusted basis. We aren't just spending more because things cost more. We have spent so lavishly that the inflation for things that the government spends on has outpaced CPI largely because of the government pointing a hose of money at those things. But we still are just spending a **** ton more by any reasonable measure.

Why the hell would we keep expenditures the same as when people didn't have electricity or running water?

We had electricity and running water in 1980 and we have increased revenue per person by something like 65% since then, again, on an inflation adjusted basis. We could have continually spent more per person and not run a deficit. Instead we not only spent like drunken sailors, but promised we spend like even drunker sailors in the future.

Here we go with the non-seriousness again. Id be fine including it as a small part of a large package. But to tackle it first makes no sense.

I could have phrased that better. I mean, it hits the subsection of the middle class that is already paying top middle class rates. (Not sure if a Cali middle class person pays more or less than a Mississippi millionaire. Probably some of both with the outrageous variations in our dense tax code.) If you have to raise taxes on the middle class at all (which i dont think we do or should), then it should at least be on those not paying taxes, not those paying the most of anyone in the middle class. But you appear to have a cultural preference to tax these people.

ETA: ok, its tilted more higher income than i realized. 90% or so at incomes around $500k. I would still place this as the cohort thats already paying the top rates. So very low on my list. But nothing i would vote against a bill for including. Im looking first to tax those that get multiple credits and such and end up paying very little. (Hi! This includes me!)

I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Are you saying we already tax people making a feww hundred thousand enough? Or that you only want to raise taxes on them because you don't want to raise taxes on the middle class?

Regardless, you pretty much have to broaden the tax base. There's just not enough wealth to confiscate. It's hard to figure out what taxes would need to be because the hoops we jump through to pretend social security isn't welfare and that charging the employer means the employee doesn't pay it. But basically 50% of people don't pay income taxes beyond social security. If you changed that ~14% burden to say a 20% burden on those bottom 50%, I would think that would easily be enough (I haven't looked hard, but I can't tell what portion of gross national income is actual personal income as opposed to C-Corp income, so not exactly sure what level of taxation would approximate 17-18% of GDP). But of course you're not going to get the bottom 25% to be able to pay essentially a 20% flat income tax. They don't even pay the ~14% social security tax because of refundable credits.

Partly. Its also an arbitrary distinction of "government" at the federal and lower levels. It's all govt, it's all taxes. True, at the local level some of the higher taxes are due to voter choices. But not all.

It's not arbitrary. Local voters get to choose how much they want their government to spend. There's no good reason that they should get a break on their contribution to federal expenditures because they choose to spend more locally.

lol

This is getting at one key plank. Preferential tax treatment of retirement plans is one thing to fund a basic retirement. But once they get outrageously funded, imo they should be taxed.

ehh, that is really not a big deal. People that amass a lot of money in retirement accounts generally will have high withdrawals. With respect to traditional IRAs/401ks/403b/457, the money is getting taxed eventually and the government is taxing the growth, so it's win/win. Roth accounts should probably be eliminated. They offer some opportunities for shenanigans with closely held companies and valuation and then in general, the government obviously already has too many incentives to spend now and push costs to later. We don't need additional tax revenue now at the expense of giving up more tax revenue later.

No, theyre not treated as income.

I don't understand what you're talking about here. If you make a loan to somebody and give them a below market interest rate and it's above $10k, that foregone interest is imputed to you. Are you talking about taxing the recipient instead of the person foregoing market interest rates? That'd be fine I guess. Probably more likely to result in lower taxes being paid because presumably they are getting the break because of some relationship and needing the money more than the lender.

 

[She Mate Me]

Radical centrism (or the radical centre) is a political philosophy that combines a pragmatic, market-driven approach to the economy with a progressive, reform-minded stance on social issues. Rather than occupying the traditional "mushy middle," radical centrists push for fundamental, structural reform of institutions by borrowing and melding the best ideas from both the left and the right.

The concept is often summarized as "idealism without illusions," relying on realism and evidence-based solutions rather than strict adherence to partisan dogma.

Key tenets of the radical centre typically include:

• • Economic Security: Innovative social contracts, such as portable health and retirement benefits that are tied to the individual rather than a specific employer.
  • Market-Based Problem Solving: Utilizing market mechanisms to achieve public interest goals, heavily backed by strong government oversight.
  • Institutional Overhaul: A willingness to challenge the status quo, streamline bureaucracies, and redesign systems to better fit the modern Information Age.

The term gained notable traction in the early 2000s following the release of the book The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics by Michael Lind and Ted Halstead. Proponents argue that it provides a vital, future-proof blueprint for governance that avoids the gridlock and echo chambers of the far-left and far-right.

 

[CascillaCountryClub]

Statistics say dead people have the highest return on investments because the never change anything in their portfolio

 

[Darryl Steight]

I strongly suggest you all read THIS and think on it a while if you don’t get it it’s your fault: In other words he’s waiting to stick the metaphorical loaded syringe right into America’s Vein, it’s been his plan this whole time just below:


2016, JD Vance wrote a famous essay in The Atlantic comparing Donald Trump to "cultural heroin" and describing his political promises as a "needle in America’s collective vein". [1, 2]

The 2016 Essay

• • "Cultural Heroin": Vance argued that Trump offered an easy, superficial escape from deep economic and social pain without providing real solutions. [1, 2, 3]
  • The Needle Analogy: He wrote that Trump's populist appeals entered people's minds and acted as "the needle in America's collective vein". [1, 2]

Evolution of Support

• • Past Criticism: Vance was a vocal critic of Trump during the 2016 election cycle before his political alignment shifted.
  • Current Stance: Vance has since stated that Trump proved him wrong by being a successful president, leading to his current role as Vice President. [1, 2]

All that is either "during the election cycle" or in 2016, before Trump had had time to do anything as President yet.

Vance has said many many times he's changed his opinion in the last 10 years. I bet you have too on some things.

And it's only a "famous" essay now because you and other haters like to use it as a gotcha. No one cared what this 31 year old mostly unknown congressman said back then. Should we go back and see what AOC, Omar, and Mamdani were doing 10 years ago?

 

[JackReacherDawg]

Revenues have shot up on an inflation adjusted basis. We aren't just spending more because things cost more. We have spent so lavishly that the inflation for things that the government spends on has outpaced CPI largely because of the government pointing a hose of money at those things. But we still are just spending a **** ton more by any reasonable measure.

Uh huh. Thats what happens in a much wealthier nation.

We had electricity and running water in 1980 and we have increased revenue per person by something like 65% since then, again, on an inflation adjusted basis. We could have continually spent more per person and not run a deficit. Instead we not only spent like drunken sailors, but promised we spend like even drunker sailors in the future.

PER PERSON. yeah, because we're wealthier. We also run a lot more transfer payments. Money coming in that goes right back out as a check to an American is not the same as money spent on goods and services.

I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Are you saying we already tax people making a feww hundred thousand enough? Or that you only want to raise taxes on them because you don't want to raise taxes on the middle class?

i believe we tax those making several hundred thousand to a million or two, more than anyone else. That is the cohort whose taxes should be raised last.

Regardless, you pretty much have to broaden the tax base. There's just not enough wealth to confiscate.

The math says otherwise. But if its part of a broad package, im ok with it.

It's hard to figure out what taxes would need to be because the hoops we jump through to pretend social security isn't welfare and that charging the employer means the employee doesn't pay it. But basically 50% of people don't pay income taxes beyond social security.

In a given year. Some pay income tax in some years, not in others, as their income and credits fluctuate.

If you changed that ~14% burden to say a 20% burden on those bottom 50%, I would think that would easily be enough (I haven't looked hard, but I can't tell what portion of gross national income is actual personal income as opposed to C-Corp income, so not exactly sure what level of taxation would approximate 17-18% of GDP). But of course you're not going to get the bottom 25% to be able to pay essentially a 20% flat income tax. They don't even pay the ~14% social security tax because of refundable credits.

Not to mention other costs that have been off loaded onto them. Backing off the credits seems the fair and politically possible approach. But this is also the group that gets the least advantage from retirement accounts.

It's not arbitrary. Local voters get to choose how much they want their government to spend.

not as much in practice. Cali, for example, doesnt get total choice on how much they should spend for earthquakes and wildfires.

There's no good reason that they should get a break on their contribution to federal expenditures because they choose to spend more locally.

In part, I agree.

ehh, that is really not a big deal. People that amass a lot of money in retirement accounts generally will have high withdrawals. With respect to traditional IRAs/401ks/403b/457, the money is getting taxed eventually and the government is taxing the growth, so it's win/win.

Well then 1, it shouldnt be a problem to tax it then right? And 2, sequence matters. If im paying down debt, maybe i should tax all that now rather than later.

Roth accounts should probably be eliminated.

thats a take. You didnt really offer any support of it.

They offer some opportunities for shenanigans with closely held companies and valuation and then in general, the government obviously already has too many incentives to spend now and push costs to later. We don't need additional tax revenue now at the expense of giving up more tax revenue later.

Don't we?

I don't understand what you're talking about here. If you make a loan to somebody and give them a below market interest rate and it's above $10k, that foregone interest is imputed to you. Are you talking about taxing the recipient instead of the person foregoing market interest rates? That'd be fine I guess. Probably more likely to result in lower taxes being paid because presumably they are getting the break because of some relationship and needing the money more than the lender.

Im speaking of the rich avoiding selling assets (and incurring a tax on them) by taking loans against them as collateral, thus a near zero interest loan.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

All that is either "during the election cycle" or in 2016, before Trump had had time to do anything as President yet.

Vance has said many many times he's changed his opinion in the last 10 years. I bet you have too on some things.

And it's only a "famous" essay now because you and other haters like to use it as a gotcha. No one cared what this 31 year old mostly unknown congressman said back then. Should we go back and see what AOC, Omar, and Mamdani were doing 10 years ago?

If it was just that, sure. But Vance has also literally changed his name multiple times, along with multiple philosophical changes. The dude is a beliefless ghoul that just wants power.

 

[She Mate Me]

Should we go back and see what AOC, Omar, and Mamdani were doing 10 years ago?

Here’s what AOC was doing 8 years ago (it’s kinda painful to watch)…

 

[She Mate Me]

If it was just that, sure. But Vance has also literally changed his name multiple times, along with multiple philosophical changes. The dude is a beliefless ghoul that just wants power.

Thank the heavens we’ve got the party of Joe Biden to save us from those who would do anything for the sake of power.

 

[Darryl Steight]

Here’s what AOC was doing 8 years ago (it’s kinda painful to watch)…

But let's hear how smart and professional she is because she can read off a card. I can't wait for the debates between her and Harris in the 2028 election cycle.

Mamdani was a muslim anti-Jew, anti-American rapper.
Omar was an "activist" with no real job and a fake marriage (hopefully it was fake and they didn't consumate) to her brother... but since then she has moved up to muslim anti-Jew, anti-American congresswoman.

Half the country votes for these people. This is where we are today. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

 

[Darryl Steight]

Thank the heavens we’ve got the party of Joe Biden to save us from those who would do anything for the sake of power.

I have no idea what he posted, but from context, this reply gets a big . We all witnessed a real-life version of weekend at bernie's and they still pretend he was alive and cognizant.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

WTF is radical centrism?

While @JackReacherDawg has a good lengthy answer and @She Mate Me goes into better detail, here’s my TLDR response…

The bases of both the Republicans and Democrats are filled with Kooks, and they run both parties.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

Here’s what AOC was doing 8 years ago (it’s kinda painful to watch)…

Thats it? Yeah, every smart person appears great on TV for every minute of hundreds of hours of interviews. Sure.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

But let's hear how smart and professional she is because she can read off a card. I can't wait for the debates between her and Harris in the 2028 election cycle.

Mamdani was a muslim anti-Jew, anti-American rapper.
Omar was an "activist" with no real job and a fake marriage (hopefully it was fake and they didn't consumate) to her brother... but since then she has moved up to muslim anti-Jew, anti-American congresswoman.

Half the country votes for these people. This is where we are today. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

I actually appreciate this view, because the bar will be set so low for her that she will blow the doors off the barn in a debate.

Kamala, on the other hand, is actually dumb.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

While @JackReacherDawg has a good lengthy answer and @She Mate Me goes into better detail, here’s my TLDR response…

The bases of both the Republicans and Democrats are filled with Kooks, and they run both parties.

So, to maintain your centrist views, you believe the far left runs the Democratic Party? Like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries?