Thats it? Yeah, every smart person appears great on TV for every minute of hundreds of hours of interviews. Sure.
I linked a short clip because nobody’s going to spend more than two minutes listening to her. Even you, I imagine.
OT: US 30 year treasury above 5% for the longest period since 2007
- Thread starter horshack.sixpack
- Start date
I linked a short clip because nobody’s going to spend more than two minutes listening to her. Even you, I imagine.
There is some hyperbole in my TLDR (par for the course) but governance of the Democratic Party is largely and famously a generational struggle between the older liberals and younger progressives
And the older liberals are dying
And the younger progressives are also turning into older liberals as time marches on.
True. But also a textbook centrist answer. No indication of a clear difference between the Parties, just a justification for a centrist position at odds with reality.
(This is usually where the centrists go on tilt.)
You really like yourself a lot it seems. Modern schooling has done it’s job.
before she won her first congressional race. anything more recent?
ain't gonna lie, to me, she's looking pretty cute in this clip.
Keep 'em coming.
This was in response to what JD was doing 10 years ago. Context matters.
Right, we are squeezing people more because we think they can afford more. We have 60% more money to spend per person in inflation adjusted terms. It's really better than that because there are a lot of expenditures that don't scale with people, so we should be getting economies of scale there. We should be in fabulous shape. Instead we've chosen to spend like drunken sailors and waste a bunch of money. We didn't need to do that. Politicians bribed voters with a lot of spending that would hurt future people and the voters were happy to go along with it.
They still don't pay as much as richer people with a few exceptions but I agree they are getting hammered. If you fix borrow/spend/die and eliminate things like tax deductibility for muni's and government bonds, you'd eliminate most of the exceptions on the tail end.
$1.8 trillion a year deficit that is projected to get worse. If you start with the billionaires and above and confiscate their wealth, that buys you bewteen 3 and maybe 5 years, if you pretend they can just liquidate their wealth and you ignore all the bad effects on the economy from the US just seizing assets. If you confiscated the assets of the top 1% of households (somewhere around $11 to $13M in net worth), you get $55 Trillion. So that would buy you a good bit of time, but that ignores the economic harm of just seizing their assets. Lots of those $11 to 13M net worth are small business owners that may be showing $500k a year in income or $2M in income depending on how they like to invest in their business. You can't really just seize that business and it be worth that though, and even if you could, the disruption would knock enough off the economy to offset a huge amount of that new tax revenue.
Right, but taxes would apply to a tax year. If somebody in the 50th percentile one year, they should pay taxes in that one year if you want to keep spending close to the same.
Not sure what this is referencing.
I don't know how politically possible that is. I guess it's easier than raising taxes on the 25th to 50th percentile. For the retirement accounts, those are basically a way for middle class people to turn the federal income tax into a progressive consumption tax. Until you can afford to do more than max them out, that's basically all it is and that seems like a good thing to me.
State taxes are not really driven by that though. Plus we have federal programs to shift those burdens around, or at least smooth them out.
I mean, it definitely could be a problem for the person depending on their expenditures. Letting them draw the money out as they need it and taxing it over ten years after their death seems reasonable. Plus, for the time being, the US still borrows at a low enough rate that we earn a spread taxing future growth rather than taxing them earlier.
I mean, if we were responsible, accelerating future tax revenue to now could be good in certain situations. Obviously we're not responsible. And again, for the time being, we still earn a spread by giving a deduction now but taxing future growth on that extra money that goes into retirement, even if we are having to borrow for it. Granted, different tax rates between working years and retirement years complicate that. But not overly punishing people for having lumpy income doesn't seem like a bad thing, even if it does reduce revenue collected.
You're talking about the borrow, spend, die strategy. Those rates are not near interest nor are they below market. They are low because they are super secure. Borrowing 3% against a stock portfolio has a virtually zero chance of default, so you get rates that reflect that. It's the same reason mortgage rates are less than unsecured loan rates. Getting rid of the stepped up basis upon death would fix that.
It most certainly does.
She proved she can learn more.
JD proves he can brown nose more.
Context.
Naw. We've all got our strengths, this is just one of mine.
Not really getting where that's coming from though. I'm being a bit of an internet douche cause....its six pack, dawg. I dont feel I've been out of place.
I hope they debate each other. I’ll leave it at that.
Can y'all switch from critiquing dumbasses that will never be president to critiquing the dumbass that currently is President? Please and thank you.
This is not true. The MEDIAN person barely contributes more than in 1980.
The top 1% contributes much more. But this still pales in relation to how much more they make. The math says we're not squeezing the middle class more. We just relaxed taxes on the rich.
Their share of income.went up 50%. Their share of taxation didn't. And it looks far worse for the top 0.1%. And this doesnt even include state and local taxation, which we know is even more regressive than the federal system.
$1T a year in extra revenue from the rich. Resolve the rest with spending cuts and taxes on everyone else.
Agreed. The issue is the are used by the filthy rich to sidestep taxes. Fix it. A wealth tax helps.
Last edited:
