US continues to go backward...

[JTOSU]

I didn’t repost some else’s post for you to nitpick every line. You asked why I didn’t point out loopholes. Because loopholes was the topic. Close loopholes and that effective rate would no longer be 14% below the marginal rate and no need for an increase.

Again, you and I agree with carried interest. But it has been in the tax code for 80 years. And eliminating it is pennies to our overall fed income

But changing the carried interest tax code neither changes the narrative, the facts, nor my response. The Top .1% are already paying tax rates way more than most all taxpayers…even including carried interest.

 

[steross]

Again, you and I agree with carried interest. But it has been in the tax code for 80 years.

But changing the carried interest tax code neither changes the narrative, the facts, nor my response. The Top .1% are already paying tax rates way more than most all taxpayers…even including carried interest.

You do realize that “the top 1%” isn’t a thing it is a bunch of people? The top 1% doesn’t pay. Individuals do. Some are paying more than you, some less. So, if one person gets a loophole, it doesn’t help someone else. This isn’t the SEC where South Carolina fans take some sort of weird pride in bama winning. I’ve been in the top 1% a time or two in my life. I didn’t feel that paying 28% effective felt better because someone else got a loophole. Quit being crazy and acting like it is one entity.

 

[JTOSU]

You do realize that “the top 1%” isn’t a thing it is a bunch of people? The top 1% doesn’t pay. Individuals do. Some are paying more than you, some less. So, if one person gets a loophole, it doesn’t help someone else. This isn’t the SEC where South Carolina fans take some sort of weird pride in bama winning. I’ve been in the top 1% a time or two in my life. I didn’t feel that paying 28% effective felt better because someone else got a loophole. Quit being crazy and acting like it is one entity.

You are misreading the Top .1% as Top 1%.

Top 0.1%.

I imagine there are several of us that are in or have been in the Top 1%. Doubt we have any in the Top .1%. That said, I don’t feel the need to tax them more either.

 

[steross]

You are misreading the Top .1% as Top 1%.

Top 0.1%.

I imagine there are several of us that are in or have been in the Top 1%. Doubt we have any in the Top .1%. That said, I don’t feel the need to tax them more either.

Huh? I did not once write top .1%. No, I’m not confusing that basic difference. Yet another dodge from the artful dodger.

 

[steross]

You are misreading the Top .1% as Top 1%.

Top 0.1%.

I imagine there are several of us that are in or have been in the Top 1%. Doubt we have any in the Top .1%. That said, I don’t feel the need to tax them more either.

So, again. Did you ever take a basic stats class?

 

[JTOSU]

Huh? I did not once write top .1%. No, I’m not confusing that basic difference. Yet another dodge from the artful dodger.

Dude, I wrote top .1%. It is in the quote you replied to me.

 

[steross]

Dude, I wrote top .1%. It is in the quote you replied to me.

Why? I looked back. And, you are wrong. If they are getting carried interest they are not paying higher rates than I am.

Leading zeros are required in medicine. For that reason.

 

[mugatu]

To be clear, I don’t support any tax increases on lower tax earners. Never said nor implied that.

I disagree with your assumption that tax increases would have little change to top earners (ie Top 5-10%). But even if it didn’t, I don’t support taxing them more either.

It is their money. They earned it. It is not mine and shouldn’t be ours.

Again governments provide services to the country and society, that costs money, that means someone has to pay. Where do you think it needs to come from if you don't support taxing people because as you said "it's their money, they earned it"...

 

[JTOSU]

Leading zeros are required in medicine. For that reason.

Fair enough. I get seeing the decimal is probably not easy on a phone.

I think we have gone back and forth enough.
We appear to disagree on the ultra-rich (ie Top 0.1%) paying more on taxes.
We appear to agree that carried-interest tax code should be changed.
That said, adjusting the carried interest to count as “regular income” does not change federal income very much. In 2021, $1.0041 trillion was received from the Top 1% (I don’t have data readily for Top 0.1%). If you added the estimated $6.3B yearly tax revenues from eliminating carried interest, you would only increase revenues from that group to $1.0104 trillion.

 

[steross]

Fair enough. I get seeing the decimal is probably not easy on a phone.

I think we have gone back and forth enough.
We appear to disagree on the ultra-rich (ie Top 0.1%) paying more on taxes.
We appear to agree that carried-interest tax code should be changed.
That said, adjusting the carried interest to count as “regular income” does not change federal income very much. In 2021, $1.0041 trillion was received from the Top 1% (I don’t have data readily for Top 0.1%). If you added the estimated $6.3B yearly tax revenues from eliminating carried interest, you would only increase revenues from that group to $1.0104 trillion.

And that is the problem with limiting loopholes (which I have said countless times) to just carries interest. And, you ignored this post, the one I wanted you to respond to:

How about this, any person who has made a huge income that has not been aided by the free spending government policies of the past 50 years can pay the normal tax rate. If some has an ultra high income and their income has been supported by the deficit spending that has occurred then they pay a 10% deficit reduction surcharge. That way, those that earned it can keep it and those that got an enormous advantage of a free spending government can help avoid passing their debt on to kids who got nothing.

 

[JTOSU]

And that is the problem with limiting loopholes (which I have said countless times) to just carries interest. And, you ignored this post, the one I wanted you to respond to:

So what other loopholes? And can you quantify them? The one tax code item you listed is nearly immaterial (it only changes avg tax rate for that segment from 25.92% to 26%).

I hope we can agree that capital gains taxation is NOT a loophole.

As for your other item, yea go about it. Separating out people that benefited from federal spending vs not is about as easy as a tax-policy to implement as taxing unrealized gains.

 

[steross]

So what other loopholes? And can you quantify them? The one tax code item you listed is nearly immaterial (it only changes avg tax rate for that segment from 25.92% to 26%).

I hope we can agree that capital gains taxation is NOT a loophole.

As for your other item, yea go about it. Separating out people that benefited from federal spending vs not is about as easy as a tax-policy to implement as taxing unrealized gains.

A $6.3 billion giveaway to millionaires here, a $6.3 billion giveaway to millionaires there, and soon you are talking about real money.

And, of course it would be hard to tell who lobbied and took our money to get wealthy. Far more easy to just make repeated false claims that they all "earned it" as if they did it all on their own without the massive government largess that made them fabulously wealthy. Also way better to scold the single mom for food stamps. She certainly did not earn them.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Remember Trump only picks the Best people

A Trump appointed federal judge in Alaska has resigned after an investigation found that he had an inappropriate relationship with a law clerk and then lied about it, in addition to creating a hostile work environment that included graphic sexual remarks to colleagues.

Trump-appointed judge resigns after report on 'sexualized relationship' with law clerk and hostile work environment

U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Kindred in Alaska stepped down after a federal judicial council asked him to resign voluntarily following an investigation into misconduct allegations.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[mugatu]

A $6.3 billion giveaway to millionaires here, a $6.3 billion giveaway to millionaires there, and soon you are talking about real money.

And, of course it would be hard to tell who lobbied and took our money to get wealthy. Far more easy to just make repeated false claims that they all "earned it" as if they did it all on their own without the massive government largess that made them fabulously wealthy. Also way better to scold the single mom for food stamps. She certainly did not earn ththem.

This could be a bit off topic but I had a thought this morning, some things pointed together in my mind and I could be an idiot or it might be tied, I'm not sure yet.

JT keeps talking about cutting gov spending. I saw one impact of sequestration in 2013 but was wondering how it impacted red vs blue states and getting all the way out of the 2008 recession. Based on my career at the time, the recession didnt impact me or my area as much as others so not sure how recovery went in the middle and south of our country.

It's a known fact that the states depending on federal aid are mostly red states. 2016 election was also at least partially caused by those states feeling left behind in economic recovery. I'm curious if there is a tie there beyond my thought process. Based on where I was at the time I didn't see it's impact first hand on the population and couldn't find any articles on it in a quick search this morning.

JT keeps saying he wants to cut taxes for wealthy and cut government spending to control deficit. Wonder how that would work for all the states that count on that monetaty support... they'd be mostly red/poorer states.

 

[steross]

This could be a bit off topic but I had a thought this morning, some things pointed together in my mind and I could be an idiot or it might be tied, I'm not sure yet.

JT keeps talking about cutting gov spending. I saw one impact of sequestration in 2013 but was wondering how it impacted red vs blue states and getting all the way out of the 2008 recession. Based on my career at the time, the recession didnt impact me or my area as much as others so not sure how recovery went in the middle and south of our country.

It's a known fact that the states depending on federal aid are mostly red states. 2016 election was also at least partially caused by those states feeling left behind in economic recovery. I'm curious if there is a tie there beyond my thought process. Based on where I was at the time I didn't see it's impact first hand on the population and couldn't find any articles on it in a quick search this morning.

JT keeps saying he wants to cut taxes for wealthy and cut government spending to control deficit. Wonder how that would work for all the states that count on that monetaty support... they'd be mostly red/poorer states.

Generally, when conservatives state that they want to cut spending, they mean programs to assist the poor. Also, the grab-bag term "waste" which all of us would want to cut but seems ever elusive. "Waste" is typically pet projects of representatives. The way to limit that is to limit the advantages of incumbents with things such as open primaries and rank choice voting, which conservatives vehemently oppose. (Our state outlawed RCV.)

Red states get programs for the poor, of course. But, often the additional spending they get is farm-related and or government contracts/military. When you dig down, conservatives often give excuses for why THAT spending should stay.

 

[mugatu]

Generally, when conservatives state that they want to cut spending, they mean programs to assist the poor. Also, the grab-bag term "waste" which all of us would want to cut but seems ever elusive. "Waste" is typically pet projects of representatives. The way to limit that is to limit the advantages of incumbents with things such as open primaries and rank choice voting, which conservatives vehemently oppose. (Our state outlawed RCV.)

Red states get programs for the poor, of course. But, often the additional spending they get is farm-related and or government contracts/military. When you dig down, conservatives often give excuses for why THAT spending should stay.

Yes. The hatred of food stamps or support programs urban/suburban poor but love of government subsidies for farms has annoyed me. Let people fail but bail out farms and large companies and banks seems to be the way they want to operate.

Can you give an example of pet projects? I hear the term a lot and haven't ever seen it well defined. I could have selective memory but most of what I can think of single item funding support for specific regions (infrastructure, or similar) or programs that will bring jobs to a specific place, often tied to getting that rep to vote yes on a larger bill. Is that what they are referring to? There's always the weird small money studies that get funded but there's generally a handful and they are pennies in comparison.

Agree that incumbent reelection rates are killing us. We all want change but keep voting in the same people year after year until they retire.

 

[steross]

I would not cut SS. I would cut discretionary spending.

And no, I would not look to soak others that already pay WAY more in taxes than other citizens.

Ok, so you will not raise taxes or cut loopholes for the ultrawealthy (except carried interest).
You won't cut SS.

You state the debt is our greatest threat. What specifically would you do to address it? Pretend we are at peak Laffer curve so "cut taxes more" will not increase revenue. Also, no use of "cut waste" unless specifically pointing out budget items that will impact the debt and you consider wasteful.

 

[steross]

Can you give an example of pet projects? I hear the term a lot and haven't ever seen it well defined. I could have selective memory but most of what I can think of single item funding support for specific regions (infrastructure, or similar) or programs that will bring jobs to a specific place, often tied to getting that rep to vote yes on a larger bill. Is that what they are referring to? There's always the weird small money studies that get funded but there's generally a handful and they are pennies in comparison.

Yes, that is what pet projects are. The issue is that many of these pet projects are worthy, and many are not. But, instead of congress voting on worthiness, they are earmarked to larger bills and ignored by all except the incumbent that benefits from them. Each project seems like nothing in a trillion dollar budget but the enormity of how many there are can have an impact.

This website goes into detail on this system. https://www.cagw.org/

Some probable waste examples. Or, even if not "waste" there really isn't a reason that much of this needs federal funding instead of the local area that benefits funding it:
-to Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) for $1,750,000 for the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, which held net assets of $5 billion in 2023.

-to the 14 members of Congress who received 10 earmarks costing $11,385,000 to fund broadband projects despite the availability of enough money to connect every unserved area of the country.

-to Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Collins for a combined $739,000 for opera houses, including $500,000 by Sen. Sanders for the Vergennes Opera House in Vermont and $239,000 by Sen. Collins for the Bangor Opera House in Maine.

-to Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) for $190,000 for a shark repellant study at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, which had an operating budget of $35,739,237 in 2023.

-to Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) for $500,000 for restoration of a historic gymnasium in Madison, Mississippi.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Ok, so you will not raise taxes or cut loopholes for the ultrawealthy (except carried interest).
You won't cut SS.

You state the debt is our greatest threat. What specifically would you do to address it? Pretend we are at peak Laffer curve so "cut taxes more" will not increase revenue. Also, no use of "cut waste" unless specifically pointing out budget items that will impact the debt and you consider wasteful.

Most people who support Trump will wait for Trump to say something like

I can fix the tax and debt situation in less than 24 hours. First Day it will change and it will be Biggly , YYUUUUUGGGEE and you will Love it. We are going to do some things with that!"

Then they will be like....Trump will fix it! No problems

Just like he did with all the other things he promised them would be SOOO easy and he would fix them SOOO fast

Then he implemented Policy and cut taxes on the Ultra Wealthy in a way that was soo insane that it added $7.8 TRILLION to the National Debt ...the most in DEBT in terms of Raw $$ by a POTUS in the HISTORY of our country.

 

[CowboyJD]

Ok, so you will not raise taxes or cut loopholes for the ultrawealthy (except carried interest).
You won't cut SS.

You state the debt is our greatest threat. What specifically would you do to address it? Pretend we are at peak Laffer curve so "cut taxes more" will not increase revenue. Also, no use of "cut waste" unless specifically pointing out budget items that will impact the debt and you consider wasteful.

Good luck in getting a straight, good-faith response.

I doubt you will.