Treasury secretary warns US could default on its debt as soon as June

[candide]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, if you had been following the news, he did try to generate higher taxes on the wealthy. And he did get some.  But a couple of Democratic senators put the kibosh on a lot of it. While not one Republican voted in favor. Not one.f it. I'm guessing that you're not aware that the Senate was split 50-50 in the previous session. You do see now, don't you, that this could be quite limiting?

Exactly. Manchin and Sinema would have voted against repealing tax cuts anyway.

[placeholder]

Just now, candide said:

Exactly. Manchin and Sinema would have voted against repealing tax cuts anyway.

Sinema actually supported the special tax breaks given to hedge fund managers.

[nauseus]

44 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, if you had been following the news, he did try to generate higher taxes on the wealthy. And he did get some.  But a couple of Democratic senators put the kibosh on a lot of it. While not one Republican voted in favor. Not one.f it. I'm guessing that you're not aware that the Senate was split 50-50 in the previous session. You do see now, don't you, that this could be quite limiting?

This gave an effective majority:

 

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3). 

 

So if there was dissent in the Democratic ranks then maybe the dissenters had good reason for that?

Edited January 20, 2023 by nauseus

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

This gave an effective majority:

 

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3). 

 

So if there was dissent in the Democratic ranks then maybe the dissenters had good reason for that?

So there's an inverse relationship between the amount of support for a bill and the its virtues? Imagine how bad a bill would be that got passed with 99% of the votes in the Senate.

[Longwood50]

15 hours ago, candide said:

You fail to notice the impact of crises (or the absence of crisis).

I am not saying that it is only one administrations fault.  Whether Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden all have spent money like drunken sailors.  This coming back to normal is a blatant false statement.  Traditionally the spending to GDP has been in the 18% - 20% range.  We are now at $6.6 trillion  in spending in 2021.  The GDP is $23.32 Trillion.  That is 28.3%

You are falling for the narrative that we need to do this because of the pandemic to "curb inflation"  That is as false as the Affordable Care Act was ever about making health care affordable.  All that and the stimulus spending names were to mislead the public into giant giveaways.  All that spending with borrowed money has come with today's inflation.  One way or another the USA now $31 trillion in direct federal debt and an estimated $100 trillion in unfunded mandates for things like social security, medicare and medicaid.  Social Security is a pay as you go program where current tax receipts are funding payouts and medicare and medicaid likewise have no funds but are federal outlays each year.  The technical definition of insolvency is when either your liabilities exceed your assets or your cash flow is insufficient to service your debt.  The very fact the USA has to borrow more money each year to service its debts is testimony to the fact it meets the technical definition of insolvency. 

 

[BananaStrong]

US could default on its debt............................. has been in the news every year since 10,000 BC (yes, America is much older than you think).   

 

In other news, China's economy will crumble..................since 100,000 BC

 

Stock market will crash to zero........................1 billion BC

 

Housing prices to zero............................5 billion BC

 

doom sells papers..........     Imagine an article, "America is the strongest country."  Who would want to read that????

 

well, I would; however, everybody knows that already.  boring.

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I am not saying that it is only one administrations fault.  Whether Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden all have spent money like drunken sailors.  This coming back to normal is a blatant false statement.  Traditionally the spending to GDP has been in the 18% - 20% range.  We are now at $6.6 trillion  in spending in 2021.  The GDP is $23.32 Trillion.  That is 28.3%

You are falling for the narrative that we need to do this because of the pandemic to "curb inflation"  That is as false as the Affordable Care Act was ever about making health care affordable.  All that and the stimulus spending names were to mislead the public into giant giveaways.  All that spending with borrowed money has come with today's inflation.  One way or another the USA now $31 trillion in direct federal debt and an estimated $100 trillion in unfunded mandates for things like social security, medicare and medicaid.  Social Security is a pay as you go program where current tax receipts are funding payouts and medicare and medicaid likewise have no funds but are federal outlays each year.  The technical definition of insolvency is when either your liabilities exceed your assets or your cash flow is insufficient to service your debt.  The very fact the USA has to borrow more money each year to service its debts is testimony to the fact it meets the technical definition of insolvency. 

 

Of course, your claim of insolvency is nonsense. When someone takes out a mortgage on a house, are they insolvent because of the debt? You fail to factor in assets. In addition, unlike that private borrower the Federal govt can issue debt in dollars which the world is eager to hold. So insolvency is only possible if Congress fails to take the necessary steps to increase the debt limit.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I am not saying that it is only one administrations fault.  Whether Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden all have spent money like drunken sailors.  This coming back to normal is a blatant false statement.  Traditionally the spending to GDP has been in the 18% - 20% range.  We are now at $6.6 trillion  in spending in 2021.  The GDP is $23.32 Trillion.  That is 28.3%

I don't know where you came up with that claim that "Traditionally the spending to GDP has been in the 18% - 20% range." Looks false to me.

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spending-to-gdp

[Longwood50]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

"First, companies don't pay tax.... It also robs the incentive for someone to go into business since they know the government will rob them of the fruits of their labor..."

You obviously never owned or ran a business.  I have owned four.  Businesses don't pay taxes.  When you purchase something here in Thailand there is a VAT do you pay for that?  No, its added to your bill and THE COMPANY PAYS FOR IT.  When you fill up with gasoline, there is a fuel tax, did you pay for it.  NO THE COMPANY ADDED IT TO THE PRICE OF ITS GAS.  Do you really think that whether it is a real estate tax, a government fee, or an income tax that the company has some magic pot of money that pays for that tax without it impacting the price it sells its products or services for.  

The government in the USA has adopted the slight of hand with taxes to conceal how much it really is taking.  Some from income taxes, others from social security taxes, some from fuel taxes, some from excise taxes, some from import duties, some from company taxes etc.  Now all of those taxes end up in the products and services we buy.  The public would revolt if they were forced to pay all of those come every April 15 but bury them and through slight of hand and mouth declare that 'SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING THEM. is the modus operandi of our government.  The public foolishly believes that if somehow Amazon is writing the check to the federal government that somehow they are not. 

As to the problem with taxing companies.  If I am a pharmaceutical company based here in the USA and subject to a large tax bill, I compete with pharmaceutical companies in low tax countries like Ireland.  So, I am at a competitive disadvantage.  It encourages me to leave the USA rather than lose market share to a competitor.  That hurts jobs here in the USA and it is jobs that pay the taxes in the end. 

Now if I make a lot of money from being in business, the very first thing I want to do is expand and make even more.  If I make only a little after taxes I not only don't have that incentive, I lack the money taken from me in taxes to fund that expansion. 

As to this tirade about inheritance taxes they are the most unfair of all.  The person in order to have accumulated much money would have either inherited from a person already taxed before, or I would have had to earned it and at the highest tax rates.  So I am taxed once when I earn it and again when I die.  Sorry but that is confiscatory. 

You can blab all you want about the higher marginal rates in the past.  The fact is the deductions in the past were far more generous and as such very few every paid that 90% rate.  And common sense tells you that would you really risk your money in business so that someone could confiscate 90% of what you earned.  

The top 1% of tax payers now already pay more than the combined total of the bottom 90%.  Basic economics.  You subsidize things like mortage interest deduction to encourage behaviors you want to encourage.  You tax things like cigarettes and gas guzzling cars to discourage their  purchase.  So high taxation of the "successful" means you are discouraging their behavior and hence there will be fewer of them.  65% of businesses in the USA fail within 10 years.  20% fail within the first year.  So our current system where the young business is successful and you want to tax the <deleted> out of them while they are earning money is a primary reason why they fail.  The money they should have kept in reserve to fend off bankruptcy when the business cycle has turned bad, had been already taken from them during the good years.  
 

Tax revenue in the USA has continually gone up, but spending by the government has increased faster. 

This is from a 17th century historian who studied the history of "democracies"   

 

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

That is exactly what we now have,  with our politicians robbing the treasury and burdening future generations by spending money they don't have in order to secure votes from those who benefit from that spending. 

 

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee - Wikipedia

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't know where you came up with that claim that "Traditionally the spending to GDP has been in the 18% - 20% range." Looks false to me.

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spending-to-gdp

 

From your own link:

Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 37.0 percent of GDP in 2022, according to initial estimates.

 

Looks like you have a point. Can't see <20% after about 1960.

Edited January 21, 2023 by nauseus

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

From your own link:

Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 37.0 percent of GDP in 2022, according to initial estimates.

How does that back Longwood's claim that US government spending has traditionally been in the 18-20 percent range?

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

How does that back Longwood's claim that US government spending has traditionally been in the 18-20 percent range?

See my added comment.

 

However the numbers from various sources differ greatly.

 

Here is the US Treasury version from:

 

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=The federal government spent %246.27,the United States that year.

 

 

So normally here about 20%.

Edited January 21, 2023 by nauseus

[Longwood50]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 37.0 percent of GDP in 2022, according to initial estimates.

Those are difference calculations.  Spending as a percent of GDP takes total spending and total GDP.   The 37% to as high as 46% is calculated to total spending to GDP if you subtract governent spending as a percentage of GDP.  

Government spending adds to the GDP total.  If the government builds an aircraft carrier its value is added to GDP making the GDP total higher.  If you subtract the government spending the GDP total goes down so if you then take total spending to the now reduced GDP it becomes a higher percentage.   

[nauseus]

14 hours ago, candide said:

Exactly. Manchin and Sinema would have voted against repealing tax cuts anyway.

Those rascals!

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

You obviously never owned or ran a business.  I have owned four.  Businesses don't pay taxes.  When you purchase something here in Thailand there is a VAT do you pay for that?  No, its added to your bill and THE COMPANY PAYS FOR IT.  When you fill up with gasoline, there is a fuel tax, did you pay for it.  NO THE COMPANY ADDED IT TO THE PRICE OF ITS GAS.  Do you really think that whether it is a real estate tax, a government fee, or an income tax that the company has some magic pot of money that pays for that tax without it impacting the price it sells its products or services for.  

The government in the USA has adopted the slight of hand with taxes to conceal how much it really is taking.  Some from income taxes, others from social security taxes, some from fuel taxes, some from excise taxes, some from import duties, some from company taxes etc.  Now all of those taxes end up in the products and services we buy.  The public would revolt if they were forced to pay all of those come every April 15 but bury them and through slight of hand and mouth declare that 'SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING THEM. is the modus operandi of our government.  The public foolishly believes that if somehow Amazon is writing the check to the federal government that somehow they are not. 

As to the problem with taxing companies.  If I am a pharmaceutical company based here in the USA and subject to a large tax bill, I compete with pharmaceutical companies in low tax countries like Ireland.  So, I am at a competitive disadvantage.  It encourages me to leave the USA rather than lose market share to a competitor.  That hurts jobs here in the USA and it is jobs that pay the taxes in the end. 

Now if I make a lot of money from being in business, the very first thing I want to do is expand and make even more.  If I make only a little after taxes I not only don't have that incentive, I lack the money taken from me in taxes to fund that expansion. 

As to this tirade about inheritance taxes they are the most unfair of all.  The person in order to have accumulated much money would have either inherited from a person already taxed before, or I would have had to earned it and at the highest tax rates.  So I am taxed once when I earn it and again when I die.  Sorry but that is confiscatory. 

You can blab all you want about the higher marginal rates in the past.  The fact is the deductions in the past were far more generous and as such very few every paid that 90% rate.  And common sense tells you that would you really risk your money in business so that someone could confiscate 90% of what you earned.  

The top 1% of tax payers now already pay more than the combined total of the bottom 90%.  Basic economics.  You subsidize things like mortage interest deduction to encourage behaviors you want to encourage.  You tax things like cigarettes and gas guzzling cars to discourage their  purchase.  So high taxation of the "successful" means you are discouraging their behavior and hence there will be fewer of them.  65% of businesses in the USA fail within 10 years.  20% fail within the first year.  So our current system where the young business is successful and you want to tax the <deleted> out of them while they are earning money is a primary reason why they fail.  The money they should have kept in reserve to fend off bankruptcy when the business cycle has turned bad, had been already taken from them during the good years.  
 

Tax revenue in the USA has continually gone up, but spending by the government has increased faster. 

This is from a 17th century historian who studied the history of "democracies"   

 

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

That is exactly what we now have,  with our politicians robbing the treasury and burdening future generations by spending money they don't have in order to secure votes from those who benefit from that spending. 

 

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee - Wikipedia

Once again, you edit my lengthy post to one sentence and give a wildly out of context reply.

 

Regarding the one sentence; I was pointing out the absurdity of of your claim that taxes on business are passed on to consumers then discussing how businesses paid the taxes, with the contradictory statements being in the same paragraph.

 

My example of inheritance tax discussed investments which avoid capitol gains and any other taxes when passed on in an inheritance.  I can see why you chose to edit that out, your argument against it has no logic against the facts I presented.  BTW:  You also didn't explain why unearned wealth should not be taxed.

 

You dismiss the time when the US had much higher tax rates, a growing economy and much better fiscal balance with unsupported claims about deductions and the implication that the wealthy didn't really pay as high a tax rate as present.  Prove that with some sourced facts.

 

If the richest 1% are paying more in taxes than the the bottom 90% in spite of the low 21% tax rate your post shows they pay, it just shows how gross the income inequality is in the US.  Your weak argument in favor of mortgage rate interest deduction ignores the fact that the deduction was initially intended to promote home ownership for all Americans, not to subsidize multiple homes/mansions for the rich. 

 

Tax deduction are often initially given to promote beneficial behavior (or are promoted as such) but there is rarely if ever follow-up to determine if the resulting outcome is genuinely beneficial.  Also, once the foot is in the door with a type of deduction the individuals and businesses that are already wealthy enough to pay lobbyists go to work to expand the deductions in ways that only benefit the wealthy.

 

America needs infrastructure to remain competitive.  It needs defense to stay safe.  It needs a social safety net because the citizens demand it.  America needs many things that cost money, and people buying absurd yachts and companies paying for stock buybacks instead of investing in the business need to pay more for these things that benefit all Americans.

 

In closing:  Once again you edited my post to one out of context sentence and replied to that, and you failed to specifically identify how you think the government should reduce spending.  Both signs that your arguments are weak.

 

 

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

You are as Reagan said when he described liberals. It is not that our liberal friends are ignorant, they just know so much that isn't true. 

Again you are of the mindset that this wealth is an ever endless stream that you can tap into without any consequences.  The best thing for society is not to rob the successful from the fruits of their labor but rather to encourage them to be successful.  Whether you like it or not, the average person is employed and they get that employment from wealthy people who have an incentive to go into business and expand.  The more you tax something the more those with capital rather than go into business take their money into less risky enterprises with lower tax consequences.  In the end, it is people who pay taxes and the more people that you have with jobs the more tax revenue is generated.   The person has a job and can afford to pay for their own benefits rather than taking from Peter to give to Paul which is a zero sum game. 

The latest government data show that in 2018, the top 1% of income earners—those who earned more than $540,000—earned 21% of all U.S. income while paying 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes.
 

Over time, high-income Americans have shouldered a larger and larger share of the cost of government. Even the 2017 tax cuts—reviled by the political left—reduced tax bills for the lowest-income Americans by 10% while only cutting taxes for the top 1% by 0.04%. After the tax cuts, the rich pay a larger—not smaller—share of income taxes.

In fact, by almost every measure, the U.S. has one of the most progressive systems of taxation in the world, in which high-income people pay the highest tax rates.

Looking at all federal taxes, the Congressional Budget Office shows that the top 1% pay an average federal tax rate of 32%. The data show tax rates decline with income, and the poorest 20% of the population pay an average tax rate of just 1%. The left-leaning Tax Policy Center found similar results.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes

Lots of flaws here, but what is left out is unrealized capital gains, which is most of the wealth of the top 1% is to be found.

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

See my added comment.

 

However the numbers from various sources differ greatly.

 

Here is the US Treasury version from:

 

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=The federal government spent %246.27,the United States that year.

 

 

So normally here about 20%.

And how does this graph support Longwood's contention that the federal share has now risen to 37%? Unless of course you believe in the validity of mixing and matching statistics.

 

[placeholder]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again, you edit my lengthy post to one sentence and give a wildly out of context reply.

 

Regarding the one sentence; I was pointing out the absurdity of of your claim that taxes on business are passed on to consumers then discussing how businesses paid the taxes, with the contradictory statements being in the same paragraph.

 

My example of inheritance tax discussed investments which avoid capitol gains and any other taxes when passed on in an inheritance.  I can see why you chose to edit that out, your argument against it has no logic against the facts I presented.  BTW:  You also didn't explain why unearned wealth should not be taxed.

 

You dismiss the time when the US had much higher tax rates, a growing economy and much better fiscal balance with unsupported claims about deductions and the implication that the wealthy didn't really pay as high a tax rate as present.  Prove that with some sourced facts.

 

If the richest 1% are paying more in taxes than the the bottom 90% in spite of the low 21% tax rate your post shows they pay, it just shows how gross the income inequality is in the US.  Your weak argument in favor of mortgage rate interest deduction ignores the fact that the deduction was initially intended to promote home ownership for all Americans, not to subsidize multiple homes/mansions for the rich. 

 

Tax deduction are often initially given to promote beneficial behavior (or are promoted as such) but there is rarely if ever follow-up to determine if the resulting outcome is genuinely beneficial.  Also, once the foot is in the door with a type of deduction the individuals and businesses that are already wealthy enough to pay lobbyists go to work to expand the deductions in ways that only benefit the wealthy.

 

America needs infrastructure to remain competitive.  It needs defense to stay safe.  It needs a social safety net because the citizens demand it.  America needs many things that cost money, and people buying absurd yachts and companies paying for stock buybacks instead of investing in the business need to pay more for these things that benefit all Americans.

 

In closing:  Once again you edited my post to one out of context sentence and replied to that, and you failed to specifically identify how you think the government should reduce spending.  Both signs that your arguments are weak.

 

 

Your point about capital gains tax being avoid when wealth is inherited is an excellent But Longwood clearly doesn't understand the reason why the Federal Govr has taxes inheritance since the 18th century.  The founding fathers had seen that inherited wealth in Europe had given tremendous powers to the aristocracy and foiled change. They were determined not to have that happen here. When it came to agricultural wealth, the laws of Primogeniture were abolished so that estates would shrink over time. But when it came to commerce that was obviously not a workable approach. Inheritance taxes were meant to keep too much wealth from being accumulated in the hands of the few.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/resistance-estate-tax/470403/

https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders?language_content_entity=en

 

Their mistrust turns out to have been well justified. And to make it worse, the radical right Supreme Court has removed any meaningful restraints on the wealthy to support candidates of their choice. The power of the wealthy has never been greater than it is today in the USA. The vast majority of Americans, even Republicans, support higher taxes on the wealthy. Yet their tax rates continue to fall.

 

[placeholder]

48 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Those are difference calculations.  Spending as a percent of GDP takes total spending and total GDP.   The 37% to as high as 46% is calculated to total spending to GDP if you subtract governent spending as a percentage of GDP.  

Government spending adds to the GDP total.  If the government builds an aircraft carrier its value is added to GDP making the GDP total higher.  If you subtract the government spending the GDP total goes down so if you then take total spending to the now reduced GDP it becomes a higher percentage.   

False.

As I looked further into this I realized that the figures I cited were total government spending. That includes state and local taxes.

The figures nauseus cited were only for Federal spending.

What Longwood has done is to mistakenly assign total government spending to Federal spending. In other words, while his his claim about historic federal spending being in the 20% range is true, his claim that  that the Federal govt spends 37 percent of GDP or anything like it is false, That's the total for all government spending.

 

[Longwood50]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Both signs that your arguments are weak.

Yours are non existent. 

As pointed out.  The top 1% now already pay more than the botton 90% combined.  The top 1% pay an average tax rate of 32% the bottom 20% tax bracket an average of 32%.  How much do you favor?  What is progressive?  I think 32 times is really progressive. 

Now I am going to try and make this simple for you.  Money comes in the door that is revenue.  It does not matter how that money comes in.  Money goes out for expenses.  It does not matter what that expense is.  If I pay $10,000 for gas from my supplier  that cost has to be factored in when I calculate the price I am going to sell that gas at.  If my gas price from my supplier doubles to $20,000 I have to adjust my price.  Now if my gas price stays the same at $10,000 but the government imposes a tax on me of $10,000 THE EFFECT IS THE SAME.  

Businesses keep whatever is left over after all the expenses and taxes are an expense is left over.  

 

You talk about income inequality like a true liberal. The fact is that occupations that are "successful" earn more than those that are unsuccessful.  You seem to think it is a moral outrage that some business person invests his/her own money, sells a product that is valued by consumers, and earns money.  However you seem to indicate that somehow the person who drops out of school, has zero skills, and earns a pittance is the fault of the wealthy person.  NO IT IS NOT. 

The marketplace not bureacrats dictate what the public perceives has value and rewards it.  Bill Gate became wealthy providing the world with an unsurpassed way of increasing productivity.  Jeff Bezos at Amazon became wealthy by increasing the scope and providing a copetitive landscape for people to buy products internationally not just locally.  The marketplace voted and they were rewarded FOR BEING SUCCESSFUL.  What you suggest is that no we should tax those that are successful and subsidize those who are not.  I say you have it reversed.  You should encourage those who are not successful to improve themselves not discourage those who are. 

Money does not grow on tree.  Take money in the form of taxes from wealthy entrepreneurs and they have 1. less reason to risk their money since they know a larger portion of what they earn will be taken away. 2. They will then have less money for that company expansion or to hire more workers. 3. They redirect their investments from job creating activities to tax avoidance. 4. For those that can, they move their operations to lower tax jurisdictions.  One only has to look at the busiensses fleeing California for Texas as evidence of this.  

Somehow the media has for year promulgated this notion of that the wealthy "successful" should pay more.  The best answer I ever got was from a congressman who when I queried him, said no taxing the wealthy was not fair but that is where the money is.  It has nothing to do with fairness. 

Do you favor a card with your tax bracket tht you have to show where if you go to a gas station or grocery store you pay more for identical items "because you can afford it" 

Like it or not, if no one is successful everyone by default become failures.  Simple example is the lottery.  Make the jackpot $1 million and you sell a few tickets.  Make the jackpot $1 billion and you sell lots.  The same is true for entrepreneurs.  Make the reward of taking the risk small and you get few takers.  Make it huge and you get more willing to gamble.  It is the successful people who create jobs.  Amazon employes 1.5 million the average wage is $101,000.  Google employes 150,000 average wage is $123,000.  Microsoft employs 221,000 people and an average wage of $123,000.  

You seem to be of this mindset that rewarding the entrepreneurs who become wealthy is just a pot of gold that really belongs to the public and is there for the plundering.  I suggest that if I asked you to risk your money on a venture and if you failed too bad you take the loss but if you were successful that I get to keep the majority of it, you would say that is a no win situation and decline to take the risk.  That is exactly what you are proposing.   I don't understand the class envy.  I could care less what Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Bill Gates make providing that they got that wealth from providing goods and services that the public wants and create jobs from their activities. 

This is from Thomas Sowell - Senior Fellow Economics Stanford University. 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yours are non existent. 

As pointed out.  The top 1% now already pay more than the botton 90% combined.  The top 1% pay an average tax rate of 32% the bottom 20% tax bracket an average of 32%.  How much do you favor?  What is progressive?  I think 32 times is really progressive. 

Now I am going to try and make this simple for you.  Money comes in the door that is revenue.  It does not matter how that money comes in.  Money goes out for expenses.  It does not matter what that expense is.  If I pay $10,000 for gas from my supplier  that cost has to be factored in when I calculate the price I am going to sell that gas at.  If my gas price from my supplier doubles to $20,000 I have to adjust my price.  Now if my gas price stays the same at $10,000 but the government imposes a tax on me of $10,000 THE EFFECT IS THE SAME.  

Businesses keep whatever is left over after all the expenses and taxes are an expense is left over.  

 

You talk about income inequality like a true liberal. The fact is that occupations that are "successful" earn more than those that are unsuccessful.  You seem to think it is a moral outrage that some business person invests his/her own money, sells a product that is valued by consumers, and earns money.  However you seem to indicate that somehow the person who drops out of school, has zero skills, and earns a pittance is the fault of the wealthy person.  NO IT IS NOT. 

The marketplace not bureacrats dictate what the public perceives has value and rewards it.  Bill Gate became wealthy providing the world with an unsurpassed way of increasing productivity.  Jeff Bezos at Amazon became wealthy by increasing the scope and providing a copetitive landscape for people to buy products internationally not just locally.  The marketplace voted and they were rewarded FOR BEING SUCCESSFUL.  What you suggest is that no we should tax those that are successful and subsidize those who are not.  I say you have it reversed.  You should encourage those who are not successful to improve themselves not discourage those who are. 

Money does not grow on tree.  Take money in the form of taxes from wealthy entrepreneurs and they have 1. less reason to risk their money since they know a larger portion of what they earn will be taken away. 2. They will then have less money for that company expansion or to hire more workers. 3. They redirect their investments from job creating activities to tax avoidance. 4. For those that can, they move their operations to lower tax jurisdictions.  One only has to look at the busiensses fleeing California for Texas as evidence of this.  

Somehow the media has for year promulgated this notion of that the wealthy "successful" should pay more.  The best answer I ever got was from a congressman who when I queried him, said no taxing the wealthy was not fair but that is where the money is.  It has nothing to do with fairness. 

Do you favor a card with your tax bracket tht you have to show where if you go to a gas station or grocery store you pay more for identical items "because you can afford it" 

Like it or not, if no one is successful everyone by default become failures.  Simple example is the lottery.  Make the jackpot $1 million and you sell a few tickets.  Make the jackpot $1 billion and you sell lots.  The same is true for entrepreneurs.  Make the reward of taking the risk small and you get few takers.  Make it huge and you get more willing to gamble.  It is the successful people who create jobs.  Amazon employes 1.5 million the average wage is $101,000.  Google employes 150,000 average wage is $123,000.  Microsoft employs 221,000 people and an average wage of $123,000.  

You seem to be of this mindset that rewarding the entrepreneurs who become wealthy is just a pot of gold that really belongs to the public and is there for the plundering.  I suggest that if I asked you to risk your money on a venture and if you failed too bad you take the loss but if you were successful that I get to keep the majority of it, you would say that is a no win situation and decline to take the risk.  That is exactly what you are proposing.   I don't understand the class envy.  I could care less what Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Bill Gates make providing that they got that wealth from providing goods and services that the public wants and create jobs from their activities. 

This is from Thomas Sowell - Senior Fellow Economics Stanford University. 

So inherited wealth has been earned by those who receive it?

As I have pointed out, the founding fathers had a great distrust of large sums of inherited wealth. They understood the abuses it leads to.

[Longwood50]

19 hours ago, heybruce said:

BTW:  I don't think too many people are overly concerned about the top 1% paying a 21% tax rate.  During the 1950's and early 1960's they were paying a top tax rate of 90% or more. 

Again, the top tax rate is irrelevant.  It is how much that is paid not the rate.  Note over time the USA despite the wailing and knashing of teeth about paying "their fair share" has become more confiscatory to those at upper income levels not less.  That is why when they complain about tax cuts only benefiting the wealthy they are being deceptive.  Yes any tax cut benefits the wealthy more.  They are the ones paying the most and the lowest tax bracket tax filers in most cases pay zero or even get a refund on taxes not paid in the form of what is really a reverse income tax called an 'earned income credit" 

This chart by very liberal CNN very clearly shows the progression where the upper income groups now bear an increasingly large share of the federal income tax revenue. 





https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Longwood50 said:

Again, the top tax rate is irrelevant.  It is how much that is paid not the rate.  Note over time the USA despite the wailing and knashing of teeth about paying "their fair share" has become more confiscatory to those at upper income levels not less.  That is why when they complain about tax cuts only benefiting the wealthy they are being deceptive.  Yes any tax cut benefits the wealthy more.  They are the ones paying the most and the lowest tax bracket tax filers in most cases pay zero or even get a refund on taxes not paid in the form of what is really a reverse income tax called an 'earned income credit" 

This chart by very liberal CNN very clearly shows the progression where the upper income groups now bear an increasingly large share of the federal income tax revenue. 





https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

No they do not. Another falsehood from you. Why don't you understand about the difference between total paid for taxes and total paid for federal income tax?

 

[placeholder]

30 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Again, the top tax rate is irrelevant.  It is how much that is paid not the rate.  Note over time the USA despite the wailing and knashing of teeth about paying "their fair share" has become more confiscatory to those at upper income levels not less.  That is why when they complain about tax cuts only benefiting the wealthy they are being deceptive.  Yes any tax cut benefits the wealthy more.  They are the ones paying the most and the lowest tax bracket tax filers in most cases pay zero or even get a refund on taxes not paid in the form of what is really a reverse income tax called an 'earned income credit" 

This chart by very liberal CNN very clearly shows the progression where the upper income groups now bear an increasingly large share of the federal income tax revenue. 





https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

As has been pointed out repeatedly, income tax only taxes earnings. It doesn't tax wealth. And the wealthier you are, the more likely your wealth depends on such things as bonds and stocks. Taxes aren't levied on these until they are sold. And if they are inherited, no tax is paid on them. So what percenage of America's wealth do the top 1%, 10%, and 50% hold?

https://www.statista.com/chart/19635/wealth-distribution-percentiles-in-the-us/#:~:text=10 percent of the richest,of the country's total wealth.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Your point about capital gains tax being avoid when wealth is inherited is an excellent But Longwood clearly doesn't understand the reason why the Federal Govr has taxes inheritance since the 18th century.  The founding fathers had seen that inherited wealth in Europe had given tremendous powers to the aristocracy and foiled change. They were determined not to have that happen here. When it came to agricultural wealth, the laws of Primogeniture were abolished so that estates would shrink over time. But when it came to commerce that was obviously not a workable approach. Inheritance taxes were meant to keep too much wealth from being accumulated in the hands of the few.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/resistance-estate-tax/470403/

https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders?language_content_entity=en

 

Their mistrust turns out to have been well justified. And to make it worse, the radical right Supreme Court has removed any meaningful restraints on the wealthy to support candidates of their choice. The power of the wealthy has never been greater than it is today in the USA. The vast majority of Americans, even Republicans, support higher taxes on the wealthy. Yet their tax rates continue to fall.

 

Since the far right can't respond to your post without stating that the Founding Fathers got it wrong, they will probably ignore it.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Yours are non existent. 

As pointed out.  The top 1% now already pay more than the botton 90% combined.  The top 1% pay an average tax rate of 32% the bottom 20% tax bracket an average of 32%.  How much do you favor?  What is progressive?  I think 32 times is really progressive. 

Now I am going to try and make this simple for you.  Money comes in the door that is revenue.  It does not matter how that money comes in.  Money goes out for expenses.  It does not matter what that expense is.  If I pay $10,000 for gas from my supplier  that cost has to be factored in when I calculate the price I am going to sell that gas at.  If my gas price from my supplier doubles to $20,000 I have to adjust my price.  Now if my gas price stays the same at $10,000 but the government imposes a tax on me of $10,000 THE EFFECT IS THE SAME.  

Businesses keep whatever is left over after all the expenses and taxes are an expense is left over.  

 

You talk about income inequality like a true liberal. The fact is that occupations that are "successful" earn more than those that are unsuccessful.  You seem to think it is a moral outrage that some business person invests his/her own money, sells a product that is valued by consumers, and earns money.  However you seem to indicate that somehow the person who drops out of school, has zero skills, and earns a pittance is the fault of the wealthy person.  NO IT IS NOT. 

The marketplace not bureacrats dictate what the public perceives has value and rewards it.  Bill Gate became wealthy providing the world with an unsurpassed way of increasing productivity.  Jeff Bezos at Amazon became wealthy by increasing the scope and providing a copetitive landscape for people to buy products internationally not just locally.  The marketplace voted and they were rewarded FOR BEING SUCCESSFUL.  What you suggest is that no we should tax those that are successful and subsidize those who are not.  I say you have it reversed.  You should encourage those who are not successful to improve themselves not discourage those who are. 

Money does not grow on tree.  Take money in the form of taxes from wealthy entrepreneurs and they have 1. less reason to risk their money since they know a larger portion of what they earn will be taken away. 2. They will then have less money for that company expansion or to hire more workers. 3. They redirect their investments from job creating activities to tax avoidance. 4. For those that can, they move their operations to lower tax jurisdictions.  One only has to look at the busiensses fleeing California for Texas as evidence of this.  

Somehow the media has for year promulgated this notion of that the wealthy "successful" should pay more.  The best answer I ever got was from a congressman who when I queried him, said no taxing the wealthy was not fair but that is where the money is.  It has nothing to do with fairness. 

Do you favor a card with your tax bracket tht you have to show where if you go to a gas station or grocery store you pay more for identical items "because you can afford it" 

Like it or not, if no one is successful everyone by default become failures.  Simple example is the lottery.  Make the jackpot $1 million and you sell a few tickets.  Make the jackpot $1 billion and you sell lots.  The same is true for entrepreneurs.  Make the reward of taking the risk small and you get few takers.  Make it huge and you get more willing to gamble.  It is the successful people who create jobs.  Amazon employes 1.5 million the average wage is $101,000.  Google employes 150,000 average wage is $123,000.  Microsoft employs 221,000 people and an average wage of $123,000.  

You seem to be of this mindset that rewarding the entrepreneurs who become wealthy is just a pot of gold that really belongs to the public and is there for the plundering.  I suggest that if I asked you to risk your money on a venture and if you failed too bad you take the loss but if you were successful that I get to keep the majority of it, you would say that is a no win situation and decline to take the risk.  That is exactly what you are proposing.   I don't understand the class envy.  I could care less what Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Bill Gates make providing that they got that wealth from providing goods and services that the public wants and create jobs from their activities. 

This is from Thomas Sowell - Senior Fellow Economics Stanford University. 

You have gone to a new extreme in editing a post into one out-of-context sentence.  After I closed with:

 

"Once again you edited my post to one out of context sentence and replied to that, and you failed to specifically identify how you think the government should reduce spending.  Both signs that your arguments are weak."

 

you edited the entire post to the last seven words, followed by your usual "blah, blah, blah".  You did not respond in any way to anything in my post, you offered a Tucker Carlson style opinionated rant.

 

I won't bother to reply to blah blah.  If you actually address my full post, or at least some of the facts, I will reply.  If you ever do such a blatant out of context edit again to one of my posts I will report you.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

Again, the top tax rate is irrelevant.  It is how much that is paid not the rate.  Note over time the USA despite the wailing and knashing of teeth about paying "their fair share" has become more confiscatory to those at upper income levels not less.  That is why when they complain about tax cuts only benefiting the wealthy they are being deceptive.  Yes any tax cut benefits the wealthy more.  They are the ones paying the most and the lowest tax bracket tax filers in most cases pay zero or even get a refund on taxes not paid in the form of what is really a reverse income tax called an 'earned income credit" 

This chart by very liberal CNN very clearly shows the progression where the upper income groups now bear an increasingly large share of the federal income tax revenue. 





https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

The top 1% own sixteen times as much wealth as the bottom 50%.  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/how-much-wealth-top-1percent-of-americans-have.html

 

Are they paying sixteen times as much tax?  Please don't limit the reply to income tax, but total tax.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

And how does this graph support Longwood's contention that the federal share has now risen to 37%? Unless of course you believe in the validity of mixing and matching statistics.

 

I'm not "mixing and matching statistics". I was showing how the numbers from various sources differ greatly. Stop your flaming nonsense.

[candide]

5 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

I am not saying that it is only one administrations fault.  Whether Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden all have spent money like drunken sailors.  This coming back to normal is a blatant false statement.  Traditionally the spending to GDP has been in the 18% - 20% range.  We are now at $6.6 trillion  in spending in 2021.  The GDP is $23.32 Trillion.  That is 28.3%

You are falling for the narrative that we need to do this because of the pandemic to "curb inflation"  That is as false as the Affordable Care Act was ever about making health care affordable.  All that and the stimulus spending names were to mislead the public into giant giveaways.  All that spending with borrowed money has come with today's inflation.  One way or another the USA now $31 trillion in direct federal debt and an estimated $100 trillion in unfunded mandates for things like social security, medicare and medicaid.  Social Security is a pay as you go program where current tax receipts are funding payouts and medicare and medicaid likewise have no funds but are federal outlays each year.  The technical definition of insolvency is when either your liabilities exceed your assets or your cash flow is insufficient to service your debt.  The very fact the USA has to borrow more money each year to service its debts is testimony to the fact it meets the technical definition of insolvency. 

 

There was never such a narrative.

 

I maintain that crisis years cannot be compared with "normal" years (even Nauseus who likes your post used it as an argument in favour of Trump). 2021 is an atypical year. If you look at 2022 (in the graph you posted), it starts going back to a more reasonable level.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

There was never such a narrative.

 

I maintain that crisis years cannot be compared with "normal" years (even Nauseus who likes your post used it as an argument in favour of Trump). 2021 is an atypical year. If you look at 2022 (in the graph you posted), it starts going back to a more reasonable level.

I didn't like it - I loved it - mainly for the last sentetnce.