14 hours ago, Fact said:

Did you bother to read my post with the data from the CBO?

Do you expect me to read the entire report to track down whether or not the CBO report addresses the issue of taxation?

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Apparently, you believe that an assertion about me unbacked by evidence, is sufficient.

You can't even grasp the concept of the federal budget growing at a faster rate than the growth of the GDP.

6 minutes ago, TedG said:

You can't even grasp the concept of the federal budget growing at a faster rate than the growth of the GDP.

If there was no AlterNet article to regurgitate, he'll know nothing about it.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

You can't even grasp the concept of the federal budget growing at a faster rate than the growth of the GDP.

It's just so weird and kind of awe-inspiring witnessing someone with an apparent case of anagnosia repeatedly go through their weird routine. But I think it's getting worse. You also seem to be ignoring the spending side of the equation now. Trump wants to increase defense spending by $500 billion. So much that his people don't know how to spend it all. Not a peep out of you. If I were a cynical type, I'd say all your self-righteous indignation was was really a clumsy pretext to support slashing social benefit programs. But I would never accuse you of sinking that low. I'll stick with the anagnosia diagnosis. But I'm open to suggestions.

9 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

It's just so weird and kind of awe-inspiring witnessing someone with an apparent case of anagnosia repeatedly go through their weird routine. But I think it's getting worse. You also seem to be ignoring the spending side of the equation now. Trump wants to increase defense spending by $500 billion. So much that his people don't know how to spend it all. Not a peep out of you. If I were a cynical type, I'd say all your self-righteous indignation was was really a clumsy pretext to support slashing social benefit programs. But I would never accuse you of sinking that low. I'll stick with the anagnosia diagnosis. But I'm open to suggestions.

Alan, what is the largest driver of the US debt?

23 minutes ago, TedG said:

Alan, what is the largest driver of the US debt?

Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/

The article starts by noting that the national debt was actually decreasing until Reagan came along. The upshot of his tax cuts was 10 trillion of debt today.

Under Clinton, who raised taxes, that decline reversed and the budget ran small surpluses in his final years.

Then cam the disaster of the Bush tax cuts. Before the Bush tax cuts, the CBO was actually projecting that revenue would keep pace with spending. After the Bush tax cuts,, the CBO reversed its projections. The Bush tax cuts add about 11 trillion to the deficit.

The First Trump administration added about 1.9 trillion to the debt thanks to its tax cuts.

So, if you add up those totals, you get about 23 trillion dollars. That's over 60% of the current national debt.

Since the current situation is grave, I'm sure you'll agree that the fairest way to gain control of this situation is to increase taxes sharply accompanied by some spending cuts in the defense dept.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/

The article starts by noting that the national debt was actually decreasing until Reagan came along. The upshot of his tax cuts was 10 trillion of debt today.

Under Clinton, who raised taxes, that decline reversed and the budget ran small surpluses in his final years.

Then cam the disaster of the Bush tax cuts. Before the Bush tax cuts, the CBO was actually projecting that revenue would keep pace with spending. After the Bush tax cuts,, the CBO reversed its projections. The Bush tax cuts add about 11 trillion to the deficit.

The First Trump administration added about 1.9 trillion to the debt thanks to its tax cuts.

So, if you add up those totals, you get about 23 trillion dollars. That's over 60% of the current national debt.

Since the current situation is grave, I'm sure you'll agree that the fairest way to gain control of this situation is to increase taxes sharply accompanied by some spending cuts in the defense dept.

This is not true. The link you posted is a progressive which engages in gas lighting. The CBO is as close to the source of truth on the federal budget that you can get

You can't face reality.

https://www.cato.org/blog/cbo-update-medicare-social-security-are-key-drivers-exploding-debt

CBO Update: Medicare and Social Security Are Key Drivers of Exploding Debt

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) recently released budget projections cast a harsh light on the precarious financial future of the US. Politically entrenched old-age benefit programs, primarily Medicare and Social Security, are the key drivers of exploding federal debt. If Congress fails to act, seniors will face a 21 percent cut to their Social Security benefits in 2033 and an 11 percent cut to Medicare Part A benefits in 2036.

5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/

The article starts by noting that the national debt was actually decreasing until Reagan came along. The upshot of his tax cuts was 10 trillion of debt today.

Under Clinton, who raised taxes, that decline reversed and the budget ran small surpluses in his final years.

Then cam the disaster of the Bush tax cuts. Before the Bush tax cuts, the CBO was actually projecting that revenue would keep pace with spending. After the Bush tax cuts,, the CBO reversed its projections. The Bush tax cuts add about 11 trillion to the deficit.

The First Trump administration added about 1.9 trillion to the debt thanks to its tax cuts.

So, if you add up those totals, you get about 23 trillion dollars. That's over 60% of the current national debt.

Since the current situation is grave, I'm sure you'll agree that the fairest way to gain control of this situation is to increase taxes sharply accompanied by some spending cuts in the defense dept.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105#_idTextAnchor092

Outlays in 2026

In CBO’s projections, total federal outlays for 2026 increase by $439 billion (or 6 percent) from the amount recorded in 2025. More than 80 percent of that growth is attributable to mandatory outlays, which increase by $362 billion (or 9 percent). The government’s net interest costs are also expected to grow in 2026, increasing by $69 billion (or 7 percent) from 2025 to reach $1.0 trillion. Discretionary outlays remain close to last year’s amount—$1.9 trillion—increasing by $8 billion (or 0.4 percent). (For descriptions of the three major categories of federal outlays, see Box 3-1.)

9 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/

The article starts by noting that the national debt was actually decreasing until Reagan came along. The upshot of his tax cuts was 10 trillion of debt today.

Under Clinton, who raised taxes, that decline reversed and the budget ran small surpluses in his final years.

Then cam the disaster of the Bush tax cuts. Before the Bush tax cuts, the CBO was actually projecting that revenue would keep pace with spending. After the Bush tax cuts,, the CBO reversed its projections. The Bush tax cuts add about 11 trillion to the deficit.

The First Trump administration added about 1.9 trillion to the debt thanks to its tax cuts.

So, if you add up those totals, you get about 23 trillion dollars. That's over 60% of the current national debt.

Since the current situation is grave, I'm sure you'll agree that the fairest way to gain control of this situation is to increase taxes sharply accompanied by some spending cuts in the defense dept.

The only people who can't deal with the reality of the federal budget are the progressives.

https://www.pgpf.org/our-national-debt/

10 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Since the current situation is grave, I'm sure you'll agree that the fairest way to gain control of this situation is to increase taxes sharply accompanied by some spending cuts in the defense dept.

You are so out of touch with reality. The deficit is 2 trillion dollars, and CBO expects it to reach 3 trillion dollars by 2026. The DOD is one trillion. How much do you want to cut the DOD? What is your source of revenue to fill the rest of the gap?

9 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Do you expect me to read the entire report to track down whether or not the CBO report addresses the issue of taxation?

You are not interested in expanding your understanding of these pressing topics.?

6 hours ago, Fact said:

You are not interested in expanding your understanding of these pressing topics.?

I have no doubt the spending is dangerously outpacing revenue. My point has always been that these folks who claimed to be so alarmed about the national debt seem to be completely blind to the issue of taxation. I'm sure that you aren't one of them and you recognize the role that reversing tax cuts needs to play in restoring the US government's financial soundness.

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I have no doubt the spending is dangerously outpacing revenue. My point has always been that these folks who claimed to be so alarmed about the national debt seem to be completely blind to the issue of taxation. I'm sure that you aren't one of them and you recognize the role that reversing tax cuts needs to play in restoring the US government's financial soundness.

If citizens are taxes at 100% what will revenue be in five years?

Tax revenue was the highest ever in 2025

What specific changes would you make to the tax code to increase revenue long term?

Just now, Yellowtail said:

If citizens are taxes at 100% what will revenue be in five years?

Tax revenue was the highest ever in 2025

What specific changes would you make to the tax code to increase revenue long term?

I would tax borrowing against assets over an annual threshold.

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I have no doubt the spending is dangerously outpacing revenue. My point has always been that these folks who claimed to be so alarmed about the national debt seem to be completely blind to the issue of taxation. I'm sure that you aren't one of them and you recognize the role that reversing tax cuts needs to play in restoring the US government's financial soundness.

Who are the people that claim to be alarmed about the national debt?

Do you think the people that claim to be alarmed about the national debt are really not alarmed?

Who do you think are the people that are not alarmed about the national debt?

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I would tax borrowing against assets over an annual threshold.

How would that work? Please flesh it out a bit.

On 2/20/2026 at 1:03 AM, JimCM said:

Could there be a link to Israel and tax breaks, given that over a third of US billionaires are Jewish.

https://constitutionalstudies.ning.com/m/discussion?id=6585610%3ATopic%3A428352

No but , theres a direct link to Fraud. Some estimates put it @ +33%

10 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I would tax borrowing against assets over an annual threshold.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How would that work? Please flesh it out a bit.

Billionaires & property investors borrow against their shares or property to release cash and they live on that cash. They don't pay tax because it's a loan.

I would suggest giving an annual threshold, say $20,000 and any loan you make against property or shares would then be taxed on the loan amount at (say) 25%.

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

Billionaires & property investors borrow against their shares or property to release cash and they live on that cash. They don't pay tax because it's a loan.

I would suggest giving an annual threshold, say $20,000 and any loan you make against property or shares would then be taxed on the loan amount at (say) 25%.

So when a homeowner takes a second on their home, the government would tax them 25% of the loan value over $20K?

Or when restaurant owner takes out a loan on the property to expand and renovate his facility, the government takes 25% of the loan value?

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So when a homeowner takes a second on their home, the government would tax them 25% of the loan value over $20K?

Or when restaurant owner takes out a loan on the property to expand and renovate his facility, the government takes 25% of the loan value?

OK, so set a higher threshold.

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

OK, so set a higher threshold.

How about $1,000,000?

How about a low threshold, but you apply to the revenue department at time of application for an exception. Clearly, billionaires and others paying disproportionate amounts of taxes wouldn’t have the exception granted.

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

How about a low threshold, but you apply to the revenue department at time of application for an exception. Clearly, billionaires and others paying disproportionate amounts of taxes wouldn’t have the exception granted.

So, you would give exemptions to the people you like anddo not give exemptions to the people you don't like. But in the case, no revenue would be generated,

How would you define disproportionate?

What is wrong with borrowing money against assets?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you would give exemptions to the people you like anddo not give exemptions to the people you don't like. But in the case, no revenue would be generated,

How would you define disproportionate?

What is wrong with borrowing money against assets?

I like borrowing against assets and I took advantage of that when I was a landlord. I recognize that by doing so I’m avoiding paying any tax and I think it would be a good thing to tax borrowing against assets, I can’t see any other way of taxing billionaires, can you?

In what I proposed it would be down to the borrower to prove his purpose for borrowing and if it’s to release equity that if sold would be a capital gain, then the loan should be taxed.

You remind me of something I used to say to my staff, don’t bring me a problem without proposing a solution. So Yellowtail, what’s your solution?

44 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I like borrowing against assets and I took advantage of that when I was a landlord. I recognize that by doing so I’m avoiding paying any tax...

How do you avoid paying any tax by borrowing on assets?

44 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

...and I think it would be a good thing to tax borrowing against assets, I can’t see any other way of taxing billionaires, can you?

I think billionaires that evade taxes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, fined and incarcerated.

As I understand it, billionaires are already taxed. Is that not true?

44 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

In what I proposed it would be down to the borrower to prove his purpose for borrowing and if it’s to release equity that if sold would be a capital gain, then the loan should be taxed.

What you seem to want, is to tax unrealized capital gains, yes?

44 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

You remind me of something I used to say to my staff, don’t bring me a problem without proposing a solution.

And you remind me of the business owner whose business has fallen off, and their solution is raising prices to increase revenue.

44 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

So Yellowtail, what’s your solution?

Something I used to say to my staff, is first you have to define the problem.

Define the problem, and I will offer a solution.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How do you avoid paying any tax by borrowing on assets?

I think billionaires that evade taxes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, fined and incarcerated.

As I understand it, billionaires are already taxed. Is that not true?

What you seem to want, is to tax unrealized capital gains, yes?

And you remind me of the business owner whose business has fallen off, and their solution is raising prices to increase revenue.

Something I used to say to my staff, is first you have to define the problem.

Define the problem, and I will offer a solution.

How do you avoid tax by borrowing on assets

Borrowing isn't taxable income. You can borrow against assets and spend the money as if it were income without paying tax on the money.

Billionaires are taxed.

Often not true, they have no taxable income despite spending hundreds of millions per year from borrowing against assets.

Prosecution?

This tactic is perfectly legal, and no tax is due until the capital gain on the asset is realised, often at death and in some jurisdictions, there is no capital gain at death because the asset value steps up at death to the new value. It's called "Buy, Borrow, Die".

What I remind you of

You remind me of something too

Define the problem

The title of this thread "billionaires' low taxes are becoming a problem for the economy", that is the definition of the problem. I proposed a possible solution, flawed I grant you. I'm looking forward to hearing yours.

5 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

How do you avoid tax by borrowing on assets

Borrowing isn't taxable income. You can borrow against assets and spend the money as if it were income without paying tax on the money.

You borrow against the asset rather than selling it, is that what you mean?

You could sell an asset and spend the money as well.

Long term capital gains (over a certain income threshold) are taxed at I think 3%.

5 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Billionaires are taxed.

Often not true, they have no taxable income despite spending hundreds of millions per year from borrowing against assets.

What are they spending hundreds of millions on? Most pending is taxed.

5 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Prosecution?

This tactic is perfectly legal, and no tax is due until the capital gain on the asset is realised, often at death and in some jurisdictions, there is no capital gain at death because the asset value steps up at death to the new value. It's called "Buy, Borrow, Die"

Federal estate taxes kick in at about $12M I think.

In any event, you want to tax unrealized capital gains, yes? I am against that.

5 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

What I remind you of

You remind me of something too

Define the problem

The title of this thread "billionaires' low taxes are becoming a problem for the economy", that is the definition of the problem. I proposed a possible solution, flawed I grant you. I'm looking forward to hearing yours.

Yeah, that's a leftist headline, not problem. I am not envious of billionaires and do not want to see them punished unless they are operating outside the law.

I believe that generally, billionaires and their attorneys are smarter that government agencies and their attorneys.

21 hours ago, TedG said:

Alan, what is the largest driver of the US debt?

War, past, present and future. If we capped holdings at, say, what, a million? 50M? 100M? the rest can be used for social equity, healthcare, housing, education, transportation.

The bills are coded to make money. They'll make more and we'll take it. Wash-rinse-spin, repeat.

16 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

War, past, present and future. If we capped holdings at, say, what, a million? 50M? 100M? the rest can be used for social equity, healthcare, housing, education, transportation.

The bills are coded to make money. They'll make more and we'll take it. Wash-rinse-spin, repeat.

No, the largest driver of the debt are the social programs.

What is "social equity"?

43 minutes ago, TedG said:

No, the largest driver of the debt are the social programs.

What is "social equity"?

Him getting money he never worked for