Jump to content
Apple Music
economy

70% tax rate not realistic

Featured Posts

Woolfsmck

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-ll-never-again-70-200635183.html

This explains it better, 

Key point is that Trumps cuts mainly helped the segment of the economy that wasn't in any duress...

Plus overall Tax revenue hasn't increased because the money saved didn't go back into growing the economy...

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morphine Prince

Very high tax rates were the norm in the 1930’s-1970’s so it wouldn’t be something that hasn’t been done before, if you want to look at it that way. 

I got two red pills to take the blues away.
  • Like 4

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheQueenLG

You realize only the dollars ABOVE 10 million dollars in income would be taxed at 70%, right? I don't think many people know how taxes work lol. That means that every penny under 10 million dollars in income would remain at the rate it is today (37%) according to Cortez's deal. What in gay hell makes that not possible? We have serious things to combat that require serious coin such as the forever strengthening effects of climate change. We'd be a fool not to do what Cortez is suggesting.

The ignorance of the right really jumped out regarding this. 

Edited by TheQueenLG
grammar ;)
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pablo

I don't want the government taking more of people's money, they overspend right now and will if they take more.

Don't visit my profile
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Postboy

Not realistic? 

That sort of tax policy made the US economy boom until the 80’s. 

This isn’t rocket science. Having the money to invest in essentials like healthcare, education, and infrastructure puts more money into the pockets of the middle class, which creates more demand. 

You can make an argument about the government overspending on the military or our insurance-based healthcare system, but you cannot make an argument against spending that benefits the people. You, who are most likely a middle-class citizen, would be arguing against YOURSELF. 

  • Like 4

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
19 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I don't want the government taking more of people's money, they overspend right now and will if they take more.

That sediment pervades a majority of the tax paying community.. 

If the Libs or Pubs want to strengthen the leadership foothold and attract the neutral voting block, they will campaign and execute spending efficiency with results that are transparent and provable.

All this we're gonna and they're at fault crud is just same ole'  DC drama year after year.

Edited by Woolfsmck
like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woolfsmck
3 minutes ago, Postboy said:

Not realistic? 

That sort of tax policy made the US economy boom until the 80’s. 

This isn’t rocket science. Having the money to invest in essentials like healthcare, education, and infrastructure puts more money into the pockets of the middle class, which creates more demand. 

You can make an argument about the government overspending on the military or our insurance-based healthcare system, but you cannot make an argument against spending that benefits the people. You, who are most likely a middle-class citizen, would be arguing against YOURSELF. 

I'm not arguing, simply posting relevant information to a mainstream topic.

My opinion is that increasing taxes just because the rich can afford it isn't justification enough.

Gov.spending is wasteful and corrupt so simply throwing more money into the pit won't solve anything.

I agree the infrastructure and healthcare do benefit the broader populus however, but waste, corruption, insurance fraud ect  should be prioritised before increased spending.

 

 

like a cat in a sil, I observe life, moving and still. My words give a clue,look inside to see whats true
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheQueenLG
17 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

I'm not arguing, simply posting relevant information to a mainstream topic.

My opinion is that increasing taxes just because the rich can afford it isn't justification enough.

Gov.spending is wasteful and corrupt so simply throwing more money into the pit won't solve anything.

I agree the infrastructure and healthcare do benefit the broader populus however, but waste, corruption, insurance fraud ect  should be prioritised before increased spending.

 

 

She made it completely clear that the purpose of the increase in the tax rate (for those earning more than 10 mil per year) would be to fund an initiative to combat climate change. Isn't that reason valiant and worthy of a tax reform? Scientists, the very experts on the topic agree with her. 

Edited by TheQueenLG
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adakam
1 hour ago, TheQueenLG said:

You realize only the dollars ABOVE 10 million dollars in income would be taxed at 70%, right? I don't think many people know how taxes work lol. That means that every penny under 10 million dollars in income would remain at the rate it is today (37%) according to Cortez's deal. What in gay hell makes that not possible? We have serious things to combat that require serious coin such as the forever strengthening effects of climate change. We'd be a fool not to do what Cortez is suggesting.

The ignorance of the right really jumped out regarding this. 

Its not ignorance, they know very well that this 70% proposal works and would be great for the country's economy. The problem is the massive amount of corruption led mainly by the right.

Corporations have full control over the republican government, with their donations and lobbying. They wont let such an idea pass.

These are the problems of late-stage Capitalism, where money decides everything.

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Postboy
28 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

I'm not arguing, simply posting relevant information to a mainstream topic.

My opinion is that increasing taxes just because the rich can afford it isn't justification enough.

Gov.spending is wasteful and corrupt so simply throwing more money into the pit won't solve anything.

I agree the infrastructure and healthcare do benefit the broader populus however, but waste, corruption, insurance fraud ect  should be prioritised before increased spending.

 

 

What- you don’t think that wealth concentration at the top hurts our economy? Because that’s the justification. 

Taxation isn’t just about giving the government money to spend. It’s also about making sure money in our economy doesn’t just stagnate. It depends on money recirculating over and over through policies that make sure wealth will be evenly distributed. This is why progressives fight hard for Medicare-for-all and tuition free college. Those are two major choke holds that prevent middle-class Americans from buying houses, having more children, or opening their own business. 

Government is corrupt because of our campaign finance laws. We need to change that. We need more people in congress who are there to represent and protect their constituents... not their own personal interests. 

Edited by Postboy
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
andy69

This is bullsh*t, GTFO of here.

THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES WHEN THEY HAVE MORE MONEY THAN THEY CAN SPEND IN A LIFETIME BUT THE CITIES THEY LIVE IN ARE FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH HUNGRY, OVERWORKED PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT.


*screams*

i feel like the whole "class warfare" culture war is starting up again. it's going to be the theme of 2020 election, and i can't stand stupid motherf*ckers opinions like "it's not realistic to help poor people by taxing the rich fairly, because i read an article on yahoo finance!"

UGH. GET OUT. STOP IDENTIFYING WITH YOUR OPPRESSOR. \

Edited by andy69
yala
  • YAAAS 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
MJHolland

You’re right 

We need to go back to taxing the richest at 94% 

Thank you for bringing this some light 

  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
MJHolland
8 minutes ago, andy69 said:

This is bullsh*t, GTFO of here.

THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES WHEN THEY HAVE MORE MONEY THAN THEY CAN SPEND IN A LIFETIME BUT THE CITIES THEY LIVE IN ARE FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH HUNGRY, OVERWORKED PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT.


*screams*

i feel like the whole "class warfare" culture war is starting up again. it's going to be the theme of 2020 election, and i can't stand stupid motherf*ckers opinions like "it's not realistic to help poor people by taxing the rich fairly, because i read an article on yahoo finance!"

UGH. GET OUT. STOP IDENTIFYING WITH YOUR OPPRESSOR. \

big mood 

  • LMAO 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×