American Cultural Revolution

[Deleted member 2897]

Since we are in a thread championing discourse, question: Is this referencing single payer healthcare? That seems to be the common thread between candidates you're alluding to that would be deemed socialist by some. If so, how is that limiting freedom and the antithesis off the principles of the country?

Government run healthcare? It is by definition.

They also champion oppressive tax rates and government overseeing many things in our lives.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Government run healthcare? It is by definition.

They also champion oppressive tax rates and government overseeing many things in our lives.

So is that it? Tax rates? That's what is the antithesis of our principles as a country? What tax rates would be acceptable?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

So is that it? Tax rates? That's what is the antithesis of our principles as a country? What tax rates would be acceptable?

Government running all kinds of things and oppressive tax rates? That’s it? LOL, Um yes that’s pretty much it. By definition.

What tax rates would be acceptable? How about not 85%.

Multiple people are advocating 70%. And that’s just federal. So in many places, that would be 80-85%. It’s already over 50% in many places.

We have $22 Trillion in debt and increasing. We are well into socialism already. We’re just debating how far into slavery we want to go.

For the first 120 years, we didn’t even have an income tax.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Government running all kinds of things and oppressive tax rates? That’s it? LOL, Um yes that’s pretty much it. By definition.

What tax rates would be acceptable? How about not 85%.

Multiple people are advocating 70%. And that’s just federal. So in many places, that would be 80-85%. It’s already over 50% in many places.

We have $22 Trillion in debt and increasing. We are well into socialism already. We’re just debating how far into slavery we want to go.

For the first 120 years, we didn’t even have an income tax.

Nobody has proposed 85%. Nobody has proposed 70% really either. As radical as AOC is she only suggested 70% on income over $10M. Lower than what the US had in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

I agree the debt is an issue, but Republicans ain't doing jack about that.

So yeah, is that it? Taxes on the wealthy?

And 120 years ago we didn't have the largest military on the planet, a population of almost 330 million, and now a frickin' Space Force. Times change.

And since we have had an income tax it's always been progressive.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Nobody has proposed 85%. Nobody has proposed 70% really either. As radical as AOC is she only suggested 70% on income over $10M. Lower than what the US had in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

I agree the debt is an issue, but Republicans ain't doing jack about that.

So yeah, is that it? Taxes on the wealthy?

And 120 years ago we didn't have the largest military on the planet, a population of almost 330 million, and now a frickin' Space Force. Times change.

And since we have had an income tax it's always been progressive.

So basically, nobody is proposing 70%, except for all the people who are? Huh?

Today, the top brackets are in the 30s. State taxes go all the way to 13%+. Some localities add more. Then you have payroll taxes, property taxes (which are also onerous in most areas), sales taxes, and so on. To say they might have been worse in the past doesn’t make the point go away. It’s ridiculously pathetic. And EVERY candidate on the left wants more. Many want to double taxes.

Many want government run preschool. Many want government run childcare. It’s hilariously terrible.

 

[Lotta Booze]

So basically, nobody is proposing 70%, except for all the people who are? Huh?

Today, the top brackets are in the 30s. State taxes go all the way to 13%+. Some localities add more. Then you have payroll taxes, property taxes (which are also onerous in most areas), sales taxes, and so on. To say they might have been worse in the past doesn’t make the point go away. It’s ridiculously pathetic. And EVERY candidate on the left wants more. Many want to double taxes.

Many want government run preschool. Many want government run childcare. It’s hilariously terrible.

I say not 70% because nobody will pay 70% effective tax rate. You throw around numbers like 70% or 85% as if it's a flat tax on all your income. Nobody is proposing that.

And again I say, that's it? People who make over 10 Million dollars a year in income (not even including capital gains) have their taxes raised a bit and it's the "antithesis of the principles of our country"?

Seems a bit dramatic.

So again, what is the acceptable amount of taxes people should pay? Apparently there is an amount you would find acceptable and not "assaulting liberty".

 

[LibertyTurns]

The Federal Government is collecting $10,300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The average State collects another $2500 per head. Then there’s local taxes on top of that.

Is someone trying to tell me that $50k+ for a family of 4 is not enough money to run this country with top notch, elite service in nearly every undertaking? It’s absolutely obscene how large the tax bill is particularly given the poor quality of the government services provided.

 

[Lotta Booze]

The Federal Government is collecting $10,300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The average State collects another $2500 per head. Then there’s local taxes on top of that.

Is someone trying to tell me that $50k+ for a family of 4 is not enough money to run this country with top notch, elite service in nearly every undertaking? It’s absolutely obscene how large the tax bill is particularly given the poor quality of the government services provided.

Ah, so you want better government services provided for what you pay in. No way me too! Like healthcare! We agree! Another victory for discourse!

 

[LibertyTurns]

Ah, so you want better government services provided for what you pay in. No way me too! Like healthcare! We agree! Another victory for discourse!

You do realize the average family of is paying 81% of his income in taxes. They’re paying $50k in taxes on $61k in income. Yeah a lot of it isn’t direct so you don’t think you’re being fleeced. Your company pays for unemployment, social security, you get hacked 7 or 8% maybe when you buy a car, they tax your property, take a cut of your investment income, you got your personal income tax, you pay excise taxes, etc. You pay when you die, when you buy or sell a house, they take a slice of your whiskey money, etc. The government has their hand in your pocket from cradle to grave.

 

[Lotta Booze]

You do realize the average family of is paying 81% of his income in taxes. They’re paying $50k in taxes on $61k in income. Yeah a lot of it isn’t direct so you don’t think you’re being fleeced. Your company pays for unemployment, social security, you get hacked 7 or 8% maybe when you buy a car, they tax your property, take a cut of your investment income, you got your personal income tax, you pay excise taxes, etc. You pay when you die, when you buy or sell a house, they take a slice of your whiskey money, etc. The government has their hand in your pocket from cradle to grave.

I agree that the government always gets their cut. Death and taxes, as they say.

You do realize that you're being very disingenuous with the numbers you're plucking. That's bad math. Especially for a Tech guy.

You can't just claim families are paying 80% taxes just because you averaged out the tax receipts per person. That's a false representation

I'm still curious what this sweet spot of taxes is that will pay the government's budget pay off the debt and still not "assault your liberty".

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I say not 70% because nobody will pay 70% effective tax rate. You throw around numbers like 70% or 85% as if it's a flat tax on all your income. Nobody is proposing that.

And again I say, that's it? People who make over 10 Million dollars a year in income (not even including capital gains) have their taxes raised a bit and it's the "antithesis of the principles of our country"?

Seems a bit dramatic.

So again, what is the acceptable amount of taxes people should pay? Apparently there is an amount you would find acceptable and not "assaulting liberty".

Yep, here we go. Just like a bunch of other people on here. You don’t like what other people have to say, so you start putting a bunch of words in their mouth. No, I didn’t say any of that stuff. Sad.

What tax rates do I think are reasonable? I’d say cut all taxes of every kind in half, and that might be a good start. If the department of energy, the department of agriculture, the department of education, and numerous other departments including their hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of employees disappeared tomorrow, my guess is you wouldn’t be able to tell. We waste massive trillions and trillions of dollars every year across the state and local and federal government. It’s hilariously terrible. How on gods green earth can you spend several trillions of dollars a year across these different phases of government and still have any semblance of poverty or suffering at all in this country? It’s an absolute utter disastrous embarrassing and insulting failure.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

“Oh only rich people will pay, you’re safe why do you care.” That’s such an underhanded dishonest philosophy. Look up pretty much any wealthy person that you know – entertainer, athlete, business owner. Then look at how much of their money they give to charities and how many of them run charitable foundations. You start taking 70% of their earnings over $10 million, you’re going to wipe out a lot of charitable activity in this country. Which makes me wonder why so many people hate charities and charity.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I agree that the government always gets their cut. Death and taxes, as they say.

You do realize that you're being very disingenuous with the numbers you're plucking. That's bad math. Especially for a Tech guy.

You can't just claim families are paying 80% taxes just because you averaged out the tax receipts per person. That's a false representation

I'm still curious what this sweet spot of taxes is that will pay the government's budget pay off the debt and still not "assault your liberty".

Government collects taxes from people and corporate organizations that exist to make money and become more prosperous. Corporate taxes which by the way is a fairly small fraction of government revenue gets passed along in the form of either reduced wages to their employees or higher prices to the consumer. You think the cost of the revenue is being gifted by some other benevolent entity of some sort? That’s an interesting concept.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Yep, here we go. Just like a bunch of other people on here. You don’t like what other people have to say, so you start putting a bunch of words in their mouth. No, I didn’t say any of that stuff. Sad.

What tax rates do I think are reasonable? I’d say cut all taxes of every kind in half, and that might be a good start. If the department of energy, the department of agriculture, the department of education, and numerous other departments including their hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of employees disappeared tomorrow, my guess is you wouldn’t be able to tell. We waste massive trillions and trillions of dollars every year across the state and local and federal government. It’s hilariously terrible. How on gods green earth can you spend several trillions of dollars a year across these different phases of government and still have any semblance of poverty or suffering at all in this country? It’s an absolute utter disastrous embarrassing and insulting failure.

So you propose cutting taxes in half and eliminating departments that do not equate to 50% of the budget. Not gonna pay the debt off anyone soon like that.

Not many people will disagree with you that money gets wasted all over.

 

[Lotta Booze]

“Oh only rich people will pay, you’re safe why do you care.” That’s such an underhanded dishonest philosophy. Look up pretty much any wealthy person that you know – entertainer, athlete, business owner. Then look at how much of their money they give to charities and how many of them run charitable foundations. You start taking 70% of their earnings over $10 million, you’re going to wipe out a lot of charitable activity in this country. Which makes me wonder why so many people hate charities and charity.

Now look who is putting words in someone else's mouth. Sad.

Are those the freedoms you feel like you're defending when you scoff at single payer healthcare? Celebrities donating to charities? Did charities not exist in the 50s, 60s, and 70s?

1/3 of all GoFundMe pages are for healthcare costs. Some have insurance and the procedure isn't covered. They did everything "right" and are still hammered by the system we have. Those are some charities that can be taken care of.

Also, this debate still centers around taxes and money. That's it. My taxes can go up a lot and I'll still come out ahead since I'll save on insurance and deductibles. What about that freedom for myself and my employer? That's a boon to small businesses everywhere who don't have to be saddled with providing healthcare. I'm tired of the right pretending to have a monopoly on "liberty and freedom" when it's just corporate marketing for lower taxes.

 

[Lotta Booze]

Government collects taxes from people and corporate organizations that exist to make money and become more prosperous. Corporate taxes which by the way is a fairly small fraction of government revenue gets passed along in the form of either reduced wages to their employees or higher prices to the consumer. You think the cost of the revenue is being gifted by some other benevolent entity of some sort? That’s an interesting concept.

It's interesting that you can't seem to honestly calculate the taxes a family of 4 would pay on $61k income. It'd be closer to 8% effective tax rate on income than 80%.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I see that point and I think it's important to be clear what the possible outcomes are. A comparison of a 0.2 degree reduction in temperatures vs. continuing with the status quo doesn't seem like it's worth the risk but I don't think maintaining the status quo is the outcome we'll have by not taking action. Taking no action will likely lead to further increased temperatures and the consequences that come with that. So it could be a choice between 0.2 temp reduction vs. 2 degree increase temperature and the consequences that come with that.



Hooray for discourse!

Here’s some more discourse. Every climate model ever trotted out has failed to predict actual results. Every doomsday prophecy has been false. Temperatures have been changing for millennia and will continue to. There is no evidence at all today indicating current temperature changes will have anything approaching catastrophic results.

This discourse better belongs in the 2015 warmest year on record thread.

Oh yeah....have you heard that glaciers around the globe have been adding ice? Much to the climate scientists surprise I assure you.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Since we are in a thread championing discourse, question: Is this referencing single payer healthcare? That seems to be the common thread between candidates you're alluding to that would be deemed socialist by some. If so, how is that limiting freedom and the antithesis off the principles of the country?

Good friend of mine is Danish. Strongly believes Denmark had social healthcare figured out. Until......a large influx of immigration ruined things there. Anecdotal certainly but quite interesting to me.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

So is that it? Tax rates? That's what is the antithesis of our principles as a country? What tax rates would be acceptable?

I prefer “The Fair Tax” plan but will settle for commonly proposed flat taxes.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Now look who is putting words in someone else's mouth. Sad.

Are those the freedoms you feel like you're defending when you scoff at single payer healthcare? Celebrities donating to charities? Did charities not exist in the 50s, 60s, and 70s?

1/3 of all GoFundMe pages are for healthcare costs. Some have insurance and the procedure isn't covered. They did everything "right" and are still hammered by the system we have. Those are some charities that can be taken care of.

Also, this debate still centers around taxes and money. That's it. My taxes can go up a lot and I'll still come out ahead since I'll save on insurance and deductibles. What about that freedom for myself and my employer? That's a boon to small businesses everywhere who don't have to be saddled with providing healthcare. I'm tired of the right pretending to have a monopoly on "liberty and freedom" when it's just corporate marketing for lower taxes.

Many people including you make statements implying that someone making $10 million or more has enough money that higher taxes on income beyond the $10 million won’t hurt them. If that’s not what you’ve meant up above then I apologize - but I admit to being curious as to what your point was then.