How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

[eccieuser9500]

If Contrarian is in, I'm in. We should have a Tiny president.

[eccieuser9500]

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments


https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosu...s-introduction

The court opinions cited as relevant legal authority illustrate how these arguments are treated by the IRS and the courts. Note that courts often decline “to refute [frivolous] arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent” for a variety of reasons. Aldrich v Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-201, 106 T.C.M. (CCH) 192 (2013) (quoting Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984)); Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011).

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Before? We're already there. The difference is that bureaucrats working for the tax authorities in the Philippines can unfairly bankrupt businesses all by themselves. In the USA, it's more often done by lawyers. That's my very limited experience anyway.



See LustyLad's post. IRS statistics show the top 1% paying at a weighted effective average rate of 27%, while the bottom 99% pay at an average 15%. That of course doesn't include property taxes, sales taxes, death taxes, payroll contributions and state income taxes levied on both the top 1% and the bottom 99%.

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-t...d-gross-income

The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. "The rich don't pay their fair share" is an untrue political talking point.



The 15% is now 23.8% as a result of tax increases under Obama. And why have fund managers historically been able to get away with paying 23.8% (formerly 15%) on their performance fees? Because of Chuck Schumer, that's why. Schumer's a crafty devil. He's done this while blaming other people, most recently Kyrsten Sinema, for Congress' failure to end this loophole. Texas Contrarian has written about his here.

When you add in state income taxes, the current 21% federal rate puts us pretty close to the middle of the pack in the developed world. We're competitive. We're only quibbling about 4% though. We're definitely a lot better off than when the average federal + state rate was around 40%, the highest in the world.



Another untrue political talking point. (Adav8s28, I'm not accusing you of spreading political talking points. Rather, I'm accusing you of watching too much MSNBC.)

The money went to increase investment, increase jobs, and pay higher dividends to shareholders who often reinvest said dividends (as well as funds received through buybacks) in ways that contribute more to economic growth than leaving the money in the companies.

This NBER paper may be instructive,https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f191672.pdf

From the paper, in the long run, going out past 4 years, even the United States Treasury benefits from the corporate tax cut, by collecting more revenues than it would otherwise.



Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. It would be so much better for people to have their own investment/savings accounts.

As to Obamacare, what I'm proposing, universal healthcare, is way more radical than what anyone except Bernie Sanders Progressives have proposed. The difference is that under the Tiny Healthcare Plan, physicians and hospitals and clinics would have to compete for health care dollars from the public, something they mostly don't do now. Obamacare is part of an outrageously expensive system. We spend something like 17% of GDP on healthcare, far more than the rest of the developed world. Singapore, whose system we'd copy, spends around 5% and has better outcomes. People live longer and they're healthier.



It's interesting that we both dislike Trump but agree with him on that.

Like I said, I just really don't understand the analogy. Please explain.

Thanks for proving my point with the effective tax rate percentage of 27% for the one percenters. This is much lower than what the tax table calls for. We will never put a dent in the 35 trillion of rolling debt if the effective tax rate for the one percent is just 27%. The Tax code should be changed to get rid of the loopholes. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan had the right idea about the reducing the deficit. However, he went about it the wrong way. The one percent don't pay enough tax. They give their money to foundations so they don't have give it to the government. Can you say Bill Gates?

I am ok with Health Care in the USA. In the USA 92% of our citizens have some type of coverage. Before the ACA (Obamacare) was put in (2014) it was only 82%. If all states took the expanded medicaid (there are 14 that don't have it) the percent covered would be over 95%. Most of our citizens get group health insurance from the employer, approx 285 million (that's the way it should be).

Social Security is NOT a ponzi scheme. You have been listening to former Texas Gov Rick Perry too much. You get out of it what you put in. If you don't put anything in you won't get anything out. Between me and my employers i have contributed over $225,000 into the system. When I hit age 67 I will get 40,000 per year (3,300 per month). You can make very good money being an I/T professional. I am ok with social security be managed by the government. If one wants their own private fund, just set up a 401k at work or get a Roth IRA at local bank.

Tiny, you're a good amateur Virologist. However, when it comes to government policy issues, I beg to differ with you on somethings. We can agree on one thing, Madison May is hot! Have a nice day.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

If Contrarian is in, I'm in. We should have a Tiny president.

I figured the "Cubana in Every Pot" part of my platform would suck you in!!!

Originally Posted by eyecu2

I honestly think the biggest part of spend is on military projects that are perpetually in the design /R and D space. There is almost an unlimited pipeline of money going to the big firms like Ratheon, Lockhead, Northrop Grumman and AIC. I am certain a cut to spend would have a big negative effect on those entities, but they have been suckling off the Government TIT for so long, that its a bit ridiculous. Think about this.

They get paid to do scope of ideas
They get paid to do a mock up or prototype
They get paid to do analysis and updates to the prototype
They get awarded a contract
They get paid for the contracted planes or weapons upon delivery
they get paid for all the upkeep for that same device
They get paid for software and other updates on all the new fly by wire shit out there.

It's almost as if we decided to Tech ourselves into a never ending spend-a-thon on these next gen fighters etc. Hell the A-10 is a dinasaur for all intent, but is still a bad ass mofo. I know we need these new jets like the f22, f-35s, but at the price tag that tops 100 million a copy and a total cost of over 400 BILLION by 2023. Actually the total lifetime cost of that program is estimated at 1.7 trillion dollars- how bad do we really need that?

That's a shit ton of cash to devote to a plane that may or may not ever see a war mission. With all the drone tech out there nowadays, these seem like huge spend and could and should be pulled back. Add on top of that we have way older B-52s, from 1955 and are still planned to be in force till 2060. a plane that will be literally a 100 yrs old in design, but still a good investment- and well likely will spend 48 billion on the entire 76 bomber fleet. They were a bargain at purchase, and apparently still cheaper than designing a new LR- bomber.

In the words of Elton John- They're gonna kill the fatted calf tonight so stick around. Time for those fat Calfs of the military to be culled, and limited.- all the NEW tech is just so pricey= I don't think "the ends justify the means, or the juice isn't worth the sqeeeze" if you prefer. (and this is coming from a guy who loves air shows).

And of course that doesn't even touch the "skunk" projects that are not disclosed, but have a huge budget> I think at one time or another the GAO, governetn accountability office, said the pentagon, couldn't account for 220 billion in gear given to "contractors". That's incredible!

The government needs to find some forensic accountants to come in and see where that all went! Cue Ben Affleck and the accountant to get to the bottom of the this. Talk about ripe for corruption. If the coffers are that loose in any public company, they would be bankrupt indeed.

Excellent post -- I learned something. That was very interesting to read. And goes a long way towards explaining why our defense expenditures are larger than those of the next 10 countries combined.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

I'd likely not touch SSI, or medicare at this point. I do think there likely needs to be a transition period of when one is eligible to retire and move that to a minimum of 65. Today it's 63, but maybe we need to push that even further out. Sadly- there are a lot of american's who will not have anything other than SS to live off of. Some of which will have not contributed much to the actual quarters that move them out of the minimum payout,- and are burdensome to the actual system. The good news on that, if there is any, is they are usually the same ppl who are in poor health and won't be on the dole for very long. Our indigent members of society are growing - and are topic for another posting.

Something like Australia's superannuation program would work a lot better than social security IMHO. Your employer is required to contribute to your retirement account, 12% of gross wages, which is run like an IRA or 401K with safeguards. You can contribute another $18,000 (USD) annually on top of what your employer contributes. People would end up with more retirement income, and the government wouldn't be saddled with huge social security liabilities, so that it has to raise retirement age and/or increase contributions from younger Americans. It's like the difference between a defined contribution retirement plan and a defined benefit plan. You can't bankrupt the employer (or the federal government) with the defined contribution plan.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Yes. As to taxes on things you already paid tax on, capital gains tax, dividend taxes, and the death tax come to mind.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Thanks for proving my point with the effective tax rate percentage of 27% for the one percenters. This is much lower than what the tax table calls for. We will never put a dent in the 35 trillion of rolling debt if the effective tax rate for the one percent is just 27%.

It wouldn't make much of a difference Adav8s28. From the most recent IRS tax statistics table I linked to, the top 1% have about 3.5 trillion in taxable income per year,

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/21in11si.xls

You proposed raising their rate to 35% to 39%. So say you increase it to 37%, or by 10% of their pre-tax income. You're just raising an additional 0.1 x 3.5 trillion = 350 billion. The CBO's projecting 1.7 trillion+ per annum deficits from 2025 forward.

These people are going to be paying state income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc. on top of their federal income tax. Based on what Texas Contrarian has posted here, I suspect that if you try to take the effective federal rate on up to 45% or 50% that the federal government would actually lose revenues, versus 37%.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The Tax code should be changed to get rid of the loopholes. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan had the right idea about the reducing the deficit. However, he went about it the wrong way.

Agreed. Unfortunately, closing loopholes is easier said than done. There's been no appetite for it for a long time. Pork and loopholes are integral parts of the politician's tool kit, to garner campaign contributions.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The one percent don't pay enough tax.

Disagreed. I believe they pay about as much in the USA in terms of % of income as the top 1% in Western European countries with large welfare states. Meanwhile the bottom 90% of Americans pay a lot less than the Europeans, who are burdened with high, regressive value-added-taxes.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

They give their money to foundations so they don't have give it to the government. Can you say Bill Gates?

You're confusing the top 1% with the top 0.01%, who have foundations and the like. And, unlike many of our right of center brothers here, I'd rather see the money spent by Gates than the U.S. government. He's done a lot of good for people in poor countries.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

I am ok with Health Care in the USA. In the USA 92% of our citizens have some type of coverage. Before the ACA (Obamacare) was put in (2014) it was only 82%. If all states took the expanded medicaid (there are 14 that don't have it) the percent covered would be over 95%. Most of our citizens get group health insurance from the employer, approx 285 million (that's the way it should be).

With the Tiny Health Plan, modeled on Singapore, 100% would be covered, healthcare outcomes would be better than what we have now, and the cost would be a lot less. The USA spends more on healthcare as a % of GDP than any country except Tuvalu. In 2022 in the OECD, we clocked in at 16.6% of GDP, a LOT higher than #2 Germany at 12.7%. Singapore spends 6% or 7% of GDP on healthcare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...DP)_by_country

But when you look at health care outcomes, we're no place close to the top. Look at longevity,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ife_expectancy

We're #59 in the world, worse than Algeria, Sri Lanka, Albania and Costa Rica. Singapore is #7. The system is broken.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Social Security is NOT a ponzi scheme. You have been listening to former Texas Gov Rick Perry too much. You get out of it what you put in. If you don't put anything in you won't get anything out. Between me and my employers i have contributed over $225,000 into the system. When I hit age 67 I will get 40,000 per year (3,300 per month). You can make very good money being an I/T professional. I am ok with social security be managed by the government. If one wants their own private fund, just set up a 401k at work or get a Roth IRA at local bank.

How does a Ponzi scheme work Adav8s28? You pay into the scheme. Your money gets distributed to other participants who were in the scheme before you. And then when it's time for you to get paid, the money has to come from some other sucker because your money's already been distributed to other people. That's how social security works.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Tiny, you're a good amateur Virologist. However, when it comes to government policy issues, I beg to differ with you on somethings. We can agree on one thing, Madison May is hot! Have a nice day.

You're the best Adav8s28, given that Reddog's not around anymore.

And yes. Say what you will about biomed, he has a firm grasp on reality. Our old moderator Wakeup, who was constantly calling Madison May fat was out of his mind. Madison is indeed hot!!!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Thanks for proving my point with the effective tax rate percentage of 27% for the one percenters. This is much lower than what the tax table calls for. We will never put a dent in the 35 trillion of rolling debt if the effective tax rate for the one percent is just 27%. The Tax code should be changed to get rid of the loopholes. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan had the right idea about the reducing the deficit. However, he went about it the wrong way. The one percent don't pay enough tax. They give their money to foundations so they don't have give it to the government. Can you say Bill Gates?

Okay, let's do a rudimentary little drill-down into this issue by examining just a couple of points.

First, to what group are you referring when you mention "one-percenters." That term is bandied about quite often without specificity as to what category of taxpayer is considered.

I think that in most people's minds, the "one percent" descriptor connotes a wealthy individual, not just a high-income professional such as an attorney, a surgeon, or a small business owner. Remember, one need only earn an annual income of around $500K to be in the top 1% of the income distribution. High income earners in the US, especially when you add in state income taxes (which we in Texas thankfully don't have to suffer) already are subject to marginal income tax rates almost as high as those faced by their counterparts in France, Germany, or the U.K.

Then you said that the assumed effective tax rate of 27% is "much lower than what the tax table calls for."

No, it isn't -- at least not when you consider that wealthy taxpayers' income is largely comprised of capital gains, qualified dividends, distributable (and partially-sheltered) cash flow from CRE investments, MLPs, private equity ventures, and various other investment vehicles. The capital gains tax rate is 23.8%, and there are very good reasons why it's substantially less than the top-bracket rate for salary and fee income, as we've discussed here on a number of occasions. Do you remember what happened when liberals pushed the capital gains tax rate to nearly 40% during the post-Watergate years in the 1970s, when Democrats suddenly gained a strong political upper hand? (The following several years didn't go well, and that irresponsible decision was part of the reason.)

The flood of rapidly increasing government spending over the last few years pushed the rather yawning and already bloated gap between revenues and outlays to approximately 8% of GDP. It would be difficult to raise an additional annual amount of revenue by even one percentage point of GDP by raising taxes only on the wealthy and high-income earners, despite the nonstop insinuations of people like Bernie and AOC, who can barely serve up two sentences of rhetoric without talking about how "billionaires and multimillionaires" are not paying their "fair share" of taxes (without, of course, being very specific about exactly what they think that "fair share" should be!)

[eyecu2]

Just some flavor for paying taxes on Short term vs. long term gains taxes.

Selling a capital asset after owning it for one year or less results in a short-term capital gain.

Selling a capital asset after owning it for more than one year results in a long-term capital gain.

Capital assets include stocks, bonds, precious metals, jewelry, art, and real estate.
How many people actually claim the sale of things like jewelry, art and metals?? That is a business fraught with the potential for non-documentation in my opinion.

From:

Internal Revenue Service. "Publication 544."

As regular taxable income, short-term gains are subject to the tax appropriate for your marginal income tax bracket. There are currently seven U.S. federal tax brackets, with rates ranging from 10% to 37%.

While I agree on the graduated rates approach, I don't think the rates should ever be a zero- unless it's on a primary residence and the holdings be at the minimum as stated in guidelines.

There is a flat 28% capital gains tax on gains related to art, antiques, jewelry, precious metals, stamp collections, coins, and other collectibles regardless of your income. that seems to be bullshit but for the likely above statement of sales and valuations etc.

Long term cap gains are taxed at graduated rates from 0% to 20%


Interesting that the government has decided to differentiate between the two. To me- any gain should only be taxed at a min rate of 10% and a max rate of 25%. There would be much greater speculation in the market at lower rates, but there should also not be a free ride from gains only.

Certainly some strategic brokers play the game of long and short term strategies, just to lock in %'s and limit liabilities.

Short term day trading is hard to make good money without giving 1/3 of the take to the government. Sadly- it's catch me now or later with a lot of these investments. I just don't think the government needs to be paid if I'm a good trader, vs. forgiving me if I'm a bad one. Just feels wrong- least to me anyway. Despite what bills the government racks up- how is it the short term trader or gains maker's duty to fill the coffer when the rate is above many wage rates of taxes?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

It would be difficult to raise an additional annual amount of revenue by even one percentage point of GDP by raising taxes only on the wealthy and high-income earners, despite the nonstop insinuations of people like Bernie and AOC, who can barely serve up two sentences of rhetoric without talking about how "billionaires and multimillionaires" are not paying their "fair share" of taxes (without, of course, being very specific about exactly what they think that "fair share" should be!)

No kidding! Good post.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Just some flavor for paying taxes on Short term vs. long term gains taxes.

Selling a capital asset after owning it for one year or less results in a short-term capital gain.

Selling a capital asset after owning it for more than one year results in a long-term capital gain.

Capital assets include stocks, bonds, precious metals, jewelry, art, and real estate.
How many people actually claim the sale of things like jewelry, art and metals?? That is a business fraught with the potential for non-documentation in my opinion.

From:

Internal Revenue Service. "Publication 544."

As regular taxable income, short-term gains are subject to the tax appropriate for your marginal income tax bracket. There are currently seven U.S. federal tax brackets, with rates ranging from 10% to 37%.

While I agree on the graduated rates approach, I don't think the rates should ever be a zero- unless it's on a primary residence and the holdings be at the minimum as stated in guidelines.

There is a flat 28% capital gains tax on gains related to art, antiques, jewelry, precious metals, stamp collections, coins, and other collectibles regardless of your income. that seems to be bullshit but for the likely above statement of sales and valuations etc.

Long term cap gains are taxed at graduated rates from 0% to 20%


Interesting that the government has decided to differentiate between the two. To me- any gain should only be taxed at a min rate of 10% and a max rate of 25%. There would be much greater speculation in the market at lower rates, but there should also not be a free ride from gains only.

Certainly some strategic brokers play the game of long and short term strategies, just to lock in %'s and limit liabilities.

Short term day trading is hard to make good money without giving 1/3 of the take to the government. Sadly- it's catch me now or later with a lot of these investments. I just don't think the government needs to be paid if I'm a good trader, vs. forgiving me if I'm a bad one. Just feels wrong- least to me anyway. Despite what bills the government racks up- how is it the short term trader or gains maker's duty to fill the coffer when the rate is above many wage rates of taxes?

Yeah, you're at a severe competitive disadvantage to funds that aren't taxed, and also to individual traders in places that don't have capital gains taxes, like Puerto Rico, if you're paying at the maximum 40.8% rate (including Obamacare tax) on short term gains.

As you know, if you run up big capital losses, you can only deduct $3,000 a year against ordinary income. Would you put your money into a hedge fund that gets 40.8% of the profits, but only has to give you back $1,224 a year (0.408 x 3000) if it runs up big losses? I think not. That's the deal that you've got with the U.S. government.

One of the reasons for the lower 23.8% maximum tax (including Obamacare tax) on long term capital gains is because there's an inflation component in properties held long term. Say you bought some land back when you were a young tike in 1975 for $10,000, and now you go to sell it for $57,300. After inflation, you made no money, because prices went up by 473% from 1975 to present. That $10,000 in 1975 is worth $57,300 in today's money. But if you were in the maximum bracket, you'd pay $11,200 capital gains tax if you live in Texas. More if you live in Pennsylvania with its state income tax.

Another reason is that lower or no capital gains taxes make the economy more efficient. Say you wanted to sell said land for $57,300 and reinvest in your own business, say EyeCU2's Pussy Truck. That's like a food truck, only you sell poontang instead of burritos. But if you're going to have to pay $19,298 tax on the sale of the land, at the maximum 40.8% rate, then you're only left with $38,000 after tax. So you say screw it and keep the money in the land. You never create a thriving business, and horny Pittsburgh residents are deprived as well. Money is allocated more efficiently and people are more inclined to invest when capital gains taxes are low.

Basically, when capital gains rates are too high, people aren't as disposed to sell property, because they don't want to pay the tax.

I believe the Congressional Budget Office, for purposes of evaluating tax legislation, pegs the revenue maximizing capital gains rate at about 28%. I'm not sure whether or not that includes state income taxes, but if so, we're at that rate now. Biden's proposal to tax long term gains at a maximum 43.4% federal rate didn't make much sense to me, and fortunately Manchin and Sinema didn't let him do it. Why would you want to tax people at a higher rate, knowing you'll probably raise less government revenues?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Okay, let's do a rudimentary little drill-down into this issue by examining just a couple of points.

First, to what group are you referring when you mention "one-percenters." That term is bandied about quite often without specificity as to what category of taxpayer is considered.

For me the term one-percenters would be the 3.3 million highest paid individuals in the USA.

The ultra rich would be the top .01%. (I didn't mean just them).

I think that in most people's minds, the "one percent" descriptor connotes a wealthy individual, not just a high-income professional such as an attorney, a surgeon, or a small business owner. Remember, one need only earn an annual income of around $500K to be in the top 1% of the income distribution. High income earners in the US, especially when you add in state income taxes (which we in Texas thankfully don't have to suffer) already are subject to marginal income tax rates almost as high as those faced by their counterparts in France, Germany, or the U.K.

Then you said that the assumed effective tax rate of 27% is "much lower than what the tax table calls for."

No, it isn't -- at least not when you consider that wealthy taxpayers' income is largely comprised of capital gains, qualified dividends, distributable (and partially-sheltered) cash flow from CRE investments, MLPs, private equity ventures, and various other investment vehicles. The capital gains tax rate is 23.8%, and there are very good reasons why it's substantially less than the top-bracket rate for salary and fee income, as we've discussed here on a number of occasions. Do you remember what happened when liberals pushed the capital gains tax rate to nearly 40% during the post-Watergate years in the 1970s, when Democrats suddenly gained a strong political upper hand? (The following several years didn't go well, and that irresponsible decision was part of the reason.)

I am okay with the capital gaines tax rate percentage of 23.8 when capital gaines, dividends etc is not your primary source of income. If you don't get a salary or fee income and capital gaines is your primary source of income I feel it should be taxed according to the percentages in the tax table. Right now the 7th or highest bracket it's 37%



The flood of rapidly increasing government spending over the last few years pushed the rather yawning and already bloated gap between revenues and outlays to approximately 8% of GDP. It would be difficult to raise an additional annual amount of revenue by even one percentage point of GDP by raising taxes only on the wealthy and high-income earners, despite the nonstop insinuations of people like Bernie and AOC, who can barely serve up two sentences of rhetoric without talking about how "billionaires and multimillionaires" are not paying their "fair share" of taxes (without, of course, being very specific about exactly what they think that "fair share" should be!)

I am okay with the current tax rate percentages in the tax tables. When salary is the primary source of income those who are making > 10 million a year are using loopholes to make their effective tax rate around 27% (This was Tiny's number). This is the problem. This is why we have a rolling debt of 35 trillion.

Even Bill Gates suggested in an interview with Redit in Jan 2024 that the ultra rich should pay more in tax. I believe 250 ultra rich people signed some letter he wrote agreeing with him.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill...h-agree-2024-1

The total debt for the USA keeps growing every minute. We will never have budget surpluses if the ultra rich and the one-percenters don't pay a little bit more in tax.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

When salary is the primary source of income those who are making > 10 million a year are using loopholes to make their effective tax rate around 27%... This is the problem.

Who said it's all salary? It's a mix of salary, taxable gains, and other forms of income. Paying a lower rate on capital gains isn't some kind of "loophole".

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The total debt for the USA keeps growing every minute. We will never have budget surpluses if the ultra rich and the one-percenters don't pay a little bit more in tax.

Surpluses? Keep dreaming.

Tiny has already done the math for you.

Even if you squeeze & strangle the top 1% of earners to make them pay an effective 37% rate (up from the current 27%), it would only yield an extra $350 billion in federal tax revenues. (And that's a simple, back-of-the-envelope "static" estimate rather than a dynamic one.) This wouldn't put much of a dent in our current $1.5 billion annual deficit.

The deficit is massive & structural. It's obvious to anyone who does the math that the only way to get serious about reducing it is to slash spending drastically. If you insist on trying to close the gap the other way - i.e., by raising taxes - you won't get very far unless you soak the middle class and even start making the (currently untaxed) bottom half pay something again, but that's not a popular vote-getter.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

It wouldn't make much of a difference Adav8s28. From the most recent IRS tax statistics table I linked to, the top 1% have about 3.5 trillion in taxable income per year,

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/21in11si.xls

You proposed raising their rate to 35% to 39%. So say you increase it to 37%, or by 10% of their pre-tax income. You're just raising an additional 0.1 x 3.5 trillion = 350 billion. The CBO's projecting 1.7 trillion+ per annum deficits from 2025 forward.

These people are going to be paying state income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc. on top of their federal income tax. Based on what Texas Contrarian has posted here, I suspect that if you try to take the effective federal rate on up to 45% or 50% that the federal government would actually lose revenues, versus 37%.




Agreed. Unfortunately, closing loopholes is easier said than done. There's been no appetite for it for a long time. Pork and loopholes are integral parts of the politician's tool kit, to garner campaign contributions.



Disagreed. I believe they pay about as much in the USA in terms of % of income as the top 1% in Western European countries with large welfare states. Meanwhile the bottom 90% of Americans pay a lot less than the Europeans, who are burdened with high, regressive value-added-taxes.



You're confusing the top 1% with the top 0.01%, who have foundations and the like. And, unlike many of our right of center brothers here, I'd rather see the money spent by Gates than the U.S. government. He's done a lot of good for people in poor countries.



With the Tiny Health Plan, modeled on Singapore, 100% would be covered, healthcare outcomes would be better than what we have now, and the cost would be a lot less. The USA spends more on healthcare as a % of GDP than any country except Tuvalu. In 2022 in the OECD, we clocked in at 16.6% of GDP, a LOT higher than #2 Germany at 12.7%. Singapore spends 6% or 7% of GDP on healthcare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health...DP)_by_country

But when you look at health care outcomes, we're no place close to the top. Look at longevity,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ife_expectancy

We're #59 in the world, worse than Algeria, Sri Lanka, Albania and Costa Rica. Singapore is #7. The system is broken.




How does a Ponzi scheme work Adav8s28? You pay into the scheme. Your money gets distributed to other participants who were in the scheme before you. And then when it's time for you to get paid, the money has to come from some other sucker because your money's already been distributed to other people. That's how social security works.



You're the best Adav8s28, given that Reddog's not around anymore.

And yes. Say what you will about biomed, he has a firm grasp on reality. Our old moderator Wakeup, who was constantly calling Madison May fat was out of his mind. Madison is indeed hot!!!

On the taxes link i see there were 100 million tax returns. How did you get 3.5 trillion of taxable income for the highest paid 1 million returns?

I like group health insurance thru the employer (for those who work for an employer that offers it) over any single payer system that tries cover 330 million people.The Singapore system does not have to cover 300 million people. So, i doubt that the cost for USA would be less than what we have now.

In a real ponzi scheme the manager is taking money off the top for himself. And two,the funds that are taken from investors may not be invested in anything. So when people stop signing up it ultimately fails (like with Italian businessman George Ponzi)

Social security has lasted 70 plus years. This is with the original formula that was used when it was first implemented. Yes, the mechanics of how it works is what you described. However, investors in this case anyone who gets paid with W2 has to wait until age 62 before they can receive benefit. With Madoff's scheme you could withdraw your at any time. Social security is well funded. The problems are congress has taken money out of it for other things. The birth rate has decreased while a ton of baby boomers have started to retire. Thus it is projected to run of money by 2035 unless the formula changes.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Even if you squeeze & strangle the top 1% of earners to make them pay an effective 37% rate (up from the current 27%), it would only yield an extra $350 billion in federal tax revenues. (And that's a simple, back-of-the-envelope "static" estimate rather than a dynamic one.) This wouldn't put much of a dent in our current $1.5 billion annual deficit.

The deficit is massive & structural. It's obvious to anyone who does the math that the only way to get serious about reducing it is to slash spending drastically. If you insist on trying to close the gap the other way - i.e., by raising taxes - you won't get very far unless you soak the middle class and even start making the (currently untaxed) bottom half pay something again, but that's not a popular vote-getter.

In 2016 Obama's last year in office the deficit was 586 billion. By 2019 the deficit was over 900 billion. What changed? Trump put in his tax cuts. I would make two changes. I would change the tax rate percentages in brackets 6 & 7 to be 37% and 39% from 35% and 37%. I would change the corporate tax rate to go up to 25%. It's just too low for the spending that government does. It does not matter which political party the president is from.


https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-d...y-year-3306306


https://www.aarp.org/money/taxes/inf...9&gclsrc=3p.ds