Jeff Bezos claims child tax credit.

[BugI02]

Can anyone actually give a reason as to why we shouldn’t return to the policy’s that brought us economic expansion in the 1950’s?

Because you would be stripping black people of their civil rights, have to refight the Korean War followed by another Viet Nam war etc

You would have to return to exactly the same conditions to have the same results. Let me know when Mr Peabody has the Wayback machine ready

If all you're worried about is to make sure EVERYBODY pays more taxes, just vote Democrat (again)

 

[BugI02]

A lack of creativity. I'll give ya that, I've never been able to get behind the idea of changing the definition of words if I find them unpleasant or fear others might unlike the socialist leftists do on this a regular basis. Calling it socialism is a simple refusal to ignore the reality of what it is you're wanting.

The policies of the 1950's didn't make this country great, the people did. Most of those people are now dead so we find ourselves in the midst of the biggest **** show the world has ever seen.

We have a government in place which is out and out buying votes and printing money at an absurd rate and you believe increasing taxes is gonna fix it? Give me a break

This^^^^ Biden is going to return us to the conditions in the Weimar Republic in 1923-1929 instead

 

[BugI02]

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Your own cite shows that the debt never decreased in any year since the war years you love so much, so even in the post war period when taxes were at 90% they were spending more than that could bring in

So when you cite a DEBT to GDP ratio, and it is going up every year, what does that tell you?

It should tell you government is spending faster than any increase in the GDP in any year, boom or bust

People keep trying to tell you, we need to spend less. The answer you're looking for is a balanced budget amendment, not higher taxes

 

[rooster]

Your own cite shows that the debt never decreased in any year since the war years you love so much, so even in the post war period when taxes were at 90% they were spending more than that could bring in

So when you cite a DEBT to GDP ratio, and it is going up every year, what does that tell you?

It should tell you government is spending faster than any increase in the GDP in any year, boom or bust

People keep trying to tell you, we need to spend less. The answer you're looking for is a balanced budget amendment, not higher taxes

Now either you didn’t understand the data in the link or you’re just straight up lying to people hoping they don’t open the links and see what I see

Debt to GDP
1950- 86%
Steady decline until
1971-31%
Bounces around a little in the 30% range because of Vietnam war
1977-34%
1978-33%
1979-31%
1980-30%
1981-31% (Reagan tax cuts)
Then the slow up generally upwards March to today
2020-129% debt to GDP

eli5: debt to gdp went down from 1950 to 1971. Bounced around a little bc of war then back down until tax cuts. Then tripled in the next 40 years.

edit: I believe upthread I also advocated to stop the rampant dem entitlement spending. The difference between myself and everyone else is that I look at this from a purely mathematical perspective, this checkbook doesn’t balance unless some more money comes into the account.

 

[jamil]

I would like rooster to give some feedback on the idea that wealth is not a zero sum game.

 

[BigRed]

I would like rooster to give some feedback on the idea that wealth is not a zero sum game.

Amen.

 

[jamil]

Now either you didn’t understand the data in the link or you’re just straight up lying to people hoping they don’t open the links and see what I see

Debt to GDP
1950- 86%
Steady decline until
1971-31%
Bounces around a little in the 30% range because of Vietnam war
1977-34%
1978-33%
1979-31%
1980-30%
1981-31% (Reagan tax cuts)
Then the slow up generally upwards March to today
2020-129% debt to GDP

eli5: debt to gdp went down from 1950 to 1971. Bounced around a little bc of war then back down until tax cuts. Then tripled in the next 40 years.

edit: I believe upthread I also advocated to stop the rampant dem entitlement spending. The difference between myself and everyone else is that I look at this from a purely mathematical perspective, this checkbook doesn’t balance unless some more money comes into the account.

Let’s take it at face value. If you were looking at this from a purely mathematical perspective, why are you still asserting that there is one primary cause of this? Economics is complicated. The math of economics is complicated. There’s never just one factor. So again, explain how you justify the wild claim other than just ideological need?

 

[BigRed]

Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas

 

[jamil]

The letter of the law? Yes. Spirit of the law? Not by a long shot.

the people who wrote the income tax laws hardly meant for the wealthy to use their shares as collateral and turn them into a liability that gets written off (in the form of interest) in order to not pay taxes while buying a 3rd hour or another yacht.

The wealthiest Americans avoided billions in taxes by voluntarily doing something most only do out of necessity: borrowing money.

Income taxes: 37%. Capital gains: 20%. ProPublica found billionaires avoid those by borrowing from banks at interest rates of less than 10%.

www.google.com

Spirit of the law? Is that written in the laws you think he broke? The problem with this is who gets to decide “spirit?” The IRS does not seem to have a problem with this.

 

[rooster]

Spirit of the law? Is that written in the laws you think he broke? The problem with this is who gets to decide “spirit?” The IRS does not seem to have a problem with this.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[phylodog]

 

[jamil]

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

That does not answer the question that I asked. We were discussing the spirit of the law being enforced. Of course actual law should be enforced.

 

[Route 45]

I’m out before I get shootered

 

[rooster]

That does not answer the question that I asked. We were discussing the spirit of the law being enforced. Of course actual law should be enforced.

Answered the last part
“The IRS does not seem to have a problem with this.”

To answer the larger question of the room

Even if we cut out social security tomorrow or disbanded the standing army our constitution specifically says we shouldn’t have, we do not (as a country) bring in enough revenue to balance the budget let alone dream of paying off the debt. The answer then must be a combination of cutting spending and bringing in more revenue. The low hanging fruit for revenue generation is the Bezos of the country. Obviously they are dodging taxes somehow. Why else would someone who has a super yacht that requires a support yacht get to claim the child tax credit.

some of you want a non progressive tax. Good idea. The problem is that we don’t all make our money the same way. Roughly 1/3 of my personal income came from stock trades last year. I pay less taxes on that than the money I sweat and work for with my hands. That’s insane. The wealthy report their money in a different way than the common man. W2 income is taxed one way and but other “income” is taxed differently. Perhaps a flat tax on w2 income but a progressive tax on non w2 income is perhaps the correct answer to drive up revenues and stop the tax dodging.

for those who say
“If we raise taxes on investments they will just hold it all in cash”

they can’t. You are talking about people with so much money that they make moves daily in order to chase enough returns safely to stave off inflation. Perhaps if interest rates rise to 7-10% they will park it in t bills again but I doubt that’s gonna happen anytime soon

I don’t say this from a position of envy of his bank account. I’m very happy living the American dream of a suburban house with my wife, daughter and dog. I say this from a position of wanting my daughter to have this same American dream. Without some semblance of common sense in how the government spends and taxes it’s all going to fall off the tracks.

Most here have no say in policy directly so why argue about this? public opinion begins in town squares such as this one. We don’t go discuss things in the physical town square anymore but on forums such as this we still do.

View attachment 143730

Perhaps but I’m done now, if this post falls on deaf ears then I’m wasting my time

 

[jamil]

Answered the last part
“The IRS does not seem to have a problem with this.”

To answer the larger question of the room

Even if we cut out social security tomorrow or disbanded the standing army our constitution specifically says we shouldn’t have, we do not (as a country) bring in enough revenue to balance the budget let alone dream of paying off the debt. The answer then must be a combination of cutting spending and bringing in more revenue. The low hanging fruit for revenue generation is the Bezos of the country. Obviously they are dodging taxes somehow. Why else would someone who has a super yacht that requires a support yacht get to claim the child tax credit.

some of you want a non progressive tax. Good idea. The problem is that we don’t all make our money the same way. Roughly 1/3 of my personal income came from stock trades last year. I pay less taxes on that than the money I sweat and work for with my hands. That’s insane. The wealthy report their money in a different way than the common man. W2 income is taxed one way and but other “income” is taxed differently. Perhaps a flat tax on w2 income but a progressive tax on non w2 income is perhaps the correct answer to drive up revenues and stop the tax dodging.

for those who say
“If we raise taxes on investments they will just hold it all in cash”

they can’t. You are talking about people with so much money that they make moves daily in order to chase enough returns safely to stave off inflation. Perhaps if interest rates rise to 7-10% they will park it in t bills again but I doubt that’s gonna happen anytime soon

I don’t say this from a position of envy of his bank account. I’m very happy living the American dream of a suburban house with my wife, daughter and dog. I say this from a position of wanting my daughter to have this same American dream. Without some semblance of common sense in how the government spends and taxes it’s all going to fall off the tracks.

Most here have no say in policy directly so why argue about this? public opinion begins in town squares such as this one. We don’t go discuss things in the physical town square anymore but on forums such as this we still do.




Perhaps but I’m done now, if this post falls on deaf ears then I’m wasting my time

Why do you keep saying things like it’s falling on deaf ears? You have a fundamentally different worldview. That’s why we think that someone who is angered by a rich person taking a credit he is entitled to take simply has wealth envy. And someone who thinks rich people don’t pay their fair share, when you earlier admitted as much that they pay more than you do.

Everything you said has a counterpoint. I’ve posted many of them several times and if you’ve responded at all, it was with facile points or irrelevant links. For example, i told you why your link a out the IRS was irrelevant. And then you say here that it addressed that part of my post. It didn’t.

You don’t seem open to counter arguments.

 

[phylodog]

It does and you are.

 

[jamil]

Idunno rooster. It’s nothing personal. It seems like you think we’re being obtuse. But we don’t think it’s us doing that.

 

[rhamersley]

 

[rooster]

View attachment 143729

funny that’s how I feel with all the insults of socialist, communist and people saying I want to be a thief.

declarations that I don’t know what I’m talking about with no references or sources to back it.

I’ve cited plenty and even had one here claim that it didn’t say what it says.

 

[phylodog]

Every time someone responds and rebuts something you change course and go another direction dragging addition irrelevant information into the conversation in an attempt to justify your position.

No able bodied adult citizen should be responsible for more or less of the taxes and/or debt than another. The only exception I see as being potentially viable is to exclude those who voted to sink us all into debt from that. I'm all for taxing those ***holes at 90%.