ADVERTISEMENT

Thanks Conservatives

BlueRaiderFan

Hall of Famer
Oct 4, 2003
5,590
69
48
44086251_2767823126561981_5655911474254577664_n.jpg
 
Tax revenues are up 9%...how is this possible?

Deficits are a result of spending...there are NO cuts in Medicare and SSI.
 
*Deficit would be close to zero at Clinton tax levels.

*When we had a surplus in 2000 fed revenues were ~20% of GDP. In 2018, feds spent ~20.3% of GDP. Deficit would have been ~0.3% GDP. With Clinton 2000 - era tax dollars = *<$100 billion deficit.* After a succession of tax cuts, revenue has dropped to 16.5% GDP. Deficit? $779 billion.

*Tax cuts as scored by CBO are big part of deficit: For example Fiscal cliff deal which extended most of the Bush tax cuts scored as ~$400B deficit for fiscal 2018 alone. Trump tax law scored as $135B cut in '18; $280B in '19.

*It is true that Medicare, Medicaid, and SS have large liabilities in the future as the population ages and health care costs grow. Annual financial report of USA finds a $49 trillion, 75-year gap between Medicare/SS costs & Revenue. This isn't in the form of a meme so this may be over people's heads but here: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/finrep/fr/17frusg/FinancialStatements_2017.pdf

*Since 2000 Congress passed spending on credit cards for Wars, Medicare Part D (unfunded - dumbest thing I have ever seen), disasters, and stimulus.

*Also add in 1.6% of that 20.3% is interest on debt which would be significantly lower had we maintained Clinton-era Revenues.

Taxes should have been raised and not cut since the recession is over especially with future liabilities I pointed out in Care/Caid/SS and to cover the f' ups of the past 18 years. This tax cut was unnecessary, stupid, and irresponsible. And before everyone goes down the road of RvD John Kasich was head of the budget committee at the time of passage of Clinton era tax levels.
 
The tax cuts were needed for the average man as they help offset the outrageous hike in health insurance costs for the average man. These doubling and tripling of premiums is essentially a tax itself as the working man is now having to pay for poor peoples health insurance in addition to their own. I'm sure it was designed to be this way all along by Obama and his masterminds behind the ACA plan.

The Affordable Care Act was nothing more than a clever tax on the working man. It has effectively sucked more money out of the working man's pocket to help pay for the non-working populations healthcare. Trump's tax cuts have helped to offset this, somewhat.

Still, the ACA needs repealed, along with many other welfare programs.

This country has turned into a coddling, generational welfare cesspool. I will never, ever vote for a Democrat because of it. I don't care about the guns, the abortion, the social issues, whatever else the two parties try to polarize us with. All of those "issues" are nothing more than talking points that the two parties use to energize their respective bases. At the end of the day, what truly matters is how much is the government stealing from you....?

I care about the dollars and the cents. And all Democrats want to do is take more money from the working man and give it to able-bodied adults who will vote for them. Sick of it. Done with it. Not gonna do it. Severe abuse of the system is RAMPANT I don't care what any study says. I see it EVERY SINGLE DAY at my job. Hundreds of able-bodied adults every month in and out, living on and off the system, a huge drain on society. Most of them are generational, learned how to scheme the system from their parents, and are all of course actively training their offspring to do the same. Ever had a 17 year old sit in your office and be upset because she can't get pregnant? Then she openly tells you she "needs this baby so I can get a bigger check"....Don't-get-me-started-my-head-explodes.......

Vote Republican, Vote Republican, Vote Republican.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coachchia
The ACA forced everyone to obtain healthcare or pay a fine. This helped reduce the numbers of people showing up without healthcare in emergency rooms for treatment. The current tax cut saved the average tax payer about $900 in taxes each year, but to what end? Compromising our retirement? No thanks. And before any of you say anything, it's highly likely that you will use medicare if it's available. We have money for several trillion dollar bailouts and wars, but not for SS and Medicare. Bull. The point of the meme stands. McConnell and his ilk care little about the average man. This is about lowering taxes on the wealthy via cutting your retirement healthcare and they intend to do it.

Vote Democrat. Vote Democrat. Vote Democrat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MTOleBlue
By the way, the reason tax revenues are up is because individual income taxes have increased overall and corporate taxes have fallen overall. He isn't doing small business owners any favors. Wake up and smell the bulls#it.
 
In no way am I for the size of the safety net programs we have. Do we need them? Absolutely but it is out of control.

Medicare and Social Security are also growing because Boomer population is aging.

I all about cutting across the board. I guarantee there is a lot of fat in defense spending.

I was told 15 years ago to not rely on SS for retirement so I have been planning accordingly. If I could have opted to stop SS paycheck deductions to never receive a SS benefit I would have signed it immediately. I would have taken that money and placed it into tools that actually work.
 
Why does anyone believe the GOP tax plan was for anyone other than the 1%?

The GOP hasn't cared about "the working man" for ages and the current administration has greatly exacerbated that.

Where does the current president rank historically among conman success stories? He's got to be near the top, right?
 
I would say the working man is doing great.

jobless claims lowest since 1973 - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/18/us-weekly-jobless-claims-total-210000-vs-212000-expected.html

steelworkers set to get largest wage hike since 2012 - https://www.thestreet.com/markets/c...s-set-to-get-wage-hikes-amid-tariffs-14748618

trucking industry is hurting so bad for help that they are trying to lower the age limit to satisfy shortage - https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2018/09/19/286807.htm


On a personal note, I'm not doing too bad myself.


Why does anyone believe the GOP tax plan was for anyone other than the 1%?

The GOP hasn't cared about "the working man" for ages and the current administration has greatly exacerbated that.

Where does the current president rank historically among conman success stories? He's got to be near the top, right?
 
Guys,

Stats can be used to make both sides of the argument...I tend to be libertarian and conservative, let me share a perspective...

Revenues are generally up - typically its economic growth more so than tax policy that drives revenues, I think we will know more about the Trump tax plan after April 2019. The reason why we balanced the budget in 1999 was a roaring Internet economy (which factually did bust in 2000) and spending restraint. Many folks in states with large state taxes and large mortgages will may be surprised that the Federal govt will no longer be subsidizing the interest and high state/property taxes, the revenue should grow even more, as I stated earlier, they are up 9%. So we can argue about the tax cuts, but the thing I did like was it did simply the code some, not enough but a start.

Blue Raider Fan is right (can't believe I agree), our intake of revenues to GDP is about 16-17% and needs to be 18.5%, again lets see the % collected after April 2019 and the actual revenue numbers. Keep in mind a lot of middle class folk are not paying hardly any federal taxes anymore (the bottom 44% don't pay at all, I don't know if this is "bug" or a "feature") and that is part of the decrease...this along with spending restraint would make the deficit more manageable.

Keep in mind our spending on the entitlements (which is driving our deficit, not military spending or discretionary) is based on every growing demographics, so this means we really have a demographic problem because they are not growing like it was.

Population growth rate...keep in mind a larger % of folks are older than ever before.

1950 - 2.07%
1960 - 1.60%
1970 - 1.20%
1980 - .9%
1990 - 1,14% (growth)
2000 - 1.16%
2010 - .84%
2017 - .71%

So here is the result...more older people collecting from the system and less younger people paying into the system.

For example....SSI...workers per retiree.
1950 - 17 to one
1970- 3.7 to one
1990 - 3.4 to one
2000 - 3.4 to one
2010 - 2.9 to one
2015 - 2.7 to one

And the same has happened to Medicare.

So forget about your politics, tell me how you solve the demographic issue with the current systems in place - raising taxes will never cover the shortfall.

So the issue is we simply don't have enough workers per person receiving to fund the programs. I think some means testing for the wealthiest, along with age increases could mitigate this. I also think we should get rid of FICA taxes and have only one tax rate for the Federal govt, you could also consider a national sales tax to fund SSI and Medicare.

The problem isn't left or right, its a program designed for a different time and place. Its just math. We must fund them differently.

We need to bend the cost curve of Healthcare.

Lastly, whatever we do we need to grow our economy...if we could get back to historical growth or something close to 4%, this along with modernizing these programs would solve the problem.

I'd love to have a thread were we debate ways of solving our problem versus taking the party line.
 
Last edited:
The millennials are a larger group than the boomers. They pay SS and Medicare taxes. Part of the reason that SS had a shortfall is that they keep borrowing from it. Another part is that we cap taxes on SS at around $150,000 of income. Remove the cap and it's funded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTOleBlue
The average worker today pays between 10-15 times what the average worker did in 1950. Here's a good explanation of why those ratios are misleading:

Excerpt

If a falling number of workers were the real problem, the solution would be to add workers. We could for example expand the coverage of Social Security to all state and local workers. The Social Security Administration estimates that this proposal would only postpone the problem. The addition of new workers would provide more revenue, but future benefits would actually make the imbalances worse as these workers retire.

At best you have an imprecise metric that provides the illusion of relevance. At worst, you have a measure that conceals the more serious structural problems within the program. The Trust Fund and its contribution are going away.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...03/22/social-security-and-the-blame-game/amp/
 
Remove the cap explained:



MattBruenig | Politics

Worker-to-retiree ratio is meaningless for Social Security
For some reason, Social Security seems to get more spurious claims targeted at it than almost any other government program. Commentators mislead the public by calling it a Ponzi scheme, claiming it is insolvent, and strangely calling its treasury bond holdings worthless IOUs. These claims and many others made by the Social Security naysayers are transparently stupid. But, the naysayers raise another claim that is less obviously flawed: the decreasing worker-to-retiree ratio signals a huge future problem.

For the last thirty years, the number of workers paying into the system for every retiree collecting benefits has held stable between 3.2 to 3.4 (pdf). But, this ratio is projected to decline to around 2 workers per retiree in the next 70 years.

socialsecurity.png


I admit that intuitively this could seem like a problem. Less people working for each person not working seems like an obvious issue. Despite its intuitive appeal, this understanding of the significance of the worker-to-retiree ratio is mistaken.

The only way a declining worker-to-retiree ratio would necessarily pose a problem is if Social Security was funded by taxing a set dollar amount from each worker. For instance, if Social Security taxed each worker $6,000 per year, then obviously a declining number of workers poses a problem. Going from 3 workers per retiree to 2 workers per retiree would mean a loss of $6,000 per retiree a year.

But that’s not how we collect Social Security taxes. Right now Social Security basically collects 12.4% of every dollar earned below $106,800 (the payroll tax cap). A declining worker-to-retiree ratio is only a problem if that decline is not offset by increased wages. If we go from a 3:1 ratio to a 2:1 ratio, but in the same period see wages increase 50%, then there would be no decrease in funding at all.

To see a 50% increase in real wages in the next 70 years, we would only need to see real wages grow by 0.58% per year. Given the last few decades of stagnant wage growth for everyone but the top 10% of Americans, this might be a problem. But it is a different kind of problem that has nothing to do with worker-to-retiree ratios and has everything to do with the distribution of income in society. Given that the benefits of growth are disproportionately being distributed to those above the payroll tax cap, the obvious solution is simply to remove the cap. According to the CBO, doing so would end any future Social Security deficits by

http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/14/worker-to-retiree-ratio-is-meaningless-for-social-security/
 
BRF,

At what point do the taxes become unbearable...when SSI was started, the tax rate was 1%, in 1960 it was 3%, in 1980 it was 5%, since 1990 its been 6..2%.

In addition it has been indexed, so the amount of income taxed has grown...
1937 - $6,000
2000 - $76,000
2005 - $90,000
2010 - $106,000
2015 - $118,500
2019 - $132,900

And, keep in mind employers pay the other half. So increase tax rates and more income taxed

So in fact, the govt is doing what you are suggesting, its not enough. Keep in mind the same thing is happening on the Medicare side of things, started in 1965ish.

1965 tax rate was .35% on the first $6000 of income...now its 1.45% on all income, and high earners pay a surcharge of another 1.45% on income above $200,000.

So we have increase SSI and Medicare at 3 times the rate of inflation.

Where we can agree, in an ideal world if they would have but the surplus away we would be in good shape but they didn't...

You can not tax your way out of this, the data I supplied shows it. You still haven't done anything about the demographics, and that is driving it. I think we can tweak taxes and find new ways to fund it, but it can't just be increased taxes.

Please respond but don't just post opinions from others, use your own mind and think logically. The one article was from 2011, lots changed since then, specifically the ACA taxes increases for higher earners on Medicare. Keep in mind, we are also increasing the amounts that are paid out...in a static world the articles you resource could work, only all of this is not static.

And from your other article...here is quote in the opening paragraph from the worker to retiree issue

"This argument sounds compelling until you realize that today the individual worker pays between 10 and 20 times the amount of payroll taxes as his comparison did in 1950."

Are you ok with paying 10-20 times more than your parents and grandparents? And what you are suggesting is increasing that again.
 
Last edited:
Mike, Again, remove the cap on SS taxes and that problem is solved. As far as Medicare and Medicaid, a large part of the issue is cost. Take over the system and reduce costs, which has been demonstrated that it can be done by at least a dozen other countries, and that goes a long way toward solving that problem as well. Lastly, just because I post something for reference doesn't mean I don't "think for myself." If I didn't post a reference it's likely you'd ask for a reference for my statements e.g, "How did you conclude that?" So, keep your smug comments to yourself and try not to be such a d#ck. I think for myself just fine. Thank you very much.
 
And yes I'm ok with paying 10-20 times what my grandparents paid because I make a hell of a lot more than they did and because I want Americans, all Americans, to have decent healthcare.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MTOleBlue
It will take a combination of higher taxes and taking over at least part of the healthcare system, if not all of it.
 
So you want to remove the cap? Every country in the world has a cap.

We are at $130K
Sweden $55,000
Canada $45,000
The Netherlands $40,800

For years we've been told SSI is not welfare, its an insurance program run by the govt (people say they EARNED SSI)....if you going to get rid of the cap are you also willing to increase the payout for those paying...Keep in mind, your are talking about taxing high earners 12.4% on ALL their income and only pay them when they retire $39,000 a year (max payout).

If we are to discuss increasing marginal taxes by 12.4%, is there really a national consensus that it should all be directed to Social Security? What about healthcare? Education? Daycare subsidies? Parental leave? Infrastructure? Affordable housing?

Lastly, in our history, we have high taxes and low taxes...despite the scheme, historically we only bee able to take in a certain % of GDP.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

During WW2, we got up to almost 20% in tax revenue to GDP, in 1999 it was about 20% - its called Hauser's law.

Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007

My point is, just raising taxes doesn't work, because when you do, people react. Do you think people that make above 130K per year are just going to accept the tax increase?

Realistically, when you think about all you'd like the govt to do, you need to look at our GDP and then consider a govt take of 18% and then set up how you want to spend.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I said raise the cap on SS, not Medicare and Medicaid. Secondly, I never said that the wealthy would shoulder all of the burden. We would need to take over the system. Lower tuition rates for medical school allowing doctor's the get out of school with less debt, which would allow for lower salaries, and cutting costs in that area. Taking over the system would also lower costs by removing a lot of unnecessary tests from the system which are often brought about by litigation concerns. There are many ways to lower costs. Most of them, if not all of them, require taking over the system. We would also need to raise taxes on the other income brackets to cover the expanded medicare so that all have at least some access to medical care. The emergency room won't cut it. It drives up costs too much. People need to be able to get a regular appointment with a doctor, outside if the emergency room.
 
Also, 27% of taxpayer money in Sweden go to education and healthcare, whereas 5% go to the police and military, and 42% to social security, so it doesn't surprise me that their cap is so low. The percentage the employer pays for SS on an employees salary in Sweden is 31%. Swedes have their priorities straight and don't need to raise their taxes like we do. All you and people like you are, Mike, are bullshit propaganda machines. You listen to people that twist stats to make it look like we can't do what l literally DOZENS of other countries have done. Save your crap posts for Faux News. We have raided social security to fund wars and we are constantly at war because 27% of taxpayer money in Sweden go to education and healthcare, whereas 5% go to the police and military, and 42% to social security. profitable. All you are doing is strengthening the war mongers position.
 
Last edited:
Also, the SS fund, according to the trustees won't run out of money until 2034. Even after it runs out, 75% of benefits will be funded through the SS tax. The rest could be funded through the general fund, if Congress chooses to do so, and they should. About 54% of the discretionary fund goes toward the war machine. Cut that in half and suddenly SS is funded and no, I don't give a shit what you think about funding the military. I did 11 years and saw the kind of waste that goes on. They can take the cut and still be highly effective.
 
Last edited:
Heard on the radio today that because of the ACA healthcare costs in TN have stabalised for the most part this year.
 
Also, the SS fund, according to the trustees won't run out of money until 2034. Even after it runs out, 75% of benefits will be funded through the SS tax. The rest could be funded through the general fund, if Congress chooses to do so, and they should. About 54% of the discretionary fund goes toward the war machine. Cut that in half and suddenly SS is funded and no, I don't give a shit what you think about funding the military. I did 11 years and saw the kind of waste that goes on. They can take the cut and still be highly effective.

If you change the mission of the military (which will not happen unless Europe and Asia double or triple their spend), you could fund it less...more facts for you. This is going to drive you crazy, but we are spending less on the military than we have historically spent (unlike SSI and Medicare)

There have been four major spikes in US defense spending since the 1790s.

Viewed across the two centuries of US power, defense spending shows four spikes. It spiked at nearly 12 percent of GDP in the Civil War of the 1860s (not including spending by the rebels). It spiked at 22 percent in World War I. It spiked at 41 percent in World War II, and again at nearly 15 percent of GDP during the Korean War.

Defense spending exceeded 10 percent of GDP for one year in the 19th century and 19 years in the 20th century. The last year in which defense spending hit 10 percent of GDP was 1968 at the height of the Vietnam War.

The peak of defense spending during the Iraq conflict was 5.66 percent GDP in 2010. Today we are at 4.2% and projecting to decline to about 3.8% in 2020. So in relation to our economic might we are spending less. This tends to be the main function of govt - to protect its citizens. I am not sure that it means much that we spend half of our discretionary on defense - not sure its really a discretionary expense.

Regarding SSI, your right, it will always fund about 75% of the benefits if we do nothing.

You keep coming at me...but you not addressing the real problem - You keep take a funding mechanism that was designed 80 years ago in a different world and assume it will work today and in the future if we just increase the tax rate...your not addressing the problem nor the cause of the problem.

Again, you could take all the income of the top 1% in a given year and it wouldn't come close to balancing the budget...
 
Ok by your logic SS is around the same percentage of GDP, so stop crying. We should be more worried about spening on SS than funding more of these ridiculous wars. Also, we aren't talking about just the one percent, so stop being hyperbolic. The top 1% own 40% of the wealth anyway. Take it all and funding is solved, but no one is saying do that. Stop all these wars and take care of Americans!
 
Ok by your logic SS is around the same percentage of GDP, so stop crying. We should be more worried about spening on SS than funding more of these ridiculous wars. Also, we aren't talking about just the one percent, so stop being hyperbolic. The top 1% own 40% of the wealth anyway. Take it all and funding is solved, but no one is saying do that. Stop all these wars and take care of Americans!

Actually no, SSI spending has increased whereas Defense spending has decreased.

1960s 2.2%
1980s 4.0%
2010 4.7%
Moving forward 5%

As you've noted, if we do nothing in the future we can still guarantee at least 75% of the payout. I didn't say take all the wealth of the top, just all their income and it wouldn't balance the budget for one year. But your still missing the point.

We have to deal with the facts and drop the emotion. In this thread, you've called me smug, a dick and now told me to stop crying. I keep coming to you with data hoping to have a true debate.

Personally, I am worried about it all. I think we can be more efficient with the Military, and I think we should consider changing our mission (but despite fightly the war on Terror, our spending is down, the fact show it). I want to provide SSI and Medicare but the program has to change and way its funding in order for us to survive. Simply raising taxes using the same funding mechanisms will not work.
 
Yes, removing the cap will work for SS. You are wrong and that's a fact. Medicare is a different story, but can still be done. For one thing we need to start paying the same prices for medications that the EU and Canada pay. We also need to take over the system and bring costs down. Or, have it like it is in England and have some private and the rest governmentally controlled. In this thread you've accused me of not thinking for myself for refuting your point with a reference of something I've read and also heard. I highly doubt you went out and did all of your own research for the information that you are stating, all get off your high horse. You read to get your information, in part, just like I do. What percentage of the budget is SS versus the Military? Military vs Medicare? Let's use a different metric and see how those numbers stack up. I know what they are. I'm posting the question for debate. I can tell you that we spend half of our discretionary spending on the military and it's making us enemies all over the world.
 
Last edited:
Yes, removing the cap will work for SS. You are wrong and that's a fact. Medicare is a different story, but can still be done. For one thing we need to start paying the same prices for medications that the EU and Canada pay. We also need to take over the system and bring costs down. Or, have it like it is in England and have some private and the rest governmentally controlled. In this thread you've accused me of not thinking for myself for refuting your point with a reference of something I've read and also heard. I highly doubt you went out and did all of your own research for the information that you are stating, all get off your high horse. You read to get your information, in part, just like I do. What percentage of the budget is SS versus the Military? Military vs Medicare? Let's use a different metric and see how those numbers stack up. I know what they are. I'm posting the question for debate. I can tell you that we spend half of our discretionary spending on the military and it's making us enemies all over the world.


Raising taxes that high has NEVER worked in history, I have showed you the data earlier in the thread...I am trying to have a debate of ideas...Today, we are already paying so much more than we will ever receive in benefits.

Do you really believe people making $125K and up are just going to take a 12.4% increase in taxes and not react and adjust? Its not 6.2%, because self employed folks pay double and do you think businesses can just pay the other 6.2% with no problem?

You do realize these folks are paying much higher marginal tax rates than the average person.

This would be the largest tax increase in the history of the USA...do you think it would impact any other areas of spending?

If you did this just to me, there is no way I could save for retirement...that is where the money would come from...at that point why work so hard if I have to give it to the govt. You have to understand, this is the same bucket of money I use to by life insurance, disability insurance, charitable contributions and more...so there is an impact and it increases risk.

I looked it up, since SSI was created they have INCREASED taxes 24 times, yet the system still heads toward bankruptcy...and even if we did what you suggest I also looked it up it wouldn't solve the problem only kick the can down the road. If we want to provide this type of benefit we must modernize the program. When the largest tax increase in history can't fix it, then its broken.
 
First of all, it may be possible to increase the cap, or lift the cap and reduce the percentage of the tax. Secondly, most small business owners don't have the option of doing anything but staying here and paying their business taxes, or working for someone else. I know which one I would choose. Also, just because circumstances have changed, and have necessitated an increase, doesn't mean the system is broken. It may need to be modified.
 
Last edited:
As far as paying the higher rates, they still take home far more than the average person, so you won't get any sympathy from me on that one.
 
A person making $200000 a year is going to take home around $110,000 after taxes, if the cap was lifted and the paid the full 12% in the additional income above the cap. Sorry, but if it keeps our senior citizens from going hungry and in the streets, I don't have an issue with that. They still have a really nice income stream.
 
Almost impossible to meet in the middle when you have no problem taking almost 50% of someone's income just because they make $200,000. I can't and will not relate. Never. Especially when almost 50% of the population pays NO income taxes. This discussion is futile.

To the polls!

As far as paying the higher rates, they still take home far more than the average person, so you won't get any sympathy from me on that one.
 
Almost impossible to meet in the middle when you have no problem taking almost 50% of someone's income just because they make $200,000. I can't and will not relate. Never. Especially when almost 50% of the population pays NO income taxes. This discussion is futile.

To the polls!

I always wondered how income based tax brackets are constitutional. It really seems unconscionable that our government can take a different percentage of income from 1 person versus another.

I agree with you 100%, I will never, EVER agree with a system or belief that thinks its okay to tax some at 50% rate when 44% of our population pays zero income tax.
 
I always wondered how income based tax brackets are constitutional. It really seems unconscionable that our government can take a different percentage of income from 1 person versus another.

I agree with you 100%, I will never, EVER agree with a system or belief that thinks its okay to tax some at 50% rate when 44% of our population pays zero income tax.

I appreciate you guys jumping in...it didn't matter what I shared there was no compromise or realization that something is broken, no movement - the path is always just tax the rich more, they have it and it won't hurt me at all that they have to pay more. This has become nothing but "emotion".
 
1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth, yet have a problem with taxing them at 40-45%? That's just dumb.
 
1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth, yet have a problem with taxing them at 40-45%? That's just dumb.

They are taxed at that rate yet it doesn't solve our financial problems...the fact that you can't see this makes you _____ (fill in the blank)
 
ADVERTISEMENT