re: New Talking Point: DRUMPF only paid $750 in taxes in 2016 and 2017

quote:

---

That such a large portion of their income is not taxable is exactly what I'm complaining about.

---

What part of AGI is untaxable? Also look at that chart again. Say you took ALL of the taxable income >$1m... could you balance the current budget?

quote:

---

Gotta tax something, why not wealth?

---

Short list...

1/ wealth isn't renewable. If you take a $100,000/yr from a person worth $1m, but low income... what will you take in year 11?

2/ How do you establish valuation? Go have a look at the huge mismatches between property tax valuations and an selling prices. Someone of sizeable wealth could keep valuation tied up for YEARS on even a simple area.

3/ Wealth is MOVEABLE. Wealth can leave the US in... literally seconds with the touch of a button. What will you then tax?

4/ Think for like 12 seconds about what happens to asset prices if you tax them? Will they increase or decrease? Wanna know why an equivalent house is cheaper in TX than LA? Hint: after property taxes, they cost about the same.

5/ if you tax invested wealth... why sould anyone put their money at risk rather than just stuff it into matresses?

Do I need to keep going?

quote:

---

Because the it inevitably increases the tax burden of the middle class.

---

Not really. No. Largely the middle class pays a very, very small share of the taxes.

Seondly, what increase the tax burden is spending. Nearly all of which goes to the middle and lower classes in the form of SS and MEDI.

quote:

---

If we're going to have a situation where most of the money is concentrated,

---

The government takes more than $3 Trillion EVERY YEAR, can put you in jail, and has an army. Name one american that's has that kind of concentrated wealth and power.

quote:

---

neither party, when rubber hits the road, has ever been particularly interested in paying for less stuff

---

This is backwards. The real question is... when will the voters demand paying for less stuff.

quote:

---

it really is a zero sum game between the poor, the middle class, the rich, the super rich (who are getting richer)

---

Not as long as we print money... no. It's anything BUT zero sum.

quote:

---

I think the rich and super rich should take on the burden.

---

Why? What did they do wrong?

Second, do you not understand they already shoulder almost all of it?

quote:

---

Who do you think should?

---

All americans should shoulder the burden. If our government is going to work for everybody, everybody needs to be paying for it. Yet, less than 10% pay for damn near all of it.

quote:

---

As I wrote earlier, neither party has done anything ever to take this on and we have no reason to believe that either ever will. None at all. People may talk a good game on cutting spending but when they have the votes and mandate to do something about it, it is NEVER a priority.

---

No argument here.

quote:

---

For instance, this lady here clearly falls into the defend Trump / attack libs frame. She doesn't read carefully enough to note that I hadn't positioned myself as arbiter of what it reasonable but rather noted that there are some people who I disagree with who can make cogent points about their positions and others who have nothing to add but incoherent attacks. She falls into the latter.

---

For instance, it’s hysterical this poster denies doing what I claimed, and then does it again.

This poster clearly falls into the hysterical loon who thinks they are reasonable camp.

quote:

---

it's just a question of who pays.

---

Ok. So who should pay, those that consume the products and services? Or "other people". If "other people", why?

quote:

---

Nah, it's still zero sum

---

No. If you're going to claim the amount of money in the economy if fixed. I'm going to laugh at you.

quote:

---

You cut out the fifth option I offered of "nobody because we don't care about deficits." Do you think that's the right answer?

---

People that don't pay taxes, inevitably do not care about deficits. But that would imply MORE people should pay taxes, not narrowing to an even smaller minority that pay it now.

quote:

---

It's not a question of doing anything wrong. It really is that zero sum thing I noted. If not them, who?

---

It's a simple question. Why do they deserve the burden of paying for others? Do you want me to guess why you think that? Or do you want to give us your answer?

quote:

---

I appreciate the dialog.

---

Same

quote:

---

I think we just disagree here because of the reasons I noted earlier

---

No offense, but you haven't really answered any of my questions. I know what you "think". But you've not backed up "I think it should be this way" with any objective reasons.

quote:

---

Nope. There was NO mandate to cut SS and MEDI during any of those periods. Zero. Nada. Zip. Not even the "tea party" wanted those programs cut.

---

quote:

---

GWB was the only one to propose reforming Social Security in 2005. If failed FANTASTICALLY, killed off by both parties. Have a look at the 2006 congressional election if you think there was a reform mandate...

---

I'm saying that there is constant talk about cutting spending from some quarters but it never happens because those who are responsible for that constant never prioritize making that happen when they do come to power. I think we're saying the same thing different ways.

Here is a thought, Trump should walk out tomorrow night with copies of the canceled checks in his coat pocket he wrote out to the IRS for the years the NYT reported.

Then when Chrissy Wallace asks or Joe Biden asks, he whips out those large checks.

He can then show that it is much larger than 750.