Trump’s 2nd term: American Carnage

[Little Earl]

2 hours ago, nine said:

Republican politicians only support legislation that benefits them personally.  
 

Lower taxes….sounds great!

 

Deregulation and less government oversight….hell yeah!

 

National healthcare?    Wait….that only helps working class citizens.  How the hell does that help ME???

 

We all over #31 trillion in debt.   How do you propose we pay for national healthcare?

[nine]

10 hours ago, Little Earl said:

 

We all over #31 trillion in debt.   How do you propose we pay for national healthcare?

 

Consider the United States' federal income tax brackets in the 1950s-1963:    the highest tax bracket was taxed at 90%.     

 

In 1963, that number was lowered to 77%....then 70% in 1965.

 

in 1982, Reagan dropped it to 50%....then in 1987, he dropped it again to 38%.   This was an absolutely massive decrease in the tax burden on America's top 1%.   "Trickle down economics", right?

 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

 

We've seen similar decreases in corporate tax rates...from a >50% tax rate in the 1950s down to 21% today.    Trump wants to drop it even further, down to 15%.  

 

The federal government has spent the past 60 years repeatedly slashing the country's  primary source of revenue over and over and over again.   The United States is now $30T in debt, paying $1B a day in interest alone,  and the country hasn't seen a balanced budget since Clinton was in office.

 

Nobody WANTS to pay more taxes.     But the freedom ain't free.....and the dramatic and ongoing tax cuts we've implemented over the past several decades are simply unsustainable.   The country has decreased its primary source of revenue for the past 40-60 years, to the point where the country has literally run itself out of money and can no longer afford its own operating expenses;   something's gotta give.  

 

Another possibility:    it's my understanding that the United States is one of the only countries in the world (and perhaps the ONLY country)  where property owners automatically hold the mineral and energy rights for their property.    In most other countries, property ownership applies only to the land's surface area;   the government owns/controls the rights to minerals and products extracted from below the surface....and the leases and royalties from those mineral rights represent a major revenue source for the state.

 

The United States is the world's #1 oil producer by a wide margin, producing roughly 13-20M barrels per day...much of which comes from federal lands which they lease to oil companies for as little as $1/year.    So while rest of the world's major oil producers generate massive revenues from oil sales and exports......, the United States allows private oil companies (many of which aren't even based in America)  to pocket what would be an absolutely massive stream of federal revenue.

 

So while Big Oil is collecting a billion or so dollars a day in American oil....the federal government takes only the scraps by way of dirt-cheap leases and low corporate tax rates.  

 

I'm not saying these are the answers.....just overly simplistic ideas for very complex problems.     But our politicians sit their wringing their hands and pretending we simply don't have any options......sure we do.     

 

But exploring those options would require them to do some actual work and possibly even make sacrifices themselves.....which makes it an automatic non-starter.

[MadMax]

48 minutes ago, nine said:

 

Consider the United States' federal income tax brackets in the 1950s-1963:    the highest tax bracket was taxed at 90%.     

 

In 1963, that number was lowered to 77%....then 70% in 1965.

 

in 1982, Reagan dropped it to 50%....then in 1987, he dropped it again to 38%.   A huge decrease in the tax burden on America's top 1%.   "Trickle down economics", right?

 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

 

We've seen similar decreases in corporate tax rates...from a >50% tax rate in the 1950s down to 21% today.    Trump wants to drop it even further, down to 15%.  

 

The federal government has spent the past 60 years repeatedly slashing the country's  primary source of revenue over and over and over again.   The United States is now $30T in debt, paying $1B a day in interest alone,  and the country hasn't seen a balanced budget since Clinton was in office.

 

Nobody WANTS to pay more taxes.     But the freedom ain't free.....and the dramatic and ongoing tax cuts we've implemented over the past several decades are simply unsustainable.   The country has decreased its primary source of revenue for the past 40+ years, to the point where the country has literally run itself out of money and can no longer afford its own operating expenses;   something's gotta give.  

 

Another possibility:    it's my understanding that the United States is one of the only countries in the world (and perhaps the ONLY country)  where property owners automatically hold the mineral and energy rights for their property.    In most other countries, property ownership applies only to the land's surface area;   the government owns/controls the rights to minerals and products extracted from below the surface....and the leases and royalties from those mineral rights represent a major revenue source for the state.

 

The United States is the world's #1 oil producer by a wide margin, producing roughly 13-20M barrels per day...much of which comes from federal lands which they lease to oil companies for as little as $1/year.    So while rest of the world's major oil producers generate massive revenues from oil sales and exports......, the United States allows private oil companies (many of which aren't even based in America)  to pocket what would be an absolutely massive stream of federal revenue.

 

So while Big Oil is collecting a billion or so dollars a day in American oil....the federal government takes only the scraps by way of dirt-cheap leases and low corporate tax rates.  

 

I'm not saying these are the answers.....just overly simplistic ideas for very complex problems.     But our politicians sit their wringing their hands and pretending we simply don't have any options......sure we do.     

 

But exploring those options would require them to do some actual work and possibly even make sacrifices themselves.....which makes it an automatic non-starter.

@Little Earl  This is how you present an argument.  This is how you present an argument that shuts down the debate.    

[Starkiller]

8 hours ago, Little Earl said:

 

We all over #31 trillion in debt.   How do you propose we pay for national healthcare?

#1: Increase taxes on the wealthy

#2: universal healthcare is cheaper than the current system. Americans pay roughly double per capita compared to people in other 1st world nations. And they get better health results than we do. 

[nine]

Also on the subject of taxing the wealthy:

 

As was mentioned earlier, in the 1950s and early 1960s, those earning more than $400k were taxed at 90%.  
 

In 1960, the United States’ median household income was roughly $5,600.   So those in the 90% tax bracket were making at least 70 times more than the average family.    It’s probably safe to assume that only the very top 1% of 1% qualified for that elite $400K tax bracket.
 

(For perspective:  in the 1960 US census reports, the US household income metrics topped out at“$25,000 and over” ….and only 0.3% of households qualified.   If only 0.3% of household earned  >$25k in 1960…the number of  households making >$400K must have been an infinitesimally small number.)

 

Today, the United States top tax bracket still triggers at the same $400K, just like 1960…..but today’s median household income is roughly $84,000.    The highest tax bracket is now less than 5 times the average family income….an estimated 2% of US households qualify.    
 

We no longer have a dedicated tax bracket just for the ridiculously ultra-wealthy who amass tens or hundreds of millions a year.  Billionaires are taxed at a rate that’s only moderately higher than your average McDonalds or Wal-Mart worker…..and with an incredible cornucopia of tax shelters and write-offs at their disposal,  a mega-billionaire’s total tax burden can actually be LESS than a Walmart cashier.  

But whenever Congress introduces any manner of tax reform or new legislation….it’s always the ultra-mega-rich who get the most consideration and the biggest breaks.

If America is truly concerned about the national debt  and looking to make a big dent in a hurry….I’m thinking the social class with more money than their grandchildren’s grandchildren can ever spend is probably a pretty good place to start.  

[MadMax]

18 minutes ago, nine said:

Also on the subject of taxing the wealthy:

 

As was mentioned earlier, in the 1950s and early 1960s, those earning more than $400k were taxed at 90%.  
 

In 1960, the United States’ median household income was roughly $5,600.   So those in the 90% tax bracket were making at least 70 times more than the average family.    It’s probably safe to assume that only the very top 1% of 1% qualified for that elite $400K tax bracket.
 

(For perspective:  in the 1960 US census reports, the US household income metrics topped out at“$25,000 and over” ….and only 0.3% of households qualified.   If only 0.3% of household earned  >$25k in 1960…the number of  households making >$400K must have been an infinitesimally small number.)

 

Today, the United States top tax bracket still triggers at the same $400K, just like 1960…..but today’s median household income is roughly $84,000.    The highest tax bracket is now less than 5 times the average family income….an estimated 2% of US households qualify.    
 

We no longer have a dedicated tax bracket just for the ridiculously ultra-wealthy who amass tens or hundreds of millions a year.  Billionaires are taxed at a rate that’s only moderately higher than your average McDonalds or Wal-Mart worker…..and with an incredible cornucopia of tax shelters and write-offs at their disposal,  a mega-billionaire’s total tax burden can actually be LESS than a Walmart cashier.  

But whenever Congress introduces any manner of tax reform or new legislation….it’s always the ultra-mega-rich who get the most consideration and the biggest breaks.

If America is truly concerned about the national debt  and looking to make a big dent in a hurry….I’m thinking the social class with more money than their grandchildren’s grandchildren can ever spend is probably a pretty good place to start.  

Idiots - "Oh the horror!".

[Starkiller]

48 minutes ago, nine said:

Also on the subject of taxing the wealthy:

 

As was mentioned earlier, in the 1950s and early 1960s, those earning more than $400k were taxed at 90%.  
 

In 1960, the United States’ median household income was roughly $5,600.   So those in the 90% tax bracket were making at least 70 times more than the average family.    It’s probably safe to assume that only the very top 1% of 1% qualified for that elite $400K tax bracket.
 

(For perspective:  in the 1960 US census reports, the US household income metrics topped out at“$25,000 and over” ….and only 0.3% of households qualified.   If only 0.3% of household earned  >$25k in 1960…the number of  households making >$400K must have been an infinitesimally small number.)

 

Today, the United States top tax bracket still triggers at the same $400K, just like 1960…..but today’s median household income is roughly $84,000.    The highest tax bracket is now less than 5 times the average family income….an estimated 2% of US households qualify.    
 

We no longer have a dedicated tax bracket just for the ridiculously ultra-wealthy who amass tens or hundreds of millions a year.  Billionaires are taxed at a rate that’s only moderately higher than your average McDonalds or Wal-Mart worker…..and with an incredible cornucopia of tax shelters and write-offs at their disposal,  a mega-billionaire’s total tax burden can actually be LESS than a Walmart cashier.  

But whenever Congress introduces any manner of tax reform or new legislation….it’s always the ultra-mega-rich who get the most consideration and the biggest breaks.

If America is truly concerned about the national debt  and looking to make a big dent in a hurry….I’m thinking the social class with more money than their grandchildren’s grandchildren can ever spend is probably a pretty good place to start.  

Agreed, but…

 

It’s also worth pointing out that the ultra-wealthy don’t generally live off taxable income anymore. They borrow against their holdings (largely in the stock market and now crypto) and live off the debt. So the best way to effectively tax the rich is to enable some form of wealth tax. Elizabeth Warren proposed a 2% wealth tax for people worth $50M+.

 

For what it’s worth, a wealth tax is not uncommon in America on a local level. It’s similar to property taxes. Anyone who owns a home pays a percentage based on the value of that property.

[ctm]

It's 38 trillion in debt and going up dramatically under Trump and republican government.

[Starkiller]

24 minutes ago, ctm said:

It's 38 trillion in debt and going up dramatically under Trump and republican government.

It goes up with every tax cut. 

[ctm]

Trump on Truth Social:

 

“Despite the massive amount of money being made by the United States of America, Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, as a direct result of Tariffs being charged to other countries, the full benefit of the Tariffs has not yet been calculated in that many of the buyers of goods and products, in order to avoid paying the Tariffs in the short term, ‘STOCK UP’ by purchasing far more inventory than they can use,” he posted on his Truth Social. “That heavy inventory purchase is now, however, wearing thin, and soon Tariffs will be paid on everything they apply to, without avoidance, and the amounts payable to the USA will SKYROCKET, over and above the already historic levels of dollars received. These payments will be RECORD SETTING, and put our Nation on a new and unprecedented course.”

 

Trump is essentially bragging about how much tariffs will increase prices....coming soon.

[nine]

Brought to us by the same genius who thought he could end a global pandemic by stopping the testing.  

[Little Earl]

6 hours ago, Starkiller said:

It goes up with every tax cut. 

 

And every wasteful Democrat special spending acts.

[reo]

 

 

 

[reo]

46 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

 

And every wasteful Democrat special spending acts.

 

Democrats regularly lower the deficit. 

[Jamalisms]

The dumbest motherfuckers believe what they want. The only thing evidence does is convince them to build even more mental barriers.