Let The Stock Market Burn!!!

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

38 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

  Wow...you are trying to use things that had not happened yet when you made your comment as proof of the comment you made?  Come on...

Funny part is, I am surprised it took this long for this feud to happen...two megalomaniacs trying to work together was never going to work.  But I also agree with what DOGE is doing, and I agree that the spending bill is ridiculous in some parts of it.  But I also know it doesn't matter who is in office, it is rinse and repeat every 4 years.

Anyway, back to the point, I still don't think Musk regrets anything (my opinion), he probably just realizes that the two of them can't work together because only one can be the alpha in that situation...and like children, and unfortunately in today's day and age some adults, having a public feud over social media which has got to be the dumbest thing to do.

Someone needed to take both their phones away and put them in a timeout.

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

  Wow...you are trying to use things that had not happened yet when you made your comment as proof of the comment you made?  Come on...

 

What we affectionately call confirmation

[ionel]

There was a "nice dip" in TSLA ... surely rv bought the dip.  

[GreatWhiteNorth]

19 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Serious question.  Not counting extending the 2017 cuts, what new elements of the bill “give the wealthiest people tax cuts”?

Maybe I’m missing some elements of the bill, but I have to agree with @ionel here, I don’t think it’s really fair to say the wealthy are getting “more” cuts if their percentage cuts are lower.

Serious answer. 

It's simple. These are tax cuts for the very wealthy. Robin Hood in reverse, taking more from the poor to pay the rich.

You argue that extending the 2017 tax cuts isn't the same as new tax cuts?

That's a silly argument. The 2017 cuts expire. If they are to be 'extended' it is essentially the same as new cuts.

You pretend to be ignorant of this. IMO, that's considerably worse than actually being ignorant.

[1032004]

59 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Serious answer. 

It's simple. These are tax cuts for the very wealthy. Robin Hood in reverse, taking more from the poor to pay the rich.

You argue that extending the 2017 tax cuts isn't the same as new tax cuts?

That's a silly argument. The 2017 cuts expire. If they are to be 'extended' it is essentially the same as new cuts.

You pretend to be ignorant of this. IMO, that's considerably worse than actually being ignorant.

Because like I said earlier, I can guarantee you if they let the 2017 cuts expire then the MSM would frame it as “Trump raising taxes on the majority of Americans!”

Which honestly I’d agree with.  I don’t agree that extending something that’s already in place is really a “cut.”  And the 2017 cuts did hugely benefit the middle class in terms of their taxes paid.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Because like I said earlier, I can guarantee you if they let the 2017 cuts expire then the MSM would frame it as “Trump raising taxes on the majority of Americans!”

Which honestly I’d agree with.  I don’t agree that extending something that’s already in place is really a “cut.”  And the 2017 cuts did hugely benefit the middle class in terms of their taxes paid.

That's little more than semantics bullsh**.

The actual cuts or not shouldn't be mixed in and confused with how you predict the media will interpret them. You're obviously already in over your head. Trying to predict the future of the media reaction is many steps too far. Stop.

Here's the chart again - show us all how you think these cuts "hugely benefit the middle class"

Feel free to ask if you need help with the word 'quintile'

HINT: The middle class are the ones in the middle (look for the word "Middle"), and NOT the (3) on the right.

The proposed cuts do HUGELY benefit the wealthy. We really don't need more of that.

Instead, let's axe those tax cuts to the wealthy. And let's work to start paying down the debt. That will help us all.

 

 

 

[1032004]

2 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

That's little more than semantics bullsh**.

The actual cuts or not shouldn't be mixed in and confused with how you predict the media will interpret them. You're obviously already in over your head. Trying to predict the future of the media reaction is many steps too far. Stop.

Here's the chart again - show us all how you think these cuts "hugely benefit the middle class"

Feel free to ask if you need help with the word 'quintile'

HINT: The middle class are the ones in the middle (look for the word "Middle"), and NOT the (3) on the right.

The proposed cuts do HUGELY benefit the wealthy. We really don't need more of that.

Instead, let's axe those tax cuts to the wealthy. And let's work to start paying down the debt. That will help us all.

 

 

 

What is the source for this chart?

I know how I would feel if I pay a certain amount in taxes now, and that amount goes up.  I’d consider that an increase.  Wouldn’t you?

[GreatWhiteNorth]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

What is the source for this chart?

I know how I would feel if I pay a certain amount in taxes now, and that amount goes up.  I’d consider that an increase.  Wouldn’t you?

The thing is that dopes like you always think you are in a much higher earnings bracket than you actually are.

If your taxes go up, it's because you are on the left side of the graph.

And - this is important - it may be time to rethink how those on the right side of the graph keep getting wealthier and wealthier (by a large margin) while people like you continue to make excuses for them as if you were on that right side.

Trump was elected president by these very same people. Voters still poor as dirt, watching Trump and others get rich as hell. Trump isn't taking any regular people up with him - just making the already rich even richer.

Yet you fight for those rich bastards. Why? I'll never know.

[1032004]

13 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The thing is that dopes like you always think you are in a much higher earnings bracket than you actually are.

If your taxes go up, it's because you are on the left side of the graph.

And - this is important - it may be time to rethink how those on the right side of the graph keep getting wealthier and wealthier (by a large margin) while people like you continue to make excuses for them as if you were on that right side.

Trump was elected president by these very same people. Voters still poor as dirt, watching Trump and others get rich as hell. Trump isn't taking any regular people up with him - just making the already rich even richer.

Yet you fight for those rich bastards. Why? I'll never know.

I’m saying my taxes would go up if they simply let the 2017 cuts expire.  As would the majority of the country’s, IIRC.

So no, you’re not going to share the source for the chart?  Ok I guess I’ll do your work for you.  Here ya go:

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/gop-fiscal-plans-raise-costs-americans/
 

They’re lumping in both the tax changes AND tariff impact, and admit that the red is caused by the tariff impact, not the tax cuts (and I agree the tariffs are bad for consumers): “whatever tax cuts they get under the Republican budget will be overwhelmed by higher costs caused by the Trump tariffs.”

[GreatWhiteNorth]

11 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I’m saying my taxes would go up if they simply let the 2017 cuts expire.  As would the majority of the country’s, IIRC.

So no, you’re not going to share the source for the chart?  Ok I guess I’ll do your work for you.  Here ya go:

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/gop-fiscal-plans-raise-costs-americans/
 

They’re lumping in both the tax changes AND tariff impact, and admit that the red is caused by the tariff impact, not the tax cuts (and I agree the tariffs are bad for consumers): “whatever tax cuts they get under the Republican budget will be overwhelmed by higher costs caused by the Trump tariffs.”

Don't be silly. It's not "my work" simply because you asked me to do it.
(That's a trend I've seen around here that I'd like to see go away soon.)

A few things:

• NOBODY knows where the hell the tariff impact is going - it's guesswork at this point
  (One thing we do know is that a tariff war is never a good idea, yet here we are.)
• That is the very cause for so much stock/bond market uncertainty and the very cause for alarm
• Dozens more charts won't help - the future is uncertain with the incompetent Trump admin at the helm
• ... and YES, the tax cuts have an additional negative effect. And YES, they primarily benefit the wealthy,
  and YES, they should be the first thing to be deleted 

The spending bill needs to be killed ASAP. No tax cuts, no SALT, no Golden Dome, no more political bullsh**

Let's start to work to pay down the debt. That will help us all. No more handouts to the wealthy.

[1032004]

2 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Don't be silly. It's not "my work" simply because you asked me to do it.
(That's a trend I've seen around here that I'd like to see go away soon.)

A few things:

• NOBODY knows where the hell the tariff impact is going - it's guesswork at this point
  (One thing we do know is that a tariff war is never a good idea, yet here we are.)
• That is the very cause for so much stock/bond market uncertainty and the very cause for alarm
• Dozens more charts won't help - the future is uncertain with the incompetent Trump admin at the helm
• ... and YES, the tax cuts have an additional negative effect. And YES, they primarily benefit the wealthy,
  and YES, they should be the first thing to be deleted 

The spending bill needs to be killed ASAP. No tax cuts, no SALT, no Golden Dome, no more political bullsh**

Let's start to work to pay down the debt. That will help us all. No more handouts to the wealthy.

Thank you for admitting the chart you posted was misleading.  Kinda interesting to me that you don’t mind sharing an unsourced chart but then in a different thread complained about a link to the NY post which contained other sources.

I agree the tariffs will be a bad thing for most Americans.

I’ve also said previously that I did not like the spending increases in the bill such as on the defense budget.

But the tax portion of it doesn’t seem bad.   And I feel pretty confident in saying that if the 2017 cuts expired that most of America who would see their paychecks go down would not be happy about that.

Edited Saturday at 11:47 AM by 1032004

[JimmySpeaks]

Just curious is it the rich people that will benefit from no taxes on tips and OT or is it the people on the Left side of the useless graph Plow Guy used??? 

[ionel]

4 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

 

• NOBODY knows where the hell the tariff impact is going - it's guesswork at this point
  (One thing we do know is that a tariff war is never a good idea, yet here we are.)

RV knows.  He has told us many times.  

 

buy the dip

Edited Saturday at 01:24 PM by ionel

[Caveira]

38 minutes ago, ionel said:

RV knows.  He has told us many times.  

 

buy the dip

Damn you.  I was gonna make this joke!   Nice one.  

[GreatWhiteNorth]

17 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Just curious is it the rich people that will benefit from no taxes on tips and OT or is it the people on the Left side of the useless graph Plow Guy used??? 

That depends on which elections are coming up and how the change will be marketed to all these voters who get tips.

[scourge165]

22 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Because like I said earlier, I can guarantee you if they let the 2017 cuts expire then the MSM would frame it as “Trump raising taxes on the majority of Americans!”

Which honestly I’d agree with.  I don’t agree that extending something that’s already in place is really a “cut.”  And the 2017 cuts did hugely benefit the middle class in terms of their taxes paid.

It's kinda weird how tax cuts were made temporary for some, but permanent for others. 

I've had wide swings in my taxes the last 5 years. I paid 197 Federal and 24 state. 
Other years it's been 15-20K and this next year, it'll probably be higher. 

I don't care that my taxes could go up. 

I've been lucky...to be born in America, to get a head start, to have people believe in me and support me when I decided to give it a go on my own and it's generally worked out pretty well. Better than I could have dreamed of. 

 

Now, lets say in 20 years I want to pass this down to my Son, Daughter. Lets say I'm successful enough to do so.

 

What... the hell will the United States look like in 20 years? Elon posted the Debt is 98% of our GDP. It's not. It's well over 100%

~30T GDP(and due to tariffs it's growing at a lower rate). 

-35+T in debt. 

This ADDS to the debt and it doesn't do it to bail the US out from the Housing crisis, banking, the auto industry...

Why can't we look at the 1940s and 1950s?

No tariffs, so GDP grew at nearly 4% per year. That helps.
Capped treasury yields. Can't do that now.

TAX INCREASES. 

 

We used to care about the collective good. We're seeing the United States bankrupting itself. What about leaving the world better for our kids?

Our TOTAL debt is 700% of the GDP(personal and Govt).

 

1 dollars then had the same purchasing power as 12.07 dollars today. 

400,000 dollars then is worth about 4.83M dollars today. 

We were at 110% of our GDP'

 

Quote

 

Marginal Tax Rates Under Eisenhower

• Top Marginal Rate

  • 92% for 1952 and early 1953 (income above ~$400,000) taxfoundation.org+15factandmyth.com+15zocalopublicsquare.org+15en.wikipedia.org+1tax-brackets.org+1

  • 91% from 1953 through 1963 (income above ~$400,000)

• Number of Brackets

  • According to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, there were 24 marginal tax brackets, ranging from 20% up to 91% inequality.org+11en.wikipedia.org+11en.wikipedia.org+11

---

Sample 1953 Tax Brackets (Single Filers)

Data from the 1954 tax code, covering income earned in 1953 and filed in 1954:

Taxable Income (1953)	Marginal Rate
Up to $2,000	20%
$2,000–4,000	22%
...	...
$150,000–200,000	90%
Over $200,000	91% taxfoundation.org+3tax-brackets.org+3en.wikipedia.org+3web.stanford.edu+1taxpolicycenter.org+1

(Note: brackets for married/joint or head-of-household filers begin to tax at similar rates on lower thresholds.)

---

Context & Reality

• These top rates applied only to income exceeding roughly $400,000 in the 1950s, which is equivalent to $3–4 million today en.wikipedia.org+15politifact.com+15tax-brackets.org+15taxfoundation.org+2forbes.com+2inequality.org+2.

• Effective tax rates for high earners averaged far lower—around 42–50% for the top 0.1–1% due to deductions, lower capital gains rates, and income sheltering factandmyth.com+3checkyourfact.com+3esjnews.com+3.

 

 

Since Dwight D Eisenhower, there has been ONE Democrat who has NOT cut the deficit.

Jimmy Carter who took over wage and price freezes.

LBJ, Eisenhowever, Clinton and Obama have ALL cut the deficit substantially. 

Among Republicans, Trump blew the deficit up(and he did so before Covid), Bush added 3T, Bush Sr added and he TRIED to address it and he was crushed for it. This is also at a time when he was going to lose to Gary Hart, but it turned out he was having an affair and that ended his candidacy... which would likely not happen now. 

 

But we have men and women who go and die fighting for each other in the name of this Nation(you can argue how much of that is actually in the interest of the Country or not...but that's what they sign up to do but we can't afford to pay a SLIGHTLY higher tax rate to ensure the future of the Republic.

 

The United States... will not be the world leader in 50 years at the rate their going and what happens if there is some economic disaster like Covid(another pandemic WILL happen) or the bond market crashes. Not just a day where the 20 year gets over 5.1, but if people no longer want to buy our debt...and we just keep printing, it's a MASSIVE problem. 

This isn't a what WILL happen, the election is over and I can admit who won(as opposed to some on the other side). 

 

But you talk about the party of fiscal responsibility and it's is just objectively the left. There's no quantifiable evidence to dispute this. 

[1032004]

3 hours ago, scourge165 said:

It's kinda weird how tax cuts were made temporary for some, but permanent for others. 

I've had wide swings in my taxes the last 5 years. I paid 197 Federal and 24 state. 
Other years it's been 15-20K and this next year, it'll probably be higher. 

I don't care that my taxes could go up. 

I've been lucky...to be born in America, to get a head start, to have people believe in me and support me when I decided to give it a go on my own and it's generally worked out pretty well. Better than I could have dreamed of. 

 

Now, lets say in 20 years I want to pass this down to my Son, Daughter. Lets say I'm successful enough to do so.

 

What... the hell will the United States look like in 20 years? Elon posted the Debt is 98% of our GDP. It's not. It's well over 100%

~30T GDP(and due to tariffs it's growing at a lower rate). 

-35+T in debt. 

This ADDS to the debt and it doesn't do it to bail the US out from the Housing crisis, banking, the auto industry...

Why can't we look at the 1940s and 1950s?

No tariffs, so GDP grew at nearly 4% per year. That helps.
Capped treasury yields. Can't do that now.

TAX INCREASES. 

 

We used to care about the collective good. We're seeing the United States bankrupting itself. What about leaving the world better for our kids?

Our TOTAL debt is 700% of the GDP(personal and Govt).

 

1 dollars then had the same purchasing power as 12.07 dollars today. 

400,000 dollars then is worth about 4.83M dollars today. 

We were at 110% of our GDP'

 

 

Since Dwight D Eisenhower, there has been ONE Democrat who has NOT cut the deficit.

Jimmy Carter who took over wage and price freezes.

LBJ, Eisenhowever, Clinton and Obama have ALL cut the deficit substantially. 

Among Republicans, Trump blew the deficit up(and he did so before Covid), Bush added 3T, Bush Sr added and he TRIED to address it and he was crushed for it. This is also at a time when he was going to lose to Gary Hart, but it turned out he was having an affair and that ended his candidacy... which would likely not happen now. 

 

But we have men and women who go and die fighting for each other in the name of this Nation(you can argue how much of that is actually in the interest of the Country or not...but that's what they sign up to do but we can't afford to pay a SLIGHTLY higher tax rate to ensure the future of the Republic.

 

The United States... will not be the world leader in 50 years at the rate their going and what happens if there is some economic disaster like Covid(another pandemic WILL happen) or the bond market crashes. Not just a day where the 20 year gets over 5.1, but if people no longer want to buy our debt...and we just keep printing, it's a MASSIVE problem. 

This isn't a what WILL happen, the election is over and I can admit who won(as opposed to some on the other side). 

 

But you talk about the party of fiscal responsibility and it's is just objectively the left. There's no quantifiable evidence to dispute this. 

Yeah I think you can make an argument that we “should” increase taxes.  But that’s what letting the 2017 cuts will be seen as to the people that pay them…an increase

[scourge165]

11 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Yeah I think you can make an argument that we “should” increase taxes.  But that’s what letting the 2017 cuts will be seen as to the people that pay them…an increase

Ok. 

I don't think a marginally higher tax rate will matter as much to people when our debt is 2X then 3X our GDP. 

Also, who's tax cuts are expiring? I seem to remember some were made permanent and some...were temporary...

[JimmySpeaks]

18 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

That depends on which elections are coming up and how the change will be marketed to all these voters who get tips.

And overtime.  And there’s ALOT OF THEM. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

6 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

And overtime.  And there’s ALOT OF THEM. 

My point exactly, this will cost the government money and will increase the debt.

But it will buy the R's a lot of votes. (If that's the sort of thing you want your government doing.)

Edited Monday at 06:43 AM by GreatWhiteNorth

[GreatWhiteNorth]

18 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Yeah I think you can make an argument that we “should” increase taxes.  But that’s what letting the 2017 cuts will be seen as to the people that pay them…an increase

Let's be honest. The rich pay people to handle their finances and taxes. Those people will explain it and the rich - although not necessarily smart - will have someone to clarify it for them so they get it.

So, who are we worried about that will perceive the end of the 2017 cuts as being a problem?

 

[1032004]

11 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Ok. 

I don't think a marginally higher tax rate will matter as much to people when our debt is 2X then 3X our GDP. 

Also, who's tax cuts are expiring? I seem to remember some were made permanent and some...were temporary...

Call me crazy, but I think most people care more about how much money they take home than the national debt.

As far as I can tell only the lower corporate tax rate was made permanent, looks like most (maybe all) of the individual cuts were set to expire, including:

-lower tax rates across the board (except maintaining the same rate for the lowest and second highest brackets)

-doubling the standard deduction

-doubling the child tax credit

 

4 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Let's be honest. The rich pay people to handle their finances and taxes. Those people will explain it and the rich - although not necessarily smart - will have someone to clarify it for them so they get it.

So, who are we worried about that will perceive the end of the 2017 cuts as being a problem?

 

They may “get it,” but they won’t like it if it means less money in their pocket.

[scourge165]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Call me crazy, but I think most people care more about how much money they take home than the national debt.

Did you miss the part where I said WHEN THE DEBT IS 2X to 3X the GDP?

Also, what is do different about this Country NOW vs under Eisenhower when people paid the higher tax rate because people KNEW we HAD to(and we STILL had massive wage growth and an economic boon)?

 

What do you think becomes of the US at that point? 

This is quite literally a matter of National Security. I don't WANT to pay another 10K in taxes, but if it were to help the United States eliminate the deficit and THEN start to work to pay down the debt...I would absolutely do that...because there's really no sense in leave your children 10M dollars when that FIAT currently is destined to fail given the path we're on. 

This used to be something the Republicans PRETENDED to care about(though only the Democrats did something about). 

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

As far as I can tell only the lower corporate tax rate was made permanent, looks like most (maybe all) of the individual cuts were set to expire, including:

The cut to the Estate Tax was made permanent as well as the amount of money you could gift tax free were also made permanent. Taxes that overwhelmingly favor the rich. 

Oh, and the 529 tax break for K through 12 was made permanent. AGAIN, another that is something the rich OVERWHELMINGLY us vs everyone else. People invest money in a 529 so they can save for their child's College education. The wealthy put money in it so they can pay for 20,000 dollar a year private school. 

Things like the child tax credit and individual tax rates were not made permanent. 

 

This OVERWHELMINGLY favored the top .1%, 1% and top 5%. 

 

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

-lower tax rates across the board (except maintaining the same rate for the lowest and second highest brackets)

-doubling the standard deduction

-doubling the child tax credit

Right, and they sunset those, but they made the corporate tax rate(which was already a joke.

Mind you the effective corporate tax rate prior to the 2017 cuts was 9%. So an already lower tax rate than any employee at a company that makes tens of billions a year. 

That's permanent. 

 

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

They may “get it,” but they won’t like it if it means less money in their pocket.

Again...this isn't political beyond NOT wanting to see the United States go the way of the Soviet Union and spend itself into the ground. 

There will be no Nation that will step up and help us out as we did then. 

 

Taxes suck. 

For the first time ever I actually bought a few BTC this year. 

 

Average lifespan of a Fiat currency 40 years. Do the math. Look how long it's been since we were taking off the Gold Standard(thereby making the dollar a Fiat currency). 

 

You also have to realize that when even corporations are largely in favor of repealing the permanent tax cuts from 2017 because they see the downgraded credit from Moody's and the ticking time bomb that is the bond market, they realize paying that 9% in taxes vs 6%...is worth it. 

 

Now if corporations payed ANYWHERE NEAR 21%...hell, even if they actually paid 15%, this would largely eliminate he problems we have with the deficit. 

 

Listen to what Buffett is saying here?

Edit-forgot to link the video;

 

Edited Monday at 12:30 PM by scourge165

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Did you miss the part where I said WHEN THE DEBT IS 2X to 3X the GDP?

Also, what is do different about this Country NOW vs under Eisenhower when people paid the higher tax rate because people KNEW we HAD to(and we STILL had massive wage growth and an economic boon)?

 

What do you think becomes of the US at that point? 

This is quite literally a matter of National Security. I don't WANT to pay another 10K in taxes, but if it were to help the United States eliminate the deficit and THEN start to work to pay down the debt...I would absolutely do that...because there's really no sense in leave your children 10M dollars when that FIAT currently is destined to fail given the path we're on. 

This used to be something the Republicans PRETENDED to care about(though only the Democrats did something about). 

The cut to the Estate Tax was made permanent as well as the amount of money you could gift tax free were also made permanent. Taxes that overwhelmingly favor the rich. 

Oh, and the 529 tax break for K through 12 was made permanent. AGAIN, another that is something the rich OVERWHELMINGLY us vs everyone else. People invest money in a 529 so they can save for their child's College education. The wealthy put money in it so they can pay for 20,000 dollar a year private school. 

Things like the child tax credit and individual tax rates were not made permanent. 

 

This OVERWHELMINGLY favored the top .1%, 1% and top 5%. 

 

Right, and they sunset those, but they made the corporate tax rate(which was already a joke.

Mind you the effective corporate tax rate prior to the 2017 cuts was 9%. So an already lower tax rate than any employee at a company that makes tens of billions a year. 

That's permanent. 

 

Again...this isn't political beyond NOT wanting to see the United States go the way of the Soviet Union and spend itself into the ground. 

There will be no Nation that will step up and help us out as we did then. 

 

Taxes suck. 

For the first time ever I actually bought a few BTC this year. 

 

Average lifespan of a Fiat currency 40 years. Do the math. Look how long it's been since we were taking off the Gold Standard(thereby making the dollar a Fiat currency). 

 

You also have to realize that when even corporations are largely in favor of repealing the permanent tax cuts from 2017 because they see the downgraded credit from Moody's and the ticking time bomb that is the bond market, they realize paying that 9% in taxes vs 6%...is worth it. 

 

Now if corporations payed ANYWHERE NEAR 21%...hell, even if they actually paid 15%, this would largely eliminate he problems we have with the deficit. 

 

Listen to what Buffett is saying here?

Edit-forgot to link the video;

 

The top 10% of the wealthy people already pay ~90% of federal taxes.   What % of federal taxes should they pay to be “fair”?

[JimmySpeaks]

6 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

My point exactly, this will cost the government money and will increase the debt.

But it will buy the R's a lot of votes. (If that's the sort of thing you want your government doing.)

All people on the left side of your graph. You know the little people.