Explain This Bill Talk

[1032004]

37 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

True. That is exactly what they did to Obama when he let his own tax cuts expire. 

My understanding is one of the bigger “new” aspects that benefits the upper class is trying to raise the maximum SALT (state and local taxes) deduction from $10k to $40k.  Although apparently the Senate may try to change it:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blue-state-republicans-threaten-rebellion-senate-changes-key-provision-trumps-big-beautiful-bill

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Exactly.

So which has a bigger impact?

2% on $10 million

or 

4% on 100k

4% is a bigger cut than 2%.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

4% is a bigger cut than 2%.

Which has a greater impact in the actual world?

[ionel]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

Which has a greater impact in the actual world?

Depends on income elasticity.

[uncle bernard]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

Depends on income elasticity.

You're a genius.

[Offthemat]

There’s a whole lot more people making $100k than $10m, especially as taxable income. 

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

There’s a whole lot more people making $100k than $10m, especially as taxable income. 

And yet the vast majority of money saved is by the top 1%. Don't think you guys understand how much a billion dollars is.

[Offthemat]

Our legislators need to start budgeting for the best situation we can afford instead of the best situation they can dream up. 

[uncle bernard]

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Our legislators need to start budgeting for the best situation we can afford instead of the best situation they can dream up. 

What you think we can afford and what we can actually afford are far different. Debt is not always bad.

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Debt is not always bad.

Yet we have about 37 trillion that is.  I don’t think you understand how much a trillion dollars is. 

Edited June 5 by Offthemat

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Yet we have about 37 trillion that is.  I don’t think you understand how much a trillion dollars is. 

Can you explain why that 37 trillion is bad?

[Offthemat]

You can’t?  Because we can’t pay it off.  Good debt is that which you can use to build enough wealth to pay off the debt and have more wealth than you started with.  The interest rates are not all that high, historically.  Yet the interest on our debt is higher than our defense spending, and headed towards being our biggest expense.  And the only thing we have to show for it is a devalued dollar. 

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

And yet the vast majority of money saved is by the top 1%. Don't think you guys understand how much a billion dollars is.

The top 10% of earners pay approx 90% of all federal taxes.  How much more should they pay to make it their “fair share”.     
 

maybe Bernie stopped saying millionaires should pay their fair share when he became a multi millionaire.   The rich pay tons of taxes.  

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

The top 10% of earners pay approx 90% of all federal taxes.  How much more should they pay to make it their “fair share”.     
 

If they aren't paying at least 150% of the taxes it just ain't fair. 

[red viking]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

If they aren't paying at least 150% of the taxes it just ain't fair. 

At a minimum they could keep it the same. NOBODY needs a tax cut with the deficits were running. 

[Caveira]

10 minutes ago, red viking said:

At a minimum they could keep it the same. NOBODY needs a tax cut with the deficits were running. 

You didn’t answer the ?    If 90% of federal income is paid for by the wealthiest 10%.  What’s a fair % they should pay.   

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

You didn’t answer the ?    If 90% of federal income is paid for by the wealthiest 10%.  What’s a fair % they should pay.   

I think that's fine. They're the ones that can afford it. Taxing poor people hurts spending more, and the rich got that way on the backs of poorer people. 

[Caveira]

Just now, red viking said:

I think that's fine. They're the ones that can afford it. Taxing poor people hurts spending more, and the rich got that way on the backs of poorer people. 

So stop calling to raise taxes on the rich.  They already basically pay for everything.  

[ionel]

15 minutes ago, red viking said:

At a minimum they could keep it the same. NOBODY needs a tax cut with the deficits were running. 

Wouldn't it be better to increase tax revenue?

Why don't we put a 100% tax on all the nasty millionaires & billionaires?  That'd solve the problem don't ya think?  

[Scouts Honor]

 

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Caveira said:

The top 10% of earners pay approx 90% of all federal taxes.  How much more should they pay to make it their “fair share”.     
 

maybe Bernie stopped saying millionaires should pay their fair share when he became a multi millionaire.   The rich pay tons of taxes.  

Personally, I'd like to go back to our old tax system when the middle class thrived and something like every dollar over $3 million was taxed at 90%. And if they did, it would have a far lesser effect on them than the current taxes have on middle class people. The 1% in this country have more money than they could possibly spend in 100 lifetimes. It's grotesque.

The whole point of social prosperity is to take care of people, not to see who can hoard the biggest pile for themselves. We are herd animals. We are supposed to take care of the weak.