DutchJazzer
Banned
but in the end will economic prosperity outweigh those other "issues"?
Depends on the level of economic success and the level of failure or success of the other issues. There’s more to life than money. And I was already personally set before Trump.
DutchJazzer
Banned
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Ya mine went up about that amount as well. Of course my medical insurance went up by about 20 dollars per week and my mortgage went up by about 20 bucks so it’s actually a loss overall for me.
Wait until inflation kicks in from this and your grocery bill goes up by another $50 a month.
Mine went up $120.00 per pay period. Setting up an automatic donation to the DNC with the cash because that amount is essentially invisible to me. The bigger the pay hike, the less you needed it.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Repubs are following Keynes here.
Stimulate the economy via increased government spending and tax cuts when the country is at full employment then cut stimulus when recessions hit!
What could possibly go wrong with Stable Genius leading us with this infallible economic policy? /s
Stimulate the economy via increased government spending and tax cuts when the country is at full employment then cut stimulus when recessions hit!
What could possibly go wrong with Stable Genius leading us with this infallible economic policy? /s
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Paul Ryan thinks that many Americans are going to benefit from receiving $1.75 more per paycheck. They’ll be able to pay for their Costco memberships now!
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Of course the top earners will get more of a benefit. They make more money. 5% of $1,000,000 is more than 5% of $100k.
Which is exactly why the whole idea was a bad one.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Why? Because people can’t do basic math?
The amount of money the bottom tier of earners save in taxes should never equal what the top tier does. That doesn’t make any sense.
This is the reason we have percentages and not just total numbers.
This is not terribly socialistic of you...
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
It made sense in this environment. The top didnt need a tax cut, the bottom did, and the higher segments of the middle class were doing fine.
Different economy, different story.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
I find it interesting that anyone can claim that a specific socioeconomic group needs or doesn't need a tax cut. Also, what determines that a group is "doing just fine". This is all completely subjective. Compared to most countries in the world, everyone in the US is "doing just fine." Most of the people you claim "need" a tax cut are still walking around with smart phones in their pockets. Also, let's all contemplate that nearly half of Americans don't pay any federal income tax anyways! When we talk about tax cuts for the poor, it's not really a tax cut, because they are not paying federal taxes. It's social welfare. They very well may benefit from the change, but calling it a tax cut is implying that the heavy tax burden on them is detrimental to their quality of life, which can't be the case if they are not actually paying taxes towards funding the federal government's programs.
I've become increasingly frustrated in recent years at our governments inability to stop adding to the National Debt. Part of this is the fact that I have two young children. We are kicking the can down the road year after year, and leaving our children and grandchildren a giant inheritance of debt that we and the generations before us are responsible for. I don't care which approach we take, shrinking government or raising taxes, but we absolutely have to address this problem. Despite the fact that all the politicians talk about the Nation Debt, and admit it is a major a problem, no one does anything about it. Democrat or Republican.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
It is my subjective opinion and there is a lot more that forms it than a talking point of poor not paying taxes (which they shouldnt).
I have no problems with a targeted tax code that is designed to smooth wealth a bit. I don't see how any free person would be, especially an American.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with a progressive tax system either. This approach to smoothing wealth, assisting the less fortunate, and preventing major civil unrest, is probably more effective than other options. The percentage of people that should not have to pay federal taxes is certainly an interesting discussion point. In my gut, nearly 50% seems too high.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Actually the bottom nearly 30% do not pay any federal taxes at all, for them it is increasing their tax credits so they get more money back at tax time - like the earned income credit (like my son, single father with one kid, low-end job, gets $4k back as his tax return, of course pays 0 taxes). The top <1% pays the lion's share of total tax dollars collected. The people who "should" benefit most from a tax break are the middle and upper-middle class. That is generally the most disproportionate group of taxes collected as % of earnings.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
I don't know the answers to that time old balancing act. It's difficult to say either way when we live in such prosperity as you said, and, I think we definitely reward failure and bad decisions these days. We also reward vast wealth too much, punish middle wealth, and punish those struggling to get by, while also promising social welfare security to those who don't need it, on the backs of our children.
I think the biggest issue is the wealth-poor divide rather than worrying about tackling moral hazard. But like you say, that's my subjective opinion.
The problem with any fix is everyone wants their slice of the pie, so hello more public debt.