Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Wait ...I thought taxes went up....refund shortages and such .

---

They went up for us in the middle.

---

What family income range do you define as the middle ?

---

I've not thought about it. From what I can see, families between 70K and 500K are seeing an increase ESPECIALLY property owners who saw their mortgage deduction capped.

I'm not one of those who got the money in the form of increased pay last year and am shocked to see a smaller refund.

---

Well now that you've had a little time to think about it....

what is your definition of the middle class ?

Mine is a family income of $ 135,000 to $ 250,000

---

According to the linked data source, median (the true middle) household income was $61,000 in 2017. The range for household income in the25%-75% percentiles was $29,000-$105,000. You included $250,000 at the upper end of middle class. That number puts a household well into the top5% of all US household by income.

I understand what you are saying but statistically you are way off.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Wait ...I thought taxes went up....refund shortages and such .

---

They went up for us in the middle.

---

What family income range do you define as the middle ?

---

I've not thought about it. From what I can see, families between 70K and 500K are seeing an increase ESPECIALLY property owners who saw their mortgage deduction capped.

I'm not one of those who got the money in the form of increased pay last year and am shocked to see a smaller refund.

---

Well now that you've had a little time to think about it....

what is your definition of the middle class ?

Mine is a family income of $ 135,000 to $ 250,000

---

According to the linked data source, median (the true middle) household income was $61,000 in 2017. The range for household income in the25%-75% percentiles was $29,000-$105,000. You included $250,000 at the upper end of middle class. That number puts a household well into the top5% of all US household by income.

I understand what you are saying but statistically you are way off.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

---

What is your idea of a good tax plan?

Will it include me having less of my own money?

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Wait ...I thought taxes went up....refund shortages and such .

---

They went up for us in the middle.

---

What family income range do you define as the middle ?

---

I've not thought about it. From what I can see, families between 70K and 500K are seeing an increase ESPECIALLY property owners who saw their mortgage deduction capped.

I'm not one of those who got the money in the form of increased pay last year and am shocked to see a smaller refund.

---

Well now that you've had a little time to think about it....

what is your definition of the middle class ?

Mine is a family income of $ 135,000 to $ 250,000

---

According to the linked data source, median (the true middle) household income was $61,000 in 2017. The range for household income in the25%-75% percentiles was $29,000-$105,000. You included $250,000 at the upper end of middle class. That number puts a household well into the top5% of all US household by income.

I understand what you are saying but statistically you are way off.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

---

Yeah I was going to say there aren't very many people out there making over $150K right now

And $61K is totally impossible to try to live and raise a family on

ValhallaBear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Wait ...I thought taxes went up....refund shortages and such .

---

They went up for us in the middle.

---

What family income range do you define as the middle ?

---

I've not thought about it. From what I can see, families between 70K and 500K are seeing an increase ESPECIALLY property owners who saw their mortgage deduction capped.

I'm not one of those who got the money in the form of increased pay last year and am shocked to see a smaller refund.

---

Well now that you've had a little time to think about it....

what is your definition of the middle class ?

Mine is a family income of $ 135,000 to $ 250,000

---

According to the linked data source, median (the true middle) household income was $61,000 in 2017. The range for household income in the25%-75% percentiles was $29,000-$105,000. You included $250,000 at the upper end of middle class. That number puts a household well into the top5% of all US household by income.

I understand what you are saying but statistically you are way off.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

---

Yeah I was going to say there aren't very many people out there making over $150K right now

And $61K is totally impossible to try to live and raise a family on

---

Family income .....2 incomes most of the time these days .

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

This man has it all figured out. Two years of a Republican president, senate and house should have made it doable.

---

Imagine if they weren't waisting all their time on fake Russia investigations what they could have got done. Liberal's planned worked to perfection, distract and divide the country and make it almost impossible for this administration to get their plan done. Amazing they've been able to do what they have w/ all this junk around them from liberals and the media.

I know. The measurements. Provided are for household income. Household means just that.

Canada2017 said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Wait ...I thought taxes went up....refund shortages and such .

---

They went up for us in the middle.

---

What family income range do you define as the middle ?

---

I've not thought about it. From what I can see, families between 70K and 500K are seeing an increase ESPECIALLY property owners who saw their mortgage deduction capped.

I'm not one of those who got the money in the form of increased pay last year and am shocked to see a smaller refund.

---

Well now that you've had a little time to think about it....

what is your definition of the middle class ?

Mine is a family income of $ 135,000 to $ 250,000

---

According to the linked data source, median (the true middle) household income was $61,000 in 2017. The range for household income in the25%-75% percentiles was $29,000-$105,000. You included $250,000 at the upper end of middle class. That number puts a household well into the top5% of all US household by income.

I understand what you are saying but statistically you are way off.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

---

Yeah I was going to say there aren't very many people out there making over $150K right now

And $61K is totally impossible to try to live and raise a family on

---

Family income .....2 incomes most of the time these days .

---

Then that's even worse. If 2 parents are having to work for $61K then that's damn near poverty line stuff

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

Way too many lawyers and accountants in this country for this to ever even make it to a vote. It is what it is.

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Wait ...I thought taxes went up....refund shortages and such .

---

They went up for us in the middle.

---

What family income range do you define as the middle ?

---

I've not thought about it. From what I can see, families between 70K and 500K are seeing an increase ESPECIALLY property owners who saw their mortgage deduction capped.

I'm not one of those who got the money in the form of increased pay last year and am shocked to see a smaller refund.

---

Well now that you've had a little time to think about it....

what is your definition of the middle class ?

Mine is a family income of $ 135,000 to $ 250,000

---

That's within reason. I'd take it higher in San Fran, NY, Chicago or LA.

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

ValhallaBear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Wait ...I thought taxes went up....refund shortages and such .

---

They went up for us in the middle.

---

What family income range do you define as the middle ?

---

I've not thought about it. From what I can see, families between 70K and 500K are seeing an increase ESPECIALLY property owners who saw their mortgage deduction capped.

I'm not one of those who got the money in the form of increased pay last year and am shocked to see a smaller refund.

---

Well now that you've had a little time to think about it....

what is your definition of the middle class ?

Mine is a family income of $ 135,000 to $ 250,000

---

According to the linked data source, median (the true middle) household income was $61,000 in 2017. The range for household income in the25%-75% percentiles was $29,000-$105,000. You included $250,000 at the upper end of middle class. That number puts a household well into the top5% of all US household by income.

I understand what you are saying but statistically you are way off.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

---

Yeah I was going to say there aren't very many people out there making over $150K right now

And $61K is totally impossible to try to live and raise a family on

---

Family income .....2 incomes most of the time these days .

---

Then that's even worse. If 2 parents are having to work for $61K then that's damn near poverty line stuff

---

No ...I meant 61 x 2

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

---

We have been solving difficult problems as a country for 250 years. We can solve this one.

But folks who rationalize their own greed by saying it is impossible to get where we need to be "so lets make sure I get mine and screw the future generations" make it harder.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

---

We have been solving difficult problems as a country for 250 years. We can solve this one.

But folks who rationalize their own greed by saying it is impossible to get where we need to be "so lets make sure I get mine and screw the future generations" make it harder.

---

Yeah I don't see congress, whips, leaders and such who are bought and paid for actually making policy to make themselves less powerful and less rich.

Not realistic whatsoever. Are you really this optimistic and trustworthy?

This country has also created SEVERAL problems on it's own.

ValhallaBear said:

---

Globalization and consolidation made any semblance of a reasonable economy impossible

---

Globalization is just an alt-right PC word for trade and capitalism. I'm for both.

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Globalization and consolidation made any semblance of a reasonable economy impossible

---

Globalization is just an alt-right PC word for trade and capitalism. I'm for both.

---

Its globalism and it means centralizing government power and growing globally with the help of supranational entities.

Do you want the US to eventually join a union like Europe did where our laws are superseded by unelected bureaucrats?

riflebear said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

This man has it all figured out. Two years of a Republican president, senate and house should have made it doable.

---

Imagine if they weren't waisting all their time on fake Russia investigations what they could have got done. Liberal's planned worked to perfection, distract and divide the country and make it almost impossible for this administration to get their plan done. Amazing they've been able to do what they have w/ all this junk around them from liberals and the media.

---

So the libs are the reason Trump has not lived up to his promises? How can a bunch of gay transgendered aborting idiots with no brain and as dumb as dirt organize well enough to prevent a president that has the support of both the house and the senate from balancing the budget? I think the last president to have a surplus was B Clinton with a repub house and senate. I dont think Trump has tried very hard.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Globalization and consolidation made any semblance of a reasonable economy impossible

---

Globalization is just an alt-right PC word for trade and capitalism. I'm for both.

---

Its globalism and it means centralizing government power and growing globally with the help of supranational entities.

Do you want the US to eventually join a union like Europe did where our laws are superseded by unelected bureaucrats?

---

He doesn't care...he thinks there shouldn't be borders

And that you can protect your private property with a Black Hawk helicopter

It's why everybody pats the libertarian candidates on the head, gives them an all day sucker, and tells them to keep studying Rothbard

Nobody takes them seriously except each other

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

:You can balance the budget on a flat tax. You just have to cut spending also.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

ValhallaBear said:

---

Globalization and consolidation made any semblance of a reasonable economy impossible

---

Globalization is just an alt-right PC word for trade and capitalism. I'm for both.

---

Its globalism and it means centralizing government power and growing globally with the help of supranational entities.

Do you want the US to eventually join a union like Europe did where our laws are superseded by unelected bureaucrats?

---

No. And between the two of us you are the one who advocates for more state power.

Almost every country that puts excessive taxes on their wealthy citizens ...eventually sees a significant number of those citizens emigrate elsewhere .

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

---

We have been solving difficult problems as a country for 250 years. We can solve this one.

But folks who rationalize their own greed by saying it is impossible to get where we need to be "so lets make sure I get mine and screw the future generations" make it harder.

---

I'm not sure this is difficult. Used to be, we were compassionate towards the less fortunate. CEOs never took home $40M with employees making $7.50/hour.

We have changed.

Canada2017 said:

---

Almost every country that puts excessive taxes on their wealthy citizens ...eventually sees a significant number of those citizens emigrate elsewhere .

---

Some see any tax as excessive.

tommie said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

---

We have been solving difficult problems as a country for 250 years. We can solve this one.

But folks who rationalize their own greed by saying it is impossible to get where we need to be "so lets make sure I get mine and screw the future generations" make it harder.

---

I'm not sure this is difficult. Used to be, we were compassionate towards the less fortunate. CEOs never took home $40M with employees making $7.50/hour.

We have changed.

---

We also used to have slavery and child labor. We have changed.

Jack and DP said:

---

tommie said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

---

We have been solving difficult problems as a country for 250 years. We can solve this one.

But folks who rationalize their own greed by saying it is impossible to get where we need to be "so lets make sure I get mine and screw the future generations" make it harder.

---

I'm not sure this is difficult. Used to be, we were compassionate towards the less fortunate. CEOs never took home $40M with employees making $7.50/hour.

We have changed.

---

We also used to have slavery and child labor. We have changed.

---

We no longer have child labor? ***** I'm in trouble.

tommie said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

---

We have been solving difficult problems as a country for 250 years. We can solve this one.

But folks who rationalize their own greed by saying it is impossible to get where we need to be "so lets make sure I get mine and screw the future generations" make it harder.

---

I'm not sure this is difficult. Used to be, we were compassionate towards the less fortunate. CEOs never took home $40M with employees making $7.50/hour.

We have changed.

---

Globalism

tommie said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

---

We have been solving difficult problems as a country for 250 years. We can solve this one.

But folks who rationalize their own greed by saying it is impossible to get where we need to be "so lets make sure I get mine and screw the future generations" make it harder.

---

I'm not sure this is difficult. Used to be, we were compassionate towards the less fortunate. CEOs never took home $40M with employees making $7.50/hour.

We have changed.

---

Corporate management have parlayed themselves, through control of proxies, into a privileged equity ownership class at the expense of the owner/shareholders. That is what has changed.

TexasScientist said:

---

tommie said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Flat tax for everyone on earned income, with no deductions, is the only fair tax rate.

---

While I am for a simplified code, we can't raise nearly enough revenue with a flat tax that would not wipe out the middle class. Income tax rates have to be progressive to balance our budget. It would have to look something like this:


20% of the first $100K

30% of $100,001-$500,000

40% of $500,001+

Regardless of the character of income. Also stop giving depreciation expense to appreciating assets.

You make $50,000,000 managing a hedge fund, you pay $19,940,000 to the federal government; no ifs, ands or buts.

---

Congress will just spend more money if they are receiving more money.

It would be one thing if they all were adamant about fixing wasteful spending and balancing budgets...but we both know they won't.

At the end of the day this is just penalizing success.

These kinds of progressive taxes will also scare off investors and slow job growth..

Knowing all the prior, why on earth would you advocate for increasing taxes?

If we're on the road to massive debt regardless of the tax code, then why not advocate for keeping more of your own money before disaster strikes someday?

---

We have been solving difficult problems as a country for 250 years. We can solve this one.

But folks who rationalize their own greed by saying it is impossible to get where we need to be "so lets make sure I get mine and screw the future generations" make it harder.

---

I'm not sure this is difficult. Used to be, we were compassionate towards the less fortunate. CEOs never took home $40M with employees making $7.50/hour.

We have changed.

---

Corporate management have parlayed themselves, through control of proxies, into a privileged equity ownership class at the expense of the owner/shareholders. That is what has changed.

---

Well put....agreed .

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Almost every country that puts excessive taxes on their wealthy citizens ...eventually sees a significant number of those citizens emigrate elsewhere .

---

Some see any tax as excessive.

---

Doesn't alter the destructive reality of the wealthy leaving a country in droves .

No different as when corporations leave a state due to higher taxes .

Bottom line......

It sounds 'good' to soak the rich .....but often you actually take in less money as people bail out .

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Almost every country that puts excessive taxes on their wealthy citizens ...eventually sees a significant number of those citizens emigrate elsewhere .

---

Some see any tax as excessive.

---

Doesn't alter the destructive reality of the wealthy leaving a country in droves .

No different as when corporations leave a state due to higher taxes .

Bottom line......

It sounds 'good' to soak the rich .....but often you actually take in less money as people bail out .

---

This is the behavioral element that the left doesn't understand.

They think in equation format. Or static terms. "lets just change this one piece of the equation and it will work".

In reality if you change one piece of the equation, it's impossible, it's an entirely new equation.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Almost every country that puts excessive taxes on their wealthy citizens ...eventually sees a significant number of those citizens emigrate elsewhere .

---

Some see any tax as excessive.

---

Doesn't alter the destructive reality of the wealthy leaving a country in droves .

No different as when corporations leave a state due to higher taxes .

Bottom line......

It sounds 'good' to soak the rich .....but often you actually take in less money as people bail out .

---

This is the behavioral element that the left doesn't understand.

They think in equation format. Or static terms. "lets just change this one piece of the equation and it will work".

In reality if you change one piece of the equation, it's impossible, it's an entirely new equation.

---

Naturally

But the average American voter doesn't have the slightest understanding of economics or the impact of draconian taxes .

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Almost every country that puts excessive taxes on their wealthy citizens ...eventually sees a significant number of those citizens emigrate elsewhere .

---

Some see any tax as excessive.

---

Doesn't alter the destructive reality of the wealthy leaving a country in droves .

No different as when corporations leave a state due to higher taxes .

Bottom line......

It sounds 'good' to soak the rich .....but often you actually take in less money as people bail out .

---

This is the behavioral element that the left doesn't understand.

They think in equation format. Or static terms. "lets just change this one piece of the equation and it will work".

In reality if you change one piece of the equation, it's impossible, it's an entirely new equation.

---

Naturally

But the average American voter doesn't have the slightest understanding of economics or the impact of draconian taxes .

---

It is a lack of education, but more so that they've been subverted. They will not accept logic. You can prove to them that white is white and black is black and they will not believe you. You can show them how their way of thinking has led to 100 million deaths. You can show them how Marxism resulted in what Venezuela looks like today and they won't believe you.

They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.

Inequality is the fundamental rule of existence. Every system produces inequality.

The west has produced the only system in the world where wealth is produced alongside inequality...and they want to destroy it. And the only time where they will wake up is when they're taken out back and shot after the wolves and political elite are done using them.

tommie said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

The deficit will never be eliminated because congress won't control spending. You can't tax the public enough to pay it off. A majority of Congress really doesn't believe it's necessary to cut spending. They can continue to print money and sell Treasuries until no one will buy them. Congress doesn't foresee a scenario of no confidence in US debt. It's worked for about 50 years now - so why change - is what they think.

---

The most predictable crisis in history is coming at us

---

I can agree with this.

It's been happening for decades and at some point, the seeds will be sown.

Bubbles burst and so will this one eventually.

I wonder how long it has been since there was no deficit?

I wonder how long it has been since there was a surplus?

---

When a Republican was Speaker of the House and a Republican was Majority Leader

Fun aside, it is bipartisan

---

We just had a Republican speaker and majority leader and to boot, a Republican President. Are you saying these Republicans have lost their way?

A better way of looking at it was when Republicans were for something. These guys are just against everything.

---

Except spending apparently.

Bruin said:

---

tommie said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

The deficit will never be eliminated because congress won't control spending. You can't tax the public enough to pay it off. A majority of Congress really doesn't believe it's necessary to cut spending. They can continue to print money and sell Treasuries until no one will buy them. Congress doesn't foresee a scenario of no confidence in US debt. It's worked for about 50 years now - so why change - is what they think.

---

The most predictable crisis in history is coming at us

---

I can agree with this.

It's been happening for decades and at some point, the seeds will be sown.

Bubbles burst and so will this one eventually.

I wonder how long it has been since there was no deficit?

I wonder how long it has been since there was a surplus?

---

When a Republican was Speaker of the House and a Republican was Majority Leader

Fun aside, it is bipartisan

---

We just had a Republican speaker and majority leader and to boot, a Republican President. Are you saying these Republicans have lost their way?

A better way of looking at it was when Republicans were for something. These guys are just against everything.

---

Except spending apparently.

---

Well said