I didn't say anything about "throwing the nation into the depths of despair". It's hard to have a conversation with so much drama on your part. I don't have a problem with increasing the top income rate 2%. I don't have a problem with that increase for everyone and not just for the top bracket. I do have a problem with increasing the top long term capital gains rate from 20% to 40%. I also have a problem eliminating the step-up basis for inheritance or with increasing drastically inheritance taxes or with eliminated 1031 exchanges (even though it wouldn't effect me). In general I have a problem with trying to increase taxes only on one segment of the population, for several reasons. One, it's not fair. Two, it doesn't work. If you need to raise taxes, do it gradually and on most people. Also focus on reducing the debt while you are increasing taxes. It's never a good idea to quickly increase the tax rate by a large amount. You can do it most easily with ordinary income (still not a good idea) but to do if with capital gains and inheritance, that's just bad policy. People plan for years in advance when they make those decisions. It's not good to just change them all of a sudden. I'd like to see the Democrats stay in control, especially considering the state of the Republican Party. They aren't going to be able to do that however if they greatly increase anyone's taxes. They also aren't going to stay in power if they start spending like there is no tomorrow (as the saying goes). In the middle of the Covid situation it was a good thing to stimulate the economy so that things didn't get out of control. A lot of money was spent. Now that should be tapering off, taxes raised slightly and moderation should be the coarse of action. Not increasing the spending to the levels of FDR. It's one thing to deal with a depression and WWII. It's another to do it just to do it. I don't see any Republicans I'd like to see in office so I'm wishing for the best with Biden and for all Democrats. There has to be some control however or even moderate Democrats will not be supportive at some point. He is in the honeymoon phase now. There is nothing that will make voters turn faster on a politician than raising taxes on someone by a large amount. The talk is meant to make it look like you have to be in the 1% before this will effect you at all. That's not the case at all. Anyone living in a large city and selling a house, or a small business, or some farm land or approaching retirement and selling all their stocks for their retirement...all of those things could make you face a doubling of the taxes that you were expecting. You spend a lifetime investing and then all of a sudden your taxes are doubled? That's not going to go over well. The devil will be in the details of course. Eliminating the 1031 exchanges will effect anyone in real estate, not just the top 1%. It will change how most small to mid-size real estate investors operate (or don't operate). The inheritance changes (to be determined) will effect most everyone with anything to leave to their children as well the elimination of the step-up basis. The only people it will not effect are those with nothing. That's a far cry from only effecting the top 1%. As a matter of fact, most any change that would be passed that is said to only effect the top 1% wouldn't really have much effect on the top 1%. The top 1% are the most able and capable of making the changes so that they aren't effected. That may sound good to some voters but it isn't the way that things work. It's also not a good policy in the first place. It's too easy for a voter to support a policy that effects someone else but not them. It's just not good policy. It's also not good policy to misinform people that you know aren't well versed in business and economics. It's easy to get them worked up. That's the problem with populism, whether it's done by the Republicans or the Democrats.
But that's where you are wrong. 1) It is fair. People making lots of money on natural resources ought to pay their fair share of the wealth generated by national resources. 2) It worked has always worked in stimulating the general economy Go back in history and see when the greatest advances were made in the general economic stimulation. 3) people who build the infrastructure that aids in efficiency of transportation of goods and services are of benefit to all, from poor to rich. These people should share in the resulting benefits, instead of only the rich. Proportional distribution of wealth is not detrimental to anyone. On the contrary, it is beneficial to all. One thing is clear, the rich will not invest their money unless it yields a profit. Only not-for-profit endeavors will facilitate investment of the common good. Not making a profit for the "common good" is not a bad thing thing. It is a good thing!
Where have you been, I have already addressed that issue. Clinton ended up with a hefty revenue surplus, which he was going to apply to the national debt, with the plan that the interest savings would pay for a lot of useful programs. Busch took all that money and used it as a tax cut, of course benefiting the rich, but not reducing the national debt. That money could have been used for infrastructure and saved us many billions of dollars on what it is going to cost today. And of course that brings the fictitious need for lower labor wages. You see how that works? The rich must always show a profit to the stockholders. The working poor must always compromise by accepting relatively stagnating wages. Capitalism is for people who have capital that will work for them. Existence is for people who must perform labor and earn their wages from blood, sweat, and tears.
I don't think we are getting anywhere here. Clinton lowered capital gains taxes, didn't reduce the debt, did have a couple of years of surplus (as I recall). Reducing taxes on the rich is just letting people keep more of their own money. That has nothing to do with "workers" wages and you seem to have a thing with "profit". That's how our system works. That's the "invisible hand" that results in efficient allocation of resources without anyone having to do it by "central planning". You seem to want to argue that when the government does it, it's cheaper because the government doesn't have to make a profit. That doesn't mean they are efficient. They are not. They also don't do most of the work and the companies they give contracts to do the work do make profits. The most wasteful and inefficient area of our economy is probably the military. Their budget is now over 700 billion/year. All you seem to focus on or care about is how much a "worker" is making and however much it is, you want it to be more. You want a "worker" to also receive profits without taking any of the risks. I think "we" have discussed this extensively in another thread. If you don't like capitalism, fine. That's our system and it's not going to change. In any system where capitalism isn't involved the "workers" (and everyone else) are much worse off. You don't announce what a workers wage is. The market determines that. If you want more pay, you can't just do the same job and expect more pay. It's easy enough to get more training and then you will get more pay. Plumbers, electricians, construction workers, etc. all make good money. Someone who runs a cash register all day in a grocery store doesn't make as much money. The profit margin on groceries (for example) is razor thin. You can't just dictate that they make more money. It's not there. You also call anyone who is not "poor" "rich". A doctor may be rich but he doesn't have to show a profit to "shareholders". He/she is just paid a high wage. Everyone has to show a profit directly or indirectly in anything other than a government job however. If everyone worked for the government, we wouldn't all be better off because the growth in the economy doesn't come from the government. In Socialism everyone works for the government and workers aren't so happy there either. As I recall, you seem to be fixated on "profit" in the same way that Dennis Tate is fixated on "interest".
He didn't reduce the debt because he had served his 8 years and left the surplus to Bush who used as a Tax refund. Efficient allocation of resources? Where, in someones bank account? Don't be naive. Yes, but the lowest qualified bidder gets the contract. Moreover, if some of those profits do not go to higher wages which places more money into the economy, instead of some off-shore mail box tax-exempt account. Right, and the Republican congress keeps building tanks and planes the military doesn't need and hasn't asked for, because the people in their states need that extra work because they cannot live on the prevailing wages paid by private business. Where did you get that idea from? No I want the worker to get fair pay for his loyal labors which allows the company to take some risks. Good pay promotes worker skills, loyalty, stability, low turn over, minimizing the risks of failure in a thriving market. Ford did alright with raising his workers salaries so that they could buy the cars they built. Yes, and my arguments where proven valid. Who said I don't like Capitalism? I didn't. I said I don't like unrestricted and unregulated Capitalism, and that is a whole different game. During that Texas cold spell, you think that charging a household $3000 for 2 weeks worth of electricity is ok? Hey it's a Capitalist system. If you don't like it, get yourself a generator, right? Yes, but market also determines the minimum living wage and it seems reasonable that if a job is worth doing, it ought to be worth a living wage. Else we are back to slavery. No it's not razor thin. A 2% profit margin on a billion dollars is not razor thin. No, I don't. You are again projecting something I have never said. Note that Biden's plan does not affect anyone that makes less than 400,000 p/yr. I believe that is a very generous margin. Right, when someone goes in debt after 6 -8 of college and internship, and having to pay for a couple of million dollars worth of liability insurance they are entitled to a generous wage. That is not Profit. Right, but economic growth does not come from available supply of unnecessary goods when there is no ability to pay, but from demand of necessary goods and ability to pay. First that is misleading. If everyone works for the government, that's Communism, not Socialism. I am arguing for a well regulated balance between socio-economic expansion. That is where the government's duties lie. A well regulated economy which allows for a certain minimum living standard. No I am not, I am opposed to unregulated profit, just as I am opposed to ownership and public carrying of unregulated assault weapons. No one needs a trillion dollars, just as no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon to go hunting. The excuse of needing a military weapon for self-defense is an indication of the predatory society this nation has become. And that is what greed produces at the top, and crime at the bottom. It has been proven that a well fed population has a low crime incidence and usually leaves a legacy of a "golden age" in arts, architecture and science.
Yes, it is razor thin. It means nothing to say that it's still a lot of money in absolute terms without considering how many shares are outstanding. The people who own the company (the hundreds of thousands of shareholders) all have to split that. Regarding a mailbox off shore account, that's not where money goes that doesn't go to workers. That's sort of a cartoonish view of how things work. Correct me if I'm wrong but the minimum wage is your primary concern for some reason. Not many people make a career out of minimum wage jobs and there is no real concept of a "living wage" as it depends on the person and location. You seem to imply that if a business can't pay a certain minimum wage it shouldn't exit. How does that help anyone? It just shrinks the economy. It means that those with the least experience/skills just don't have an option to get a job at all. This isn't really a real world problem. What you really mean is that those further up the economy ladder but still in the lower parts, should make more. Raising the minimum wage doesn't nothing for them so then you must mean that non-market dictated wages should extend higher up the ladder. Is that right? You want more unions. That isn't going to happen. Let's look at it another way. Do you consider that you did OK under the system as it is? Do you consider that you should have made more or is this just some general feeling that there would be no poverty if only the minimum wage was higher? The minimum wage is 7.25 in some areas and 15 in other areas and yet all areas still have some degree of poverty. Speaking of poverty, is poverty in the U.S. significant by world wide standards? It's a complex system. When you make one change there are other unintended consequences.
Well, we can begin with instituting a "single payer" healthcare administrative system. To me making a profit on people's health is macabre. Almost all modern countries, except the US have universal health care at a cheaper price without any degradation of services. All the horror stories of the evils of universal health care, are just lies to maintain the status quo. When one asks the people who live in countries with universal health care they all profess satisfaction with the services they have ever received. This due to cutting out the for-profit insurance companies who must make a profit for all their stockholders. At least, when a person get sick he/she doesn't lose their home to pay for the medical bill. And unlike ownership in large corporations, everyone gets old and sick. Social Security and Medicare have been two of the few great success stories in US history. It is the borrowing from these funds to give Tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and replacing that shortage with worthless IOUs, is what caused the current expected shortfall in these funds. Owners of the World’s Listed Companies https://www.oecd.org/corporate/Owners-of-the-Worlds-Listed-Companies.pdf
I agree regarding Universal Healthcare. That doesn't have that much to do with what we were talking about, but I agree for what that's worth.
are they real horror storys ? or do they rely on ignorant brain washed parrots screaming "socialist" to change the subject before anyone asks the obvious question of showing real examples. private health care politician activists agents supporting private abortion clinics ? Medicare is a bit of a mixed bag because it is set up to be designed to game the system to ensure private health care prices are not undermined so while the service its self delivers results the system is internally designed to give private health care monopoly profit inflation scalping a free hand this is written in with co-pay regulations to then step up again, a massive jump in health care access scalping so effectively the system is set up to appear from the outside to provide an answer to avoid a socialist revolution while the internal system is set up to hand off as much power & free money to the private health care access scalpers as possible. health care price inflation solutions = cant! because capitalism advanced macro-economics & global financial systems(economics) its a tricky subject because most just want the cash they dont want a better system its a bit more convoluted and devious the primary extreme rich cant deliver a product that the working class can afford because they are naturally greedy and classicist so seek to install a system of cost for price that always undermines the customers ability to pay. so the working class customer must have access to put themselves in debt to afford the product but you have a double scam running quantitative easing to mortgage borrowing low interest and personal lending interest so the government lend money at low to no interest to banks they then lend that money out at around 100% interest rates but those customers paying that 100% interest rate cant afford to buy all the consumer products which are priced deliberately above their affordable price range to income level so they must borrow more money but it must not be linked to mortgage rate quantitative easing because that will then un cover the the real game & lies. so you have many different actors all playing their lies and games with average consumers buying into the lies like drug addicts buying smack and then you have culture words crated to normalize it like "getting a foot on the property ladder" that normalize the massive corruption to install a cultural control link with greed to normalize greed and selfishness its like the little boy poking holes in beach stranded jelly fish and the little girl complaining and putting 1 back in the water the lie is 2 fold 1 that saving just 1 makes a difference to the overall moral system of cause and effect AND that little girls are more emotionally empathic and caring than little boys all packaged in a nice easy to digest lie
