63 replies to this topic

[Zachemc2]

During the 2020s, America had exited the 1970s and entered the 21st century. The people relied more on themselves rather than the government. Many people didn't want pensions and saved money (Goodbye SS and Medicare) and most children were enrolled in online schools (Goodbye DoE). Many other agencies were abolished because the public viewed it as an intrusion. The public supported a large transition of tax dollars from social welfare programs to technological programs. The pension programs grew quickly before they were abolished because of a higher life expectancy. When they were, the tax burden to GDP was chopped in half from an average of 18% to 9%.

[Unrequited Lust]

Fun fact: Social security has never once contributed to the deficit. It usually runs a surplus. Second fun fact: If we ended all health care subsidies and enacted negotiable prices and then extended medicare to everyone, we could balance the budget. Third fun fact: You're an idiot for thinking that the Department of Education will be replaced by online schools.

[Zachemc2]

Fun fact: Social security has never once contributed to the deficit. It usually runs a surplus.

Second fun fact: If we ended all health care subsidies and enacted negotiable prices and then extended medicare to everyone, we could balance the budget.

Third fun fact: You're an idiot for thinking that the Department of Education will be replaced by online schools.

It is predicted that Social Security will have its first deficit in 2017, and this is set in 2029. There's also been a lot of talk about abolishing the DoE lately.

[Wesfky]

If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?

[Zachemc2]

If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?

Mars.

[Prolite]

Social Security is easy to fix. Simply take the cap off and people earning above $106,800 /year will have to pay into the program in perpetuity no matter how much money they make. And second, this who earn 1 million dollars a year or more; make them pay a little bit more.

And social security does not contribute to the deficit since there's enough money in it until the 2020's or something like that.

[Wesfky]

If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?

Mars.

What?

[Prolite]

If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?

Mars.

What?

He's saying that it would be impossible to go to Mars without the help of NASA.

[Wesfky]

So the government is needed after all

[Zachemc2]

So the government is needed after all

A country can't function without some form of government. That said, it can't be an intrusive one.

[Zachemc2]

If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?

Mars.

What?

He's saying that it would be impossible to go to Mars without the help of NASA.

Where is a company like SpaceX going to find over a trillion dollars?

Social Security is easy to fix. Simply take the cap off and people earning above $106,800 /year will have to pay into the program in perpetuity no matter how much money they make. And second, this who earn 1 million dollars a year or more; make them pay a little bit more.

And social security does not contribute to the deficit since there's enough money in it until the 2020's or something like that.

That sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth. It is predicted that Social Security will have its first deficit in 2017, and this is set in 2029.

[Caiman]

redistribution of wealth

Yeah. It's called tax.

[Prolite]

That sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth. It is predicted that Social Security will have its first deficit in 2017, and this is set in 2029.

The wealth has been redistributed from the middle class and the working poor to the upper-middle class and the rich, namely those making million a year or more. You see that red line below? That's called stealing from the poor and middle class and redistributing it to the rich. That's right wing fraudulent stealing and it has to stop. Obama was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts because unemployment insurance was being held hostage by the Republicans in Congress.

[Zachemc2]

That sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth. It is predicted that Social Security will have its first deficit in 2017, and this is set in 2029.

The wealth has been redistributed from the middle class and the working poor to the upper-middle class and the rich, namely those making million a year or more. You see that red line below? That's called stealing from the poor and middle class and redistributing it to the rich. That's right wing fraudulent stealing and it has to stop. Obama was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts because unemployment insurance was being held hostage by the Republicans in Congress.

You do realize that an increase in income for one group is not an increase in taxes for another? In order to see who actually has a tax burden, we need to look at income relative to taxes:

[truthiness]

OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...

Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.

Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.

[Zachemc2]

OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...

Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.

Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.

It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair? What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate? We got out of the stagflation and into a mini-boom.

[Innsertnamehere]

Cutting the tax just moved the debt into the governments pockets, allowing for marginal false growth......

[Prolite]

OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...

Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.

Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.

It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair? What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate? We got out of the stagflation and into a mini-boom.

Did you see the graph I posted? It has to do with AFTER TAX INCOME, not before. We're talking about money that goes to Uncle Sam based on a certain tax bracket, not the aggregate of a tax group representing a summation of the whole of the tax payers. And your graph doesn't separate corporate income taxes from personal. LoL whata load of crap that is. You think people around here have never studied accounting before!? And since when do 13 yr old's study financial accounting? I can see the older right-wing crew over your shoulder.

Here's the FACTS:

[Wesfky]

What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate?

Ronald Reagan is evil, never speak of him again.

[Zachemc2]

OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...

Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.

Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.

It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair? What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate? We got out of the stagflation and into a mini-boom.

Did you see the graph I posted? It has to do with AFTER TAX INCOME, not before. We're talking about money that goes to Uncle Sam based on a certain tax bracket, not the aggregate of a tax group representing a summation of the whole of the tax payers. And your graph doesn't separate corporate income taxes from personal. LoL whata load of crap that is. You think people around here have never studied accounting before!? And since when do 13 yr old's study financial accounting? I can see the older right-wing crew over your shoulder.

After-tax income growth doesn't really tell me anything about the tax rate nor does it tell me anything about redistribution of wealth. Just income growth. It just tells me people are making more money.