The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

News and events of the day
gounion
Posts: 17242
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:29 am Making the claim that cutting taxes solves all problems is not a position I have ever advocated.
Yet that’s the position of everyone you vote for.
As for managing debt, it is as I stated. You have cash inflows and outflows. You have to manage both. The numbers have to work. Neither party has a long term plan on how to deal with this problem. Neither party has the discipline.
That’s bullshit. Tell me how to cut your way to clean up our debt. Go ahead.

And the dems DID - and it was working. They did it in the Clinton term, with ZERO help from the right. ONLY the dems have been able to balance the budget - the GOP NEVER has.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:35 am Yet that’s the position of everyone you vote for.

That’s bullshit. Tell me how to cut your way to clean up our debt. Go ahead.

And the dems DID - and it was working. They did it in the Clinton term, with ZERO help from the right. ONLY the dems have been able to balance the budget - the GOP NEVER has.
We haven’t had a long term plan for balancing the budget in decades. Doing so for a year or so does not a long term solution make. So spare me the BS about Dems managing the debt. We (inclusive of both parties) spend trillions over and above what we take in as revenue and the problem is only going to get worse unless and until we deal with entitlement spending. We don’t have a plan for that and nobody wants to talk about it. They would rather wait around until the problem blows up in their faces.
gounion
Posts: 17242
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:41 am We haven’t had a long term plan for balancing the budget in decades. Doing so for a year or so does not a long term solution make. So spare me the BS about Dems managing the debt. We (inclusive of both parties) spend trillions over and above what we take in as revenue and the problem is only going to get worse unless and until we deal with entitlement spending. We don’t have a plan for that and nobody wants to talk about it. They would rather wait around until the problem blows up in their faces.
Sorry, but Bill Clinton and the Dems did it in eight years. That’s a fact.

And of course, you want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare (while you’re on the teat yourself). Entitlement spending is paid for on a different track than all other spending. It’s different taxes. Yet you lie and act like it’s all part of the big pie.

All you have to do is make sure there’s enough revenue to pay for it. All you guys want to do is cut and cut and cut taxes, then say, how heck, how did this happen? We’ll have to cut these programs out!

No, in a sane world, you raise enough revenue to pay for your spending. You don’t keep cutting revenue. Idiot.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:47 am Sorry, but Bill Clinton and the Dems did it in eight years. That’s a fact.

And of course, you want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare (while you’re on the teat yourself). Entitlement spending is paid for on a different track than all other spending. It’s different taxes. Yet you lie and act like it’s all part of the big pie.

All you have to do is make sure there’s enough revenue to pay for it. All you guys want to do is cut and cut and cut taxes, then say, how heck, how did this happen? We’ll have to cut these programs out!

No, in a sane world, you raise enough revenue to pay for your spending. You don’t keep cutting revenue. Idiot.
Eight years is not a long term plan. Bill Clinton was over 20 years ago.

Managing spending doesn’t equate with getting rid of entitlements. It never has and I never advocated such a thing. If you want to debate then do so honestly. If you can’t do that then there is nothing to discuss.

Entitlement spending is part of spending. All of those cash inflows end up in the General Fund and all of the cash outflow come eventually from the General fund. The difference is deficit and adds to total debt. Entitlement spending is the largest chunk of the budget. The fact that it isn’t classed as discretionary spending is irrelevant when it comes to how it impacts debt.

If you are not willing to put everything on the table then why would you expect anyone else to do so either? Managing debt is not one sided. We must manage the inflows and outflows of cash to make the numbers work.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:47 am Sorry, but Bill Clinton and the Dems did it in eight years. That’s a fact.

And of course, you want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare (while you’re on the teat yourself). Entitlement spending is paid for on a different track than all other spending. It’s different taxes. Yet you lie and act like it’s all part of the big pie.

All you have to do is make sure there’s enough revenue to pay for it. All you guys want to do is cut and cut and cut taxes, then say, how heck, how did this happen? We’ll have to cut these programs out!

No, in a sane world, you raise enough revenue to pay for your spending. You don’t keep cutting revenue. Idiot.
Clinton did it in collaboration with republicans. The biggest revenue boost occurred when the capital gains tax was cut to 10%, and 20%.
gounion
Posts: 17242
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:59 am Clinton did it in collaboration with republicans. The biggest revenue boost occurred when the capital gains tax was cut to 10%, and 20%.
Ah, so you think we can tax cut our way out of debt. Yeah, you’re that kind of stupid, Green Grass.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 10:08 am Ah, so you think we can tax cut our way out of debt. Yeah, you’re that kind of stupid, Green Grass.
The statistics are proof. Tax revenues from capital gains taxes jumped big time after Clinton cut capital gains tax rates. Had one of the very rare tax revenue as a percentage of GDP hitting 20%.
gounion
Posts: 17242
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 10:31 am The statistics are proof. Tax revenues from capital gains taxes jumped big time after Clinton cut capital gains tax rates. Had one of the very rare tax revenue as a percentage of GDP hitting 20%.
It’s called the Lauffer Curve for a reason. You cannot cut taxes to eliminate the debt.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 11:19 am It’s called the Lauffer Curve for a reason. You cannot cut taxes to eliminate the debt.
That’s not entirely true. If targeted tax relief stimulates economic growth and taxes which result from such growth more than offsets the cuts, then you actually increase net tax revenue. It depends on the cuts, who gets the benefits, what they do with the money and whether that has a stimulating effect on the economy and by how much.

You can examine tax increases the same way as well as increases and decreases in interest rates and government spending.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by ZoWie »

The Laffer Curve, being an early misuse of computer technology based on a flawed formula, is essentially irrelevant except as the primary argument in favor of the universal science insistence on completely reproducable results. There is simply no valid connection between that discredited economic theory and real world politics. There was one huge non-valid one, of course, and it was called (among other things) Reaganomics.

Real world results have, of course, long since confirmed that a rising tide sinks the boats that still have unpatched holes in them. Los Angeles is a primary result here, and one which permanently discredits any such naive assumptions as supply side economics abstracted from real macro behavior.

Or maybe you like your streets all filled up by tents and decaying RVs, and the fire department responding 15 times a day to put out waste/trash fires in homeless encampments just up the street from $3.7 million houses.

-----

"This is the space child with brow serene,
Who pushed the button to start the machine,
Which gave out with the cybernetics and stuff,
Without confusion, exposing the bluff,
That laid in the summary, cloaking the mummery,
Exposing the flaw,
And demolished the theory Jack built."

-- The Space Child's Mother Goose, by Frederick Winsor (Google it)
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:00 pm That’s not entirely true. If targeted tax relief stimulates economic growth and taxes which result from such growth more than offsets the cuts, then you actually increase net tax revenue. It depends on the cuts, who gets the benefits, what they do with the money and whether that has a stimulating effect on the economy and by how much.

You can examine tax increases the same way as well as increases and decreases in interest rates and government spending.
My assessment of tax policy is to look at tax revenue as a percent of GDP. Back in the 1950’s with the really high tax rates the percentage was in 14-16%. JFK, a great believer in lower capital gains rates, gets congress to make changes in capital gains rates and that percentage goes up. As I sad before, 20% is very rare air. And Clinton got it after a healthy cut in capital gains taxes. Revenue from capital gains taxes went up considerably. And those growing realized gains were reinvested generating more growth.
gounion
Posts: 17242
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:40 pm My assessment of tax policy is to look at tax revenue as a percent of GDP. Back in the 1950’s with the really high tax rates the percentage was in 14-16%. JFK, a great believer in lower capital gains rates, gets congress to make changes in capital gains rates and that percentage goes up. As I sad before, 20% is very rare air. And Clinton got it after a healthy cut in capital gains taxes. Revenue from capital gains taxes went up considerably. And those growing realized gains were reinvested generating more growth.
The reason that the revenue went up was because, after years of high interest rates in the Reagan years, Clinton raises taxes and starts handling the budget like an adult, so the economy and stock market took off, so there was a lot of people making big money. Would have been better had he not cut the taxes on that.

But Bush destroyed the economy with the tax cuts and wars.

And that’s how you guys like stuff.
Glennfs
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Glennfs »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:44 pm The reason that the revenue went up was because, after years of high interest rates in the Reagan years, Clinton raises taxes and starts handling the budget like an adult, so the economy and stock market took off, so there was a lot of people making big money. Would have been better had he not cut the taxes on that.

But Bush destroyed the economy with the tax cuts and wars.

And that’s how you guys like stuff.
Lying about Reagan again. The economic policies of Carter is what caused the double digit inflation interest rates and unemployment.
The economic policies of Reagan brought all three substantially down.
The budget surplus of Clinton was brought on by the explosion of DOTCOMM.

You are however correct about W messing things up.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by ZoWie »

The economy took off again when IP networked computers completely reshaped life in First World countries from the bottom up. The usual pundits announced the end of history, but history is a bitch-goddess, and she bites when and where you least expect it. So far, the history of the 2020s is defined by another go-round for war, racism, disease, and class struggle, while ordinary people run harder to stay in the same place.

So much for saving the world with technology and lower taxes on the wealthy.
Last edited by ZoWie on Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
gounion
Posts: 17242
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:48 pm Lying about Reagan again. The economic policies of Carter is what caused the double digit inflation interest rates and unemployment.
The economic policies of Reagan brought all three substantially down.
The budget surplus of Clinton was brought on by the explosion of DOTCOMM.

You are however correct about W messing things up.
I’m sorry, I lived through that. Reagan shot the interest rates through the roof and kept them there, which hurt our nation a great deal, and hurt consumers and homeowners more, while making a mint for the bankers. That’s what it’s all about - follow the money.

The Clinton years were the first time that you could borrow money at a decent rate, so lots of people started businesses.

Bush are Reagan were both disasters for our nation. I don’t see any good reason to vote GOP from that.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by ZoWie »

Reaganomics was the same old same old, dressed up with some modern macro-economic equations and academic babble, and based on the assumption that was verbalized to the masses as, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

It had everything except real-world results. It looked good because computers and space technology revolutionized life in advanced countries, and employed a generation, but now the schools all babble about STEM and STEAM, and most people have even less real-world economic security than they did before all this sound and fury.

It turned out to be just wishful thinking. It was the second go-round for the also flawed and failed theory usually summarized as, "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA."

The more relevant conclusion, which is borne out by real-world results, is that a rising tide sinks the boats which haven't been given basic attention to fundamentals. They leak, and go down. You wind up with such vast social failures as Los Angeles, a city completely built on voodoo economics. You watch in horror as the 0.5% have billions and party it up on TV a lot, while most of the population cannot afford, or can barely afford, the most basic roof over their heads.

Same old shit. Sorry, not buying that stinky load.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 12:44 pm The reason that the revenue went up was because, after years of high interest rates in the Reagan years, Clinton raises taxes and starts handling the budget like an adult, so the economy and stock market took off, so there was a lot of people making big money. Would have been better had he not cut the taxes on that.

But Bush destroyed the economy with the tax cuts and wars.

And that’s how you guys like stuff.
Reagan admin reduced interest rates. Also saw reduction in inflation. It was intensely collaborative with Democratic Congress. At the time Democrats knew things weren’t working and change was needed.
gounion
Posts: 17242
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:41 pm Reagan admin reduced interest rates. Also saw reduction in inflation. It was intensely collaborative with Democratic Congress. At the time Democrats knew things weren’t working and change was needed.
And it didn't work. His plan to cut taxes and increase military spending was such a disaster that Reagan himself realized that supply side was a joke, and he raised taxes so as to not completely destroy our economy. The economy stayed middling to poor through GHW's term, until Clinton came in and the Dems raised taxes. Those around then remember the GOP saying that the tax increase would cause a new Great Depression, and completely destroy the country. That's how stupid Republicans are.

Everything they do is a scam to enrich the rich.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by ZoWie »

Rich people's economics were always a scam, and frankly the only thing that really created a positive result in the real world was the labor movement. Without it, we have China.

Things really weren't working in the 1970s after we blew a good bit of our national wealth, not to mention our entire social contract, in Vietnam. Change really was needed, but both parties drank the supply side Kool-Aid.

After considerable thrashing and arm waving and credit-taking, what really did the job in the real world was the explosive growth of computer and space technology, plus a military buildup or two. These employed a generation. Now the self-appointed pundits are all trumpeting AI. That, alas, is based on technological infrastructure already in place. At best it will benefit retraining companies, so that those already working can keep up. For example, I'm going to need a Photoshop class. However, I just don't see it creating millions of well-paying jobs with all the benefits we've come to expect with employment.

The dumbest thing we can do is to keep making political decisions based on these flawed economic assumptions. The fundamentals are the same as in the 19th century, as much as we would like them to be different. This isn't the 1980s, and another tech boom won't help us. We could try another all-out world war, of course, but oops, the weapons got too good. Sorry, not an option. We're back to basics, and the basics don't look good.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

ZoWie wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 2:00 pm Rich people's economics were always a scam, and frankly the only thing that really created a positive result in the real world was the labor movement. Without it, we have China.

Things really weren't working in the 1970s after we blew a good bit of our national wealth, not to mention our entire social contract, in Vietnam. Change really was needed, but both parties drank the supply side Kool-Aid.

After considerable thrashing and arm waving and credit-taking, what really did the job in the real world was the explosive growth of computer and space technology, plus a military buildup or two. These employed a generation. Now the self-appointed pundits are all trumpeting AI. That, alas, is based on technological infrastructure already in place. At best it will benefit retraining companies, so that those already working can keep up. For example, I'm going to need a Photoshop class. However, I just don't see it creating millions of well-paying jobs with all the benefits we've come to expect with employment.

The dumbest thing we can do is to keep making political decisions based on these flawed economic assumptions. The fundamentals are the same as in the 19th century, as much as we would like them to be different. This isn't the 1980s, and another tech boom won't help us. We could try another all-out world war, of course, but oops, the weapons got too good. Sorry, not an option. We're back to basics, and the basics don't look good.
Our economy is rooted in consumption and investment. Those are driven by money. That’s what fuels our economy. Tax rates, interest rates, government spending all affect the money supply.
Glennfs
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Glennfs »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 1:52 pm And it didn't work. His plan to cut taxes and increase military spending was such a disaster that Reagan himself realized that supply side was a joke, and he raised taxes so as to not completely destroy our economy. The economy stayed middling to poor through GHW's term, until Clinton came in and the Dems raised taxes. Those around then remember the GOP saying that the tax increase would cause a new Great Depression, and completely destroy the country. That's how stupid Republicans are.

Everything they do is a scam to enrich the rich.
He readjusted tax rates like the true leader he was. Had Carter been reelected we would have has 4 more years of double digit unemployment inflation and interest rates.

Ronald Reagan saved our country's economy and made it OK to say what no liberal will ever say.
The United States is the greatest country on the history of man.
Funny thing is that you still would vote for Carter over Reagan
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by ZoWie »

Ray Gun didn't do shit. You got fooled by an Oscar caliber performance. The academy should give him an honorary award for Best Performance by a President (deceased).

His arms buildup created a few thousand tech jobs, but unfortunately this kind of military spending is contractual and usually heavy layoffs follow the end of the contracts. It did nothing even close to what the huge civilian changes in trade and business technology did. What did make the difference had nothing to do with who was president, though in this country the president always gets credit or blame for whatever happens in his term(s).
Last edited by ZoWie on Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Libertas »

ZoWie wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 3:57 pm Ray Gun didn't do shit. You got fooled by an Oscar caliber performance. The academy should give him an honorary award for Best Performance by a President (deceased).

His arms buildup created a few thousand tech jobs, but nothing like what changes in trade and business technology did. What did make the difference had nothing to do with who was president, though in this country the president always gets credit or blame for whatever happens in his term(s).
His brain cant accept simple truths like this, even though all historical facts support what you said.

They are long gone and anti truth...
I sigh in your general direction.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by ZoWie »

I know, I know, shouting into an empty theater.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
gounion
Posts: 17242
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 2:39 pm He readjusted tax rates like the true leader he was. Had Carter been reelected we would have has 4 more years of double digit unemployment inflation and interest rates.

Ronald Reagan saved our country's economy and made it OK to say what no liberal will ever say.
The United States is the greatest country on the history of man.
Funny thing is that you still would vote for Carter over Reagan
You know what, FUCK YOU and your "Greatest country in the history of man" bullshit.

I will NOT have my patriotism judged by the likes of YOU.

And yes, I would. Let's be clear: If Carter had been elected, the marines in the barracks would still be alive. Saddam would never have gotten Weapons of Mass Destruction. And we would have never trained Osama Bin Laden in the art of terrorism.

I think Reagan was the first time Republicans stopped voting for a President who presided over a democracy, and started wanting a King who ruled as an autocrat.
Post Reply