@wildgrass saidSince government runs on taxes, and we need the government, your first sentence as usual makes no sense. Taxes are necessary. There’s nothing evil about taxes, they send our children to grade school..whew.
Work is rewarded and then punished through taxes. Both are true.
I think rich people should cover this deficit. You think the rich should remain above the punishment of the tax code.
You choose to punish work more than wealth. And you worship"risk" and "reward" of a billionaire not working as if actual work is not also risky and rewarding..
Hang out by the pool, drink mai tai's, don't pay taxes. All you have to do is be born of wealth.
Anyway, You’re lumping together three different things: inheritance, investment income, and productive business ownership.
Nobody objects to someone born rich wasting money by a pool. Not our business.. But most wealthy people’s money is tied up in businesses, factories, stocks, real estate, payrolls, and investment that keep the economy moving. If you heavily punish capital, you reduce investment, expansion, hiring, and innovation.
taxes already are highly progressive. The top earners already pay the overwhelming majority of federal income taxes. The question isn’t whether the rich should pay. they already do. The question is whether you punish success so heavily that you discourage the very activity that creates jobs and growth in the first place.
Yes, I think these rich people as you call them do not need to be punished anymore, they already pay 50% of all taxes.
And frankly, follow me here, I don’t think about the rich people sitting by the pool or doing whatever they do. And I have nothing to do with them nor they with me. I’ll live my life in America, you should live your life in America. You people are eat up with what rich people do. You have to admit that is a bit sick.
I am sorry that you have not been reading and understanding the basis of my posts above. Hey little fella, you need the Rich. I hate to break it to you.
@wildgrass saidHa!!! “ I think Rich people should cover the deficit😵💫.”
Work is rewarded and then punished through taxes. Both are true.
I think rich people should cover this deficit. You think the rich should remain above the punishment of the tax code.
You choose to punish work more than wealth. And you worship"risk" and "reward" of a billionaire not working as if actual work is not also risky and rewarding..
Hang out by the pool, drink mai tai's, don't pay taxes. All you have to do is be born of wealth.
Bank robbers go to the bank because that is where the money is. So you go to the Rich, for the same purpose, and in the same process, with the same justification, as does the Bank robber.
You a robber? Do you want to be part of the government that fleeces successful people?
Who would be left! Don’t you believe in success? Role models for our children, to become successful? Will they have to look up to Kamala? As she comes for their money?
@AverageJoe1
Wildgrass is about to say the words, successful, independence, freedom, liberty, privacy,….. he and his cohorts, such as marauder have never said those words.
They say the word billionaire a lot as if a billionaire has anything to do with them.
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidYou don't have any other solutions? Instead of robbing the rich who enjoy the benefits but don't currently pay any taxes, you and Mott say we should rob everyone.
Ha!!! “ I think Rich people should cover the deficit😵💫.”
Bank robbers go to the bank because that is where the money is. So you go to the Rich, for the same purpose, and in the same process, with the same justification, as does the Bank robber.
You a robber? Do you want to be part of the government that fleeces successful people?
Who would be left! Don’t you belie ...[text shortened]... r children, to become successful? Will they have to look up to Kamala? As she comes for their money?
Or maybe we pay for the two trillion with good vibes? Good feelings? Ignore the bill until your grandkids are forced to pay it?
@no1marauder saidThe US hasn’t started a war in New Zealand yet. You could always pop down and blow another 50 billion… who’s counting anyway?
"Yesterday, the department headed by Scott Bessent released its latest Quarterly Refunding Documents, which communicate any changes in debt management policy, as well as financing estimates from Treasury and bond market participants. The documents also share bond issuance plans.
The presentation showed that as of April 2026, [b]the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ...[text shortened]... have thought a gigantic tax cut and a war which blew up military spending would implode the deficit?
@no1marauder saidThis may be my favorite post of yours in all of our discussions. I can see you sitting back in the chair at Starbucks with this very clear, cool riddle, deferring to my penchant to toy in that vein (bit of humor) to flesh out differences. Good stuff. Even Wildgrass might get it
Riddle me this:
A works as an Uber driver and makes $50,000 a year.
B sells some stock and makes $50,000.
C inherits $50,000.
Assume all are single. Who should pay the most in tax?
First, taxation should be based on how income affects the economy, not just whether two numbers are equal. I never understand your references to ‘equality’. Some are rich, some are not. That’s life. There is no equal.
A)The Uber driver’s $50,000 came from immediate labor needed to survive. B)The stock sale likely came from capital that was already taxed when earned and invested, and C) the inheritance may represent wealth that was already taxed over a lifetime. So we have A,B and C. All different.
So it is logical that earned income should not automatically be taxed more heavily than savings, investment, or transferred family assets. But, neither should government punish investment and inheritance so aggressively that people stop building wealth in the first place. THAT is what Wildgrass thinks we should do. Tax the Rich simply because they have a lot of money. I don’t remember you expressing exactly that.
So, I don’t see any other logical way. Unless we go to full socialism and everybody throw all of their money in one pile and split it all up. Of course, it would follow that the government would nationalize all of the businesses, and our potholes would be our first evidence of decay.
Ouch. Where then, at that time, would we go to get more money? The government can put wild grass on the Get Money Department.
@AverageJoe1 said
This may be my favorite post of yours in all of our discussions. I can see you sitting back in the chair at Starbucks with this very clear, cool riddle, deferring to my penchant to toy in that vein (bit of humor) to flesh out differences. Good stuff. Even Wildgrass might get it
First, taxation should be based on how income affects the economy, not just whether two n ...[text shortened]... time, would we go to get more money? The government can put wild grass on the Get Money Department.
But, neither should government punish investment and inheritance so aggressively that people stop building wealth in the first place. THAT is what Wildgrass thinks we should do.
No it's not. I didn't write anything remotely approaching what you just wrote.
@wildgrass saidThere could be many ways to revise the tax system, which I agree needs revising. But small minded people want to go after the Rich. How about going after the 50% bottom half who pay no taxes. I think they should pay taxes….. why would they not pay taxes? They enjoy the benefits of this country, which, by the way, were provided by billionaires who created their jobs. Jesus.
You don't have any other solutions? Instead of robbing the rich who enjoy the benefits but don't currently pay any taxes, you and Mott say we should rob everyone.
Or maybe we pay for the two trillion with good vibes? Good feelings? Ignore the bill until your grandkids are forced to pay it?
If Wildgrass gets his way, there will be fewer and fewer of what y’all call billionaires. Who will be left to pay the way of losers, who do not do anything?
As to covering the 2 trillion, there are other ways to save money in the government, which Trump tried to do with DOGE, and also by kicking ass of Biden by reducing all of his expensive programs (such as tuition forgiiiiiiivveeness,) drilling for oil, see Trumps successes. Sorry, off subject .
@AverageJoe1 saidIt's all 50K in someone's pocket.
This may be my favorite post of yours in all of our discussions. I can see you sitting back in the chair at Starbucks with this very clear, cool riddle, deferring to my penchant to toy in that vein (bit of humor) to flesh out differences. Good stuff. Even Wildgrass might get it
First, taxation should be based on how income affects the economy, not just whether two n ...[text shortened]... time, would we go to get more money? The government can put wild grass on the Get Money Department.
In my example A gets taxed on the full amount.
$550 of B's is taxable at a lower rate.
None of C's is taxable.
Explain how this "rewards work".
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 said
There could be many ways to revise the tax system, which I agree needs revising. But small minded people want to go after the Rich. How about going after the 50% bottom half who pay no taxes. I think they should pay taxes….. why would they not pay taxes? They enjoy the benefits of this country, which, by the way, were provided by billionaires who created their jobs. Jesu ...[text shortened]... such as tuition forgiiiiiiivveeness,) drilling for oil, see Trumps successes. Sorry, off subject .
How about going after the 50% bottom half who pay no taxes.
You've been corrected on this many times. Some of those 50% in the bottom half of taxpayers are the rich people. You think they should be able to not pay taxes ever? There's another group that doesn't have any money, so it's silly to think you can get the $2 trillion from them?
You say get rid of Biden programs, but Trump already did that. There's no USAID, no tuition forgiveness in 2026, tens of thousands of people fired, and the deficit will still be $2 trillion.
What else you got for ideas?
@shavixmir saidIf NZealand attacks us constantly for the next 47 years, I will lead the charge and be a bit tougher than Trump. We waited too long.
The US hasn’t started a war in New Zealand yet. You could always pop down and blow another 50 billion… who’s counting anyway?
Blow ‘em up. And Shav, , if y’all get attacked by Denmark, don’t be coming to us to save your asses. I am being facetious, because you certainly would ring us up.
But we may be under some attack too. Busy busy
@wildgrass saidBS do you realize you have a record of posts saying nothing but that? But you know no one goes back and reads old posts, so I think you are safe.But, neither should government punish investment and inheritance so aggressively that people stop building wealth in the first place. THAT is what Wildgrass thinks we should do.
No it's not. I didn't write anything remotely approaching what you just wrote.
@AverageJoe1 saidWho fvck has been attacking you now for the last 47 years?
If NZealand attacks us constantly for the next 47 years, I will lead the charge and be a bit tougher than Trump. We waited too long.
Blow ‘em up. And Shav, , if y’all get attacked by Denmark, don’t be coming to us to save your asses. I am being facetious, because you certainly would ring us up.
But we may be under some attack too. Busy busy
Which right-wing dimlight has poisoned your mind with new stupidity?
@no1marauder saidOMG.
It's all 50K in someone's pocket.
In my example A gets taxed on the full amount.
$550 of B's is taxable at a lower rate.
None of C's is taxable.
Explain how this "rewards work".
Because the tax code is not only trying to “reward work.” It is also trying to encourage investment, saving, and long-term capital formation.
A’s income is new income being created through labor right now. B’s stock sale comes from money that was already earned, taxed, risked, and tied up in productive investment for years. C’s inheritance is wealth that was often already taxed repeatedly during the original owner’s lifetime.
You keep treating all dollars as identical simply because they end up in “”someone’s pocket””. The tax code does not. It distinguishes between labor, investment, and transfer of existing assets because they play different roles in the economy.
If you tax every stage of capital creation at full ordinary-income rates forever, you discourage the very investment and wealth building that businesses, jobs, pensions, and retirement accounts, alll of it, depend on. Geez
HELP ME RHONDA!!! I need MORE Rhonda!!
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidLook mate, I don't like taxes but this amount of debt is worse. Some people have ideas but you only like the ideas that don't work. The $2 trillion can be extracted from the wealthy without any impact on their incentive to keep trying to build equity.
BS do you realize you have a record of posts saying nothing but that? But you know no one goes back and reads old posts, so I think you are safe.
Here is Liz Warren's proposal, which would bring in $3 trillion to close the budget gap. Where do you fall on the list?
-Married couple with household net worth of $100,000—the median level in the United States: Pays zero tax because they are below the $50 million threshold
Married couple with a primary and vacation residence and substantial retirement savings for a household net worth of $20 million: Pays zero tax because they are below the $50 million threshold
Extremely successful small business owner of a $30 million business as well as additional assets for a household net worth of $40 million: Pays zero tax because they are below the $50 million threshold
Hedge fund manager with a net worth of $500 million: Pays a 2% tax on the $450 million in net worth above the $50 million threshold, producing a total annual liability of $9 million
Heir with a net worth of $20 billion: Pays a 2% tax on the $950 million between $50 million and $1 billion, and a 6% tax on the remaining $19 billion, for a total annual liability of $1.16 billion.