If Trump Loses, Elites Will Rule Unchallenged For Decades

[ViaCrucis]

The flat tax is the most fair system.

That's flat-out ridiculous. A flat tax is an unjust system that disproportionately would hurt the poor working class and benefit the rich.

If I ask for 10% from what you have, and what you have is 100 dollars, you might argue "that's only 10 dollars"; which compared to the guy with 1,000 dollars is paying 100 dollars. The problem is that one guy is left with 900 and you're left with 90.

A flat tax for someone making 30k a year is going to wildly and disproportionately affect them over someone making 500k a year.

A flat tax is not only not fair, it would be immoral.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[iluvatar5150]

This will clear up your view of who the elites really are. Trump is elite but he is not a member of the "power elite" though he shares some common ground with them.

The Power Elite

lol wut? He's not a member of the "power elite"? He's a billionaire real estate mogul, reality tv star and former president, who controls one of the two major political parties (such that he installed his own daughter-in-law as its chair) and has roughly 40% of the country eating out of the palm of his hand. He convinced thousands of people to attempt to steal an election. How is that not at the upper echelons of the "power elite"? If he wasn't so temperamental and undisciplined, he'd be the closest thing to an autocrat we've ever had. He may not be a part of the cultural or societal elite, but the notion that he doesn't wield immense power is ludicrous.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We’re living through Barack Obama’s third term

One of the big questions in Washington and across the country as Joe Biden’s very public decline has accelerated is: who’s actually running the show at the White House? There have been various answers, including former White House chief of staff Ron Klain and former National Security Advisor...

www.spectator.co.uk

The fantasy musings of a RW editorial is just that -- opinionated speculation. It is not evidence or come even close to meeting the notion of proof of the "3rd Obama term" nonsense that floats around here and elsewhere.

 

[rjs330]

No, it’s not “awfully close.” You originally claimed that “50% of Americans pay zero taxes.” What you demonstrated was that 40% of people pay no federal income tax. You made the same mistake that Romney made in that infamous video where he conflated federal income taxes with all taxes.

Yes I did mean income taxes. You probably should have figured that out from the context of the conversation.

47.1 percent of U.S. households with an income between 40,000 and 50,000 U.S. dollars paid no individual income taxes.

Covid and the following years has messed with the statistics a bit.

But over the years about 50% of households paid no federal income taxes.

If you’re complaining about complexity, it’s an easy way to simplify things.

I'm not complaining I'm pointing it out. It's the left who is constantly complaining because people are using the tax code to reduce their taxes. I just offered a way to stop.all that.

Make it simple.

A flat tax is only marginally more simple than a progressive scheme. Calculating a handful of brackets is neither complicated nor difficult. Yes, tracking deductions can be arduous, but those are separate from the taxation rate.

Then you admit tracking deductions can be arduous. Especially when the tax code keeps changing from year to year.

A flat tax is simple. No deductions to track. The IRS doesn't need to be as large to have to go through everyone's taxes to make sure they are deducting properly. Everyone pays 13% on their income.

Define “fairness” however you like, but the system you propose would represent a substantial hike for the poor and a substantial cut for the affluent.

Yes because so many are not paying their fair share. 40-50% of us are paying zero. That's not paying their fair share. Everyone should pitch in. I'd even be okay with a flat tax graduated system. Going anywhere from 10% up to 25% for the wealthiest. That way everyone is pitching in and no one is using "loop holes" The left is always talking about.

 

[rjs330]

So the first problem to be solved is reigning in the federal budget.

Yes that's always a problem. I'd also be for a graduated flat tax. The lower income pays less, but they still pay, while the higher incomes pay more.

Hey we could all do what the nordic countries do and pay 48% of our income in taxes. Everyone would be happy then.

 

[rjs330]

That's flat-out ridiculous. A flat tax is an unjust system that disproportionately would hurt the poor working class and benefit the rich.

If I ask for 10% from what you have, and what you have is 100 dollars, you might argue "that's only 10 dollars"; which compared to the guy with 1,000 dollars is paying 100 dollars. The problem is that one guy is left with 900 and you're left with 90.

A flat tax for someone making 30k a year is going to wildly and disproportionately affect them over someone making 500k a year.

A flat tax is not only not fair, it would be immoral.

-CryptoLutheran

I've advocated in the past for a graduated flat tax. Everyone pays from their income. 10% for the lowest graduating up to around 25% for the highest. Maybe 30%. If the government can't function on that money then they should get rid of things until they can. Starting with the bloated IRS.

Everyone paying is fair. If you live here and earn money here you should be contributing to your own services.

Everyone is using government resources. Everyone should be paying for them.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yes I did mean income taxes. You probably should have figured that out from the context of the conversation.

Nothing in the context of what you wrote suggested that people only paid zero of a certain tax. The context absolutely implied that you meant exactly what you wrote.

I knew what you were talking about as soon as I read it because I've been arguing about this stuff on the internet for far too long and I've seen that particular claim repeated a number of times over the years.

47.1 percent of U.S. households with an income between 40,000 and 50,000 U.S. dollars paid no individual income taxes.

Covid and the following years has messed with the statistics a bit.

But over the years about 50% of households paid no federal income taxes.

FWIW, I'm not really quibbling over the percentage itself. I'm pointing out that conflating federal income tax with "all taxes" is inaccurate and extremely misleading.

Also, the reason that so many households pay so little is because a lot of people are old and/or don't make much money. $50k is the upper threshold for a single person to not pay taxes on their social security income. For a two-income household, that's two people each making $12/hr. That's rather poor, especially if they have kids.

I'm not complaining I'm pointing it out. It's the left who is constantly complaining because people are using the tax code to reduce their taxes. I just offered a way to stop.all that.

There are plenty of ways to do that without hiking taxes on the poor and giving a huge break to the wealthy.

Then you admit tracking deductions can be arduous. Especially when the tax code keeps changing from year to year.

For personal deductions, it doesn't change that much year-to-year. I've been itemizing for probably the last 15 years and the only substantive change I can recall was Trump's tax cut, which actually hurt me, though I appreciate that's not the case for everybody.

A flat tax is simple. No deductions to track. The IRS doesn't need to be as large to have to go through everyone's taxes to make sure they are deducting properly. Everyone pays 13% on their income.

Most people don't itemize deductions now, so there's nothing to track. Even the potential for individual deductions is a tiny fraction of what businesses can write off.

Yes because so many are not paying their fair share. 40-50% of us are paying zero. That's not paying their fair share. Everyone should pitch in. I'd even be okay with a flat tax graduated system. Going anywhere from 10% up to 25% for the wealthiest. That way everyone is pitching in and no one is using "loop holes" The left is always talking about.

That's not a flat tax. If you just want to get rid of some deductions, fine. But then you're exactly where we lefties are, though you probably disagree on which deductions to cut.

 

[Desk trauma]

The fantasy musings of a RW editorial is just that -- opinionated speculation. It is not evidence or come even close to meeting the notion of proof of the "3rd Obama term" nonsense that floats around here and elsewhere.

I wonder if this will persist for every democratic administration while the former president lives.

 

[expos4ever]

Elitists are not necessarily the best and brightest. They just think they are.

This is besides the point. The simple truth, unpalatable as it is to some, is that some people are indeed more qualified to do certain things than others.

It should be entirely uncontroversial that those who lead should be amongst the brightest and best in terms of leadership skills, management skills, people skills etc.

The last person we want in the White House is Joe the Plumber.

 

[Whyayeman]

. . . it would--however--be elitism for someone to think they deserve a position because they are just superior . . .

We in the UK have a close familiarity with the concept of elitism and Americans are nowhere in the running. American politics does not come close.

Here is an example of elitism: when David Cameron formed his first government in 2010 he surrounded himself with a coterie of 'special advisors' who had more influence in the running of the country than members of the cabinet. They were all school friends from Eton.

Boris Johnson was also a school friend of Campbell. He too appointed cronies from his school days. You could properly call it cronyism - and it is. Cronyism and elitism are just two sides of the same coin.

 

[expos4ever]

A person who goes to Harvard or lives in a city isn't any smarter than someone who.went to a.state Univeraity.

Well, the admission standards for Harvard are significantly higher than for state universities. Whether we like it or not, it seems beyond debate that, in general, someone who went to Harvard is probably going to be more intelligent than someone who went to a State university.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wonder if this will persist for every democratic administration while the former president lives.

It really depends on how long conspiracy remains a primary component of the mainstream GOP and not just of the far right fringe. Currently what was formerly the conspiratorial fringe far right is now in control of "conservative" media. Thus we get nonsense like this from "reputable" sites.

 

[Whyayeman]

I've advocated in the past for a graduated flat tax. Everyone pays from their income. 10% for the lowest graduating up to around 25% for the highest. Maybe 30%. If the government can't function on that money then they should get rid of things until they can. Starting with the bloated IRS.

Everyone paying is fair. If you live here and earn money here you should be contributing to your own services.

Everyone is using government resources. Everyone should be paying for them.

This old flat tax idea has never appealed to me. I think there should be an income tax floor below which a person pays no income tax at all because if there is not some people - the least secure in the country - will pushed into penury by the state. So the idea falls at the first hurdle.

The tax you propose here is not actually flat at all; it is graduated from 10% to 30%.

 

[Nithavela]

I've advocated in the past for a graduated flat tax. Everyone pays from their income. 10% for the lowest graduating up to around 25% for the highest. Maybe 30%.

You have just described a progressive tax system.

 

[rjs330]

Nothing in the context of what you wrote suggested that people only paid zero of a certain tax. The context absolutely implied that you meant exactly what you wrote.

I knew what you were talking about as soon as I read it because I've been arguing about this stuff on the internet for far too long and I've seen that particular claim repeated a number of times over the years.

Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling. Here's what I wrote in response to the other poster specifically talking about income taxes.

"that is true I agree. However 50% of Americans pay zero taxes. Thats unfair as well. Thats why I'm a true supporter if the flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. No tax deductions, nothing. You pay a certain percentage and that's it. If you made a million you pay 13%. If you made 40000 you pay 13%. You nake 25000 you pay 13% No one has to spend a lot of time filing thier taxes or hiring tax people to help. The IRS is all but eliminated. Nit completely because there are those who will still cheat.

The flat tax is the most fair system."

It's obvious I was talking about income taxes due to the posters statements and everything I wrote after the statement you honed in on.

Also, the reason that so many households pay so little is because a lot of people are old and/or don't make much money. $50k is the upper threshold for a single person to not pay taxes on their social security income. For a two-income household, that's two people each making $12/hr. That's rather poor, especially if they have kids.

Exactly, rhere are a lot of people who don't pay taxes. Thats my point. They should be.

Around 50% of families are two income families with an average income of around 104-138 thousand dollars. I didn't do a deep dive into the average of each earner.

But I did discover the median incomes vary from state to state. Mississippi has about $30 grand to DC at the top at around $84 grand. Two income families in those areas are earning earning around 52 grand and 107 grand respectively.

Everyone should be paying taxes on their income and pitching into the system.

There are plenty of ways to do that without hiking taxes on the poor and giving a huge break to the wealthy.

The poor use a lot of resources. They should contribute. And in my idea of graduated flat tax rhe rich will be paying at least 3x as much as the poor.

That's not a flat tax. If you just want to get rid of some deductions, fine. But then you're exactly where we lefties are, though you probably disagree on which deductions to cut.

All of them. Go to a flat tax. Everybody pays, no deductions.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

An alternate view:

A Trump loss could stabilise US politics for a generation​

 

[rjs330]

You have just described a progressive tax system.

Rhe difference is everyone is paying. And you don't have someone who is wealthy paying 6% that left is constantly complaining about. Everyone pays a percentage of their income regardless of what they earn. Everyone pays which is fair.

The government saves money on the IRS.

 

[rjs330]

Rhe reason right now that the rich aren't paying "their fair share" is because of the Democrats. That's who the rich are supporting now.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling. Here's what I wrote in response to the other poster specifically talking about income taxes.

"that is true I agree. However 50% of Americans pay zero taxes. Thats unfair as well. Thats why I'm a true supporter if the flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. No tax deductions, nothing. You pay a certain percentage and that's it. If you made a million you pay 13%. If you made 40000 you pay 13%. You nake 25000 you pay 13% No one has to spend a lot of time filing thier taxes or hiring tax people to help. The IRS is all but eliminated. Nit completely because there are those who will still cheat.

The flat tax is the most fair system."

It's obvious I was talking about income taxes due to the posters statements and everything I wrote after the statement you honed in on.


Exactly, rhere are a lot of people who don't pay taxes. Thats my point. They should be.

Around 50% of families are two income families with an average income of around 104-138 thousand dollars. I didn't do a deep dive into the average of each earner.

But I did discover the median incomes vary from state to state. Mississippi has about $30 grand to DC at the top at around $84 grand. Two income families in those areas are earning earning around 52 grand and 107 grand respectively.

Everyone should be paying taxes on their income and pitching into the system.

The poor use a lot of resources. They should contribute. And in my idea of graduated flat tax rhe rich will be paying at least 3x as much as the poor.

All of them. Go to a flat tax. Everybody pays, no deductions.

Not only was it not obvious from the context of your previous post that you were referring specifically to federal income taxes, it's still not obvious from these comments even though you've clarified yourself. For example:

"Everyone should be paying taxes on their income and pitching into the system."

Nearly everybody who earns a paycheck does pay taxes on their income. Social Security and Medicare taxes are levied against wages, have much fewer exemptions than regular income tax. The Social Security tax is regressive, so the poor pitch in a greater share of their income to it than do the wealthy.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Rhe reason right now that the rich aren't paying "their fair share" is because of the Democrats. That's who the rich are supporting now.

How do you figure? Since 1990, the top bracket tax rate has increased only under Democratic presidents and decreased only under Republicans.

Historical Income Tax Rates

Wolters Kluwer takes a historical look at the top marginal income tax rates in the United States.

www.wolterskluwer.com