I agree that it gets the point across, especially about increasing the top rate to 102%.
Your second cite says in a note
I assume that’s a typo, since 60-80 is listed twice, and the second one refers to 80-99. So the top quintile would mean anybody who earns more than $142,200. Is that also your understanding?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. Note that’s TPC’s “expanded cash income”, which nobody else uses, but it’s close enough.
And I doubt many households making $142k consider themselves rich or upper class, even if that is the top quintile boundary.
This calculator places the top quintile much lower than that. $100K is at the 87.9th percentile (2017 numbers). It places the top quintile as starting just below $76K.
That’s individual earners. That same website has a households calculator. And the previous cite is looking at returns, with some statistics jiggery.
Shodan, do you mind sharing with us how you prefer to deal with the debt and deficit situation? Personally, I agree that we should not try to address the deficit entirely with tax hikes.
But I have put out an outline of how to proceed. You have criticized others, but what to you recommend? We are on track for $1 trillion deficits. Do you think tax cuts for the wealthy are a good idea right now? Shouldn’t we reduce this deficit before it becomes an unmanageable burden? How do you suggest we do that?
If you are concerned about the debt, you can always donate your $2,000 tax cut here:
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance
Yeah, thanks for the advice, but I am not going to be doing that. If the government wants my money they will have to take it from my, uh, warm, living hands. The Federal deficit is not something to be tackled with individual responsibility but rather national policy.
Got anything to offer regarding that?
What should I do if my taxes are going up as a result of the tax bill’s intent to make blue states pay more to subsidize red states?
The only remotely plausible solution is a federal spending freeze. Not adjusted for inflation - a hard freeze. That includes Social Security, Medicare, defense, the wall - everything. If they want to spend more on one thing, they must cut from something else.
That isn’t what I prefer - it’s at least a possibility. Tax cuts are popular, spending increases are popular. Therefore, don’t do either.
It won’t happen, of course. Politicians don’t get re-elected by saying “I won’t give you more”.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see how it is ‘plausible’. I mean, it might be easier to enact legally/politically, but it doesn’t really solve the problem.
Let’s say you get your way. POOF Spending freeze. Ok, we still have $1 trillion annual deficits. Do we wait 20 years for growth to eliminate the deficit? My criterion is to cut the Debt by half in 30 years.
Do you really think tax cuts for the wealthy are a good idea right now?
If by plausible you mean might pass Congress and get signed by Trump I might agree. If you mean plausible it its more common usage, then a tax hike is certainly plausible.
But I’d argue your use of plausible isn’t really plausible by the standard of will pass Congress and be signed. It’s hard to imagine this Congress freezing defense. I can see the Republicans trying to push to freeze Medicare and Social Security, but it’s just about as hard to see them do that.
So I’m not sure what you mean by “plausible” that encompasses your suggestion but not tax hikes.
I don’t think it would take twenty years to eliminate the deficit. Federal revenues have gone from $1.72T in 1998 to an estimated $3.34T in 2018. (Cite.)
No. The deficit is way too high, and should be reduced ASAP. This should be done with a combination of tax increases, and spending cuts, with a rough ratio of two dollars in cuts for every dollar in tax increases.
A spending freeze is only remotely plausible, but it is slightly less implausible than Democrats agreeing to spending cuts or Republicans to tax increases.
What do you think Democrats will agree to freeze?
Bernie Sanders’ budget increased spending, raised taxes (on everybody, not just the rich), and increased the deficit (and cost about 10 million jobs). If the deficit is the problem, that is not a fix. What do you think Democrats would agree to?
Regards,
Shodan
Get your blue state’s legislature to lower state and local taxes.
Not those, but he did also contribute “government takeover” to the ACA obscuration campaign.
But you got me curious:
“Pro-life” is from 1960
“Right to work” is much older:
Trump promised to eliminate not only the deficit, but the national debt itself, in 8 years. How’s that coming along?
Who here believed him? And, for the love of anything, why?
The only reason conservatives have ever cared about the deficit is to make the argument that we can’t afford social security, medicare, and medicaid. Anyone who uses these programs, anyone who has parents who use these programs (and therefore don’t have to rely on their children’s retirement savings) ought to understand this. But most conservatives can’t.
Brilliant strategy. Cripple the federal government as a way to kneecap state and local government.
Neither of those things are happening. The federal government isn’t crippled, nor is are state and local governments kneecapped.
Bingo. Sifting through the political rhetoric of the past 30 years has made it fairly clear to me.
A war on the commons, and the very idea of a commons.