I want to understand the deficit issue better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear people saying the rich should be taxed more. Who qualifies as rich? According to link below there is an average tax rate of 21% on people earning $170-250,000. This sounds quite low by international standards but only reflects federal taxes. What do you think the average tax rate would be if you included state taxes and social security? Should these earners be paying more?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tax-irs-income-taxes-who-pays-the-most-and-least/

Taxes should rise at $1,000,000 in earnings and should go up a few more times, to 35%-50% on very high levels of income, including stock-based awards, etc. If we had done this a while back, we wouldn't have the revolution-baiting levels of income distribution we have now.

The key points from the article you linked to, with bolding by me:

"But the average tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined in recent decade...in 2001, the nation's top earners had an effective tax rate of 27.6% — almost two percentage points higher than their current rate.

The analysis also found that the top 0.1% of earners, with at least $3.8 million in annual income, pay an effective federal tax rate of 25.7%, which is a hair lower than the 25.9% tax rate for the top 1%.

Ultra-wealthy households often have access to tax loopholes and write-offs that aren't available to salaried workers who receive W2s, and much of their income can also stem from capital gains, which has a lower tax rate than earned income.

About 6 in 10 Americans said they were bothered by the feeling that corporations and the rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes, Pew Research found last year. That may explain why about two-thirds of those polled said they support higher taxes on the rich."

fixing my bolding fail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear people saying the rich should be taxed more. Who qualifies as rich? According to link below there is an average tax rate of 21% on people earning $170-250,000. This sounds quite low by international standards but only reflects federal taxes. What do you think the average tax rate would be if you included state taxes and social security? Should these earners be paying more?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tax-irs-income-taxes-who-pays-the-most-and-least/

Taxes should rise at $1,000,000 in earnings and should go up a few more times, to 35%-50% on very high levels of income, including stock-based awards, etc. If we had done this a while back, we wouldn't have the revolution-baiting levels of income distribution we have now.

The key points from the article you linked to, with bolding by me:

"But the average tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined in recent decade...in 2001, the nation's top earners had an effective tax rate of 27.6% — almost two percentage points higher than their current rate.

The analysis also found that the top 0.1% of earners, with at least $3.8 million in annual income, pay an effective federal tax rate of 25.7%, which is a hair lower than the 25.9% tax rate for the top 1%.

Ultra-wealthy households often have access to tax loopholes and write-offs that aren't available to salaried workers who receive W2s, and much of their income can also stem from capital gains, which has a lower tax rate than earned income.

About 6 in 10 Americans said they were bothered by the feeling that corporations and the rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes, Pew Research found last year. That may explain why about two-thirds of those polled said they support higher taxes on the rich."

fixing my bolding fail

Why the $1 million threshold? Why not $300,000 or even $400,000? 21% is low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear people saying the rich should be taxed more. Who qualifies as rich? According to link below there is an average tax rate of 21% on people earning $170-250,000. This sounds quite low by international standards but only reflects federal taxes. What do you think the average tax rate would be if you included state taxes and social security? Should these earners be paying more?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tax-irs-income-taxes-who-pays-the-most-and-least/

Taxes should rise at $1,000,000 in earnings and should go up a few more times, to 35%-50% on very high levels of income, including stock-based awards, etc. If we had done this a while back, we wouldn't have the revolution-baiting levels of income distribution we have now.

The key points from the article you linked to, with bolding by me:

"But the average tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined in recent decade...in 2001, the nation's top earners had an effective tax rate of 27.6% — almost two percentage points higher than their current rate.

The analysis also found that the top 0.1% of earners, with at least $3.8 million in annual income, pay an effective federal tax rate of 25.7%, which is a hair lower than the 25.9% tax rate for the top 1%.

Ultra-wealthy households often have access to tax loopholes and write-offs that aren't available to salaried workers who receive W2s, and much of their income can also stem from capital gains, which has a lower tax rate than earned income.

About 6 in 10 Americans said they were bothered by the feeling that corporations and the rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes, Pew Research found last year. That may explain why about two-thirds of those polled said they support higher taxes on the rich."

fixing my bolding fail

Why the $1 million threshold? Why not $300,000 or even $400,000? 21% is low.

Those people aren't paying 21%; they are paying 24%-25%

But depending on where you live, $300,000 is just upper middle class. Someone making $5 million or $20 million a year should pay a meaningfully higher tax rate (and rhigher rate, not just tax in absolute terms)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not listening to anyone and I don’t read MAGA news. I’m just a normal Maryland mom who thinks our country’s financial situation is unsustainable. If there is evidence that I am worried for nothing, I’d love to read it. I guess I’m over 50 so I’ll probably be ok but I have kids and am sad to see our country in decline both morally, politically, and financially.

“I’m not a MAGA but I sure parrot the MAGA party line”. 🤣😂

Do you think the current debt and deficit are a long term advantage or disadvantage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 types of people in this country. The first group understands financial management and would NEVER run their own household budget this way - these people are mostly republicans with the exception of a couple areas like DMV where people have so much money that they feel insulated against whatever happens nationally or even globally (with their safe and secure government jobs, or so they thought) and so they like to feel superior and vote Democrat even though they must understand that we simply can’t afford most of this spending*. Then there’s a second group of people who have no idea how compound interest works, get themselves into all sorts of trouble with debt, and think that “government money” grows on trees and doesn’t understand that some of us are working really freaking hard to fund all of these programs (and, a lot of the time, waste).

* Another explanation is to look at the math skills of a lot of these people. They may have fancy degrees and big jobs as big lawyers or whatever but I do think that a lot of them probably really struggled with math in school. So maybe they just really don’t get it, despite earning lots of money.

You must be really old to believe Republicans are fiscal conservatives or care anything about budgets or deficits. This isn't the 90s.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s pretty clear from every president after Clinton that neither Republicans nor Democrats care about the deficit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty clear from every president after Clinton that neither Republicans nor Democrats care about the deficit.

I think Republicans kind of care, but they don't think it's their responsibility to fund the programs Democrats passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear people saying the rich should be taxed more. Who qualifies as rich? According to link below there is an average tax rate of 21% on people earning $170-250,000. This sounds quite low by international standards but only reflects federal taxes. What do you think the average tax rate would be if you included state taxes and social security? Should these earners be paying more?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tax-irs-income-taxes-who-pays-the-most-and-least/

Taxes should rise at $1,000,000 in earnings and should go up a few more times, to 35%-50% on very high levels of income, including stock-based awards, etc. If we had done this a while back, we wouldn't have the revolution-baiting levels of income distribution we have now.

The key points from the article you linked to, with bolding by me:

"But the average tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined in recent decade...in 2001, the nation's top earners had an effective tax rate of 27.6% — almost two percentage points higher than their current rate.

The analysis also found that the top 0.1% of earners, with at least $3.8 million in annual income, pay an effective federal tax rate of 25.7%, which is a hair lower than the 25.9% tax rate for the top 1%.

Ultra-wealthy households often have access to tax loopholes and write-offs that aren't available to salaried workers who receive W2s, and much of their income can also stem from capital gains, which has a lower tax rate than earned income.

About 6 in 10 Americans said they were bothered by the feeling that corporations and the rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes, Pew Research found last year. That may explain why about two-thirds of those polled said they support higher taxes on the rich."

fixing my bolding fail

Why the $1 million threshold? Why not $300,000 or even $400,000? 21% is low.

Those people aren't paying 21%; they are paying 24%-25%

But depending on where you live, $300,000 is just upper middle class. Someone making $5 million or $20 million a year should pay a meaningfully higher tax rate (and rhigher rate, not just tax in absolute terms)

That’s true. But 25% is a pretty low tax rate for upper middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty clear from every president after Clinton that neither Republicans nor Democrats care about the deficit.

I think Republicans kind of care, but they don't think it's their responsibility to fund the programs Democrats passed.

Wrong. The programs are funded. With debt. And Republicans passed those programs too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty clear from every president after Clinton that neither Republicans nor Democrats care about the deficit.

I think Republicans kind of care, but they don't think it's their responsibility to fund the programs Democrats passed.

Wrong. The programs are funded. With debt. And Republicans passed those programs too

Plus the Republicans keep cutting taxes. So with either party in power, the deficit increases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s pretty clear from every president after Clinton that neither Republicans nor Democrats care about the deficit.

I think Republicans kind of care, but they don't think it's their responsibility to fund the programs Democrats passed.

Wrong. The programs are funded. With debt. And Republicans passed those programs too

Yep. Bush II grew the government a lot and cut taxes that turned the Clinton. surplus into deficits.

Why anyone believes Rs are good on debt/deficits is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who relies on SS and Medicare needs to wake up now. These new R tax proposals aren’t about helping out poor people. They’re about starving the government of more revenue to cause a crisis and force cuts to entitlements.

All the grants, federal employees, foreign aid - those are beans compares to the entitlements. Federal spending is already increasing under Trump. Because of the entitlements and interest on the debt!

It took Rs 25 years to “starve the beast” but now they are turbocharging the project. MAGA is so dumb though that they’re falling for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because a federal budget is not the same as a household budget. We need to ditch this dumb analogy.

this has to be the perfect answer from a DCUM elite.

incoherent nonsense. but makes you feel smart.

AYK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because a federal budget is not the same as a household budget. We need to ditch this dumb analogy.

this has to be the perfect answer from a DCUM elite.

incoherent nonsense. but makes you feel smart.

AYK

PP is right. Federal budget is almost the exact opposite of household budget. If there’s a downturn, spending expands because of our safety net. The opposite of what happens in a household.

The problem is that in good times, it should bring down deficits. Dems have repeatedly done this but not enough. Clinton ran surpluses and almost paid off debt until bush decided everyone needed a tax cut. Every crisis/recession since has meant the safety net runs up bigger deficits and increasingly hard to bring down.

And most households don’t have bonds that every international investor usually wants to hold. If households could borrow a lot of cheap money, they probably would. The problem is that Trump is scaring everyone off and the investors want higher interest rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who relies on SS and Medicare needs to wake up now. These new R tax proposals aren’t about helping out poor people. They’re about starving the government of more revenue to cause a crisis and force cuts to entitlements.

All the grants, federal employees, foreign aid - those are beans compares to the entitlements. Federal spending is already increasing under Trump. Because of the entitlements and interest on the debt!

It took Rs 25 years to “starve the beast” but now they are turbocharging the project. MAGA is so dumb though that they’re falling for it.

Social Security could be made solvent for decades by raising the contribution cap.