Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Agree.

Who has multiple children when they continually cannot even feed one of them?

Women whose birth control fails, women who can’t get abortions when they find out they’re 10 weeks pregnant, women stuck with children from deadbeat dads.

Oh, and people who define their quality of life differently from you. If they arent living in a Langley HS pyramid can they afford to have children by your definition? What about the federal employees who built their lives around serving the public for crap pay that were fired, can they ”afford” to withstand this sh*tshow of an administration and the economic and political instability being created? Or is that par for the course?

You may have money, but your thinking reflects a poverty mindset.

DP. Your odd response makes no sense to why a woman would have MULTIPLE children when she can’t feed herself or even one.

She had that many Ooopsie/?
Ooopsie forgot BC -failed again, Oooopsie out of wedlock how’d that happen, Oooopsie unprotected sex and no period for two months, Ooopsie missed the Plan B timeframe again, Oooopsie can’t figure out how to cross state lines on a bus, Oooopsie how does this keep happening to me 2,3,4x?, Oooopsie back to the SSA office.

Your mind is so small that this is the only scenario you can imagine. Wow. Growing up, I knew of a family that lost their home when working dad was killed in an auto accident. Mom had been a stay at home and dad apparently earned enough in life to house and feed his SAHW and three kids. Mother did get a job upon his death, but it obviously was not enough to maintain their previous standard of living. Maybe if the mother could have foreseen the future she would have stopped at one kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Raise tariffs on the high income taxing Europeans !!!

Agree!!! Tax the countries ripping us off. We haven't tried that till now and it's obviously the correct target of grifters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2022 Massachusetts raised taxes on millionaires by 4%, and conservatives said the rich would flee. Instead, the state saw a 39% increase in the number of millionaires. The state passed universal free breakfast and lunch for all public school children. It is now one of the least poverty-stricken states in the country. NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani proposed raising taxes on the rich by 2%.

Millionaires like someone has over $1-2 m saved for retirement ?

No. It’s tax on the excess of annual income over $1million. That revenue is then held for transportation and education programs/projects. The idea is redistribution from wealthier communities to poorer ones for key infrastructure.

Agree - and I also support Warren's suggestion of a wealth tax, to apply an annual tax of 2% on net worth between $50m and $1b going up to 6% on all net worth over $1b. Economists have projected that this would raise $3.75 trillion in revenue over 10 years. That would significantly reduce deficit. There would also be a 40% exit tax on people with net worth over $50m if they try to evade taxes by renouncing US citizenship.

It would not even reduce the deficit, as they would probably spend more than that trying to collect the money, as happens with the estate tax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2022 Massachusetts raised taxes on millionaires by 4%, and conservatives said the rich would flee. Instead, the state saw a 39% increase in the number of millionaires. The state passed universal free breakfast and lunch for all public school children. It is now one of the least poverty-stricken states in the country. NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani proposed raising taxes on the rich by 2%.

Millionaires like someone has over $1-2 m saved for retirement ?

No. It’s tax on the excess of annual income over $1million. That revenue is then held for transportation and education programs/projects. The idea is redistribution from wealthier communities to poorer ones for key infrastructure.

Agree - and I also support Warren's suggestion of a wealth tax, to apply an annual tax of 2% on net worth between $50m and $1b going up to 6% on all net worth over $1b. Economists have projected that this would raise $3.75 trillion in revenue over 10 years. That would significantly reduce deficit. There would also be a 40% exit tax on people with net worth over $50m if they try to evade taxes by renouncing US citizenship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Agree.

Who has multiple children when they continually cannot even feed one of them?

Women whose birth control fails, women who can’t get abortions when they find out they’re 10 weeks pregnant, women stuck with children from deadbeat dads.

Oh, and people who define their quality of life differently from you. If they arent living in a Langley HS pyramid can they afford to have children by your definition? What about the federal employees who built their lives around serving the public for crap pay that were fired, can they ”afford” to withstand this sh*tshow of an administration and the economic and political instability being created? Or is that par for the course?

You may have money, but your thinking reflects a poverty mindset.

DP. Your odd response makes no sense to why a woman would have MULTIPLE children when she can’t feed herself or even one.

She had that many Ooopsie/?
Ooopsie forgot BC -failed again, Oooopsie out of wedlock how’d that happen, Oooopsie unprotected sex and no period for two months, Ooopsie missed the Plan B timeframe again, Oooopsie can’t figure out how to cross state lines on a bus, Oooopsie how does this keep happening to me 2,3,4x?, Oooopsie back to the SSA office.

Anonymous wrote:Raise tariffs on the high income taxing Europeans !!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution for US debt crisis. Demand tribute from other counties. Golden visa concept on a nation state level. Only non voluntary.

Sure, just push our debt onto other countries and create a debt crisis for them

Dumbest idea yet.

If you haven't noticed, that's exactly what we have been doing.... for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2022 Massachusetts raised taxes on millionaires by 4%, and conservatives said the rich would flee. Instead, the state saw a 39% increase in the number of millionaires. The state passed universal free breakfast and lunch for all public school children. It is now one of the least poverty-stricken states in the country. NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani proposed raising taxes on the rich by 2%.

Millionaires like someone has over $1-2 m saved for retirement ?

No. It’s tax on the excess of annual income over $1million. That revenue is then held for transportation and education programs/projects. The idea is redistribution from wealthier communities to poorer ones for key infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:
We need to implement more taxes on the rich (myself included) and the corporations, AND cut government spending.

Nobody wants to do this because each party only wants to implement one of them and not the other. This is why it hasn't been done.

But it NEEDS to be done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution for US debt crisis. Demand tribute from other counties. Golden visa concept on a nation state level. Only non voluntary.

Sure, just push our debt onto other countries and create a debt crisis for them

Dumbest idea yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2022 Massachusetts raised taxes on millionaires by 4%, and conservatives said the rich would flee. Instead, the state saw a 39% increase in the number of millionaires. The state passed universal free breakfast and lunch for all public school children. It is now one of the least poverty-stricken states in the country. NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani proposed raising taxes on the rich by 2%.

Millionaires like someone has over $1-2 m saved for retirement ?

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution for US debt crisis. Demand tribute from other counties. Golden visa concept on a nation state level. Only non voluntary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taxing "the rich" accomplishes little, leaving aside the morality of unilaterally taking money from people who are successful to redistribute it to those who are not, and calling that "fair". Countries with high levels of taxation have uniformly lower standards of living along with their more expansive social services - everybody gets to live in a small house or apartment, drive a small car, have small appliances, and have little disposable income. In return, they receive socialized medicine which, by all reports, is better than nothing but not necessarily by much, especially if you need timely or sophisticated care.

Different models and different outcomes. Not everyone wants to live like a typical Swede or Englishman but would prefer instead the opportunity for a better lifestyle, even if that is not guaranteed in a free market economy.

You seem ok with children going hungry so billionaires get a tax break. You are what is wrong with America.

No child is hungry because someone developed a successful product or service and thereby became wealthy. Dependence on the government to feed one's children reveals more about the parents of such children than it does about people who have been successful and who don't depend on the government to keep them fed.

Agree.

Who has multiple children when they continually cannot even feed one of them?

Women whose birth control fails, women who can’t get abortions when they find out they’re 10 weeks pregnant, women stuck with children from deadbeat dads.

Oh, and people who define their quality of life differently from you. If they arent living in a Langley HS pyramid can they afford to have children by your definition? What about the federal employees who built their lives around serving the public for crap pay that were fired, can they ”afford” to withstand this sh*tshow of an administration and the economic and political instability being created? Or is that par for the course?

You may have money, but your thinking reflects a poverty mindset.

DP. Your odd response makes no sense to why a woman would have MULTIPLE children when she can’t feed herself or even one.

She had that many Ooopsie/?
Ooopsie forgot BC -failed again, Oooopsie out of wedlock how’d that happen, Oooopsie unprotected sex and no period for two months, Ooopsie missed the Plan B timeframe again, Oooopsie can’t figure out how to cross state lines on a bus, Oooopsie how does this keep happening to me 2,3,4x?, Oooopsie back to the SSA office.