Democrats' agenda to raise taxes? you think they'll tax their donors/FUNDERS'? or you?

[strateguy632]

Do you disapprove of the Democrats' agenda to raise taxes. won't raise tax donors/ FUNDERS', nor their own congress salary tax bracket, or their own congress salary, so who do you think will pay?

[NaultD]

The democratic party also requires so many "small donations" to be in the primary running for the democratic party. So at least a bare minimum showing an attempt at fairer taxes.

Let's also remember bush jr was the one responsible for our tax situation. Bill Clinton highest tax brackets kept a damn near balanced book with only social security outside financial borrowing. Bush jr gave a rebate to get elected and 9/11 created our deficit.

Since then democratic president are the only people to lower the deficit. While Republicans grow it in power as there only talking while they are out of power.

[strateguy632]

check by how much obama dnc and now biden dnc swelled the national debt each year now 33 million of millions.

[Soteris]

I mean, just looking at the facts you can see that taxes are historically very low:

Even if you think that the taxes won't be raised fairly, it does not detract from the fact that taxes needs to go up regardless. USA has been stuck with the idea that lower taxes is good when in reality all it has done is erode the country in a million different ways. It is time to go back to what actually worked and stop pretending that if we only just cut taxes a tincy bit more then everything will suddenly resolve itself and become an utopia.

[Cubus]

This timeline ends at 2004, so it may look different now - 20 years later.

[Soteris]

@Cubus I took that because it was easiest to read, not because it necessarily had up-to-date information. You would not believe how few of these are actually helpful to people who do not read graphs for a living.

This does however establish a trend and that trend is very much still in effect today.

[QuietRunner]

@Soteris
We could also cut spending and go back to the way benefits were given before 1934, 1936, or 1965.

[Soteris]

@QuietRunner You could but it would not help your deficit. Things like benefit spending has a positive return in the economy and to the national revenue. Cutting benefits now would just be setting yourself into a deficit and then slashing your revenue required to repay it.

[QuietRunner]

@Soteris When then I vote for the Tiny Tax or the Automated Deposit Tax.

http://thetinytax.com/

[Soteris]

@QuietRunner That would not work. I mean seriously, 1.3 quadrillion dollars? That is over 600 times more than all the US dollars in circulation today. Sure, you could have a wet dream about finding a way to tax that but the only reason it can get into those astronomically high values is because money can change hands quickly and cheaply. If you put a flat tax on that then the value will basically evaporate, not to mention you will slow down the exchange of money AKA trade and by extension the economy will slow down.

It is a pretty nice way to ruin your own economy I suppose but lets be honest here, people will simply start trading where they are not taxed. In other words, abroad most likely. In the end you could never translate the "potential" tax income in todays numbers if you actually start taxing them since there will be a complete change in behavior.

[strateguy632]

but that is only part of the picture.
in a responsible family low income means SPEND LESS not overflowing credit cards. same for government need to cut spending drasticly.

[Soteris]

@strateguy632
The government is not a family and does not use money even remotely similar. First of all, a country is not really under the threat of bankruptcy or whatever. Countries carries a massive amount of trust in their institutions and insane ways to theoretically raise cash not to mention that they almost always control their own currency. A national debt is as such almost completely alien to a household debt. In fact, most countries takes on debts intentionally because it is beneficial for them which I am sure just blew your mind.

The conventional way countries repay debts is not to actually repay them at all but to rather grow out of them. For example, if your government borrows 1 MILLION DOLLARS! *Austin powers meme here* and just dont repay it for 100 years. Every year the government kept an inflation rate of 2% which means the value of the debt is decreasing in what it is actually worth and on top of that your national economy is growing by like 3% which means your debt becomes smaller and smaller compared to your growing economy.

And suddenly your massive MILLION DOLLAR debt becomes meaningless simply because you outgrew it without having to repay a single dollar and only have to keep paying the interest rate.

As such, the best practice for dealing with national debts according to both economic history (we have a lot of that) and expert economists is not to cut spending when in debt but to increase spending in areas that will give a higher return in the future. The faster you can grow the faster you can outgrow your debts.

But you would not know about any of this. Because you are thinking that a national debt is like overflowing a credit card or whatever.

[Jennz6]

Yes, I disapprove of the Democrats and Biden

[Jennz6]

Thanks for the MHO 💕💯

[Wise4myage]

The taxpayers who else.