In other words you can't show the post because it doesn't exist. I said the tax cuts apply equally to everybody.
I agree 100%. I am not a boomer and I didn't support any of that. It all was the result of government spending that increased faster than revenues.
The boomers want their Social Security increases, their Medicare Part B payments kept lower and want more coverage, their FEMA payments for hurricane damage, etc.
The Gordon Gecko greed is showing itself again in those who want to take the income and wealth from those they deem "wealthy" and give others more benefits with their money--free college, free healthcare. .
There is nothing "unfair" about a billionaire. They earned their money honestly and should not be looked down upon by others who are jealous of their success.
There is nothing "unfair" about a billionaire. They earned their money honestly and should not be looked down upon by others who are jealous of their success.
LOL!
I'm not sure if that was meant to be parody or if it's something you truly believe, but to think that billionaires like Trump or the Sacklers earned their money honestly is either an hilarious joke, or just complete and total ignorance.
The typical liberal attempt to proclaim anybody with money obviously earned it illegally to justify high taxes and a "wealth tax."
The typical liberal attempt to proclaim anybody with money obviously earned it illegally to justify high taxes and a "wealth tax."
The typical liberal attempt to proclaim anybody with money obviously earned it illegally to justify high taxes and a "wealth tax."
They earned their money honestly and should not be looked down upon by others who are jealous of their success.
“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made a student loan payment on Tuesday — and also revealed how much she still owes — while attending a congressional hearing on college debt.
“I literally made a student loan payment while I was sitting here at this chair, and I looked at my balance, and it was $20,237.16,” said the New York lawmaker. “I just made a payment that took me down to $19,000 so I feel really accomplished right now.”
Ocasio-Cortez, a Boston University graduate, was attending a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the estimated $1.5 trillion in student debt in the country. Consumer advocates, experts and public figures testified on different ways to bring the number down.
Ocasio-Cortez is one of nearly 70 members of Congress who are still paying off student loans for themselves or a dependent — with an average debt burden of $37,000. Eight lawmakers are said to have more than $100,000 in debt.
“I’m hearing people on this committee say it’s not our job,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to testimony from Republicans during the hearing. “This is our job.”
This is a clear conflict of interest by her and the other Democrats who have unpaid student loans.
They want taxpayers to pay their loans. Conflict of interest.
You can't make an economic argument against raising their taxes to expand benefits, so you make an emotional one instead.
That's not how conflicts of interest work. If it were, members of Congress could never vote for a tax cut, since they'd enjoy lower taxes, nor for highway bills, since they might drive on those highways, nor for anything else. Obviously. Anyway, it's actually surprising she doesn't have more debt, considering she's only been out of school since 2011. These days, total estimated cost of attending Boston University is $72,052 per year. If a person managed to earn $10k per year working over the summer and part time during the school year, that still leaves a debt of about a quarter million dollars after four years of school, plus whatever interest accrued. Presumably, since Ocasio-Cortez came from a family of modest means and was an academic star in high school, she got both needs-based and merit-based grants, reducing the cost considerably. Otherwise, she'd probably still owe a lot more than $20k right now.
Here is an economic argument. California has very high taxes and generous welfare benefits and the country's highest poverty rate. Doesn't look like it works that great. New York with high taxes and generous benefits has the 3rd highest poverty rate.
As I proved to you previously, the 91% tax rate of the 1950's earned no more revenue as a percentage of GDP than the currently lower rates.
NO! It was because tax cuts reduced revenues, which created deficits.
You never, ever, ever want to admit that. And it's obvious why; if you admit tax cuts reduce revenues, you admit that they create deficits, and then you have to admit they don't make up the revenue they cost in "increased economic activity", nor do they let you "keep more of what you earned" since debt levels increase and personal savings plummets every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years.
Every. Time.
Flash, a mere 1% change in rev-GDP ratio is the equivalent of $200B, or 1/5 of our current tax cut-fueled deficit.
The rev-GDP rate changes you showed before varied anywhere between 1-5% ($200B - $1T).
You are being dishonest when you use rev-GDP and neglect to mention the fact that what appears as a nominal change in percentage terms is anything but nominal when it comes to actual dollar figures.
You are deliberately leaving that out of your argument because of what it means for your argument.
That's why I say you act in bad faith.
California has the world's sixth largest economy and a budget surplus.
The poverty measurement you're using counts middle class folks who get state aid as below the poverty line.
More jobs have been created in CA than any other state since the Great Bush Recession.
CA has attracted more immigrants than any other state.
CA gets back less in federal spending than it contributes to the Treasury.
So wait a second, Flash. Are you now saying that not all billionaires came about their wealth legitimately, fairly, or legally? You said billionaires earned their wealth honestly.
So now comes the part where you start walking that broad, vague, generalization back, isn't it? Is this the part where you start moving goalposts?
You can't make an economic argument against raising their taxes to expand benefits, so you make an emotional one instead.