Billionaire Tax

Hello Flash,

But still it is not enough to pay the debt nor fund needed expenditures.

Debt to GDP is getting too high and infrastructure is crumbling and outdated, inadequate for today's needs.

Just as electricity spurred the US economy when brought to regions which lacked it, so shall internet service.

Nothing would be enough to pay the $22 trillion debt. We never pay the debt down, we just pay the bonds when due by borrowing more.

All the criticism of capitalism and wealthy people on your part leads to favoring government program that will only increase the wealth of those capitalists. Who do you think will build the infrastructure, run the child care and pre-kindergarten programs, free community college would create many new private for-profit colleges like the tv ads you see for these colleges that provide a poor education and close after getting student loan money. It is the same people who are the primary beneficiaries of food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, and other government programs.
 
Hello Flash,

Then why mention "capitalist" countries if it is (even more) true in socialist nations?

It is not a "wrong" if consumers choose to buy less than healthy products. I have relatives in the food broker business (measure shelf space for their products, make sure the products are properly placed and not damaged, etc) and they will put whatever products are in demand at that location. It is not a food desert but a choice of consumers. I have friends who mostly buy junk food like chips and beer and others who drink wine and buy healthier foods.

For example, they never put stuff like cheese balls in an Hispanic area because they don't eat stuff like that.

And they don't put quality food stores in ghettos because they can't get people to pay overly inflated prices and they don't want to foot the insurance bills.

The result is people being raised on crap foods and becoming unproductive health and behavior burdens to society.

And what is the right's answer to this? Deny it. Ignore it. Do nothing. Pretend these people are 'born inferior.' Claim they brought their own problems on by "making poor decisions."

The result of that is increased poverty and lawlessness. It becomes a burden on government to police, try and incarcerate way more people than ever need to be locked up. And all that costs money.

That's no solution.

That's just greedy people refusing to deal with an issue by making things up.

And we all pay for it.

It's a disgrace.

When will we ever learn that if we don't pay up front we are going to have to pay more down the road.
 
Hello Flash,

And they don't put quality food stores in ghettos because they can't get people to pay overly inflated prices and they don't want to foot the insurance bills.

The result is people being raised on crap foods and becoming unproductive health and behavior burdens to society.

And what is the right's answer to this? Deny it. Ignore it. Do nothing. Pretend these people are 'born inferior.' Claim they brought their own problems on by "making poor decisions."

The result of that is increased poverty and lawlessness. It becomes a burden on government to police, try and incarcerate way more people than ever need to be locked up. And all that costs money.

That's no solution.

That's just greedy people refusing to deal with an issue by making things up.

And we all pay for it.

It's a disgrace.

When will we ever learn that if we don't pay up front we are going to have to pay more down the road.

If it is due to greed they will put stores and products wherever they can make money. People don't have to be inferior to make poor choices in what they eat. "Food deserts" and "underserved" areas are just terms to justify more money for the poverty/industrial complex.
 
Then why mention "capitalist" countries if it is (even more) true in socialist nations?

It is not a "wrong" if consumers choose to buy less than healthy products. I have relatives in the food broker business (measure shelf space for their products, make sure the products are properly placed and not damaged, etc) and they will put whatever products are in demand at that location. It is not a food desert but a choice of consumers. I have friends who mostly buy junk food like chips and beer and others who drink wine and buy healthier foods.

For example, they never put stuff like cheese balls in an Hispanic area because they don't eat stuff like that.

I can't speak to rural areas and if they have food deserts because I'm not familiar with them but I can speak to urban areas. I'll go back to my Oakland example. It would get written up in the paper that in certain very poor areas of the City people had to travel several miles to get fresh vegetables (for example). As I mentioned before one or two of these areas would then get either new grocery stores or produce stores which was great. But then what happened? It became a more desirable place to live and gentrification started to occur. So now the articles are about how bad it is that locals are being priced out.
 
Hello Flash,

Nothing would be enough to pay the $22 trillion debt. We never pay the debt down, we just pay the bonds when due by borrowing more.

Actually we did begin paying it down a bit under Democratic President Clinton.

All the criticism of capitalism and wealthy people on your part leads to favoring government program that will only increase the wealth of those capitalists. Who do you think will build the infrastructure, run the child care and pre-kindergarten programs, free community college would create many new private for-profit colleges like the tv ads you see for these colleges that provide a poor education and close after getting student loan money. It is the same people who are the primary beneficiaries of food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, and other government programs.

The situation is not hopeless. No matter who challenging the problem there is a solution. We just have to work on it until we find it.

I'll never understand why people defend the super-rich. They don't need your help!

What they need to do is pay more toward the society which allowed them to become so wealthy so we can have a better country, so we can make America greater.
 
Hello Flash,

If it is due to greed they will put stores and products wherever they can make money. People don't have to be inferior to make poor choices in what they eat. "Food deserts" and "underserved" areas are just terms to justify more money for the poverty/industrial complex.

Oh, OK. So capitalism is failing to do what society needs. OK. Got it.

Then perhaps government needs to get into the business of supplying quality food where it is needed.
 
Hello cawacko,

I can't speak to rural areas and if they have food deserts because I'm not familiar with them but I can speak to urban areas. I'll go back to my Oakland example. It would get written up in the paper that in certain very poor areas of the City people had to travel several miles to get fresh vegetables (for example). As I mentioned before one or two of these areas would then get either new grocery stores or produce stores which was great. But then what happened? It became a more desirable place to live and gentrification started to occur. So now the articles are about how bad it is that locals are being priced out.

Great way to justify doing nothing to help those in need.

Classic approach from the right.

Deny a solvable problem exists. Therefore, it does not have to be solved.
 
From David Leonhardt, NYT.

~~~
Most Americans pay an annual wealth tax on their largest asset. It’s called property tax. Each year, they pay an amount equal to a small percentage of the estimated value of their house, and a house is by far the most valuable item that most families own.

The very rich are different. While they pay property taxes too, their homes tend to make up a tiny share of their net worth. The bulk of their assets are not taxed.

In past decades, other taxes — like the corporate tax (the burden of which falls on stockholders) and the estate tax — served almost as de facto wealth taxes. But those other taxes have declined, causing the total federal tax rate on the wealthy to plummet:

RBdBlZa.jpg


Over the same period, wealth inequality has soared:

XVSTpF9.jpg


Today, the wealthy both own a much larger share of the country’s assets than they once did and pay less tax on each dollar of assets. This combination creates problems for everybody else. Many Americans own only modest assets, and the federal government struggles to raise enough tax revenue to pay for society’s needs, like education, health care, transportation, scientific research and the military.

This week, Senate Democratic leaders proposed a solution, in the form of a new kind of wealth tax. People with at least $1 billion in net worth or $100 million in annual income would be taxed each year on the increase in the value of many of their assets.
~~~

Rest of the article may be found here.
 
Last edited:
Then why try to implement more and more Socialism into the economy?

Because capitalism has proven the last 30 years that it can't carry an economy without getting bailed out by some socialism.

We bailed out capitalism thanks to the S&L's.

We bailed out capitalism thanks to the mortgage backed securities.

We bailed out capitalism thanks to the stupid tariffs.

We bailed out capitalism thanks to Trump's virus.

Capitalism was unable to meet every one of those challenges, so it's not the strong, infallible system you like to pretend it is.

Capitalism is weak...it's fragile...it's delicate...it cannot withstand scrutiny and pressure.

Capitalism had no fucking idea what to do about this virus...so capitalism just held out its hand for government to fill with socialism (PPP).
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

From David Leonhardt, NYT.

~~~
Most Americans pay an annual wealth tax on their largest asset. It’s called property tax. Each year, they pay an amount equal to a small percentage of the estimated value of their house, and a house is by far the most valuable item that most families own.

The very rich are different. While they pay property taxes too, their homes tend to make up a tiny share of their net worth. The bulk of their assets are not taxed.

In past decades, other taxes — like the corporate tax (the burden of which falls on stockholders) and the estate tax — served almost as de facto wealth taxes. But those other taxes have declined, causing the total federal tax rate on the wealthy to plummet:

RBdBlZa.jpg


Over the same period, wealth inequality has soared:

XVSTpF9.jpg


Today, the wealthy both own a much larger share of the country’s assets than they once did and pay less tax on each dollar of assets. This combination creates problems for everybody else. Many Americans own only modest assets, and the federal government struggles to raise enough tax revenue to pay for society’s needs, like education, health care, transportation, scientific research and the military.

This week, Senate Democratic leaders proposed a solution, in the form of a new kind of wealth tax. People with at least $1 billion in net worth or $100 million in annual income would be taxed each year on the increase in the value of many of their assets.
~~~

Rest of the article may be found here.

And it makes so much sense.

But fools on the right still want to protect the billionaires.

I wonder if they know that some of the billionaires they are protecting are people like George Soros?

Oh, the irony.
 
And it makes so much sense.

But fools on the right still want to protect the billionaires.

I wonder if they know that some of the billionaires they are protecting are people like George Soros?

Oh, the irony.

Hahaha -- yeppers. And Bezos and Buffet (who famously said that his secretary pays more taxes than he does) and Gates and Ted Turner (that guy who started that cable news network they hate).
 
Actually we did begin paying it down a bit under Democratic President Clinton.

Disagree. Even when we had a balanced budget under Clinton the debt continued to increase.

Deficit Debt
1996 -107 billion 5.2 trillion
1997 - 21 billion 5.4 trillion
1998 +69 billion 5.5 trillion
1999 +125 billion 5.6 trillion

Even in 1998-1999 when there was no deficit, the debt continued to grow. That is because government borrows more money each year than just enough to cover the deficit. For example, federal law requires any surplus Social Security revenue be put in federal treasuries--that is borrowing more money. That SS surplus is now $2.5 trillion. That is intergovernmental and not shown as public debt. When that money is needed by SS the government will have to borrow more money to repay the SS treasuries.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
 
Please show us some examples of this "socialism" that you guys like to fling around.

Welfare
Public education
Universal government run child care
Amtrak
Medicare /caid
Corporate subsidies
Public housing
Wage and price controls

It isn't that all Socialism is bad, but it clear that too much of it is worse than too much Capitalism
 
Welfare
Public education
Universal government run child care
Amtrak
Medicare /caid
Corporate subsidies
Public housing
Wage and price controls

It isn't that all Socialism is bad, but it clear that too much of it is worse than too much Capitalism

It's not clear at all. BTW, just what is "Universal government run child care"? My kids would like to know so they could get some of that.

What wage and price controls? The only "wage control" we have is the minimum wage; without that you'd see even more ppl using those other programs that you dislike, like "welfare" and "food stamps."

Mostly what you all fear is that somewhere, some poor schmuck is going to get something that you didn't/don't have. You all cried and cried about the extended unemployment benefits during the pandemic. They've been gone for almost two entire months now and job vacancies are pretty much the same, so your meme of ppl sitting around soaking up taxpayer dollars and not working is a fail.

I'd be fine with dropping Amtrak, corporate subsidies, and making public housing a temporary situation.
 
It's not clear at all. BTW, just what is "Universal government run child care"? My kids would like to know so they could get some of that.

The proposed all-day pre-school and kindergarten the Democrats are pushing for. It amounts to all-day child care at a public facility where they will make your kids stupid by the age of 5...

What wage and price controls? The only "wage control" we have is the minimum wage; without that you'd see even more ppl using those other programs that you dislike, like "welfare" and "food stamps."

Wage and price controls have come and gone in US history. FDR tried them during WW 2. That's how health insurance ended fucked up today. Nixon tried them in the early 70's and screwed the economy up. And yes, minimum wage is a wage control as is massive taxes on the rich (bottom vs. top end control). The government in contracts requires that all workers on their projects get paid "prevailing union wage," whether they are union or not.
Another one the Democrats propose is price controls on prescription drugs. Many counties have these already. Where they do, often new drugs are much slower to go into those markets and drug development is slowed or ends. Today, the US pharma industry creates about 60% of all new drugs worldwide and imposes most of the cost of that on countries like the US without such controls to recoup the cost of development during the patent period.

Tariffs are another. Trump and Biden both have used these for a recent example.
 
Hello Flash,

Oh, OK. So capitalism is failing to do what society needs. OK. Got it.

Then perhaps government needs to get into the business of supplying quality food where it is needed.

No, consumers are making poor choices. That is why over 40% of Americans are now obese. People don't need government to buy their food and tell them to eat properly. Capitalism is providing them anything they want--they just want junk.
 
Back
Top