This a refreshing change from telling young people to skip the avocado toast. It doubles as an indictment of unregulated capitalism.
And from another post you made, you wouldn't have to see your own taxes go up 5% if we would just tax the uber-rich.
The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
And from another post you made, you wouldn't have to see your own taxes go up 5% if we would just tax the uber-rich.
How man of the uber-rich own companies? Let's use an owner of a pro sports team for example. What do you think will happen if they get taxed 5% more? You think they'll absorb it, or pass it on down? I'm not saying they aren't greedy. Some are. They catch so much criticism from guys like you, but you never stop to think how many jobs they create. Plus the athletes are making outrageous salaries, which in turn adds to the fan paying for it when (if) they go see a game.
But these sayings are true, that you can't make the poor wealthy by making the wealthy poor, and you never get a job from a poor person.
The problem with that argument is that we’ve already run this experiment before. During the 1950s and 1960s, when America experienced one of the greatest periods of economic growth in its history, the top marginal tax rate was 91% on the highest earners. With that tax revenue, we built the Interstate Highway System, expanded airports and ports, constructed dams and power projects across the country, built schools and universities for the Baby Boom generation, funded the Space Race, and created much of the infrastructure we still rely on today.
The wealthy didn’t disappear or move, businesses didn’t stop investing, and job creation didn’t come to a halt. That’s a myth the billionaire class pushes in order to keep taking more and more.
As for sports team owners, they’re already charging the maximum amount they think fans will pay. Ticket prices aren’t determined by the owner’s tax bill. They’re determined by demand. If owners could raise prices without losing customers, they’d already be doing it, along with every other corporation. Companies pass along costs when the market allows it, not because their tax rate changed.
Nobody is arguing that making wealthy people poorer automatically makes everyone else richer. The actual question is whether an economy works better when a larger share of the wealth created is reinvested into things that benefit everyone. The postwar boom of the 1950s and 1960s suggests that a combination of strong private enterprise, major public investment, and a more progressive tax system can produce broad prosperity. We know it works because we’ve done it before.
“I will be a Senator for the people who can not afford to buy a Senator”
If you’re unfamiliar with Graham Platner, this is his victory speech from last night. It’s easy to see why he’s garnered so much support and weathered storms that would have sunk other candidates. His economic populist message is going to be extremely potent this election cycle. If the DNC were smart, they’d be taking notes and replicating it across the country.
The Maine Senate race is the lynchpin of any Democratic hopes of controlling the Senate. It’s one of the races I’ll be watching very closely.
Think you're not giving a bad take on these two parts, but I believe you're leaving out some of the how. I'm no expert (shocker), but I'll give my two cents. First, during the boom of the 50's, life was so much simpler. The American family made it off one income, and mom stayed home to raise the kids. It kind of stayed that way for a few decades, then somehow life got harder financially, the women's movement came along, and things started to change, a lot for the worse. In no way am I saying women were treated fairly, but on this topic, I think the pendulum has swung too far to the other side. You gradually make it harder to live on one income, create a war between men and women, and in return, families slowly start breaking up. One of the results over time was many people had to start relying on the Government for help. You may think what I'm saying is crazy, but I don't. I think this was an evil plan.
On your part about the wealthy? NAFTA in the 90's says hello. Why pay an American worker in the 90's $15-25 an hour, when you can have someone in Mexico, China... make it for dollars a day?
America wasn't ready for Ross Perot, but he was spot on with his statement about what was about to happen, before it happened.
There's a lot of blame to go around, I'm not saying some billionaire business owners aren't bad, but it's not all on them. I get the feeling you're one of those that call all billionaires evil, yet don't blame politicians unless it's a Republican. The Government doesn't create jobs, and the more they get their slimy hands involved, the worse things get.
Last edited:
“It kind of stayed that way for a few decades, then somehow life got harder financially”
There’s a simple explanation for this. Life got harder financially because, starting in the 1970s, the benefits of economic growth became increasingly concentrated at the top while the costs of housing, healthcare, and education rose much faster than wages for the average worker.
To answer the other stuff, NAFTA absolutely accelerated the offshoring of American manufacturing jobs, and politicians from both parties deserve plenty of blame for not effectively communicating that at the time. But it was going to happen regardless. It’s the nature of globalization, and Americans are addicted to cheap goods. To satisfy that demand, products have to be made as cheaply as possible. That’s not happening in America. The harsh reality is that those jobs aren’t coming back. In most cases, the types of jobs we lost to those countries aren’t even being done by people overseas anymore. They’ve been automated.
The evidence doesn’t support the idea that higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans lead to job losses or slower economic growth. We had some of the highest marginal tax rates in our history during one of the most prosperous periods in American history. We should be using the additional tax revenue to fix our infrastructure and prepare the country for the future. During the 1950s and 1960s, businesses still invested, jobs were still created, and the economy still grew, all while they built the nation’s infrastructure that we still rely on today.
What concerns me is that we’ve spent decades repeatedly cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals and corporations while running ever larger deficits. The promise was that the benefits would trickle down to everyone else. Instead, wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top while the national debt approaches $40 trillion. At some point, you have to acknowledge that the theory was BS. Today, the top 1% controls more wealth than the bottom 90% of American households combined. All while people cant afford housing, healthcare, food, etc. Continually cutting taxes for the people who need it the least while acting surprised about exploding deficits is fiscally irresponsible. You can only bleed the lower classes so much.
Someone is going to have to pay for this debt eventually. How do you think that happens? Are we cutting the defense budget? Ending Social Security? Eliminating Medicare and Medicaid? Because something has to give. The idea that cutting fraud and waste will solve this is a fairytale. You can’t continually reduce revenue through tax cuts and then act surprised by exploding deficits. I hate paying taxes as much as anyone, but this is common sense.
Pimpin' ain't easy, but simpin' for billionaires sure is for you. They're already taking and taking and taking. More all the time. But let's blame the person using WIC for ruining the economy and the middle class instead.
What has not taxing billionaires gotten us?
The only ethical way to become a billionaire is to divorce one.
Nobody makes a billion dollars. They take it.
I don't know how credible the site USA FACTS is, but they say in 2023 the top 5% ($272 & up) paid 60% of the National total. The Tax Foundation said in 2022, the average income tax rate was 14.5%. The top 1% paid 23.1%, and the bottom half paid 3.7%. I think you've been trained to despise people that have at least two commas in their bank accounts. I get it to a degree, but not at the level you seem to be at. It's a government agency that sets all this up. They're called the IRS.
But if we're being honest here, we all take whatever break we can get. The uber rich are no different. They just are able to do more because they have more.
Last edited:
First off, I don’t despise anyone for how much they’re worth. I just want them to give back to the system and society that allowed them to generate such insane wealth in the first place.
Do they pay a greater percentage of the tax share than the lower classes? Of course they do. Have they also not benefited more from that system? The national debt is $40 trillion and rising now. It has to be paid somehow, right? Do you propose we raise taxes on the bottom 90% of households instead to make up the deficit? Looking at the current economic conditions, the price of food, gas, and 4.2% inflation, I personally don’t think they have any more to give. I think they’ve been squeezed dry.
But Elon is about to become the first-ever trillionaire. A big congratulations should be in order, as that’s quite an accomplishment. But how much of the money generated from his companies comes from U.S. government contracts paid for by American taxpayers? And I don’t want to just focus on Elon. He’s just the richest one currently.
I find it really hard to get upset that billionaires who own multiple yachts, planes, houses, and everything else you can imagine are asked to pay a small portion of their profits back to the society that built them. The rest of society is tapped out financially.
I would much rather have billionaires and soon-to-be trillionaires contributing to actually enhancing our country rather than spending their money the way they currently do: by buying politicians and elections simply to make themselves richer.
Elon spent $277,000,000 to get Trump elected. His net worth has now increased $520,000,000,000 since Trump was sworn in January, 2025.
What a coincidence.
Last edited:
On your first part, they pay what they can get away with. If they are doing anything illegal/outside the rules set by the IRS, then yes, punish them. Like I said in my previous post, we all take advantage of things if we can.
On Trump and Elon. Hilary brought up Trump not paying taxes in the 2015 debate. Trump spoke the truth when he said I do what I'm allowed to do. You've been in politics for a long time, but never tried changing the laws. Why? Because you don't want to change the way things are. You have big donors, and they do exactly what I do. Talk about a mic drop.
The ol crooked hag was steaming.
Wow. Amazing moment. And then everyone clapped, right? He sure showed her. Dumb old hag.
What an awesome story about rich people screwing over poor people and being so comfortable with the lack of consequences that they brag about it openly on a national stage. What a great system we have in place. I’m glad you support it, Mac.
“Rather have….contributing to actually enhancing our country”.
From paying a sh- ton of taxes to investing in startups deemed too risky for the average investor to employing millions of people, billionaires already contribute greatly to our society.
As you probably know, most of their wealth is not tied up in mansions and yachts but public and private equity. There’s also all of their funding of charitable orgs and financing of cutting edge medical research. You tie the boom of the 50s to the higher tax rates of the uberwealthy primarily.
Most historians agree with you in part, but also highlight other prominent factors as well. The GI Bill and infrastructure investment were indeed huge parts of the post war boom from the 50s to early 70s, but there were other unique circumstances that aren’t relevant to today. E.g, Europe and Asia’s societies were devastated in pop loss as well as destroyed infrastructure. Not only were China and the USSR suffocated by anti- capitalist regimes, their nations were devasted by WW2.
In short, for a couple decades post war, the USA had no real competition in the industrial sector, accounting for over a third of the world’s industrial output. Now, it’s less than half that. I’m not opposed to billionaires paying more, but at a 90% rate there are major opportunity costs to consider back to above paragraphs.
I don’t disagree with you. I know there were many factors at play then that do not apply now and that contributed to that economic boom. I also acknowledge that most billionaires are involved in philanthropy and do good things with their money. I even have a Carnegie Library in my town.
I’m also not advocating for a 91% tax rate, either. I’m just using it as an example of what’s been done in the past. I’m not even saying they’re bad people. My point is that the current system is broken and is only getting worse, and what they’re doing is simply not enough. Historically, that has had dire ramifications for both the upper and lower classes when that divide gets out of hand.
I don’t know what the magic bullet is when it comes to determining what tax rates are appropriate and for whom, but we should at least be having that conversation. As bad as the economic outlook is today, with the rise of AI and the job disruption that comes with it, we should all be focused on answering these questions as soon as possible.
You’re not getting it. Trump didn’t set up the tax laws. He, and every other American for that matter, take advantage of the system.
Your complaint should be made to our government, not at the uber-rich, or accusing me of supporting it. Not sure where that’s coming from.
And what Trump said to Hilary that night about taxes was nothing but the truth.
Has someone like Elon always been able to give an unlimited amount of money, or is this a result of the changes in campaign contributions law that occurred five years ago? Ten? I didn’t follow it that closely at the time.
No, Mac. You’re not getting it. You’re talking about a moment that happened in a debate 10 years ago that has no bearing on today and I was making a joke about it.
I am obviously complaining about the government. I have not blamed just one side. They are both obviously at fault.
No. The modern system of billionaires spending virtually unlimited sums on elections is largely the result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow Supreme Court decisions in 2010, which opened the door to Super PACs and unlimited independent political spending.
It just seems you’re more inclined to blame the uber-rich. I’m not disagreeing with some of that, but the bigger issue is exactly what Trump said that night 11 years ago. If it had been anyone with a D beside their name, I think you probably would agree with it. It was the truth! The system is rigged. Too many politicians get bought.
Sadly, it’s been this way for a long, long time.
Last edited:
Every accusation is a confession.
Based on the limited knowledge you have of me, you can't possibly believe that I'm driven by money. Don't let that get in the way of using whatever trite comeback you can think of.
Same. They owe the system that protected their right to make so much. They should be like Grant Hill, giving back oodles to the university that launched his career. Instead they're like the first-born queen bee who goes around killing all the other queens still in their pods, or whatever bees are born out of.
If you don't want desperate poor people breaking into your mansion and stealing your TV, make sure you invest in their education. Or stop whining about having to support poor people with social services when you are fighting to keep minimum wage where it is.
President Reagan sold poor conservatives on the idea of trickledown economics. That's where the income inequality we see today really started. It has led directly to the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few, but poor conservatives keep carrying water for them thinking their big break is just around the corner, 40+ years later.
Why are we seeing billionaires get richer while so many others are falling further behind? The inflation and employment problems we've seen since the pandemic while billionaires approach trillionaire status are related, but here you are grinning through it and saying, "thank you, sir, may I have another?"
I don't want anyone to have to depend on charity. I want people to have self-determination because the system is set up to protect that opportunity, not to enrich the few then pat them on the back for tax deductible charity to foundations they set up and control with all the same strings attached. Too often, charity is just another grift.
I agree that some of the uber-rich are easy to dislike, but you’re lumping them all together. Good for Grant Hill, he’s a great guy, but there are plenty wealthier than him that do similar things too.
You just have a wonderful knack of demonizing those that you think don’t align with your views on injustice. Liberals are generally the most contradictory people out there though.
So a billion dollars is theft. At what amount in your view does it cross the line from earned income to robbery? Ten million? 500 million? 999,999,999? We actually most likely agree on one thing. If a CEO makes billions chances are workers down the line somewhere are unpaid. Take Amazon eg. It’s great that Bezos’ ex has donated hundred of millions to charity, but could that money years ago have been better reinvested in its workforce through higher wages or a better 401k.
Last edited:
I’m not sure how I feel about him honestly. Whether I should admire him for the courage of his convictions as a maverick bucking the MAGA monopoly or if he is more of a tokenized opportunist a la Lynn Cheney.
I don’t have an issue bucking MAGA some, but any association with the last name Cheney is all I need to know to have no use for him.
Too bad dwarf tossing is no longer acceptable or that the Siamese Twins passed. And that Martin Laurello, known as the “Human Owl”, is no longer with us. He was a big hit for Ringling back in the day as he could turn his head 180 degrees backward. Worth the price of admission alone, they used to say.
But seriously, it’s tacky sure but nothing will ever top the Jesus I thought it was a doctor tweet.