How are we going to pay for all this shit?

Ok, I'll play!

You said you want the federal government to maximize its tax revenues. So do you support policies that will increase income/wealth inequality? Originally Posted by lustylad

Thank you for a respectful response. Here is my answer...though it may not be exactly what you are looking for, be patient and let's try and continue a Civil back and forth.

Here is a article that parallels my biggest concern. DEBT. It is over 8 years old and was spot on concerning the election of a populist President.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/t...americas-debt/

Economic renewal and fiscal reform have become the preeminent issues, not only for domestic and economic policy but for foreign policy as well. As the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, was fond of saying, national debt has become perhaps our top national security threat. And neither major presidential candidate is doing enough about it. This issue needs to be framed as crucial not just for our future prosperity but for international stability as well...


..



Alas, globalization and automation trends of the last generation have increasingly called the American dream into question for the working classes. Another decade of underinvestment in what is required to remedy this situation will make an isolationist or populist president far more likely because much of the country will question whether an internationalist role makes sense for America — especially if it costs us well over half a trillion dollars in defense spending annually yet seems correlated with more job losses.

Thank you for a respectful response. Here is my answer....

Here is a article that parallels my biggest concern. DEBT. It is over 8 years old... Originally Posted by WTF

???

We all share your concern over the DEBT. That's why everyone in this thread hates the Bernie/Biden spending blowout and why Manchin opposed it. It would blow up the debt even more. We don't need a 9-1/2 year-old article (written at a time when the debt was half what it is today) to remind us.

Now go back and read my question again and try to give me an answer, not a non-answer.

The simple answer is that we can pay down debt and spread that pain out to ALL.

Now remember not to get too bossy. I'm not one to be told wtf to do. May I suggest you take a Yoga class before posting again to try and melt away that aggression.

The article was just a reminder that next to nothing has been done since 2000 to put the focus back on debt/deficits.

Reagans 8 year run. Nothing.

Bush Sr and Clinton gave it the ole college try.

But there seems to be thos group that all they care about is less taxes.

Please ask again, if you have anymore questions. Just not so bossy

The simple answer is that we can pay down debt and spread that pain out to ALL.

Now remember not to get too bossy...

Please ask again, if you have anymore questions. Just not so bossy Originally Posted by WTF

Why do you keep begging me to play nice with you? For someone who is free & easy with the (homo) insults, you sure are a sensitive little snowflake.

Let's try again. My question isn't a hard one. Try to answer in a direct & straightforward way.

You already lectured us on the need for government to set tax rates at levels that will maximize revenues. Does this mean the govt should pursue policies that may exacerbate income inequality?

Why do you keep begging me to play nice with you? For someone who is free & easy with the (homo) insults, you sure are a sensitive little snowflake.

Let's try again. My question isn't a hard one. Try to answer in a direct & straightforward way.

You already lectured us on the need for government to set tax rates at levels that will maximize revenues. Does this mean the govt should pursue policies that may exacerbate income inequality? Originally Posted by lustylad

Speaking of sensitive Snowflake...

I'm not here to judge your lifestyle.

Now just what tax specifically are you having trouble with?


Calm down....I'll help you talk your way through this quandary. Just what tax are you accusing of paying down debt but exuberanting income inequality?

Now just what tax specifically are you having trouble with? Originally Posted by WTF

You tell me. You're the guy who said "we definitely should be seeking the sweet spot to maximize revenue."

I'm not a mind reader. You've thought everything through, right?

Ok, I'll play!

You said you want the federal government to maximize its tax revenues. So do you support policies that will increase income/wealth inequality? Originally Posted by lustylad

Interesting question. I trust you'll fill us in on your thoughts on this at some point. With the exception of CM, you, and possibly Chung Tran, I doubt any of us truly understand concepts like elasticity of taxable income.

It would seem to me that the federal government could implement a regressive sales tax or value added tax at high rates, and that would greatly increase revenues. People have to buy food. This tax would increase income and wealth inequality.

On the other hand, the capital gains tax rate that maximizes revenues may be around 28%, based on what's historically come out of the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Commission on Taxation. In California, that rate (federal + state) is currently 37.1%. So to maximize revenues, they should bring the rate down, at least in California, which would benefit the wealthy. Actually it would benefit everyone since collectively the federal and California state government would realize more revenues.

As I've been discussing here with WTF, one of my problems with a revenue maximizing rate is that it treats people like cattle. We're to be milked for the benefit of the federal government. Another is that what's good for the federal government is not what's best for the economy. Higher taxes mean less money stays in the private sector, which is the engine of growth. A third is that I'd rather more money stay in the hands of the taxpayers than be shoveled to an inefficient and wasteful federal government.

All of us agree the national debt and budget deficits are too high. The difference I believe is that you and I want to see progress made through less spending, while WTF looks to taxes to make up the difference.

You tell me. You're the guy who said "we definitely should be seeking the sweet spot to maximize revenue."

I'm not a mind reader. You've thought everything through, right? Originally Posted by lustylad

I would not say everything...I did not expect you not to know that the number Laffer speaks of is fluid. Jesus.

I find it strange that as soon as I provided that fact.. you started asking about inequality and debt and now you are asking the specific number.

Were you trying to pose a trick question or did you really not know that?

I'm trying to be nice and give you the benefit of doubt

Interesting question. I trust you'll fill us in on your thoughts on this at some point. With the exception of CM, you, and possibly Chung Tran, I doubt any of the rest of us truly understand concepts like elasticity of taxable income. Originally Posted by Tiny

Wtf is crying jesus over reagan. Dont think jesus will save him. Maybe scarface will? LOL

Wtf is crying jesus over reagan. Dont think jesus will save him. Maybe scarface will? LOL Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

That was good analysis from Tony Montana, wasn't it?

The irony. I bet Tony Montana never paid a dime to the IRS.

Interesting question. I trust you'll fill us in on your thoughts on this at some point. With the exception of CM, you, and possibly Chung Tran, I doubt any of us truly understand concepts like elasticity of taxable income.



Originally Posted by Tiny

It is just a concept. There is no formula you can plug in and and come with the exact rate. Similar to the weatherman.

This is why I provided the link. You are getting hung up on finding this elusive formula when it would be easier if you focused on the concept.

Once you grasp that, explain it to LL and the facts of continually lowering the tax rate is as bad as too high a rate. Unless of course you are in balance with expenditures and tax revenue.

Oh and had I posted that , LL would be ripping me a new one. Unless he really does not understand that it is a concept.

All of us agree the national debt and budget deficits are too high. The difference I believe is that you and I want to see progress made through less spending, while WTF looks to taxes to make up the difference. Originally Posted by Tiny

That is not true....I do not care how we bridge the difference.

But there have been numerous commission that call for both an increase in taxes and a reduction in spending. The reality is that neither side wants to cut any fat from their programs of choice and only one party is willing to raise taxes.

But if you do not do both(raise taxes, cut spending) then you're pissing in the wind. And you need both parties to sacrifice.

That will never happen...so in the next ten years there will be a moment like 1986 where they raise entitlement taxes.

" How are we going to pay for all this shit?"

It's not us; it's kids, grand kids and great grand kids that get stuck with the tab.

" How are we going to pay for all this shit?"

It's not us; it's kids, grand kids and great grand kids that get stuck with the tab. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

That is why Bush Sr called this new economic model called supply side, Voodoo economics!