| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:15:14 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
96 files (5,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,533 |
Why not just take every penny that the millionaires and billionaires in
the USA own ?
On 7/23/2025 4:30 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
-a -a-a-a-a-a-a-a And sometimes you have to simply raise taxes on the well off
and well
compensated to balance the budget as Ike did way back there when I was
in High School. 90% taxes on the people with over a few millilon a
year might do a lot to
bring the deficit down. Confiscatory taxation on the people with over
$100 million
in wealth might do a lot-a more.-a The money belongs to the nation and
the nation
should be able to recall it when it is trapped in the holdings of a
few people.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
Why not just take every penny that the millionaires and billionaires in
the USA own ?
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/23/2025 4:30 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:Straw man much?
-a -a-a-a-a-a-a-a And sometimes you have to simply raise taxes on the welloff
and well
compensated to balance the budget as Ike did way back there when I
was in High School. 90% taxes on the people with over a few millilon
a year might do a lot to
bring the deficit down. Confiscatory taxation on the people with over
$100 million
in wealth might do a lot-a more.-a The money belongs to the nation and
the nation
should be able to recall it when it is trapped in the holdings of a
few people.
-a-a-a-a-abliss
Why not just take every penny that the millionaires and billionaires
in the USA own ?
Actually it was Trump who proposed in 1999 that a 15% wealth tax be
levied on people worth at least ten million dollars, as that would have cleared the national debt at the time.
I don't know if this declaration was made while Trump was officially bankrupt, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
William Hyde
It started with Ronald Regan and GHWB (although even RR raised taxes
every year after his first when his advisors realized that the tax
cuts without corresponding spending reductions wasn't real smart).
Clinton then reduced the deficit to basically zero (balancing the
budget).
Then GWB again cut taxes without reducing spending, ballooning the deficit >and the corresponding debt load (not to mention the yuge spending on the >middle east wars he started).
Then Obama again reduced the deficit.
Then Trump blew it up again. Biden attempted to remedy that,
and then the orange clown show really got started and here we are,
with an additional $4 trillion of debt.
So, Lynn, you really need to work on your history and math skills
and stop reading the idiot websites you keep citing.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
It started with Ronald Regan and GHWB (although even RR raised taxes
every year after his first when his advisors realized that the tax
cuts without corresponding spending reductions wasn't real smart).
Well, not entirely. It started with deficit spending to support the ever-popular War In Vietnam. But then we have Reagan and Bush sr.
promoting the idea that reducing taxes on the rich would cause them to
invest the money they saved into businesses which would employ the
less wealthy, and that the money given to the rich would "trickle down."
Trickle-down economics can work if there are incentives to make it work,
but in the Reagan and Bush era those incentives were actually eliminated. Removing inheritance taxes was a big par of breaking down the process.
The end result of the Reagan and Bush sr. tax cuts was to make rich
people more wealthy, not to make them invest in America.
Clinton then reduced the deficit to basically zero (balancing the
budget).
This is true, and he should get a lot of credit for that.
Then GWB again cut taxes without reducing spending, ballooning the deficit >> and the corresponding debt load (not to mention the yuge spending on the
middle east wars he started).
The Bush Jr. tax cuts were poorly though-out but in the end it turned out that they had a tiny impact compared with poorly-thought-out wars against undefined enemies.
Then Obama again reduced the deficit.
Not by very much, but by some. It is a little bit odd here isn't it that
the Republicans, who talk such a great game about responsible spending,
seem to always increase the deficit?
Then Trump blew it up again. Biden attempted to remedy that,
and then the orange clown show really got started and here we are,
with an additional $4 trillion of debt.
It's those crazy tax and spend Republicans again. Tax and spend, tax
and spend, and they don't care where it's coming from.
I suspect that the current debt is unsustainable, and I have a very disturbing worry that it's possible the current administration is deliberately
trying to saddle the country with unsustainable debt. But they are most certainly not trying to do anything to reduce it and they are doing a lot
to increase it.
So, Lynn, you really need to work on your history and math skills
and stop reading the idiot websites you keep citing.
There was a long time when I really did want politicians who would do the fiscal job the Republicans kept saying they would do, but didn't. But now
we have the Republicans specifically saying that debt is good and that
they want to devalue the dollar so that American products would be more competitive abroad. It's very very confusing.
--scott
On 7/27/25 15:40, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Trickle-down economics can work if there are incentives to make it work, but in the Reagan and Bush era those incentives were actually eliminated. Removing inheritance taxes was a big par of breaking down the process.
The end result of the Reagan and Bush sr. tax cuts was to make rich
people more wealthy, not to make them invest in America.
Clinton then reduced the deficit to basically zero (balancing the
budget).
This is true, and he should get a lot of credit for that.
But seduced by the reasonable Republicans he nullified the Glass-Stegal
act.
Quoting from online reference
The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in 1933, separated commercial banking
from investment banking to protect depositors and reduce the risk of financial speculation. It aimed to prevent the kind of financial
practices that contributed to the Great Depression, but was largely
repealed in 1999.
/unquote
In 2008 we saw the result of the removal of valuable regulations. The
people who
were helped were not the homeowners who were underwater but the financial institution that had helped put them there.
But seduced by the reasonable Republicans he nullified the Glass-Stegal
act.
Quoting from online reference
The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in 1933, separated commercial banking
from investment banking to protect depositors and reduce the risk of >financial speculation. It aimed to prevent the kind of financial
practices that contributed to the Great Depression, but was largely
repealed in 1999.
/unquote
In 2008 we saw the result of the removal of valuable regulations. The
people who
were helped were not the homeowners who were underwater but the financial >institution that had helped put them there.
People keep citing the repeal of Glass-Steagall*, but the financial
firms that failed were either not covered by Glass-Steagall or were
doing what they had been doing for years under the restrictions of G-S.
They all were taken down by the bursting of a housing bubble (IMHO, the >mortgage interest deduction had a lot to do with that). For that matter,
I believe that without Microsoft Excell, it would have been very
difficult to create all the mortgage-based derivatives that also played
a part.
*If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might claim that the real purpose of >Glass-Steagall was to punish the House of Morgan for being a more
effective central bank for the USA while J. P. Morgan Sr was alive than
the Federal Reserve was 2 decades after his death.
-a-a-a-aI hope Lynn gets some better input of information in the near future.Lynn's blindness is willful and deliberate.
The quality of what he is getting seems "faux" to me.
`
It's those crazy tax and spend Republicans again. Tax and spend, taxAh, humor. It is the Dems who are "tax and spend". The Republicans
and spend, and they don't care where it's coming from.
I suspect that the current debt is unsustainable, and I have a very >disturbing worry that it's possible the current administration is deliberately >trying to saddle the country with unsustainable debt. But they are most >certainly not trying to do anything to reduce it and they are doing a lotIt was clear (and, IIRC, explicit) that Reagan wanted to destroy
to increase it.
On 7/27/25 15:40, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
It started with Ronald Regan and GHWB (although even RR raised taxes
every year after his first when his advisors realized that the tax
cuts without corresponding spending reductions wasn't real smart).
-a-a-a-aI must demur. It started with JFK a rich boy wth a war record which in times
closer to WW II insured his election.-a But he was a rich man and he cut
the tax
rates on the rich because you know the economic classes tend to hang out together
and listen to each other.
Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 7/27/25 15:40, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
It started with Ronald Regan and GHWB (although even RR raised taxes
every year after his first when his advisors realized that the tax
cuts without corresponding spending reductions wasn't real smart).
-a-a-a-a-aI must demur. It started with JFK a rich boy wth a war record
which in times
closer to WW II insured his election.-a But he was a rich man and he
cut the tax
rates on the rich because you know the economic classes tend to hang
out together
and listen to each other.
Fan as I am of taxing the rich, even I think that 90% top marginal rates
are unproductive.
JFK's tax cut was designed to increase revenue by stimulating the
economy. Yes, I know that's the excuse we've heard since Reagan, but
what is false at a top rate of circa 40% may be true at 90%.
There was strong opposition to the cut from republicans.-a For in those distant times the gop actually stood for balanced budgets, or something close to it, and they did not believe, then, in-a the "cut tax grow
economy" mantra they now espouse.
LBJ, as president, had to cut spending seriously before the republicans would let the cuts pass in the senate.-a The economy expanded after the cuts, and tax revenues rose, but whether that was due to them or a coincidence, I do not know.-a One can certainly argue that after a mild recession in the early 60s the postwar economy was due a rebound anyway.
The cuts could also have benefited LBJ, who was much, much, richer than
he claimed to be.-a But he was also very good at avoiding taxes, so it's
not clear.
William Hyde
On 7/22/2025 7:51 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 7/22/2025 4:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/22/2025 5:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:Many countries are already moving away from reliance on the US Dollar
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/21/2025 11:35 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 17:55:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
In the not so distant future, the USA Dollar has lost most of its >>>>>>> value
and annual inflation is running 20% per year.-a Gasoline is $60 per >>>>>>> gallon and rationed at 10 gallons per week, so is electricity.
Food and
housing are comparatively expensive.-a The taxes have gone up
including
new personal healthcare taxes and such.-a Many people have left >>>>>>> the USA
looking for cheaper places to live.
Financial collapse is perhaps the last disaster I would imagine to >>>>>> hit the United States first and harder than anywhere else.
But precisely because the United States seems to be the world's
wealthiest nation, I suppose that overconfidence can lead it to
make mistakes.
John Savard
I think that financial collapse of the USA is the most prevalent
future. -a-aThe USA is deficit spending at 30% to 40% and the deficit >>>>> is increasing.-a Keeping old people alive is very expensive as
Medicare and Social Security costs are rising rapidly (My wife and
I are the beneficiary of both).
However, I do not know of any other country on Earth that is in
very good financial shape with even 1/10th of the population of the >>>>> USA.
The national debt of south Korea is about 40% of GDP, Germany about
65, France 90, the UK 100.-a Canada and-a the US are both about 120,
Japan near 250.
Where you draw the line of "in very good shape compared to the US" I
do not know, but the first two should qualify, and possibly France
also.
Canada would have qualified pre-Covid.-a Things can go downhill fast.
William Hyde
The USA Dollar is the reserve currency of the Earth.-a Many countries
are holding billions of Dollars as a part of their stability or their
requirements as a protectorate of the USA, such as Japan, etc.
That allows the USA to wildly abuse the the rest of the world in our
indebtedness.-a But, the USA is testing that indebtedness level now
and in the future as it rapidly increases with huge annual deficits
in the trillions of dollars.
because of the current federal Administrations attempts at policy.
Most of that, if not all, was started during the Biden administration
due to the huge deficits.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/22/2025 7:51 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 7/22/2025 4:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/22/2025 5:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:Many countries are already moving away from reliance on the US Dollar
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/21/2025 11:35 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 17:55:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
In the not so distant future, the USA Dollar has lost most of >>>>>>>> its value
and annual inflation is running 20% per year.-a Gasoline is $60 per >>>>>>>> gallon and rationed at 10 gallons per week, so is electricity. >>>>>>>> Food and
housing are comparatively expensive.-a The taxes have gone up >>>>>>>> including
new personal healthcare taxes and such.-a Many people have left >>>>>>>> the USA
looking for cheaper places to live.
Financial collapse is perhaps the last disaster I would imagine to >>>>>>> hit the United States first and harder than anywhere else.
But precisely because the United States seems to be the world's
wealthiest nation, I suppose that overconfidence can lead it to
make mistakes.
John Savard
I think that financial collapse of the USA is the most prevalent
future. -a-aThe USA is deficit spending at 30% to 40% and the
deficit is increasing.-a Keeping old people alive is very expensive >>>>>> as Medicare and Social Security costs are rising rapidly (My wife >>>>>> and I are the beneficiary of both).
However, I do not know of any other country on Earth that is in
very good financial shape with even 1/10th of the population of
the USA.
The national debt of south Korea is about 40% of GDP, Germany about >>>>> 65, France 90, the UK 100.-a Canada and-a the US are both about 120, >>>>> Japan near 250.
Where you draw the line of "in very good shape compared to the US"
I do not know, but the first two should qualify, and possibly
France also.
Canada would have qualified pre-Covid.-a Things can go downhill fast. >>>>>
William Hyde
The USA Dollar is the reserve currency of the Earth.-a Many countries >>>> are holding billions of Dollars as a part of their stability or
their requirements as a protectorate of the USA, such as Japan, etc.
That allows the USA to wildly abuse the the rest of the world in our
indebtedness.-a But, the USA is testing that indebtedness level now
and in the future as it rapidly increases with huge annual deficits
in the trillions of dollars.
because of the current federal Administrations attempts at policy.
Most of that, if not all, was started during the Biden administration
due to the huge deficits.
Lynn
The deficits generated by Biden are dwarfed by those that are coming
from Trump's insane tax cuts. In addition, the CHIPS Act and the
Inflation Reduction Act generated deficits in order to put people to
work. They'd have good jobs and would pay taxes in the future. That tax revenue was projected to pay off quite a bit of the deficits- making
them an investment in the future. (Not anymore- quite a few of those factories and such have been closed because the government cut off the money.) OTOH the current tax cuts don't do anything for the economy.
They line the pockets of people who already have obscene amounts of disposable cash.
Chris
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
Yes, this is all true but I don't think that is the argument being proposed here. The housing bubble burst; people put their money into investments that they didn't really understand. These things happen.
The problem discussed here isn't the disaster itself, but the bailout. Bailing out investment bankers and not homeowners does not fix anything
and makes investment bankers more likely to take similar risks in the
future.
In article <1067r2c$96f$1@panix2.panix.com>,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:(snip Re: 2008 Financial Crisis)
Yes, this is all true but I don't think that is the argument being proposed >> here. The housing bubble burst; people put their money into investments that
they didn't really understand. These things happen.
The problem discussed here isn't the disaster itself, but the bailout.
Bailing out investment bankers and not homeowners does not fix anything
and makes investment bankers more likely to take similar risks in the
future.
Investment banks were bailed out? Lehman Brothers is GONE, so is Bear Stearns.
Investment banks were bailed out? Lehman Brothers is GONE, so is Bear >Stearns.
On 7/28/25 19:17, Chris Thompson wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/22/2025 7:51 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 7/22/2025 4:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/22/2025 5:12 PM, William Hyde wrote:Many countries are already moving away from reliance on the US
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 7/21/2025 11:35 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 17:55:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
In the not so distant future, the USA Dollar has lost most of >>>>>>>>> its value
and annual inflation is running 20% per year.-a Gasoline is $60 per >>>>>>>>> gallon and rationed at 10 gallons per week, so is electricity. >>>>>>>>> Food and
housing are comparatively expensive.-a The taxes have gone up >>>>>>>>> including
new personal healthcare taxes and such.-a Many people have left >>>>>>>>> the USA
looking for cheaper places to live.
Financial collapse is perhaps the last disaster I would imagine to >>>>>>>> hit the United States first and harder than anywhere else.
But precisely because the United States seems to be the world's >>>>>>>> wealthiest nation, I suppose that overconfidence can lead it to >>>>>>>> make mistakes.
John Savard
I think that financial collapse of the USA is the most prevalent >>>>>>> future. -a-aThe USA is deficit spending at 30% to 40% and the
deficit is increasing.-a Keeping old people alive is very
expensive as Medicare and Social Security costs are rising
rapidly (My wife and I are the beneficiary of both).
However, I do not know of any other country on Earth that is in >>>>>>> very good financial shape with even 1/10th of the population of >>>>>>> the USA.
The national debt of south Korea is about 40% of GDP, Germany
about 65, France 90, the UK 100.-a Canada and-a the US are both
about 120, Japan near 250.
Where you draw the line of "in very good shape compared to the US" >>>>>> I do not know, but the first two should qualify, and possibly
France also.
Canada would have qualified pre-Covid.-a Things can go downhill fast. >>>>>>
William Hyde
The USA Dollar is the reserve currency of the Earth.-a Many
countries are holding billions of Dollars as a part of their
stability or their requirements as a protectorate of the USA, such
as Japan, etc.
That allows the USA to wildly abuse the the rest of the world in
our indebtedness.-a But, the USA is testing that indebtedness level >>>>> now and in the future as it rapidly increases with huge annual
deficits in the trillions of dollars.
Dollar because of the current federal Administrations attempts at
policy.
Most of that, if not all, was started during the Biden administration
due to the huge deficits.
Lynn
The deficits generated by Biden are dwarfed by those that are coming
from Trump's insane tax cuts. In addition, the CHIPS Act and the
Inflation Reduction Act generated deficits in order to put people to
work. They'd have good jobs and would pay taxes in the future. That
tax revenue was projected to pay off quite a bit of the deficits-
making them an investment in the future. (Not anymore- quite a few of
those factories and such have been closed because the government cut
off the money.) OTOH the current tax cuts don't do anything for the
economy. They line the pockets of people who already have obscene
amounts of disposable cash.
Chris
-a-a-a-aWhether it is disposable or not the wealth the billionaires have
-ataken control of is not doing them or other people aside from Yacht builders,
-acaviar packers and champagne bottlers any good. They have plenty of
-acash/credit available to over-indulge in things that are very bad for
-athem.-a People with a fraction of those sums have died-a of drugs and
high living.
-a-a-a-aSo since we love such rich folks it would be our duty to save them from the dangers of being very very rich.-a So I stick with conficatory wealth taxation as the solution to our problems of govenment finance.
Who needs more than $100,000,000 in this day and age.
-a-a-a-aSo that brings up the problem of tax breaks. How about the
portion of that immense wealth that is invested in Federal tax free
bonds count against the total of the Taxes they would pay and
a discount for every employee who has a salary commensurate with
the individual total income of the wealthy owners and security income
counts as well...
-a-a-a-aEisenhower got the money from the rich to build the Interstate Highway System and it contributed to the wealth and pleasure of
of a very large proportion of the population of the USA. All the
millionaires from an earlier era drove the most expensive vehicles
such as Cadillacs and Lincolns.-a If they were really discerning and
filthy rich a Rolls Royce chariot with chauffeur was at their beck
and call.
-a-a-a-aPity the rich. They have only the most expensive toys.
-a-a-a-abliss - be careful how seriously you take me, a pauper.
Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 7/27/25 15:40, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
It started with Ronald Regan and GHWB (although even RR raised taxes
every year after his first when his advisors realized that the tax
cuts without corresponding spending reductions wasn't real smart).
aaaaI must demur. It started with JFK a rich boy wth a war record which
in times
closer to WW II insured his election.a But he was a rich man and he cut
the tax
rates on the rich because you know the economic classes tend to hang out
together
and listen to each other.
Fan as I am of taxing the rich, even I think that 90% top marginal ratesIIRC, something like that helped to retire the debt from winning WWII.
are unproductive.
JFK's tax cut was designed to increase revenue by stimulating the--
economy. Yes, I know that's the excuse we've heard since Reagan, but
what is false at a top rate of circa 40% may be true at 90%.
There was strong opposition to the cut from republicans. For in those >distant times the gop actually stood for balanced budgets, or something >close to it, and they did not believe, then, in the "cut tax grow
economy" mantra they now espouse.
LBJ, as president, had to cut spending seriously before the republicans >would let the cuts pass in the senate. The economy expanded after the
cuts, and tax revenues rose, but whether that was due to them or a >coincidence, I do not know. One can certainly argue that after a mild >recession in the early 60s the postwar economy was due a rebound anyway.
The cuts could also have benefited LBJ, who was much, much, richer than
he claimed to be. But he was also very good at avoiding taxes, so it's
not clear.