- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- oregon@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- oregon@lemmy.ml
These are the stupid ideas the Democrats come up with. There are three billionaires in Oregon. Three. If this passes I suspect they will just move.
At the federal level, this would be unconstitutional.
It’s an excellent idea.
A billionaire’s tax could increase tax revenues, contributing to a lower budget deficit. In fact, that’s how I know conservative politicians aren’t serious about the budget deficit: they quite literally never propose to increase tax revenue, only decrease social spending. Like this next budget showdown coming up at the beginning of the year will feature another crappy Republican budget that seeks to cut everything and leave Mike Johnson with an even worse career as Speaker than McCarthy.
Yeah, basically all wealth redistribution policies are dead on arrival regardless of the party holding Congress. Blatant wealth redistribution to regular people through taxation is somehow a taboo policy…but let a fossil fuel lobbyist ask for tax cuts, and suddenly the entire business class gets a permanent one.
Why is it bad that conservatives only propose desirable solutions and not ones that just “fix” one problem by creating another?
Because decreasing social spending creates not just one more problem, but multiple. Just look to Texas and the border crisis as a prime example. If there was more federal money for it, we could both secure the future of Medicare and Social Security and secure the border while providing a better immigration system.
But the false dichotomy of decreased social spending for a more secure border is all Republican politicians are ever interested in. It’s a solution insofar as it generates political support for their short-term, misanthropic policies. In any other way, it’s only ever a problem.
Why the fuck would I support paying more taxes to secure the future of programs that I want thrown in the bin?
Because throwing them in the bin will create even more problems.
Hardly. He government should have no place redistributing wealth by force.
Those two sentences aren’t related.
Social security and medicare both were policies designed to fix social problems in their time. That those problems are either mitigated or nonexistent is a testament to their effectiveness.
As for redistribution, I agree! End fossil fuel and other corporate subsidies posthaste! Wtf does Tesla, Amazon, Alphabet, J.P. Morgan or any other large conglomeration need a tax break for?
The great depression did not end because of any of the social security programs. It ended because of ww2 (most of those programs were suspended or eliminated to support ww2).
Since lefties will claim otherwise.
Despite all the President’s efforts and the courage of the American people, the Depression hung on until 1941, when America’s involvement in the Second World War resulted in the drafting of young men into military service, and the creation of millions of jobs in defense and war industries
https://www.fdrlibrary.org/great-depression-facts#:~:text=Despite all the President’s efforts,in defense and war industries.
You realize ending fossil fuel subsidizes will impact the poor the most?
Does it? I hear that, buy why/how does it impact the poor the most? I mean…aside from the fact that they have relatively less money anyway because economic institutions ensure they do…how else are they impacted?
Subsidies =/= tax breaks. Surely you understand how giving money and not stealing are different. If not, I hope you enjoy my Christmas present of not robbing you blind.
I don’t mind paying taxes for things like roads, water, etc. Those are things we all need.
I am against wealth distrubution. I don’t even mind social safety nets but we allow people to abuse them.
The government shouldn’t be taking my money and sending it to someone else who didn’t earn it. That doesn’t create success.
If welfare was successful then why haven’t we seen poverty eliminated? All it does is keep people on welfare and not being productive members of society.
It can’t. Social security is done by the Feds.
It’s against the constitution to tax wealth. The second someone tried to pass that, it would be struck down by scotus.
At most a state could do it and they’d lose the billionaires.
To do this they’d have a pass an amendment and there is zero chance they’ll happen.
And when have democrats radically raised taxes? Trump was the last one to screw with high income tax earners with the salt limit
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/is-a-wealth-tax-constitutional
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/
“The overhaul was forecast to raise the federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars—the Congressional Budget Office estimating $1.9 trillion—over the coming decade.”
“For the wealthy, banks, and other corporations, the tax reform package was considered a lopsided victory given its significant and permanent tax cuts to corporate profits, investment income, estate tax, and more. Financial services companies stood to see huge gains based on the new, lower corporate rate (21%), as well as the more preferable tax treatment of pass-through companies.3 Some banks said their effective tax rate would drop under 21%.”
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/
Maybe you don’t understand what salt is.
ALso look at revenues. They went up after the cuts.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762#:~:text=U.S. Tax Revenue by Year , %243.33 trillion 56 more rows
The issue isn’t revenue. It’s spending. We spend too much money.