Taxes

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
Some of us said this long and loud during the primaries.
Off thread topic & I apologize but to your point I’ll try and find it but I recently read a fascinating article that took primary poll numbers and examined primary voting for Rs. They looked at Church attendance vs which R you voted for. What they found was that for every step down in church attendance there was a step up in #’s voting for Trump. Basically those attending more than 1x/week voted for him less than those who attended 2 or 3 times per month who voted for him less than those attending 1 time per month who voted for him less than the ChrEaster Christians who voted for him less than those who claimed Christianity but never attended.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,244
50,089
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Off thread topic & I apologize but to your point I’ll try and find it but I recently read a fascinating article that took primary poll numbers and examined primary voting for Rs. They looked at Church attendance vs which R you voted for. What they found was that for every step down in church attendance there was a step up in #’s voting for Trump. Basically those attending more than 1x/week voted for him less than those who attended 2 or 3 times per month who voted for him less than those attending 1 time per month who voted for him less than the ChrEaster Christians who voted for him less than those who claimed Christianity but never attended.
I don't know about that... but if you took the results of the closed primaries where only registered Republicans could vote and threw out the open primaries, Ted Cruz would have won. He probably would have lost to HRC, but, eh.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,096
8,657
1,743
Earth
HacklemanPoke - Why do you think the sky is falling if we don't pay off our "National Debt?" Do you completely understand who is owed and what percentages? The only real risk we have right now is IF China, as a 30% debt holder, can be successful in manipulating it's currency enough to get the world to adopt it rather than the dollars as basis for energy prices as well as other commodities (they won't be)...MOST of our national debt is owed to our own people in the form of social security and other programs, however we owe a lot to Japan and the UK as well (both Nation State's that we have provided free military security and vast markets for decades, maybe negations (like with NATO) could be under taken for some back payment or debt forgiveness to help balance the China problem).

Regarding taxes, in theory, if you reduce them enough and it spurs enough growth you somewhat fix the issue...yet you called it a tax "scam"...certainly that "scam" may create more national debt, however the goal is to reduce our debt to income ratio...In other words what is most important is our economy (income) and our ability to support the power structure that backs it (the military). Sometimes we must, as a free economy, borrow to spur that income growth in hopes that it outpaces debt growth.

Just like a household, if we are getting a lower interest rate on our national debt (2% I think) than the rate of return on our economy (nearly 3% annually) it's not necessarily a bad thing to have debt. The main problem I see with National Debt is that the public and politicians don't understand it and use it as a scare tactic rather than simply something we have to keep under control and renegotiate as needed. We are in a mode right now of renegotiations. One example is the trade negotiations with China regarding their currency and unfair trade tactics and the underfunding of NATO by percentage of member. Trump seems to be attempting to tackle these issues, which is indeed a first in a long time. Maybe a first in the history of our debt?
 
Last edited:

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,096
8,657
1,743
Earth
Eventually, servicing the debt is going to be our biggest budget item. It's unsustainable.
Certainly as long as we maintain a huge economy it is sustainable, but I agree it needs to be controlled and reduced by percentage annually...but it’s not the monster in the closet alarmist make it to be if we feed it with an ever stronger economy. Problems arise when we use the debt in unsustainable ways. Like taking out a loan to pay your neighbor to renovate his house when yours needs it more.. this is what the USA has done historically in the name of having a heart and international charity...while these investments may be morally good, the economic access they creat isn’t always worth the cost. In other words we just have to be wise when we invest our debt not necessarily completely eliminate it.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,340
2,580
1,743
So Cal
Of course rich people benefited more from the tax break. Poor people who do not pay income taxes do not benefit from a cut in income taxes. Duh huh.
FAIL..... I did not mention poor people, and he was talking about the middle class.

I don't want to have to step you through the basic math (by class), but supposedly there are more "middle class" people that do pay taxes, a lot of taxes, and fewer "rich people" that pay taxes a lot more taxes...

the request was for TOTAL TAX PAID by group.... (i.e., between the two)... no mention of poor people... duh
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
HacklemanPoke - Why do you think the sky is falling if we don't pay off our "National Debt?" Do you completely understand who is owed and what percentages? The only real risk we have right now is IF China, as a 30% debt holder, can be successful in manipulating it's currency enough to get the world to adopt it rather than the dollars as basis for energy prices as well as other commodities (they won't be)...MOST of our national debt is owed to our own people in the form of social security and other programs, however we owe a lot to Japan and the UK as well (both Nation State's that we have provided free military security and vast markets for decades, maybe negations (like with NATO) could be under taken for some back payment or debt forgiveness to help balance the China problem).

Regarding taxes, in theory, if you reduce them enough and it spurs enough growth you somewhat fix the issue...yet you called it a tax "scam"...certainly that "scam" may create more national debt, however the goal is to reduce our debt to income ratio...In other words what is most important is our economy (income) and our ability to support the power structure that backs it (the military). Sometimes we must, as a free economy, borrow to spur that income growth in hopes that it outpaces debt growth.

Just like a household, if we are getting a lower interest rate on our national debt (2% I think) than the rate of return on our economy (nearly 3% annually) it's not necessarily a bad thing to have debt. The main problem I see with National Debt is that the public and politicians don't understand it and use it as a scare tactic rather than simply something we have to keep under control and renegotiate as needed. We are in a mode right now of renegotiations. One example is the trade negotiations with China regarding their currency and unfair trade tactics and the underfunding of NATO by percentage of member. Trump seems to be attempting to tackle these issues, which is indeed a first in a long time. Maybe a first in the history of our debt?
Absolutely correct with who holds what pieces of our debt & I don’t advocate for paying off the debt in its entirety. Nor do I want a balanced budget amendment (that process alone opens a whole can of we don’t really want to look under that rock). But the current trajectory is completely unsustainable & could be worse as interest rates rise. And as a greater $ amount of our debt gets held in other hands as with any debt you can become a servant to your lender. In a whole host of issues you lose negotiating leverage because you become captive to the debt. Why give up the leverage when you don’t have to?

As to taxes, I’m not read enough to have the best policy to promote economic growth with governmental fisical responsibility. I’m also not a Ted Cruz fan but do think he had a good idea when he campaigned for tax filing simplicity. Just get a tax regardless of where your $ comes from. Flat tax. Marginal tax based on income levels. I won’t pretend to know. Just make it fair, standard and easy to report/pay.

Honest ? I’d never thought of interest rate vs roi from gdp. Can you actually equate us revenues in terms of gdp annual growth? Am I understanding your 2% vs 3% correctly? Like if I get a home refi locked at 3% and buy a 5% muni yielding 4% to call I make 1% on borrowed money with no tax implication. But is that how your example works in real world us debt vs gdp?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,340
2,580
1,743
So Cal
Absolutely correct with who holds what pieces of our debt & I don’t advocate for paying off the debt in its entirety. Nor do I want a balanced budget amendment
I support paying off the debt entirely, and advocate for a balanced budget amendment. (well, it would have to be a surplus budget for a while)

“There is not a more important and fundamental principle in legislation,” James Madison said in a 1790 speech, “than that the ways and means ought always to face the public engagements; that our appropriations should ever go hand in hand with our promises.”

As George Washington warned lawmakers in 1793, “No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.”

As the country approaches, and smashes through, the debt ceiling once again, it would be wise to take Washington’s words to heart. Rather than borrowing trillions more, the United States needs to begin paying down some debt before the burden becomes crushing.

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/americas-debt-through-the-eyes-the-founders
 
Last edited:
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
I don't know about that... but if you took the results of the closed primaries where only registered Republicans could vote and threw out the open primaries, Ted Cruz would have won. He probably would have lost to HRC, but, eh.
I’m not posting for debate or claiming as gospel. Just an interesting read from The American Conservative.

“Geoffrey Layman, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame, noticed this during the primaries, writing: “Trump does best among evangelicals with one key trait: They don’t really go to church.”

While writing my forthcoming book, Alienated America, my research assistant Nick Saffran and I crunched some numbers provided by Emily Ekins of the Voter Study Group. We broke down Republican primary voters by church attendance. Among the most frequent attenders—those going more than once a week—Trump got about 32 percent of the vote.

Trump also got a minority of those who simply go once a week. Among those who reported going “a few times a year,” Trump got about half. He got an easy majority (55 percent) of those Republicans who “seldom” attend, and a full 62 percent of those who never attend. That is, every step down in church attendance brought a step up in Trump support, and vice versa. The most frequent attenders were half as likely to support Trump as were the least frequent attenders.

This confirmed what others had noticed. Liberal Peter Beinart wrote for The Atlantic that the GOP electorate has secularized, and that this secularization “helped Trump win the GOP nomination.”

In March, as the GOP field was narrowing down to Trump and Cruz, one Pew Research Center survey found Trump trailing by 16 points among white evangelical voters who attended church weekly, but leading by 19 points among those who do not.”
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
I support paying off the debt entirely, and advocate for a balanced budget amendment. (well, it would have to be a surplus budget for a while)

So what happens when war breaks out &/or we are hit with natural disasters say the scope of 2018 &/or we go into a recession or depression? A balanced budget sure has worked great for Oklahoma
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
Most states have a balanced budget amendment and do just fine. In case of an emergency most states also have a rainy day fund. Why should the federal government be any different?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,340
2,580
1,743
So Cal
more whataboutism..... there are always provisions for that.... do your homework and stop with the abject silliness

even the founders borrowed for a war, Louisiana purchase, etc. then paid it down afterwards...

IMHO, there should not be any Federal emergency relief funds. It's not part of the constitution.

Why should States that are not subject to disasters have to fund reconstruction of other States? It's stupid. That's what Charity and charitable organizations are for
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,244
50,089
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
FAIL..... I did not mention poor people, and he was talking about the middle class.

I don't want to have to step you through the basic math (by class), but supposedly there are more "middle class" people that do pay taxes, a lot of taxes, and fewer "rich people" that pay taxes a lot more taxes...

the request was for TOTAL TAX PAID by group.... (i.e., between the two)... no mention of poor people... duh
And rich people pay more taxes than the middle class and therefore benefit more than the middle class does. In a progressive tax system, which we have, people who make more money are going to benefit more from a tax cut than people who make less money, especially people at the lowest end who pay no income taxes at all. Thus, he's right. The answer to him is "so freaking what", not to try to bullspit your way through it. It has stimulated economic growth, middle class wages have grown, unemployment is down across all categories, businesses are investing like crazy.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,340
2,580
1,743
So Cal
And rich people pay more taxes than the middle class and therefore benefit more than the middle class does. In a progressive tax system, which we have, people who make more money are going to benefit more from a tax cut than people who make less money, especially people at the lowest end who pay no income taxes at all. Thus, he's right. The answer to him is "so freaking what", not to try to bullspit your way through it. It has stimulated economic growth, middle class wages have grown, unemployment is down across all categories, businesses are investing like crazy.
FAIL - I said - show me the numbers. I think you're talking about percentages. I asked for Total dollar collections, since the statement was a broad generalization about "middle class" and "rich".

BTW - your back peddling is pathetic. Stick to your unicycle.

I never said anything for or against whether it was good or bad, he suggest that, and didn't support it with actual, you know, facts.

When you're in a hole over your head... stop digging.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
49
FAIL - I said - show me the numbers. I think you're talking about percentages. I asked for Total dollar collections, since the statement was a broad generalization about "middle class" and "rich".

BTW - your back peddling is pathetic. Stick to your unicycle.

I never said anything for or against whether it was good or bad, he suggest that, and didn't support it with actual, you know, facts.

When you're in a hole over your head... stop digging.
In 2015 #’s Pew reported that income filers with AGI more than $200,000/yr (4.5% of # of returns filed) accounted for 59% of income taxes paid. If you drop that to $100,000 which some would suggest as upper class (some definitions of upper class cite an income doubling the us median) the % of filers jumps to 16.8% & % of income taxes paid goes to 80%.

Also $500k+ paid an effective rate 12% lower than their bracket.

$200k paid 13.5 lower.
$100k paid 15.3 lower
Below $100k which is 83% of returns & 20% of $ paid paid 8.4% lower effective rate vs actual bracket %. And I weighted the 3 brackets <$100k
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2007
3,317
2,965
1,743
FAIL - I said - show me the numbers. I think you're talking about percentages. I asked for Total dollar collections, since the statement was a broad generalization about "middle class" and "rich".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/omb-top-20-pay-95-of-taxes-middle-class-single-digits
The upper class is typically defined as a household having an annual income of $150K or more. The most recent figures I've seen show that the upper class pays anywhere from 87-95% of all federal income taxes collected. The upper class was bound to reap the biggest reward from the tax cuts, because they're the ones paying the vast majority of our country's taxes.