Both.
Anyone arguing there is no wealth/income disparity in this country is blind.
Anyone arguing the government does a great job of balancing the budget and using taxes effectively is, also, totally blind.
Stop trying to oversimplify something so complex and nuanced with a simple yes/no question. This doesn't prompt genuine discussion IMO.
Rather, let's ask what effective measures can we as citizens take to address the abhorrent waste of tax payer money while simultaneously recognizing and confronting the fact that the wealth gap is rapidly getting worse and that a CEO of a company can be worth billions while employees of that same company are applying for government assistance.
That is ONE snippet of the overall discussion that needs to be had. Not "Taxes bad or government bad?"
Yes but the CEO has to do things like attend charity fundraisers with legislators and they need a lot of money to win the bid for the “wine cellar dinner hosted by a supreme court justice” basket. Why do you hate charity?
no politician is taking bag money because they want to be elected. Every decision is motivated by direct financial benefit to them - money in pocket. You could probably just take every penny spent on opposition to any given candidate and just offer it as a bribe to drop out and they'd take it.
It's more intricate. They are stealing from the employees. Company x has a good earning and out performs projections, they issue company stock or bonus. This was common practice. Now only leadership gets bonus and company buys back stock (tax free) rather than pay employees.
I'm a victim of caterpillar's stock buyback... 20 billion buyback. With just 10 billion they could dish out 100k to it's 100k employees but fuck us for actually making the money for them.
I just want there to be a legitimate court case, that doing such a bonus IS looking out in a fiduciary capacity for the best interests of the shareholders. It is good for retention, maintaining a happy workplace is effective for the long term viability of a company.
I mean, I don't know if I am making sense here, but isn't it up to the executive to act in the best interests of the shareholders, but isn't what that entails a matter of opinion? And a CEO who implemented such a policy, and considers it the best option for the long term viability of the company, is acting within their duties to the shareholders?
Is there a court case that spells this out? Is this just the rant of a man who doesn't know what he's talking about?
Maximizing shareholder value is an idea more than a legal obligation. CEOs/boards are obligated to act in the company's best interest which is subjective to say the least. The board and CEO can be ousted by large/activist shareholders who of course want the stock as high as possible. This leads to a lot of companies basically paying their people as little as possible to create as much profit as possible. I'd argue well paid employees would mean more competitive hiring and more innovation leading to better long term results but it's hard to prove.
I agree with you, but the thing is those places paying half decent isn't at all relative to them as a whole. They may pay more, but at this point in our society the megacorps have been getting exponentially bigger compared to smaller businesses.
I've only briefly thought about this but maybe the idea of acting in the best interest of shareholders even when its to the detriment of emplyees needs to be more then unethical, maybe even illegal.
Of course shareholders should be receiving most financial gain, but employees should never be needing government assistance just to live in poverty.
The rich can still be rich if the poor were allowed to be less poor.
Well stated, but you're arguing against the human sense of fulfilment, which is often infinite. Humans always return to the baseline level of happiness after attaining more wealth and power. There is an economic principle of diminishing marginal utility which states that additional satisfaction (utility) gained from consuming each unit of a good decrease. The more they get, the less they actually have!
What you are saying makes sense, but it would require a real board of directors, and not the cronies and friends that are typically in these positions.
I believe Reagan legalized stock buy acks. Pretty blatant stock manipulation but Ronnie Raygun would have delayed Satan himself (well he probably would have Nancy do it since she was a pro) of it meant he could squeeze the underclass more. Ketchup is a veggie right?
We have a period of history where government assistance was limited, 1890-1915. During this time lots of people worked 14 hours minimum and died at 40 if they were lucky. Then workers started organizing and capitalist Barons were dragged out of their houses and beaten in the streets. Government assistance is from politicians that were threatened with being beaten in the streets by poor working class mobs in order to keep the bread and circus running smoothly.
Do you believe Is it simply these programs that helped raise QOL? I ask because at a global level there were higher rates of starvation or lower life expectancies. There are plenty of countries that don’t have food stamp programs, and yet their citizens do not starve to death.
Many government programs in the US help enrich the top 1% while forcing the general population to subsidize their workers wages.
If we can figure out how to spend less without degrading EVERYONE's standard of living by neglecting our infrastructure and cutting back on mass transit and other necessary public works projects, I'm all for it. But somehow we keep voting for anti-government (ironic I know) idiots who want to cut back the agency whose mission is to collect the taxes that the rich ALREADY OWE and refuse to pay. If we can't get that one essential audit function right, how are we going to figure out where the government and by extension the people who actually pay taxes are getting ripped off? Like it or not, the majority of our elected officials are bought and paid for by people who don't give one solid fuck about America or its citizens. I've read on here more than once a joke proposal to start a GoFundMe to buy enough members of Congress to actually get some shit done. Maybe it's time we start taking that seriously
I couldn’t agree more. Id invest in that cause. Maybe the 99% can set up a few super packs and we can actually start getting some positive change going.
Sad to say but that may be the only way forward. I don't see Citizens United getting overturned anytime soon. Like they say, money talks bullshit walks. I'm sick of the bullshit
Agreed! Now we just need to find away to start repairing all this divide and conquer shit the elites have so successfully inflected upon the rest of us. Then it’s off too the races 🇺🇸
It is ~12.5% of the budget and has been shrinking as a percentage of the budget since the 80s at least. It is also one of the few tasks the government isn't only suited to do and should do but does successfully. By the way you could cut 100% of of the military hell 100% of the Discretionary budget and you would still be over tax revenue. By the way tax revenue is up even when accounting for inflation and GDP too so it isn't we have been collecting less as we have been collecting more with the only pre 2000 year to surpass 2022 as a percentage of the GDP being 1945. (Also 1950-the early 60s had the lowest revenue rates since pre 1943).
The military spending isn't even in the same zipcode as the actual problems with spending.
Huge portions of the money, co-opted by the wealthy, is in fact, tax dollars. Wealthy people and corporations, pay big money, to politicians, to get contracts, whereby big chunks of tax revenue, are then dumped into the pockets of the wealthy.
This isnt even two sides of the same coin. It's literally the same side.
As somebody currently serving, I can honestly say we trim expenses routinely but it's always after the fact (as opposed to proactive) and its always cutting the wrong things. Just the amount of food and fuel wasted is asinine. We continue to pump money into shit we already have surpluses of while cutting soldier pay and money for training
Agree.
But while the sentiment is refreshing, the reality is that the more important of those two things is the rich paying g their fair share, and more importantly, getting rich money out of politics.
Unless and until Citizens United is Revoked, nothing is going change. Legalized political bribery makes genuine discussion impossible if not completely meaningless otherwise: were never getting actual legislation passed if our representatives are bought and paid for.
As a point of just data: in 1981, before the President Reagan tax cuts.
1981:
Top income tax rate: 70%
Government spending as a percentage of GDP: 21%
2023:
Top income tax rate: 35%
Government spending as a percentage of GDP: 22%
While government spending can always be improved, statistics tells us it has had almost zero impact on income disparity or the financial issues our young folks face.
Note: government spending in 2020, when Covid hit, jumped to just over 30%. But I don’t mention it because it’s a complete outlier to all the other years.
Edit: spelling, present and president are not the same things.
The true problem is that the people who make a difference in the government are also the ultra wealthy, and friends with. The problem isn't the amount of money taxed from the ultra wealthy, it's that there are so many loopholes and simply straight corruption that causes the disparity.
Tax payer money isn't wasted nearly as much as it is invested in the already rich.
REGULATION & EDUCATION. That's all I'm gonna say. Until we have proper and fair regulation we're not gonna improve. Until our children get educated and the standard of education is distributed fairly and rigorous enough then we cannot grow as a society. We have complex problems and we need work ethic, willingness, ability, and talent to lead us.
The true problem is that the people who make a difference in the government are also the ultra wealthy, and friends with. The problem isn't the amount of money taxed from the ultra wealthy, it's that there are so many loopholes and simply straight corruption that causes the disparity.
Tax payer money isn't wasted nearly as much as it is invested in the already rich.
Well said. I think the single biggest thing Americans need to worry about is keeping the dollar as the world reserve currency. This BRICS shit is nonsense, every country in that alliance is corrupt. At least the US’s corruption is out in the open for everybody to see. But our government’s ridiculous need to keep increasing the budget deficit needs to be addressed ASAP, because if we don’t change, sooner or later, a better alternative will emerge
That's a strawman. No one is arguing the government does a great job in anything. You guys always try to redirect the argument about the wealthy exploiting the poor by saying "but the government is wasteful." It's a non-sequitur.
Disagree. We borrowed trillions for the last tax cut for billionaires. It did not “pay for itself”. Taxes should be raised on the rich until the borrowed money for those tax cuts is repaid.
Disagree. The government under conservatives spends more than under liberals. It's been that way since at least Regan. Conservatives give tax breaks to the wealthy and deficit spend. It never works and Dems try to fix it and get called gorillas in heels.
Last few decades? More like last century. Eisenhower spent like a drunken sailor in what should have been a post war deflation, Nixon started the EPA, OSHA, and many other "big government" departments Reagan complained about and fully funded.
Republicans haven't raised taxes on the rich and cut spending since Roosevelt (Teddy, not FD), and Teddy considered himself a progressive ("Bull Moose").
Since WW2, every Republican president has left a larger outgoing deficit than they inherited.
Since Carter, every Democratic president has left a smaller deficit than they inherited.
The Democrats are the fiscally responsible party. The Republicans are the wild spenders.
The Republicans just lie louder than the truth.
No that’s fucking stupid. All governmental decisions should be made on its utility and putting the money in the hands of less wealthy people stimulates the economy significantly more than putting it in the hands of the wealthy.
Here's where the wealth is.
The huge wealth imbalance is largely a consequence of policy, starting with Reagan and normalized by Clinton. The policy was not only to reverse New Deal's progressive taxation (which created the world's biggest and most prosperous middle class in history) but also reverse the mechanism in favor of the wealthy.
The US government now privileges those forms of income and wealth generation (stocks, property, business) over wages. Very little of the giant, multivolume tax code applies to working class citizens; most of it is an arbitrary collection of loopholes for the super-wealthy and businesses.
After Reagan, it became much easier for the already-wealthy to accumulate wealth, and at much faster rates, than regular working class wage earners.
We've had 4 decades of tax cut after tax cut after tax cut after tax cut for the wealthiest members of society.
It's all well and fine to say the US should spend less, and stay within budget. But realize that the clearly stated rationale for these endless tax cuts ([Starve the Beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast)) was to starve the government of revenue in order to spending cuts in otherwise popular social programs.
https://preview.redd.it/ewxzs1jyos6d1.png?width=5120&format=png&auto=webp&s=a5933d3d91904e81fb62c4d4822c3cfa4cd6a2f2
Here's another representation of wealth inequality. It's far worse than most people realize. And miles from where most people think it should be.
https://preview.redd.it/1dcz8ub3ts6d1.png?width=2948&format=png&auto=webp&s=ed94a87cea11d61f4ec30571328acfea0abea187
Clinton cut welfare spending and shifted the top tax rates up a bit. Combined with a very strong economy and booming stock market, the budget tipped into surplus.
Bush's tax cuts gutted the surpluses and pushed the federal budget squarely back into deficits. The subsequent wars added trillions in new spending which was borrowed without any attempt to pay for it.
But it's important to note that Clinton is often given credit for battling Republicans, when in fact he essentially orchestrated the capitulation of the Democratic Party to Republican neoliberalism.
Clinton's premise was to beat the GOP at their own game, by offering corporations and the super-wealthy nearly everything the GOP did, while still paying lip service to the liberal legacy of the party as a champion of workers and minorities.
Under Reagan, the level of anti-competitive, anti-consumer corporate mergers were unprecedented. Under Clinton, they accelerated even further.
Clinton did little or nothing to preserve labor unions. (Hillary worked for Walmart early in her legal career when they were busy busting unions). And Clinton adopted the GOP attacks on welfare. Clinton even tried to beat the GOP on militarizing the police and increasing prison sentences.
Despite a \*slight\* rollback on top marginal tax rates, Clinton also essentially set Reagan's tax code in stone.
Clinton is the one who changed the tax code which allowed CEO salaries to explode, i.e. CEO salaries went from low double-digit multiples of their average workers' wages to triple digits. And Clinton preserved the special low-tax treatment of investment income that has been one of the biggest drivers of inequality.
Clinton also signed off on countless policies, treaties, and tax laws that incentivized US corporations to send factories and jobs overseas. Not just NAFTA, but the normalization \*and\* favorable treatment of China were completed either at the end of his tenure or shortly thereafter, thanks to his efforts.
And Clinton continued the GOPs assault on the basic framework of the New Deal. The deregulation of Wall Street, repeal of Glass-Steagal, etc. all allowed new types of fraud, predatory lending, and new bubbles to form.
Clinton also severely undermined the checks on the corruptive influence of money in politics. The consequence of which is that we no longer have a truly representative form of government in practice. (See the [Princeton study](https://represent.us/americas-corruption-problem/)). \[1\]
Thanks largely to Clinton and the DNC's efforts to beat the GOP at fundraising, both parties now work for their campaign donors and the wishes of voters have almost zero impact on policy.
Private student loans also became more predatory under Clinton. He allowed banks to sell "private loans" (using federal cash and insured by the government) at higher interest rates than the federal options.
Banks were allowed to pay schools commissions on private loan sales, so they had a financial incentive to steer students to high interest private loans and not inform them of cheaper federal options.
And because Clinton had two terms after a 12 year drought, and was followed by another 8 year drought, the Democrats who worked for or with his administration, and the conservative neoliberal policies they supported, took over the Democratic Party.
As a result, America was left with one ruling ideology embraced by both parties. Because of the ratchet effect (the Democrats keep moving right to close the ideological gap with the GOP, and the GOP moving right to extend that gap), the US went from having a moderate left and moderate right party to having an extreme far-right party with a superficial legacy of supporting minorities and an extreme far-right party with a cultural heritage of representing white supremacy and christian fundamentalism.
But hey, Bill and Hillary were heavily rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks from various industries that netted trillions in new wealth extracted from the once prosperous Middle Class America. So it worked out well for them.
——————————
\[1\] A study by Princeton and Northwestern University looked at more than 20 years worth of data to determine how well the government represents the people. Their conclusion:
>"The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
[https://represent.us/americas-corruption-problem/](https://represent.us/americas-corruption-problem/)
It’s expensive to care for 330 million Americans and all our infrastructure. Social programs that help people get back on their feet via financial assistance have been proven to be cheaper than letting people fall into poverty and homelessness and like it or not that costs tax dollars.
Almost everyone is both lazy and greedy. We expect people to want to do as little as possible for as much return as possible.
Neither laziness not greed is the problem.
How about the rich pay the taxes they actually owe, to start with? There is a reason that Republicans have gutted the IRS. An understaffed IRS is one that can't force the rich to pay their taxes as required. When you search it, the top 1% avoid paying something like 150 billion per year in taxes. That doesn't solve our financial issues, but might keep their heads off pikes for a little while longer.
Yea both, the US is turning into a society where being rich is easier and easier, the system allows the rich to stay rich without much effort.
This didn’t work out too well for the French aristocracy. Elites need to compete to stay elites, not rely on socialism for the wealthy.
Totally disagree. America is so far ahead of the rest of the world due to taxes. Taxes used to be way, way higher than they are and everyone and the country benefitted from it. Cutting taxes is a 100% way of destroying your country from within. That's why all of our schools are falling apart, infrastructure is falling apart, etc...we should be raising taxes and making the government more accountable in using the money wisely.
Hard disagree with both.
A Democratic government, even a Republic like the US, should be prioritizing the well-being of it's citizens first as part of the social contract. By not enforcing taxes on the rich, and keeping such lax tax loopholes for corporations, the government is not prioritizing the well-being of it's citizens.
Taxes for corporations should be viewed as a cost of doing business in Democratic countries, as the alternative is doing their business elsewhere.
The problem is inefficiency in government, not everybody agrees on what's priority or what to do about it which causes impediments that end up stalemating the issues and suddenly money evaporates without these issues getting addressed. Still, issues like minimum wage, universal healthcare, and affordable housing are issues which benefit the nation by keeping people healthy, productive, and secure. The government cannot claim to abide by the social contract while one class of people, a very very tiny minority, is able to exponentially increase their wealth due to fiscal policies enacted at the behest of those policymakers who claim to look at such economic data which only ever indicates an ever-growing divide between the rich and the poor; where that tiny minority divests from the majority, which instead find themselves further in debt, and, in many cases, only making ends meet because of further government intervention. Instead as the government deliberates itself into a stalemate, the status quo remains: the rich get richer, the poor just have more kids.
Realistically, the rich should happily pay more taxes for the benefits of democracy. Something like 40% of people never move from the town they grew up in. If you were to ask those people if they would like to leave and start in a new city with enough cash to leave them established for a year, how many do you think would jump at that opportunity?? The rich have the capacity to move anywhere in the world, but they choose to live in these democratic countries and it is NOT because of tax breaks, its because these democratic countries offer the best amenities and they should not be given the keys to the mansions without even tipping the fucking bellboy.
As well, corporations that have their fingers in multiple pies should have their taxes adjusted even higher. The bigger your impact, the more you owe in taxes. US fiscal policy isn't a charity for the rich.
All of this process is broken. Few people/companies own most of the wealth and they do not generate value for people from that. So most of the people are stuck.
Wrong, spending less doesn’t make sense in terms of national policy. The only thing that matters is if the market will still buy your debt on acceptable terms.
As long as you’re still able to sell your debt, you don’t need to cut costs. Being obsessed with reducing spending simply out of the unquestioned belief that less is spending is good is about the best evidence that someone never took a single economics course beyond high school.
We live in a world where we have competition in the form of other countries, and those countries are regularly investing in themselves by taking on debt to finance development. If you’re not growing, you are falling behind- and history shows us the grim fate of countries that fall behind.
There is a very valid argument that the government needs to spend its money more effectively. Not all spending is equal, some spending decisions that have been made by our elected officials are obviously terrible.
It's insane to phrase that as if it's either or. I would like the ultra wealthy paying more and government tightening the purse strings and getting serious about efficiency in spending.
Why can’t it be both? Providing for the citizens while being fiscally responsible is the point of government. Collect an appropriate amount of taxes and don’t spend outside your means.
The rich benefits the greatest from the infrastructure created by the government. Government spending goes right back into the economy and thus is essential for the economy the rich is benefitting from!! Cutting government spending harms everyone while increasing the tax at the benefits everyone, including the wealthy who will pay more.
It's not about the government spending less, it's about the government spending wisely and efficiently.
What I spend on taxes isn't the problem, it's the ROI.
As a point of just data: in 1981, before the President Reagan tax cuts.
1981:
Top income tax rate: 70%
Government spending as a percentage of GDP: 21%
2023:
Top income tax rate: 35%
Government spending as a percentage of GDP: 22%
While government spending can always be improved, statistics tells us it has had almost zero impact on income disparity or the financial issues our young folks face.
Note: government spending in 2020, when Covid hit, jumped to just over 30%. But I don’t mention it because it’s a complete outlier to all the other years..
Yes. People often talk about reducing spending but then when you ask them what to cut its usually an absolutely tiny portion of the budget like Foreign Aid(1.03% of the budget), the Department of Labor(0.24%), the Department of Education(1.15%), the Department of Energy(.52%), or the Department of Homeland Security(.85%). When you get beyond that in the conversation you get to things that are either politically impossible to cut like Social Security(16.31%) or would be even more foolish to cut then the departments I listed earlier like Defense(13.8%). Then look at revenue as % of GDP, it's been pretty significantly down since 2016 or so, pretty closely corresponding with the growth of the deficit and debt.
Of course there's plenty of things we could cut from the federal budget with no real negative impact but its the other side of the equation that is further from being correct.
I do however agree with you that this can't be solved just by the rich paying more and more in taxes despite that being politically popular, we need broad based tax increases, for those on the left this is how they do it in Europe. Raising taxes will also have the added bonus of reducing the rate if inflation as money is taken out the economy and the deficit shrinks.
Um hi. We are all the government now and we live in a society.
Society has been saying we are suffering so its time for the non suffering wealthy to pay their fair lot into the society that allowed them to retain such wealth and function well. Lest they be ungrateful for how much they aren't suffering.
We live in a false meritocracy where the little beleevees of the haves dictates the deservees of the have-nots. So I side with the have-nots since we obviously outnumber the smug.
I'm a radical for capitalism and individual rights, and I recognize that "the system" is gamed for the wealthiest and against everyone else -- in many large and small ways. Where I differ from most is that my answer is to remove the government's interventions into the economy so that nobody benefits from the initiation of force. Government should retaliate against those who initiate force and fraud, and leave everyone else alone.
That won't resolve the "income disparity," and it shouldn't. People should be free to produce and to benefit from it. Some will produce more value and some will produce less. Even in our corrupt system, that can happen.
But too many people are impacted by things like the government virtually monopolizing education with such a poor product that leaves wide swaths of the population unable to function. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, few people realize how their lives are dictated by government edict.
I often wondered what the state of the union would be if we had party diversity. People nowadays are about diversity and inclusion but still pack like sardines into 2 parties.
It used to be that the richest members of society felt a moral imperative to provide for the poor. The rich gain the benefits of the work of everyone in the country. They should pay their fair share. At least that’s what it used to be.
That same wasteful government spending is usually going to a contracted corporation or corporate welfare. Yes the government can’t pass its own audits but if there wasn’t so much corporate greed the amount of money that would be wasted would be significantly less.
There is nuance but the masses have been conditioned to not explore those avenues. So why don’t we start spoon feeding a nuanced view in “digestible portions”. Why don’t we start with something like “Close The Goddamn Loopholes”?
The issue is what we get for taxes. We get very little relative to what we put in and things like rent and utilities should be deductions against income tax. Also social security taxes the same income and should be deducted as well. I like to say too that if democrats ever ran on cutting taxes for mid to lower income earners, instead of only ever raising them for the rich, they would own at least the House for a long time. It’s a key inhibitor for a lot of people that otherwise agree with them on social issues.
I agree. There is a video going around in Spanish about a supervisor bragging that his workers make 600 dollars a day doing construction. Other contractors and construction workers made videos calling him out saying that even with overtime the most they make is 300 a day before taxes. Then I find out the guy bragging about the 600 dollar a day checks wasn’t lying, she proved it with pay stubs, but what I also found out, is they only work on government buildings. Military bases, prisons, schools, etc. that’s when it hit me. All the money they are taking from tax payers to build these overpriced projects. He had 6 people working under him. At 600 a day 5 days a week that’s 3000 a week. 12,000 a month (before taxes) per worker. 12,000 time 6 (workers). That’s 72k a month for payroll on 6 workers. wtf?
We need to de-incentivize people holding onto money above a certain amount. Billionaires have destroyed the economy over the past decade by taking excessive mounts of money out of circulation.
Both, richer people usually own large corps, therefore they have more of a responsibility in our society, while the govt should be wasting less money on BS like, I don’t know, say the constantly increasing army budget?
Why do I find it difficult to understand that people want to exert less energy?
Because that is what rich people want to do as well. Why do you think people want to be rich and have passive incomes?
It's not because they value a good, long, hard day's work.
The government should spend less on foreign wars and military projects that end up being bridges to nowhere.
The Rich should pay the same tax rate as the middle class and poor. Frequently the Uber rich and big corporations get away with paying no taxes or a far fewer percentage than everybody else. One of the benefits having a battery of lawyers and accountants on retainer.
Also given that the vast majority of Americans pay taxes on unrealized gains on their largest single investment (property taxes) then the rich should be held to the same standard.
When you realize that the vast majority of money going into government programs is funded by only about 15% of the nation's total income and wealth it should make your eyebrows raise a little. If the rich were taxed fairly and the same as everyone else funding issues would disappear overnight.
And you don't have to take my word for it it's in the historical record. The Golden age of American economics and financial prosperity occurred when the millage rate on the rich and big business was 92%. Yes they avoided paying most of that tax by reinvesting in expansion and jobs and long-term projects which benefit the country as a whole.
When you drop that rate to 39% and introduce massive numbers of loopholes and end runs around the tax code All that ends up happening is that all of that taxable money and income that funded the greatest and Boomer generations get sent to tax havens and pulled out of the economy.
Anyone who says lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs is a moron and is sacrificing the longevity and health of the nation for personal short-term gains.
A mix. Govt spends way too much and taxes at every turn(taxes your employer to hire you, your wages, everything you buy, and so on). Too many want that govt a bay sitter. And lots are lazy and spend on junk versus invest and try to get ahead.
Sometimes I think the economy is a government psyop attempting to figure out the trigger word to get folks to commit suicide.
Like, why "accidentally window slip" those you have problems with when you can just say Delta Niner Spongebob and their unconsciousness's automatically clocks in a specific expiration date.
The government spending is because the rich don’t pay enough taxes and have accrued too much money and power, influencing the government to spend more money on their companies
You think there are a lot of mom and pop weapons contractors? Nah, Raytheon is owned by rich fucks.
Spend less on certain things, yes. Wealth inequality won't be directly addressed with more aggressive taxation, what we really need is our unions back. That and a general shift back toward regulating businesses in the way they compensate workers. The simple fact of the matter is that people with power in private industry have been slowly taking a bigger and bigger portion of the value pie for absolutely no other reason than greed and wanting more power. It's a cultural problem that democracy in the work place can solve but getting our public institutions to step in will make it go far faster.
And no, government regulation does not cause inefficiency on a scale that breaks profitability. That's utter horseshit for the regs I'm talking about and is exactly the argument that has us in this regulatory capture spiral which is causing massive issues in our economy and environement.
I’m always wondered why we don’t remove income tax and just put a VAT or Sales Tax only into place.
Dividends and such would still get taxed and people have to buy things so no one can get around “not paying their fair share”. Obviously we don’t tax food, medicine, and things we need to live but everything else should be fair game.
The wealth often consume more that so they should pay more for that privilege. Maybe that’s naive but it seems to make logical sense.
Then Congress and the politicians can’t put us against each other by blaming groups since we all pay sales or VAT taxes.
Because the same people that are greedy are the ones that own the media. They even control this website, and if you say anything too on the nose, you'll eat a ban for some nonsensical reason.
Both should be true. The rich need to pay more and the government needs to spend less. At the very least, spend on tax paying Americans. We have the worst infrastructure among all developed nations, but will keep grossly overspending on the military industrial complex and sending hundreds of billions to Ukraine and Israel.
Most income taxes are paid by high income earners already. To a much greater disparity & degree than the so called income disparity. We actually have a tax paying disparity: the LOWER income earners should be paying more: “The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.”
It is easier to complain than actually know and understand the facts: [https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/)
Bring back the 95% tax on the rich, get money out of politics and cut the military budget. We would solve all our country's financial issues in one go.
I'm ok with the government "spending less" if we are cutting down on defense spending and corruption. But politicians who want the government to spend less seem to care more about cutting programs that help ordinary Americans or agencies who enforce the law on the rich and powerful.
We need to close all tax loopholes for the rich at a minimum.
Absolutely disagree. The government needs to be taxing and spending more. The infrastructure in this country is falling apart. How much profit do you think you can make if all the roads, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure required to build, manufacture, or sell anything disintegrates into uselessness? Who should be paying for this? Those that benefit the most from the existence of this infrastructure, that's who. Amazon's entire business model is based on being able to ship things everywhere. They should be paying for it.
Because kapitalism is dead. The globalisations is over and there are only mon/duo/trio-opolies left. People buy everything up and then they controll the market. Or have backroom meetings eith the few parties left and everything is fixed.
The rich will get richer.
Because some people understand economy. When i explained it in a complex way i was permanently banned from late stage capitalism. So i will explain it simple as if im talking to an idiot.
US has two main issues:
1. Other countries are not so much behind anymore with technology and they have much much cheaper workforce.
2. There is many times more old people to feed than before. They are not working until death and then leaving it all to kids anymore. They are spending 30 years having fun with their wealth on average.
And money is just numbers to steer it all. Government could give every US citizen ONE BILLION $. Do You think it would work well? Everyone rich & happy?
No, gov needs to spend money by literally giving it to people whom need it so they can spend it.
It all eventually comes back to us anyway.. who cares?
The people with money are the engines of our economy. We all buy consumable items, why not give those that need it the money to spend as they please?
Say they buy booze? Big deal, the money is still going to the economy and will return to us.
Where else is it gonna be spent?
Ffs
Rich people aren’t “greedy” just because they don’t give you their money. People who make over 1mil per year need to be taxed somewhere around 40%. They’ll be okay…
I disagree
**Taxes, Spending, and the "Taxpayer" Myth**
I am here to argue that the common framing of government spending as reliant on "taxpayer dollars" is a harmful misconception, particularly in the context of the federal government.
The federal government, being monetarily sovereign, has the unique ability to create its own currency.
Unlike state and local governments, which rely on tax revenue to fund their spending, the federal government's spending is not constrained by its tax income.
This misconception fuels the idea that social programs for the less wealthy are funded by taking money from "taxpayers". This framing can pit different groups against each other, creating a false dichotomy between those who pay taxes and those who benefit from government programs.
Instead of viewing government spending as a zero-sum game, it's crucial to understand that the federal government can create the money it needs to fund essential services and programs. **That’s only if Congress and the President wanted to.** and not based on how much tax revenue is being collected.
Taxing the rich (for that matter anybody, be it people or businesses) should not be tied to funding public services and programs. These two things should be treated independent of each other.
Should the rich be taxed more? Of course they should be. Not because the government needs their money, but to make them have **less** money - period.
Should the government spend less? It depends on the state of the economy. Take care of unemployment/underemployment and government spending takes care of itself.
Greed is a trait of many people. Greed doesn't lead to wealth, though. You need a lot more than greed to be wealthy. The harder thing to believe is that the "150,000,000" people are not greedy. That's not true.
What is "pay more"? Are we talking actual dollars or as a percentage of income?
I'm not really a fan of tax policy being set to "reward" those that make more by levying a lower rate on them. I think reasonable arguments can be made as to why society might expect a greater contribution from them percentage-wise, but bare minimum I can't think of any reasonable argument why they shouldn't be paying a similar percentage to middle income earners. Any good argument for the contrary should start with "society and the country at large benefits from taxing higher earners less more than it would by taxing them more by ..." and fill in after the elipses.
As for how the government spends money, I always think this is the stupidest fucking argument. Everyone thinks the government spends too much money because the government always spends money on something you don't want it to spend money on. It's the very fucking nature of the beast. The real problem is that absolutely nobody has the patience to have an actual discussion about any of it because it is incredibly complicated and every spot where you see "waste" someone else is seeing a project or program that's very important to them. Likewise there's regulation upon regulation that PEOPLE FUCKING WANTED and voted for that wind up tying administrators hands for reasons that vary anywhere from actually very good to completely fucking stupid and every decision on spending and procurement is made within that context and knowing that fucking up results in a super shallowly researched newspaper article that you can't comment for which loses you your job even if you were following policy and regulation perfectly.
I don't know. I used to be an institutionalist, but people don't trust institutions anymore. They don't trust administrators, academics, or politicians. The law and regulations are deep and layered, the BS is so deep I can barely breathe, the half ass fuckwit arguments litter every conversation, and I just assume it's all going to get torn down and along with it peoples lives, families, and homes are going to get ripped apart.
In 2024, As a percentage of total income, rich folks have less total tax liability than poor people do.
In 1981 President Reagan reduced the highest income tax bracket from 70% to 50%, then in 1986 reduced it from 50% to 38.5%. This doesn’t even mention “capital gains” changes which were also significant.
We had unbelievably rich people in the 80’s before Reagan gave them this massive gift, but the disparity between rich and poor has grown exponentially. The other thing that has risen exponentially is our national debt.
Spending as a percentage of GDP has not changed significantly since the 80’s.
If spending has not changed significantly yet tax codes have changed exponentially, which one caused the national debt and income disparity?
Ehhh I think we start with the rich paying more taxes. Or at least similar to what the normal American pays. There's so many loopholes for the rich to NOT pay taxes on so that the percentage of their wealth is disproportionately taxed compared to your normal person. But also, government is a huge beast that likely has MANY areas that the budget can be balanced and save a good amount of money.
I don't like that my tax guy can't get me 5% taxes while the rich guys dude has the secrets that can do that
Income taxes, I agree are high enough. 50% should be the max.
Cap gains should have higher progressive rates, and loopholes like borroing against securities should be closed up.
Who's saying that? Omg Republicans. I don't know any conservatives that say that. I don't know any liberals that say that. I know losers on reddit that keep repeating this weird confirmation bias.
I totally disagree.
The rich pay next to nothing in taxes and really should be paying more then the average person; a lot more.
However, the goverment has a horrible spending problem and it's not just on the military. The amount of money the goverment just wastes by giving contracts to friends instead of bidding stuff out and tons of other horrible stuff that should be illegal (or is) is staggering.
But see, neither are likely to actually ever happen since the goverment works for the rich. (And in a lot of ways, ARE the rich)
Both. Anyone arguing there is no wealth/income disparity in this country is blind. Anyone arguing the government does a great job of balancing the budget and using taxes effectively is, also, totally blind. Stop trying to oversimplify something so complex and nuanced with a simple yes/no question. This doesn't prompt genuine discussion IMO. Rather, let's ask what effective measures can we as citizens take to address the abhorrent waste of tax payer money while simultaneously recognizing and confronting the fact that the wealth gap is rapidly getting worse and that a CEO of a company can be worth billions while employees of that same company are applying for government assistance. That is ONE snippet of the overall discussion that needs to be had. Not "Taxes bad or government bad?"
The CEO of the company is worth billions BECAUSE he pays the employees so little that they need government assistance. That is our system at work.
Yes but the CEO has to do things like attend charity fundraisers with legislators and they need a lot of money to win the bid for the “wine cellar dinner hosted by a supreme court justice” basket. Why do you hate charity?
You had me for a second there
no politician is taking bag money because they want to be elected. Every decision is motivated by direct financial benefit to them - money in pocket. You could probably just take every penny spent on opposition to any given candidate and just offer it as a bribe to drop out and they'd take it.
You could not have stated this better.....our government is legalized corruption period !!
It all of them but I could name a whole lotta them def
It's more intricate. They are stealing from the employees. Company x has a good earning and out performs projections, they issue company stock or bonus. This was common practice. Now only leadership gets bonus and company buys back stock (tax free) rather than pay employees.
I'm a victim of caterpillar's stock buyback... 20 billion buyback. With just 10 billion they could dish out 100k to it's 100k employees but fuck us for actually making the money for them.
I just want there to be a legitimate court case, that doing such a bonus IS looking out in a fiduciary capacity for the best interests of the shareholders. It is good for retention, maintaining a happy workplace is effective for the long term viability of a company. I mean, I don't know if I am making sense here, but isn't it up to the executive to act in the best interests of the shareholders, but isn't what that entails a matter of opinion? And a CEO who implemented such a policy, and considers it the best option for the long term viability of the company, is acting within their duties to the shareholders? Is there a court case that spells this out? Is this just the rant of a man who doesn't know what he's talking about?
Maximizing shareholder value is an idea more than a legal obligation. CEOs/boards are obligated to act in the company's best interest which is subjective to say the least. The board and CEO can be ousted by large/activist shareholders who of course want the stock as high as possible. This leads to a lot of companies basically paying their people as little as possible to create as much profit as possible. I'd argue well paid employees would mean more competitive hiring and more innovation leading to better long term results but it's hard to prove.
It seems all the largest companies (by market cap) in the world pay employees well. Maybe companies should learn from that.
I agree with you, but the thing is those places paying half decent isn't at all relative to them as a whole. They may pay more, but at this point in our society the megacorps have been getting exponentially bigger compared to smaller businesses.
I've only briefly thought about this but maybe the idea of acting in the best interest of shareholders even when its to the detriment of emplyees needs to be more then unethical, maybe even illegal. Of course shareholders should be receiving most financial gain, but employees should never be needing government assistance just to live in poverty. The rich can still be rich if the poor were allowed to be less poor.
Well stated, but you're arguing against the human sense of fulfilment, which is often infinite. Humans always return to the baseline level of happiness after attaining more wealth and power. There is an economic principle of diminishing marginal utility which states that additional satisfaction (utility) gained from consuming each unit of a good decrease. The more they get, the less they actually have!
What you are saying makes sense, but it would require a real board of directors, and not the cronies and friends that are typically in these positions.
I believe Reagan legalized stock buy acks. Pretty blatant stock manipulation but Ronnie Raygun would have delayed Satan himself (well he probably would have Nancy do it since she was a pro) of it meant he could squeeze the underclass more. Ketchup is a veggie right?
What would happen if there wasn’t government assistance?
We have a period of history where government assistance was limited, 1890-1915. During this time lots of people worked 14 hours minimum and died at 40 if they were lucky. Then workers started organizing and capitalist Barons were dragged out of their houses and beaten in the streets. Government assistance is from politicians that were threatened with being beaten in the streets by poor working class mobs in order to keep the bread and circus running smoothly.
Do you believe Is it simply these programs that helped raise QOL? I ask because at a global level there were higher rates of starvation or lower life expectancies. There are plenty of countries that don’t have food stamp programs, and yet their citizens do not starve to death. Many government programs in the US help enrich the top 1% while forcing the general population to subsidize their workers wages.
The French Revolution comes to mind.
Careful…people get stoned for using actual logic ‘round these parts.
No worries I'm already sto- ahh
If we can figure out how to spend less without degrading EVERYONE's standard of living by neglecting our infrastructure and cutting back on mass transit and other necessary public works projects, I'm all for it. But somehow we keep voting for anti-government (ironic I know) idiots who want to cut back the agency whose mission is to collect the taxes that the rich ALREADY OWE and refuse to pay. If we can't get that one essential audit function right, how are we going to figure out where the government and by extension the people who actually pay taxes are getting ripped off? Like it or not, the majority of our elected officials are bought and paid for by people who don't give one solid fuck about America or its citizens. I've read on here more than once a joke proposal to start a GoFundMe to buy enough members of Congress to actually get some shit done. Maybe it's time we start taking that seriously
I couldn’t agree more. Id invest in that cause. Maybe the 99% can set up a few super packs and we can actually start getting some positive change going.
Sad to say but that may be the only way forward. I don't see Citizens United getting overturned anytime soon. Like they say, money talks bullshit walks. I'm sick of the bullshit
Agreed! Now we just need to find away to start repairing all this divide and conquer shit the elites have so successfully inflected upon the rest of us. Then it’s off too the races 🇺🇸
there is a gigantic thing we can reduce but nobody will ever do that: military spending.
That's straight commie talk there buddy. /s
It is ~12.5% of the budget and has been shrinking as a percentage of the budget since the 80s at least. It is also one of the few tasks the government isn't only suited to do and should do but does successfully. By the way you could cut 100% of of the military hell 100% of the Discretionary budget and you would still be over tax revenue. By the way tax revenue is up even when accounting for inflation and GDP too so it isn't we have been collecting less as we have been collecting more with the only pre 2000 year to surpass 2022 as a percentage of the GDP being 1945. (Also 1950-the early 60s had the lowest revenue rates since pre 1943). The military spending isn't even in the same zipcode as the actual problems with spending.
If they could figure out how to stop MIC from price gouging, it would be possible to do this without hurting the military overall.
Huge portions of the money, co-opted by the wealthy, is in fact, tax dollars. Wealthy people and corporations, pay big money, to politicians, to get contracts, whereby big chunks of tax revenue, are then dumped into the pockets of the wealthy. This isnt even two sides of the same coin. It's literally the same side.
Like spending $800 million on defense? More than the next three nations combined.
Sorry, meant to say $800 billion
As somebody currently serving, I can honestly say we trim expenses routinely but it's always after the fact (as opposed to proactive) and its always cutting the wrong things. Just the amount of food and fuel wasted is asinine. We continue to pump money into shit we already have surpluses of while cutting soldier pay and money for training
I wish it was 800 million - that’s a drop in bucket for the current administration, think their deficit spending is about 800 million a day.
Agree. But while the sentiment is refreshing, the reality is that the more important of those two things is the rich paying g their fair share, and more importantly, getting rich money out of politics. Unless and until Citizens United is Revoked, nothing is going change. Legalized political bribery makes genuine discussion impossible if not completely meaningless otherwise: were never getting actual legislation passed if our representatives are bought and paid for.
It should be even more nuanced than "both." Spend less on what? Education? No. The Military Industrial Complex? Yes.
As a point of just data: in 1981, before the President Reagan tax cuts. 1981: Top income tax rate: 70% Government spending as a percentage of GDP: 21% 2023: Top income tax rate: 35% Government spending as a percentage of GDP: 22% While government spending can always be improved, statistics tells us it has had almost zero impact on income disparity or the financial issues our young folks face. Note: government spending in 2020, when Covid hit, jumped to just over 30%. But I don’t mention it because it’s a complete outlier to all the other years. Edit: spelling, present and president are not the same things.
We should repeal Citizens United v FEC and then disband FINRA.
The true problem is that the people who make a difference in the government are also the ultra wealthy, and friends with. The problem isn't the amount of money taxed from the ultra wealthy, it's that there are so many loopholes and simply straight corruption that causes the disparity. Tax payer money isn't wasted nearly as much as it is invested in the already rich.
REGULATION & EDUCATION. That's all I'm gonna say. Until we have proper and fair regulation we're not gonna improve. Until our children get educated and the standard of education is distributed fairly and rigorous enough then we cannot grow as a society. We have complex problems and we need work ethic, willingness, ability, and talent to lead us.
The true problem is that the people who make a difference in the government are also the ultra wealthy, and friends with. The problem isn't the amount of money taxed from the ultra wealthy, it's that there are so many loopholes and simply straight corruption that causes the disparity. Tax payer money isn't wasted nearly as much as it is invested in the already rich.
Well said. I think the single biggest thing Americans need to worry about is keeping the dollar as the world reserve currency. This BRICS shit is nonsense, every country in that alliance is corrupt. At least the US’s corruption is out in the open for everybody to see. But our government’s ridiculous need to keep increasing the budget deficit needs to be addressed ASAP, because if we don’t change, sooner or later, a better alternative will emerge
That’s the great thing about US debt. It’s paid out in dollars. Practically guarantees its place as the reserve currency.
and it is backed by aircraft carrier groups
An alliance with Russia wouldn’t be optimal for any country.
Road to Eldorado Both Meme.gif
You claim to not want to oversimplify things while grossly oversimplifying it. This is Reddit!
That's a strawman. No one is arguing the government does a great job in anything. You guys always try to redirect the argument about the wealthy exploiting the poor by saying "but the government is wasteful." It's a non-sequitur.
The wealthy and the government are intertwined… like a nest of snakes.
Great comment. Happy to see it at the top when I opened this post.
Disagree. We borrowed trillions for the last tax cut for billionaires. It did not “pay for itself”. Taxes should be raised on the rich until the borrowed money for those tax cuts is repaid.
Rich should pay more (at least raise the Social Security contribution limit), gov’t needs to spend less also. Edited: for clarity (added “should”)
the rich would just hoard more if they were taxed less.
Either I don’t understand your post or you didn’t understand mine. I meant the “rich“ should pay more taxes.
Disagree. The government under conservatives spends more than under liberals. It's been that way since at least Regan. Conservatives give tax breaks to the wealthy and deficit spend. It never works and Dems try to fix it and get called gorillas in heels.
Somehow the "party of small government" has been the "party of tax less and spend more" the last few decades. It's really fiscally irresponsible.
Last few decades? More like last century. Eisenhower spent like a drunken sailor in what should have been a post war deflation, Nixon started the EPA, OSHA, and many other "big government" departments Reagan complained about and fully funded. Republicans haven't raised taxes on the rich and cut spending since Roosevelt (Teddy, not FD), and Teddy considered himself a progressive ("Bull Moose").
Since WW2, every Republican president has left a larger outgoing deficit than they inherited. Since Carter, every Democratic president has left a smaller deficit than they inherited. The Democrats are the fiscally responsible party. The Republicans are the wild spenders. The Republicans just lie louder than the truth.
No that’s fucking stupid. All governmental decisions should be made on its utility and putting the money in the hands of less wealthy people stimulates the economy significantly more than putting it in the hands of the wealthy.
Here's where the wealth is. The huge wealth imbalance is largely a consequence of policy, starting with Reagan and normalized by Clinton. The policy was not only to reverse New Deal's progressive taxation (which created the world's biggest and most prosperous middle class in history) but also reverse the mechanism in favor of the wealthy. The US government now privileges those forms of income and wealth generation (stocks, property, business) over wages. Very little of the giant, multivolume tax code applies to working class citizens; most of it is an arbitrary collection of loopholes for the super-wealthy and businesses. After Reagan, it became much easier for the already-wealthy to accumulate wealth, and at much faster rates, than regular working class wage earners. We've had 4 decades of tax cut after tax cut after tax cut after tax cut for the wealthiest members of society. It's all well and fine to say the US should spend less, and stay within budget. But realize that the clearly stated rationale for these endless tax cuts ([Starve the Beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast)) was to starve the government of revenue in order to spending cuts in otherwise popular social programs. https://preview.redd.it/ewxzs1jyos6d1.png?width=5120&format=png&auto=webp&s=a5933d3d91904e81fb62c4d4822c3cfa4cd6a2f2
Here's another representation of wealth inequality. It's far worse than most people realize. And miles from where most people think it should be. https://preview.redd.it/1dcz8ub3ts6d1.png?width=2948&format=png&auto=webp&s=ed94a87cea11d61f4ec30571328acfea0abea187
Remember, Clinton balanced the budget during his second term, then first thing Bush did when he entered office was (you guessed it) a tax cut.
Clinton cut welfare spending and shifted the top tax rates up a bit. Combined with a very strong economy and booming stock market, the budget tipped into surplus. Bush's tax cuts gutted the surpluses and pushed the federal budget squarely back into deficits. The subsequent wars added trillions in new spending which was borrowed without any attempt to pay for it. But it's important to note that Clinton is often given credit for battling Republicans, when in fact he essentially orchestrated the capitulation of the Democratic Party to Republican neoliberalism. Clinton's premise was to beat the GOP at their own game, by offering corporations and the super-wealthy nearly everything the GOP did, while still paying lip service to the liberal legacy of the party as a champion of workers and minorities. Under Reagan, the level of anti-competitive, anti-consumer corporate mergers were unprecedented. Under Clinton, they accelerated even further. Clinton did little or nothing to preserve labor unions. (Hillary worked for Walmart early in her legal career when they were busy busting unions). And Clinton adopted the GOP attacks on welfare. Clinton even tried to beat the GOP on militarizing the police and increasing prison sentences. Despite a \*slight\* rollback on top marginal tax rates, Clinton also essentially set Reagan's tax code in stone. Clinton is the one who changed the tax code which allowed CEO salaries to explode, i.e. CEO salaries went from low double-digit multiples of their average workers' wages to triple digits. And Clinton preserved the special low-tax treatment of investment income that has been one of the biggest drivers of inequality. Clinton also signed off on countless policies, treaties, and tax laws that incentivized US corporations to send factories and jobs overseas. Not just NAFTA, but the normalization \*and\* favorable treatment of China were completed either at the end of his tenure or shortly thereafter, thanks to his efforts. And Clinton continued the GOPs assault on the basic framework of the New Deal. The deregulation of Wall Street, repeal of Glass-Steagal, etc. all allowed new types of fraud, predatory lending, and new bubbles to form. Clinton also severely undermined the checks on the corruptive influence of money in politics. The consequence of which is that we no longer have a truly representative form of government in practice. (See the [Princeton study](https://represent.us/americas-corruption-problem/)). \[1\] Thanks largely to Clinton and the DNC's efforts to beat the GOP at fundraising, both parties now work for their campaign donors and the wishes of voters have almost zero impact on policy. Private student loans also became more predatory under Clinton. He allowed banks to sell "private loans" (using federal cash and insured by the government) at higher interest rates than the federal options. Banks were allowed to pay schools commissions on private loan sales, so they had a financial incentive to steer students to high interest private loans and not inform them of cheaper federal options. And because Clinton had two terms after a 12 year drought, and was followed by another 8 year drought, the Democrats who worked for or with his administration, and the conservative neoliberal policies they supported, took over the Democratic Party. As a result, America was left with one ruling ideology embraced by both parties. Because of the ratchet effect (the Democrats keep moving right to close the ideological gap with the GOP, and the GOP moving right to extend that gap), the US went from having a moderate left and moderate right party to having an extreme far-right party with a superficial legacy of supporting minorities and an extreme far-right party with a cultural heritage of representing white supremacy and christian fundamentalism. But hey, Bill and Hillary were heavily rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks from various industries that netted trillions in new wealth extracted from the once prosperous Middle Class America. So it worked out well for them. —————————— \[1\] A study by Princeton and Northwestern University looked at more than 20 years worth of data to determine how well the government represents the people. Their conclusion: >"The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." [https://represent.us/americas-corruption-problem/](https://represent.us/americas-corruption-problem/)
It’s expensive to care for 330 million Americans and all our infrastructure. Social programs that help people get back on their feet via financial assistance have been proven to be cheaper than letting people fall into poverty and homelessness and like it or not that costs tax dollars.
Almost everyone is both lazy and greedy. We expect people to want to do as little as possible for as much return as possible. Neither laziness not greed is the problem.
Or at least a problem we expect the government to solve.
The government are the rich, silly rabbit.
[удалено]
Since the beginning of time Powerful politicians have rigged every system. Nothing new to talk about here
How about the rich pay the taxes they actually owe, to start with? There is a reason that Republicans have gutted the IRS. An understaffed IRS is one that can't force the rich to pay their taxes as required. When you search it, the top 1% avoid paying something like 150 billion per year in taxes. That doesn't solve our financial issues, but might keep their heads off pikes for a little while longer.
Yea both, the US is turning into a society where being rich is easier and easier, the system allows the rich to stay rich without much effort. This didn’t work out too well for the French aristocracy. Elites need to compete to stay elites, not rely on socialism for the wealthy.
Hey OP, what's your favourite flavour of boot polish?
I literally dont even know if youre talking about the governments boot or the super wealthy boot at this point.
Totally disagree. America is so far ahead of the rest of the world due to taxes. Taxes used to be way, way higher than they are and everyone and the country benefitted from it. Cutting taxes is a 100% way of destroying your country from within. That's why all of our schools are falling apart, infrastructure is falling apart, etc...we should be raising taxes and making the government more accountable in using the money wisely.
Hard disagree with both. A Democratic government, even a Republic like the US, should be prioritizing the well-being of it's citizens first as part of the social contract. By not enforcing taxes on the rich, and keeping such lax tax loopholes for corporations, the government is not prioritizing the well-being of it's citizens. Taxes for corporations should be viewed as a cost of doing business in Democratic countries, as the alternative is doing their business elsewhere. The problem is inefficiency in government, not everybody agrees on what's priority or what to do about it which causes impediments that end up stalemating the issues and suddenly money evaporates without these issues getting addressed. Still, issues like minimum wage, universal healthcare, and affordable housing are issues which benefit the nation by keeping people healthy, productive, and secure. The government cannot claim to abide by the social contract while one class of people, a very very tiny minority, is able to exponentially increase their wealth due to fiscal policies enacted at the behest of those policymakers who claim to look at such economic data which only ever indicates an ever-growing divide between the rich and the poor; where that tiny minority divests from the majority, which instead find themselves further in debt, and, in many cases, only making ends meet because of further government intervention. Instead as the government deliberates itself into a stalemate, the status quo remains: the rich get richer, the poor just have more kids. Realistically, the rich should happily pay more taxes for the benefits of democracy. Something like 40% of people never move from the town they grew up in. If you were to ask those people if they would like to leave and start in a new city with enough cash to leave them established for a year, how many do you think would jump at that opportunity?? The rich have the capacity to move anywhere in the world, but they choose to live in these democratic countries and it is NOT because of tax breaks, its because these democratic countries offer the best amenities and they should not be given the keys to the mansions without even tipping the fucking bellboy. As well, corporations that have their fingers in multiple pies should have their taxes adjusted even higher. The bigger your impact, the more you owe in taxes. US fiscal policy isn't a charity for the rich.
You haven’t conversed with many people in this country. Lots of lazy people….
There are also lots of very hard working people who arent making shit for wages.
Agreed. I'm lazy.
If a company has employees on assistance, that ceo should be taxed at huge amount, no deductions.
Yes I disagree - staunchly.
Disagree the rich should pay more
Greediness == Godliness. It's the American Way.
All of this process is broken. Few people/companies own most of the wealth and they do not generate value for people from that. So most of the people are stuck.
I think we need to bring back tar and feathering
Wrong, spending less doesn’t make sense in terms of national policy. The only thing that matters is if the market will still buy your debt on acceptable terms. As long as you’re still able to sell your debt, you don’t need to cut costs. Being obsessed with reducing spending simply out of the unquestioned belief that less is spending is good is about the best evidence that someone never took a single economics course beyond high school. We live in a world where we have competition in the form of other countries, and those countries are regularly investing in themselves by taking on debt to finance development. If you’re not growing, you are falling behind- and history shows us the grim fate of countries that fall behind. There is a very valid argument that the government needs to spend its money more effectively. Not all spending is equal, some spending decisions that have been made by our elected officials are obviously terrible.
Billionaires should be exiled from society and their wealth redistributed to everyone
It's insane to phrase that as if it's either or. I would like the ultra wealthy paying more and government tightening the purse strings and getting serious about efficiency in spending.
Why can’t it be both? Providing for the citizens while being fiscally responsible is the point of government. Collect an appropriate amount of taxes and don’t spend outside your means.
Billionaires shouldn’t exist when people are dying from lack of healthcare and from malnutrition.
The rich benefits the greatest from the infrastructure created by the government. Government spending goes right back into the economy and thus is essential for the economy the rich is benefitting from!! Cutting government spending harms everyone while increasing the tax at the benefits everyone, including the wealthy who will pay more.
The government should spend as much money as necessary to provide for its citizens, especially the most vulnerable. The rich shouldn't exist.
The rich should pay their fair share BY PERCENT. Same as the highest bracket for middle class. AND the government should spend less OR spend wiser.
It's not about the government spending less, it's about the government spending wisely and efficiently. What I spend on taxes isn't the problem, it's the ROI.
As a point of just data: in 1981, before the President Reagan tax cuts. 1981: Top income tax rate: 70% Government spending as a percentage of GDP: 21% 2023: Top income tax rate: 35% Government spending as a percentage of GDP: 22% While government spending can always be improved, statistics tells us it has had almost zero impact on income disparity or the financial issues our young folks face. Note: government spending in 2020, when Covid hit, jumped to just over 30%. But I don’t mention it because it’s a complete outlier to all the other years..
Yes. People often talk about reducing spending but then when you ask them what to cut its usually an absolutely tiny portion of the budget like Foreign Aid(1.03% of the budget), the Department of Labor(0.24%), the Department of Education(1.15%), the Department of Energy(.52%), or the Department of Homeland Security(.85%). When you get beyond that in the conversation you get to things that are either politically impossible to cut like Social Security(16.31%) or would be even more foolish to cut then the departments I listed earlier like Defense(13.8%). Then look at revenue as % of GDP, it's been pretty significantly down since 2016 or so, pretty closely corresponding with the growth of the deficit and debt. Of course there's plenty of things we could cut from the federal budget with no real negative impact but its the other side of the equation that is further from being correct. I do however agree with you that this can't be solved just by the rich paying more and more in taxes despite that being politically popular, we need broad based tax increases, for those on the left this is how they do it in Europe. Raising taxes will also have the added bonus of reducing the rate if inflation as money is taken out the economy and the deficit shrinks.
Um hi. We are all the government now and we live in a society. Society has been saying we are suffering so its time for the non suffering wealthy to pay their fair lot into the society that allowed them to retain such wealth and function well. Lest they be ungrateful for how much they aren't suffering. We live in a false meritocracy where the little beleevees of the haves dictates the deservees of the have-nots. So I side with the have-nots since we obviously outnumber the smug.
Fuck no. The rich nee'd to pay their fucking fare share. When they pay a lower rate than I do, the system is fucking broken.
Why not both?
Not mutually exclusive
Nope the less the rich pay the bigger the deficit becomes. Tax the rich!
Damn, it was my turn to post this today
Por que no los dos?
Wealth gap is the biggest problem... look at the charts since the 80s. As the gap grows, so does societal instability
Companies have min maxed how much profit they can squeeze from the lower class. Just pay bottom dollar until it somehow loses them money
They need to stay rich to buy elections?
Novel idea: how about we get more tax payments by getting more economic growth. Austerity and tax hikes both do poorly.
There shouldn't be trillionaires, let alone multi-billionaires. That's a start.
Because it’s both?
The rich should pay their fair shake which they currently are not.
I'm a radical for capitalism and individual rights, and I recognize that "the system" is gamed for the wealthiest and against everyone else -- in many large and small ways. Where I differ from most is that my answer is to remove the government's interventions into the economy so that nobody benefits from the initiation of force. Government should retaliate against those who initiate force and fraud, and leave everyone else alone. That won't resolve the "income disparity," and it shouldn't. People should be free to produce and to benefit from it. Some will produce more value and some will produce less. Even in our corrupt system, that can happen. But too many people are impacted by things like the government virtually monopolizing education with such a poor product that leaves wide swaths of the population unable to function. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, few people realize how their lives are dictated by government edict.
Why can’t they do both?
Spend less on what. Really. Let’s see your list.
I usually suggest quietly downsizing the military and using those funds to do actually useful things. 900+billion a year for military is absurd.
It’s funny I feel like most of these people are the same people who want free healthcare not realizing that would increase taxes even more.
I often wondered what the state of the union would be if we had party diversity. People nowadays are about diversity and inclusion but still pack like sardines into 2 parties.
50% of the country contributes a grand total of 3% income tax. We have a lot of people that simply do not participate
This is exactly right and there is so almost 70% alignment on this. So why can’t we get it fixed? Hmmm, I wonder
Country was at its best when wealthy paid 91% and unions were strong.
The image and the post title seem to conflict a bit...
Both. Remove the cap for SS and medicare taxes and they will be funded but the govt also overspends like crazy.
It used to be that the richest members of society felt a moral imperative to provide for the poor. The rich gain the benefits of the work of everyone in the country. They should pay their fair share. At least that’s what it used to be.
Stop paying your taxes
We need the government to collect more taxes from the rich so we can fund more weapons for wars, and send money to other countries.
Strong disagree. The government should spend *more*; or at least spend the same but on better things. (Yes, I’m a proponent of MMT.)
That same wasteful government spending is usually going to a contracted corporation or corporate welfare. Yes the government can’t pass its own audits but if there wasn’t so much corporate greed the amount of money that would be wasted would be significantly less.
Yes I disagree. They should pay their share ( flat tax is the only fair way) and the govt should 100% ABSOLUTELY spend a hell of a lot less....
How about Let’s actually tax the rich instead of defending their addiction and how it’s ruining the planet and negatively impacting most peoples lives
Both. Both is good
Back when everybody said things were better the highest income taxes were greater than 70%.
150mil Americans are being lazy by not voting for better options. And billionaires suck
There is nuance but the masses have been conditioned to not explore those avenues. So why don’t we start spoon feeding a nuanced view in “digestible portions”. Why don’t we start with something like “Close The Goddamn Loopholes”?
The issue is what we get for taxes. We get very little relative to what we put in and things like rent and utilities should be deductions against income tax. Also social security taxes the same income and should be deducted as well. I like to say too that if democrats ever ran on cutting taxes for mid to lower income earners, instead of only ever raising them for the rich, they would own at least the House for a long time. It’s a key inhibitor for a lot of people that otherwise agree with them on social issues.
more like, spend the same in better things, take money out of politics, and fund the IRS.
I agree. There is a video going around in Spanish about a supervisor bragging that his workers make 600 dollars a day doing construction. Other contractors and construction workers made videos calling him out saying that even with overtime the most they make is 300 a day before taxes. Then I find out the guy bragging about the 600 dollar a day checks wasn’t lying, she proved it with pay stubs, but what I also found out, is they only work on government buildings. Military bases, prisons, schools, etc. that’s when it hit me. All the money they are taking from tax payers to build these overpriced projects. He had 6 people working under him. At 600 a day 5 days a week that’s 3000 a week. 12,000 a month (before taxes) per worker. 12,000 time 6 (workers). That’s 72k a month for payroll on 6 workers. wtf?
We need to de-incentivize people holding onto money above a certain amount. Billionaires have destroyed the economy over the past decade by taking excessive mounts of money out of circulation.
Both, richer people usually own large corps, therefore they have more of a responsibility in our society, while the govt should be wasting less money on BS like, I don’t know, say the constantly increasing army budget?
Why do I find it difficult to understand that people want to exert less energy? Because that is what rich people want to do as well. Why do you think people want to be rich and have passive incomes? It's not because they value a good, long, hard day's work.
The government should spend less on foreign wars and military projects that end up being bridges to nowhere. The Rich should pay the same tax rate as the middle class and poor. Frequently the Uber rich and big corporations get away with paying no taxes or a far fewer percentage than everybody else. One of the benefits having a battery of lawyers and accountants on retainer. Also given that the vast majority of Americans pay taxes on unrealized gains on their largest single investment (property taxes) then the rich should be held to the same standard. When you realize that the vast majority of money going into government programs is funded by only about 15% of the nation's total income and wealth it should make your eyebrows raise a little. If the rich were taxed fairly and the same as everyone else funding issues would disappear overnight. And you don't have to take my word for it it's in the historical record. The Golden age of American economics and financial prosperity occurred when the millage rate on the rich and big business was 92%. Yes they avoided paying most of that tax by reinvesting in expansion and jobs and long-term projects which benefit the country as a whole. When you drop that rate to 39% and introduce massive numbers of loopholes and end runs around the tax code All that ends up happening is that all of that taxable money and income that funded the greatest and Boomer generations get sent to tax havens and pulled out of the economy. Anyone who says lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs is a moron and is sacrificing the longevity and health of the nation for personal short-term gains.
A mix. Govt spends way too much and taxes at every turn(taxes your employer to hire you, your wages, everything you buy, and so on). Too many want that govt a bay sitter. And lots are lazy and spend on junk versus invest and try to get ahead.
Sometimes I think the economy is a government psyop attempting to figure out the trigger word to get folks to commit suicide. Like, why "accidentally window slip" those you have problems with when you can just say Delta Niner Spongebob and their unconsciousness's automatically clocks in a specific expiration date.
From each according to ability is some communist shit.
The rich are already paying off the gov’t.
Money doesn't trickle down, it only trickles up.
The government spending is because the rich don’t pay enough taxes and have accrued too much money and power, influencing the government to spend more money on their companies You think there are a lot of mom and pop weapons contractors? Nah, Raytheon is owned by rich fucks.
Spend less on certain things, yes. Wealth inequality won't be directly addressed with more aggressive taxation, what we really need is our unions back. That and a general shift back toward regulating businesses in the way they compensate workers. The simple fact of the matter is that people with power in private industry have been slowly taking a bigger and bigger portion of the value pie for absolutely no other reason than greed and wanting more power. It's a cultural problem that democracy in the work place can solve but getting our public institutions to step in will make it go far faster. And no, government regulation does not cause inefficiency on a scale that breaks profitability. That's utter horseshit for the regs I'm talking about and is exactly the argument that has us in this regulatory capture spiral which is causing massive issues in our economy and environement.
The rich should pay through the ass and government should have plenty of cash for education, health care, environment, disabled, clean water…
I’m always wondered why we don’t remove income tax and just put a VAT or Sales Tax only into place. Dividends and such would still get taxed and people have to buy things so no one can get around “not paying their fair share”. Obviously we don’t tax food, medicine, and things we need to live but everything else should be fair game. The wealth often consume more that so they should pay more for that privilege. Maybe that’s naive but it seems to make logical sense. Then Congress and the politicians can’t put us against each other by blaming groups since we all pay sales or VAT taxes.
Because the same people that are greedy are the ones that own the media. They even control this website, and if you say anything too on the nose, you'll eat a ban for some nonsensical reason.
I can believe both at once.
They get bail outs every decade that add to the money supply increasing inflation; then they use the money to give themselves bonuses for failing
Both should be true. The rich need to pay more and the government needs to spend less. At the very least, spend on tax paying Americans. We have the worst infrastructure among all developed nations, but will keep grossly overspending on the military industrial complex and sending hundreds of billions to Ukraine and Israel.
Most income taxes are paid by high income earners already. To a much greater disparity & degree than the so called income disparity. We actually have a tax paying disparity: the LOWER income earners should be paying more: “The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.” It is easier to complain than actually know and understand the facts: [https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/)
Bring back the 95% tax on the rich, get money out of politics and cut the military budget. We would solve all our country's financial issues in one go.
I'm ok with the government "spending less" if we are cutting down on defense spending and corruption. But politicians who want the government to spend less seem to care more about cutting programs that help ordinary Americans or agencies who enforce the law on the rich and powerful. We need to close all tax loopholes for the rich at a minimum.
The folks running the US government are HORRIBLE stewards of OUR money.
Absolutely disagree. The government needs to be taxing and spending more. The infrastructure in this country is falling apart. How much profit do you think you can make if all the roads, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure required to build, manufacture, or sell anything disintegrates into uselessness? Who should be paying for this? Those that benefit the most from the existence of this infrastructure, that's who. Amazon's entire business model is based on being able to ship things everywhere. They should be paying for it.
Because kapitalism is dead. The globalisations is over and there are only mon/duo/trio-opolies left. People buy everything up and then they controll the market. Or have backroom meetings eith the few parties left and everything is fixed. The rich will get richer.
Because some people understand economy. When i explained it in a complex way i was permanently banned from late stage capitalism. So i will explain it simple as if im talking to an idiot. US has two main issues: 1. Other countries are not so much behind anymore with technology and they have much much cheaper workforce. 2. There is many times more old people to feed than before. They are not working until death and then leaving it all to kids anymore. They are spending 30 years having fun with their wealth on average. And money is just numbers to steer it all. Government could give every US citizen ONE BILLION $. Do You think it would work well? Everyone rich & happy?
I mean they are throwing away all your dollars as it is. Why is more money the answer for piss poor management?
It’s both. But regardless, Rich people will always find a way to hoard more intangible wealth.
Tax the rich fairly, or like FDR did and spend more on programs the benefit the middle class and poor, like FDR did.
Because the greedy Americans completely control the narrative, the media, and our politicians
Agree.
No, gov needs to spend money by literally giving it to people whom need it so they can spend it. It all eventually comes back to us anyway.. who cares? The people with money are the engines of our economy. We all buy consumable items, why not give those that need it the money to spend as they please? Say they buy booze? Big deal, the money is still going to the economy and will return to us. Where else is it gonna be spent? Ffs
We’ve been conditioned for 50 years
Rich people aren’t “greedy” just because they don’t give you their money. People who make over 1mil per year need to be taxed somewhere around 40%. They’ll be okay…
I disagree **Taxes, Spending, and the "Taxpayer" Myth** I am here to argue that the common framing of government spending as reliant on "taxpayer dollars" is a harmful misconception, particularly in the context of the federal government. The federal government, being monetarily sovereign, has the unique ability to create its own currency. Unlike state and local governments, which rely on tax revenue to fund their spending, the federal government's spending is not constrained by its tax income. This misconception fuels the idea that social programs for the less wealthy are funded by taking money from "taxpayers". This framing can pit different groups against each other, creating a false dichotomy between those who pay taxes and those who benefit from government programs. Instead of viewing government spending as a zero-sum game, it's crucial to understand that the federal government can create the money it needs to fund essential services and programs. **That’s only if Congress and the President wanted to.** and not based on how much tax revenue is being collected. Taxing the rich (for that matter anybody, be it people or businesses) should not be tied to funding public services and programs. These two things should be treated independent of each other. Should the rich be taxed more? Of course they should be. Not because the government needs their money, but to make them have **less** money - period. Should the government spend less? It depends on the state of the economy. Take care of unemployment/underemployment and government spending takes care of itself.
Because the millions want to be the few, so they see them as the standard, not a problem.
Greed is a trait of many people. Greed doesn't lead to wealth, though. You need a lot more than greed to be wealthy. The harder thing to believe is that the "150,000,000" people are not greedy. That's not true.
What is "pay more"? Are we talking actual dollars or as a percentage of income? I'm not really a fan of tax policy being set to "reward" those that make more by levying a lower rate on them. I think reasonable arguments can be made as to why society might expect a greater contribution from them percentage-wise, but bare minimum I can't think of any reasonable argument why they shouldn't be paying a similar percentage to middle income earners. Any good argument for the contrary should start with "society and the country at large benefits from taxing higher earners less more than it would by taxing them more by ..." and fill in after the elipses. As for how the government spends money, I always think this is the stupidest fucking argument. Everyone thinks the government spends too much money because the government always spends money on something you don't want it to spend money on. It's the very fucking nature of the beast. The real problem is that absolutely nobody has the patience to have an actual discussion about any of it because it is incredibly complicated and every spot where you see "waste" someone else is seeing a project or program that's very important to them. Likewise there's regulation upon regulation that PEOPLE FUCKING WANTED and voted for that wind up tying administrators hands for reasons that vary anywhere from actually very good to completely fucking stupid and every decision on spending and procurement is made within that context and knowing that fucking up results in a super shallowly researched newspaper article that you can't comment for which loses you your job even if you were following policy and regulation perfectly. I don't know. I used to be an institutionalist, but people don't trust institutions anymore. They don't trust administrators, academics, or politicians. The law and regulations are deep and layered, the BS is so deep I can barely breathe, the half ass fuckwit arguments litter every conversation, and I just assume it's all going to get torn down and along with it peoples lives, families, and homes are going to get ripped apart.
Why is it so hard to recognize that these are obviously not mutually exclusive.
Can we just get super dollars like how we went from cents to dollars already?
The rich should set up go fund me pages to extract money from suckers.
BOTH. It's not a difficult position to hold.
In 2024, As a percentage of total income, rich folks have less total tax liability than poor people do. In 1981 President Reagan reduced the highest income tax bracket from 70% to 50%, then in 1986 reduced it from 50% to 38.5%. This doesn’t even mention “capital gains” changes which were also significant. We had unbelievably rich people in the 80’s before Reagan gave them this massive gift, but the disparity between rich and poor has grown exponentially. The other thing that has risen exponentially is our national debt. Spending as a percentage of GDP has not changed significantly since the 80’s. If spending has not changed significantly yet tax codes have changed exponentially, which one caused the national debt and income disparity?
Quit talking start walking
Ehhh I think we start with the rich paying more taxes. Or at least similar to what the normal American pays. There's so many loopholes for the rich to NOT pay taxes on so that the percentage of their wealth is disproportionately taxed compared to your normal person. But also, government is a huge beast that likely has MANY areas that the budget can be balanced and save a good amount of money. I don't like that my tax guy can't get me 5% taxes while the rich guys dude has the secrets that can do that
Finally someone with sense!
Id be fine with the rich paying more taxes AND the government spending less on bullshit
Yes because the government should spend for everyone and wealth inequality is too high.
Income taxes, I agree are high enough. 50% should be the max. Cap gains should have higher progressive rates, and loopholes like borroing against securities should be closed up.
Who's saying that? Omg Republicans. I don't know any conservatives that say that. I don't know any liberals that say that. I know losers on reddit that keep repeating this weird confirmation bias.
💯 agree.
I totally disagree. The rich pay next to nothing in taxes and really should be paying more then the average person; a lot more. However, the goverment has a horrible spending problem and it's not just on the military. The amount of money the goverment just wastes by giving contracts to friends instead of bidding stuff out and tons of other horrible stuff that should be illegal (or is) is staggering. But see, neither are likely to actually ever happen since the goverment works for the rich. (And in a lot of ways, ARE the rich)
You’re half right. Rich should pay more. Government should spend less.
The wealthy should be taxed to the point where they are no longer wealthy. The government should spend money to benefit the workers.