Rex Racer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Senator Klobuchar says that they are trying to work with the GOP on a budget, and they are "unwilling to stand up to Trump" to keep the government moving.

The GOP can pass a budget through reconciliation that guts a lot of the stupid spending. But, I don't think that they will.

I think it will be very important to pass tax cuts that are as targeted as Klobuchar wants. Focus tax cuts on people "making less than $400k a year".

I know Trump wants to lower the capital gains tax rate, but maybe that needs to wait until after mid-terms. Maybe put in a significant deduction for capital gains tax of $250k per year. This would allow early investors of Crypto start to cash out tax free, and help people that have a home they want to sell to move.

If Trump can get the economy back on track and shrink the budget deficit by A LOT, then MAGA will kill it in the mid terms, and he can use the latter part of his presidency to pass the larger tax cuts. I would rather Trump use the political capital right now to gut spending, not on tax cuts. If he guts spending, and we have a plan to get to a balanced budget by 2032, and we stick to that plan, MAGA will continue to have lots of power.

---

You can already exclude $250,000 of any capital gain from being taxed if single, and $500,000 if married filing jointly.

---

That's only on a primary residence….not any actual investments, including crypto, stocks, or investment real estate.

BusterAg said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Senator Klobuchar says that they are trying to work with the GOP on a budget, and they are "unwilling to stand up to Trump" to keep the government moving.

The GOP can pass a budget through reconciliation that guts a lot of the stupid spending. But, I don't think that they will.

I think it will be very important to pass tax cuts that are as targeted as Klobuchar wants. Focus tax cuts on people "making less than $400k a year".

I know Trump wants to lower the capital gains tax rate, but maybe that needs to wait until after mid-terms. Maybe put in a significant deduction for capital gains tax of $250k per year. This would allow early investors of Crypto start to cash out tax free, and help people that have a home they want to sell to move.

If Trump can get the economy back on track and shrink the budget deficit by A LOT, then MAGA will kill it in the mid terms, and he can use the latter part of his presidency to pass the larger tax cuts. I would rather Trump use the political capital right now to gut spending, not on tax cuts. If he guts spending, and we have a plan to get to a balanced budget by 2032, and we stick to that plan, MAGA will continue to have lots of power.

---

You can already exclude $250,000 of any capital gain from being taxed if single, and $500,000 if married filing jointly.

---

This is good news to me! I just sold a house last year and had a significant capital gain. I might even do my taxes now instead of April. I was expecting to write a check.

---

Only if the house was your primary residence.

Trump needs to say that if Congress and/or the courts will get out of his way and allow him to find all the government waste, he will give all the savings back as a tax cut to all Americans.

HarleySpoon said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Senator Klobuchar says that they are trying to work with the GOP on a budget, and they are "unwilling to stand up to Trump" to keep the government moving.

The GOP can pass a budget through reconciliation that guts a lot of the stupid spending. But, I don't think that they will.

I think it will be very important to pass tax cuts that are as targeted as Klobuchar wants. Focus tax cuts on people "making less than $400k a year".

I know Trump wants to lower the capital gains tax rate, but maybe that needs to wait until after mid-terms. Maybe put in a significant deduction for capital gains tax of $250k per year. This would allow early investors of Crypto start to cash out tax free, and help people that have a home they want to sell to move.

If Trump can get the economy back on track and shrink the budget deficit by A LOT, then MAGA will kill it in the mid terms, and he can use the latter part of his presidency to pass the larger tax cuts. I would rather Trump use the political capital right now to gut spending, not on tax cuts. If he guts spending, and we have a plan to get to a balanced budget by 2032, and we stick to that plan, MAGA will continue to have lots of power.

---

You can already exclude $250,000 of any capital gain from being taxed if single, and $500,000 if married filing jointly.

---

This is good news to me! I just sold a house last year and had a significant capital gain. I might even do my taxes now instead of April. I was expecting to write a check.

---

Only if the house was your primary residence.

---

Now I'm sad again. That is what I thought. Guess that boat will have to wait. I'll double check this and worry about it again in April.

HarleySpoon said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Senator Klobuchar says that they are trying to work with the GOP on a budget, and they are "unwilling to stand up to Trump" to keep the government moving.

The GOP can pass a budget through reconciliation that guts a lot of the stupid spending. But, I don't think that they will.

I think it will be very important to pass tax cuts that are as targeted as Klobuchar wants. Focus tax cuts on people "making less than $400k a year".

I know Trump wants to lower the capital gains tax rate, but maybe that needs to wait until after mid-terms. Maybe put in a significant deduction for capital gains tax of $250k per year. This would allow early investors of Crypto start to cash out tax free, and help people that have a home they want to sell to move.

If Trump can get the economy back on track and shrink the budget deficit by A LOT, then MAGA will kill it in the mid terms, and he can use the latter part of his presidency to pass the larger tax cuts. I would rather Trump use the political capital right now to gut spending, not on tax cuts. If he guts spending, and we have a plan to get to a balanced budget by 2032, and we stick to that plan, MAGA will continue to have lots of power.

---

You can already exclude $250,000 of any capital gain from being taxed if single, and $500,000 if married filing jointly.

---

That's only on a primary residence….not any actual investments, including crypto, stocks, or investment real estate.

---

Okay. My house is the only capital gain of that size I have ever sold.

There are rules and limits to when you can use reconciliation. I don't think you would want to use it (or perhaps even be able to) just in order to avoid a government shutdown. A reconciliation bill is going to have a lot more to it than that.

Everyone who wants to see real cuts would prefer not to see another continuing resolution, but the question remains as to whether or not they can get the big reconciliation package done in time to avoid it.

I don't think the politics of a "shutdown" would be quite the same this time around. For one, with Trump running the executive branch, they won't be engaging in publicity stunts to make the "shutdown" more visible. For another, the electorate is probably willing to accept a little inconvenience now if it leads to real reform.

Increase property/general tax deduction.!!

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

He needs to focus tax cuts on those already paying the lion's share of fed income taxes. Not further reducing those that already paying less and creating even more taxpayers with very little or no skin in the game.

---

. Agree 100%!!!! Cut taxes to 0!!!!! Let the poors figure it out for themselves. Poor people are not my problem.

---

Stop this nonsense.We are combating waste and theft in the federal government and you're acting like we want to starve children. We need to starve the swamp first.

Then we absolutely should cut taxes on the people who pay taxes. Why would we give even more money to people who are getting money from the government every year? They have NO taxes to cut.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

He needs to focus tax cuts on those already paying the lion's share of fed income taxes. Not further reducing those that already paying less and creating even more taxpayers with very little or no skin in the game.

---

. Agree 100%!!!! Cut taxes to 0!!!!! Let the poors figure it out for themselves. Poor people are not my problem.

---

Stop this nonsense.We are combating waste and theft in the federal government and you're acting like we want to starve children. We need to starve the swamp first.

Then we absolutely should cut taxes on the people who pay taxes. Why would we give even more money to people who are getting money from the government every year? They have NO taxes to cut.

---

. Have you seen the latest tax plan? It doesn't cut taxes for people making less than $400K. It only cuts taxes for wealthy and to you that's a good thing?! Maybe instead of offering tax breaks to mega churches so the preachers can fly around on private jets and live $10MM mansions. Maybe we start there.

Do continuing resolutions one month at a time, and include a ton of fraud that needs to get cut every time. Target $100 billion per month. If we can continue that through the end of the year, we have a balanced budget.

At the pace that Muskermensch is going, $100 billion per month is certainly achievable.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

He needs to focus tax cuts on those already paying the lion's share of fed income taxes. Not further reducing those that already paying less and creating even more taxpayers with very little or no skin in the game.

---

. Agree 100%!!!! Cut taxes to 0!!!!! Let the poors figure it out for themselves. Poor people are not my problem.

---

Stop this nonsense.We are combating waste and theft in the federal government and you're acting like we want to starve children. We need to starve the swamp first.

Then we absolutely should cut taxes on the people who pay taxes. Why would we give even more money to people who are getting money from the government every year? They have NO taxes to cut.

---

. Have you seen the latest tax plan? It doesn't cut taxes for people making less than $400K. It only cuts taxes for wealthy and to you that's a good thing?! Maybe instead of offering tax breaks to mega churches so the preachers can fly around on private jets and live $10MM mansions. Maybe we start there.

---

We should tax like Denmark….. high taxes for EVERYONE……whether you're a teacher or a CEO. The USA has some of the most progressive taxes in the world. I'm not sure I can think of a country with a more progressive tax structure. It does not need to be even more progressive. Let's just end the debate and agree on a tax structure whose progressive nature equals that of Denmark. Then, sit back and listen to the screams.

The Dems want a shutdown because they believe the always win when there are shutdowns. Let's shut it down until the next election and see.

Critical functions remain open anyway.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

He needs to focus tax cuts on those already paying the lion's share of fed income taxes. Not further reducing those that already paying less and creating even more taxpayers with very little or no skin in the game.

---

. Agree 100%!!!! Cut taxes to 0!!!!! Let the poors figure it out for themselves. Poor people are not my problem.

---

Stop this nonsense.We are combating waste and theft in the federal government and you're acting like we want to starve children. We need to starve the swamp first.

Then we absolutely should cut taxes on the people who pay taxes. Why would we give even more money to people who are getting money from the government every year? They have NO taxes to cut.

---

. Have you seen the latest tax plan? It doesn't cut taxes for people making less than $400K. It only cuts taxes for wealthy and to you that's a good thing?! Maybe instead of offering tax breaks to mega churches so the preachers can fly around on private jets and live $10MM mansions. Maybe we start there.

---

How much is enough? The top 1% already pay 41% of federal income taxes and only get 22% of the AGI.

The bottom 50% essential pay zero but get 11.5% of the AGI. And these are the people using most of the social services that you seem so concerned about.

I deployed multiple time to Iraq, was a LEO, and worked private security, and have only recently started making real money. I did my public service time. I took extreme risk to get where I am today. I am not ok with paying 30% of my money in fed income taxes when 2/3 goes to handout to support other people's individual family needs.

So how much is enough? Should the bottom 70% not pay net fed income taxes? 80%? 85%? Are the top earners going to have to pay it all?

This is not the system envisioned by the founders. This is socialism.

Tom Fox said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

He needs to focus tax cuts on those already paying the lion's share of fed income taxes. Not further reducing those that already paying less and creating even more taxpayers with very little or no skin in the game.

---

. Agree 100%!!!! Cut taxes to 0!!!!! Let the poors figure it out for themselves. Poor people are not my problem.

---

Stop this nonsense.We are combating waste and theft in the federal government and you're acting like we want to starve children. We need to starve the swamp first.

Then we absolutely should cut taxes on the people who pay taxes. Why would we give even more money to people who are getting money from the government every year? They have NO taxes to cut.

---

. Have you seen the latest tax plan? It doesn't cut taxes for people making less than $400K. It only cuts taxes for wealthy and to you that's a good thing?! Maybe instead of offering tax breaks to mega churches so the preachers can fly around on private jets and live $10MM mansions. Maybe we start there.

---

How much is enough? The top 1% already pay 41% of federal income taxes and only get 22% of the AGI.

The bottom 50% essential pay zero but get 11.5% of the AGI. And these are the people using most of the social services that you seem so concerned about.

I deployed multiple time to Iraq, was a LEO, and worked private security, and have only recently started making real money. I did my public service time. I took extreme risk to get where I am today. I am not ok with paying 30% of my money in fed income taxes when 2/3 goes to handout to support other people's individual family needs.

So how much is enough? Should the bottom 70% not pay net fed income taxes? 80%? 85%? Are the top earners going to have to pay it all?

This is not the system envisioned by the founders. This is socialism.

---

[Enough trolling. Do it again and earn a ban -- Staff]

HarleySpoon said:

---

We should tax like Denmark….. high taxes for EVERYONE……whether you're a teacher or a CEO. The USA has some of the most progressive taxes in the world. I'm not sure I can think of a country with a more progressive tax structure. It does not need to be even more progressive. Let's just end the debate and agree on a tax structure whose progressive nature equals that of Denmark. Then, sit back and listen to the screams.

---

So, are you cool with raising everyone's taxes to be about 35% of GDP compared to 25% of GDP, only focus the increased taxes on the poorer people? That is one way to make taxes less progressive.

That way the real estate prices in DC can go way back up.

I'm ok with it if everyone pays the same because then there will be a critical mass of voters that will spartan kick those politicians out of office and taxes rate will be greatly reduced. Probably below 15%

As we have it now a small subset of voters pays almost everything and because they are such a small percentage of the voting pool they have zero recourse at the ballot box.

Tom Fox said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

He needs to focus tax cuts on those already paying the lion's share of fed income taxes. Not further reducing those that already paying less and creating even more taxpayers with very little or no skin in the game.

---

. Agree 100%!!!! Cut taxes to 0!!!!! Let the poors figure it out for themselves. Poor people are not my problem.

---

Stop this nonsense.We are combating waste and theft in the federal government and you're acting like we want to starve children. We need to starve the swamp first.

Then we absolutely should cut taxes on the people who pay taxes. Why would we give even more money to people who are getting money from the government every year? They have NO taxes to cut.

---

. Have you seen the latest tax plan? It doesn't cut taxes for people making less than $400K. It only cuts taxes for wealthy and to you that's a good thing?! Maybe instead of offering tax breaks to mega churches so the preachers can fly around on private jets and live $10MM mansions. Maybe we start there.

---

How much is enough? The top 1% already pay 41% of federal income taxes and only get 22% of the AGI.

The bottom 50% essential pay zero but get 11.5% of the AGI. And these are the people using most of the social services that you seem so concerned about.

I deployed multiple time to Iraq, was a LEO, and worked private security, and have only recently started making real money. I did my public service time. I took extreme risk to get where I am today. I am not ok with paying 30% of my money in fed income taxes when 2/3 goes to handout to support other people's individual family needs.

So how much is enough? Should the bottom 70% not pay net fed income taxes? 80%? 85%? Are the top earners going to have to pay it all?

This is not the system envisioned by the founders. This is socialism.

---

The return to capital has greatly increased since 1776. Oh, and human beings are no longer allowed to be capital, which is a huge improvement.

This will continue. As AI and robotics do more and more, the per capita GDP is going to grow, potentially exponentially.

Without some recognition that you have a select group of people that are going to be very high earners and a class of working people whose welfare won't change near as fast, it is only a matter of time before you have a revolt and it all gets burned down.

One way to combat that is to make sure that capital isn't collected by the uber talented or aristocratic rich, and the people that supply labor get their fair share of the stuff that is made by artificially lowering the return on capital. Maybe even to zero. That has not worked out so well in the past.

Another way to combat that is to make sure that labor is dumb, unambitious, and uninspired. That isn't working out real well in Europe right now. It's not the America way.

If you implement a flat tax, the top 1% will still wind up paying about 40% of AGI, it's just that the reason that this is so is because a lot more wealth is concentrated in the top 1% than it is now. And, as technology progresses, the upper middle class will not grow, it will shrink. The most talented people will work harder with even better tools, and it will be even more difficult to experience upward mobility, which is the key to the American dream.

One additional challenge with raw capitalism is that the people that own the capital get a lot more return out of public goods than the people that don't own the capital.

When Texas makes a huge 16 lane highway from the Tesla factory to the hill country, and reduce travel time to and from work for the thousands of people that work there, who do you think benefits the most? The individual worker, or Elon Musk? The correct answer is Elon Musk. With more infrastructure to support the economy, return to capital goes up even more, and return to labor goes down, as more people are willing to take lower wages and still live on their crystal clear hill country stream.

The only way that the system you are talking about works is if Elon Musk were the one to actually pay for the majority of the cost of that 16 lane road. That creates problems of its own, in that you are well on your way down the road to Fascism. When corporations control the investment of infrastructure, bad things tend to happen.

To answer your question directly, which country has a more progressive tax structure than the US? The US in the 1960's and 1970's is the most obvious answer. You can have a tax structure that is way too progressive, and cutting it generally leads to good things.

All of these topics are much more complicated than the red-pen-blue-pen shade-tree economists like to claim. Macro is hard, and anyone that says it isn't is lying to themselves.

Finally, why are we worried about the progressive tax system when it is so extremely clear that the best way to improve the country is to cut the fraud out of DC first. Increasing taxes on the poor without fixing the fraud problem is just going to make housing prices in DC even higher, without fixing the national debt or making the lives of middle class America (the group of people that really created the economy we have now) any better.

A better way to help the country is to eliminate the 10% - 40% of entitlement payments, military spending, and "foreign aid" that are obviously fraud. That will do way better than to try and squeeze blood from a turnip.

In summation, your complaint about progressive tax system is a first world problem. We are a third world economy living paycheck to paycheck, barely covering the costs of our pocket super computers and $80,000 truck notes, primarily because Uncle Sam is spending all of our money on hookers and blow like Hunter Biden meets Wade Wilson. Maybe take away deadbeatpool's credit card, put him in jail, cut out the waste, and then worry about the nuances of the tax structure.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

He needs to focus tax cuts on those already paying the lion's share of fed income taxes. Not further reducing those that already paying less and creating even more taxpayers with very little or no skin in the game.

---

. Agree 100%!!!! Cut taxes to 0!!!!! Let the poors figure it out for themselves. Poor people are not my problem.

---

Stop this nonsense.We are combating waste and theft in the federal government and you're acting like we want to starve children. We need to starve the swamp first.

Then we absolutely should cut taxes on the people who pay taxes. Why would we give even more money to people who are getting money from the government every year? They have NO taxes to cut.

---

. Have you seen the latest tax plan? It doesn't cut taxes for people making less than $400K. It only cuts taxes for wealthy and to you that's a good thing?! Maybe instead of offering tax breaks to mega churches so the preachers can fly around on private jets and live $10MM mansions. Maybe we start there.

---

How much is enough? The top 1% already pay 41% of federal income taxes and only get 22% of the AGI.

The bottom 50% essential pay zero but get 11.5% of the AGI. And these are the people using most of the social services that you seem so concerned about.

I deployed multiple time to Iraq, was a LEO, and worked private security, and have only recently started making real money. I did my public service time. I took extreme risk to get where I am today. I am not ok with paying 30% of my money in fed income taxes when 2/3 goes to handout to support other people's individual family needs.

So how much is enough? Should the bottom 70% not pay net fed income taxes? 80%? 85%? Are the top earners going to have to pay it all?

This is not the system envisioned by the founders. This is socialism.

---

. Agreed 100%. Thank you for your service. Move the tax rate to 0 and privatize everything!!!! Roads, bridges, police, firemen, teachers, privatize it all. If you want reliable services privatize it all. Otherwise government is just going to waste the money on military, schooling and other worthless things the poor don't need or deserve. These lazy freeloaders who were probably saddled with massive amounts of baggage from day 1 need to suck it up. The nepo babies who can afford the best lawyers, accountants, brokers and can deploy their funds to multiple investments deserve more breaks. People making less than $400k should def take on more burden. Teachers, LEOs, firemen should def pay more as percentage of the burden. You would think people like yourself would want these people to get more of a break.

---

I am assuming this is sarcasm and will respond accordingly. All of the things you listed like the military, criminal justice, infrastructure, diplomacy are core government function that are the responsibility of the governments. And yes people making less than $400k should also pay for those things and it is not appropriate for the highest earners to almost entirely foot that bill.

But you are intentionally leaving out that 2/3 of government spending is entitlements. And you are correct. F them! They can pay for themselves. I grew up poor, so you can sing that sob story to someone else. I'm not listening. It's my hard earned money, and they are not entitled to it.

Me losing 250k+ to taxation is my main problem, 1st world or not.

I am fine with letting them revolt. I'll take my chances. What is not acceptable is stealing from me at the barrel of the govt's gun and redistributing my money to other citizens with zero recourse at the ballot box.

We all pay the same net rate or burn it down.

And you never answered my earlier question, how much should the top few percent pay? 75%? 85%?

I find it hilarious that "hammer" is trying to use hyperbole to make his point - and I actually agree without 95% of what he considers hyperbole.

Hell, if a candidate legit rolled with your posts as a platform I've vote for that MFer

Tom Fox said:

---

Me losing 250k+ to taxation is my main problem, 1st world or not.

I am fine with letting them revolt. I'll take my chances. What is not acceptable is stealing from me at the barrel of the govt's gun and redistributing my money to other citizens with zero recourse at the ballot box.

We all pay the same net rate or burn it down.

And you never answered my earlier question, how much should the top few percent pay? 75%? 85%?

---

Not 75%. We did that in the 1970's. It didn't work out.

There isn't a right answer. But there are wrong answers. 75% is a wrong answer. Flat tax is also a wrong answer.

You didn't answer my question about what to do about the fact that owners of capital get more wealth from public goods than labor does. That's not fair either.

Would you be OK spending that $250k on roads instead of taxes because the government quit building roads?

You also didn't answer my question about which topic is more important? Fraud or your complaints that not everyone is paying their "fair" share?

BusterAg said:

---

There isn't a right answer. But there are wrong answers. 75% is a wrong answer. Flat tax is also a wrong answer.

---

Flat income tax rate is absolutely the right answer.

Sales tax rate is flat. So is property tax rate. And the gas tax rate... and the tax rate on your airline ticket, and phone bill, and utility bills... etc, etc.

Progressive income tax is the oddball, not the norm. And it gets abused by politicians to pick winners and losers. The losers are those who work hard and sacrifice to eventually earn a nice income, while the winners are the low-lifes with an income who don't pay income tax and instead leech off the hard workers.

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Me losing 250k+ to taxation is my main problem, 1st world or not.

I am fine with letting them revolt. I'll take my chances. What is not acceptable is stealing from me at the barrel of the govt's gun and redistributing my money to other citizens with zero recourse at the ballot box.

We all pay the same net rate or burn it down.

And you never answered my earlier question, how much should the top few percent pay? 75%? 85%?

---

Not 75%. We did that in the 1970's. It didn't work out.

There isn't a right answer. But there are wrong answers. 75% is a wrong answer. Flat tax is also a wrong answer.

You didn't answer my question about what to do about the fact that owners of capital get more wealth from public goods than labor does. That's not fair either.

Would you be OK spending that $250k on roads instead of taxes because the government quit building roads?

You also didn't answer my question about which topic is more important? Fraud or your complaints that not everyone is paying their "fair" share?

---

Well the top 10% pay 72% of net income taxes right now. A flat tax is the correct answer.

Everyone has a chance to be the owner of capital. You were born with that chance, as was I. It wasn't until my 40s that I had any measurable capital. Some people will not ever have it. That is a free market economy. And of course those that risk capital should get more wealth out of the system. They are the ones taking risk and providing the jobs for labor. That is an easy answer. This was not intended to be a socialist nation.

I'm ok spending my percentage of the necessary taxes for roads. If that means every taxpayer needs to pay 8% for roads, then we all get to vote on whether those roads are worth our 8% contribution in taxes. If not, then they do not get built. The point is that we all have the necessary skin in the game to vote on this as tax paying citizens. Otherwise, those not paying shouldn't get to vote. Just like the founders intended.

I would prioritize fraud first, but I would actually gut entitlement spending first because that is not a core government function that should be within the purview of the federal government. Doubly so, if paying for that entitlement burden is going to shouldered by a small percentage of the electorate.

And then target the fraud remaining in the last 1/3 of the budget. After that, everyone pays the same rate for the remaining core governmental functions.

This is not complicated.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

I find it hilarious that "hammer" is trying to use hyperbole to make his point - and I actually agree without 95% of what he considers hyperbole.

Hell, if a candidate legit rolled with your posts as a platform I've vote for that MFer

---

Me too. I am for almost everything he listed.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Progressive income tax is the oddball, not the norm.

---

ChatGPT: Overall, while the majority of developed countries utilize progressive income tax systems, a small number have implemented flat tax rates.

Tom Fox said:

---

This is not complicated.

---

It's not complicated, but it is not what built the economy that gave you the opportunity to amass that capital.

Bulgaria is looking for immigrants if you are too worried about this.

Tom Fox said:

---

I'm ok spending my percentage of the necessary taxes for roads.

---

This was not the question. The question was whether or not you would be willing to spend $250k of your personal wealth to pay for roads since the federal government isn't making roads anymore.

Those roads provide an environment that helps your business and/or investments make money much more than they help the average person that works for you or the companies that you invested in.

That is the problem with a truly flat tax.

I would be OK with a flat tax, but it would have to include the same exact tax rate on capital gains, with no tax breaks for savings, and no deductions for interest, and no way to avoid double taxation between a business owner and the income tax. If you own a business, the business gets taxed at the same flat rate, and then you get taxed for the income you take out of the business at the exact same rate.

Finally, we would need to implement a tax on unrealized capital gains, so that you couldn't delay your taxes for years while labor has to pay their tax on the year they build their wealth.

All of the above are TERRIBLE economic ideas, but would be needed to truly be "fair" according to you, with everyone paying the same amount.

Anything less is just a *******ization of your total concept, and an old man yelling at clouds.

BTKAG97 said:

---

They still have nothing new.

---

And their options are getting smaller as each one they attempt, which have worked in the past, fails.

This time, the American people are supporting Trump as to what he is trying to do and the Democrats are furious.

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I'm ok spending my percentage of the necessary taxes for roads.

---

This was not the question. The question was whether or not you would be willing to spend $250k of your personal wealth to pay for roads since the federal government isn't making roads anymore.

Those roads provide an environment that helps your business and/or investments make money much more than they help the average person that works for you or the companies that you invested in.

That is the problem with a truly flat tax.

I would be OK with a flat tax, but it would have to include the same exact tax rate on capital gains, with no tax breaks for savings, and no deductions for interest, and no way to avoid double taxation between a business owner and the income tax. If you own a business, the business gets taxed at the same flat rate, and then you get taxed for the income you take out of the business at the exact same rate.

Finally, we would need to implement a tax on unrealized capital gains, so that you couldn't delay your taxes for years while labor has to pay their tax on the year they build their wealth.

All of the above are TERRIBLE economic ideas, but would be needed to truly be "fair" according to you, with everyone paying the same amount.

Anything less is just a *******ization of your total concept, and an old man yelling at clouds.

---

The roads provided the same exact opportunity for me that it does everyone else. What they did with that opportunity is not my concern. It is opportunity, not outcome based. One is a meritocracy and the other socialism.

I am an S corp, so a pass through business. I would not be double taxed, Some of my competitors are C-corps and are double taxed.

Taxing unrealized gains? Are you a liberal? Labor has access to 401ks, and IRAs. They can delay when they take income as well. They just do not make as much money. And you realize that capital is what provides the jobs, correct?

And I never said everyone should pay the same amount. You need to beef up your reading comprehension. I said the same rate. It should be the same rate on income, capital gains, everything. No deductions.

We have strayed from the free market envisioned by our founders. We need to return. There will always be winners and losers. But every generation gets a ticket to the game. How good are you/ How much risk are you willing to take? That will largely dictate your success.

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

This is not complicated.

---

It's not complicated, but it is not what built the economy that gave you the opportunity to amass that capital.

Bulgaria is looking for immigrants if you are too worried about this.

---

Bulgaria? The US was not founded on this taxing structure. It was laissez faire capitalism. Maybe you should take you and your socialism to Bulgaria.

Tom Fox said:

---

The roads provided the same exact opportunity for me that it does everyone else.

Nope. The road benefits one person for the guy with a job. It benefits you once for every person that works for you. A bigger road in front of your business makes your business make more money. It doesn't make your employees make more money. This is a simple concept.

I am an S corp, so a pass through business. I would not be double taxed, Some of my competitors are C-corps and are double taxed.

But, your business expenses benefit you, and not your employees. Those are a deduction. To make it "fair" businesses should be taxed at the revenue line (not the same rate as income of course).

Taxing unrealized gains?

Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea for the economy. It stunts risk taking, growth, and is very costly to implement. But business owners are able to create wealth and not pay taxes on that wealth. Labor is not.

Labor has access to 401ks, and IRAs.

I thought you said no deductions.

I said the same rate. It should be the same rate on income, capital gains, everything.

And all returns to capital, right when it happens. Otherwise it is not a true "flat" rate. There is value in delaying costs. Time value of money is a thing. But, the cure here is worse than the disease.

We have strayed from the free market envisioned by our founders. We need to return.

You cool with bringing back slavery? States with their own currencies? No standing army, only state militias? Times change. People spent like 25% of their income on food in 1800.

There will always be winners and losers. But every generation gets a ticket to the game. How good are you/ How much risk are you willing to take? That will largely dictate your success.

There is also luck involved. But, you really can't avoid that. The issue is that you have to get people that want to participate in the "game". The way to run a successful business is to manage labor in such a way that they buy into the business. You need to get that discretionary effort from your employees to work a little harder than the minimum to keep their paycheck. Stay that extra 15 minutes after work, unpaid, because you want to be part of the business. It is the same as getting a coach to buy into a team. The winners are the teams where winning just means more. You don't get that by having an elite class of aristocrats and a lower class of workers. And, not giving labor every leg up you can in order to encourage risk taking will eventually devolve into more and more concentrated pockets of money, then aristocracy, then monarchy, then pitchforks, torches, and guillotines. To say that can't happen here is to ignore history.

---

You said you had no capital until you were 40. Are you willing to pay a lump sum in back taxes, with interest to the government, for all the years that you didn't pay the flat rate of about 22.5% of income?

It's pretty specious that you are arguing for a flat rate where you sit now, isn't it? What about those other 35 year olds that are trying to build their own business, and can't take advantage of a progressive taxation system the way you did? Why should it be harder for young men and women today to build capital than it was for you? That doesn't sound like equality of opportunity to me, at all. Should they just give up their dreams and come work for you?

No system of taxation is going to be both "fair" and also the best thing to build the economy. I think we should stick with something that is similar to what has built the most successful economy in the history of the world. Which means, we need to scale back the size and scope of government about 40 years. That seems much more appealing to me than pissing and moaning about the flat tax.

The way for you to reduce your taxes is to shrink the government, not whine on about what other people do or do not pay.

Again, Bulgaria has a flat income tax, and they are looking for immigrants.

BusterAg said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

The roads provided the same exact opportunity for me that it does everyone else.

Nope. The road benefits one person for the guy with a job. It benefits you once for every person that works for you. A bigger road in front of your business makes your business make more money. It doesn't make your employees make more money. This is a simple concept.

I am an S corp, so a pass through business. I would not be double taxed, Some of my competitors are C-corps and are double taxed.

But, your business expenses benefit you, and not your employees. Those are a deduction. To make it "fair" businesses should be taxed at the revenue line (not the same rate as income of course).

Taxing unrealized gains?

Taxing unrealized gains is a terrible idea for the economy. It stunts risk taking, growth, and is very costly to implement. But business owners are able to create wealth and not pay taxes on that wealth. Labor is not.

Labor has access to 401ks, and IRAs.

I thought you said no deductions.

I said the same rate. It should be the same rate on income, capital gains, everything.

And all returns to capital, right when it happens. Otherwise it is not a true "flat" rate. There is value in delaying costs. Time value of money is a thing. But, the cure here is worse than the disease.

We have strayed from the free market envisioned by our founders. We need to return.

You cool with bringing back slavery? States with their own currencies? No standing army, only state militias? Times change. People spent like 25% of their income on food in 1800.

There will always be winners and losers. But every generation gets a ticket to the game. How good are you/ How much risk are you willing to take? That will largely dictate your success.

There is also luck involved. But, you really can't avoid that. The issue is that you have to get people that want to participate in the "game". The way to run a successful business is to manage labor in such a way that they buy into the business. You need to get that discretionary effort from your employees to work a little harder than the minimum to keep their paycheck. Stay that extra 15 minutes after work, unpaid, because you want to be part of the business. It is the same as getting a coach to buy into a team. The winners are the teams where winning just means more. You don't get that by having an elite class of aristocrats and a lower class of workers. And, not giving labor every leg up you can in order to encourage risk taking will eventually devolve into more and more concentrated pockets of money, then aristocracy, then monarchy, then pitchforks, torches, and guillotines. To say that can't happen here is to ignore history.

---

You said you had no capital until you were 40. Are you willing to pay a lump sum in back taxes, with interest to the government, for all the years that you didn't pay the flat rate of about 22.5% of income?

It's pretty specious that you are arguing for a flat rate where you sit now, isn't it? What about those other 35 year olds that are trying to build their own business, and can't take advantage of a progressive taxation system the way you did? Why should it be harder for young men and women today to build capital than it was for you? That doesn't sound like equality of opportunity to me, at all. Should they just give up their dreams and come work for you?

No system of taxation is going to be both "fair" and also the best thing to build the economy. I think we should stick with something that is similar to what has built the most successful economy in the history of the world. Which means, we need to scale back the size and scope of government about 40 years. That seems much more appealing to me than pissing and moaning about the flat tax.

The way for you to reduce your taxes is to shrink the government, not whine on about what other people do or do not pay.

Again, Bulgaria has a flat income tax, and they are looking for immigrants.

---

I would be willing to pay whatever flat tax rate we decide upon for everyone on my past earnings. It wouldn't even cover what I would save in just a few years of having a flat tax now. Make sure everyone else pays it too. I bet our deficit would be solved.

As far as building capital. I started by business with $4K and $15K saved to float my family expenses for 3 months. That was it. All risk. This year we should approach almost $4mil in revenue after only 7 years in business. I sacrificed significant time with my daughters while they were still not teenagers to make this happen. I do not want a handout myself and I do not want to hand it away in entitlements.

I have had two additional lawyers make equity partner since our founding. They each make exactly what I make. A fourth is on equity track. I am completely willing to pick the best and reward hard work.

You do not seem so concerned with tax rates. Do you mind me asking how much you pay annually? What percentage of your income? If I paid a 15% flat tax I would have an additional almost $10mil when I retire. It is my fracking money. I am not willing to give it away as handout for people that couldn't make it on their own.

I have already sad we shrink it by eliminating entitlements.. I am down for that tonight. Then every one pays the same rate or they do not get to vote.

Have a nice night socialist.

Good lawyers make bad economists. Guys like you hire guys like me to teach them and their audience about economics.

I am smart enough not to get into a legal argument with BMX or Hawg. I did that once on a bourbon bender, and it did not go well.

Congrats on your successful business. I wish you nothing more than future success.

BusterAg said:

---

You said you had no capital until you were 40. Are you willing to pay a lump sum in back taxes, with interest to the government, for all the years that you didn't pay the flat rate of about 22.5% of income?

It's pretty specious that you are arguing for a flat rate where you sit now, isn't it? What about those other 35 year olds that are trying to build their own business, and can't take advantage of a progressive taxation system the way you did? Why should it be harder for young men and women today to build capital than it was for you? That doesn't sound like equality of opportunity to me, at all. Should they just give up their dreams and come work for you?


Again, Bulgaria has a flat income tax, and they are looking for immigrants.

---

It's easy to say that someone else should pay higher taxes when you're not carrying their load.

Show us that you're paying at the top tax rate and still believe in a progressive tax rate structure, and then you'll have credibility on the topic.

Outside of that, it's just socialism. It's easy to spend other people's money.

BusterAg said:

---

Good lawyers make bad economists. Guys like you hire guys like me to teach them and their audience about economics.

I am smart enough not to get into a legal argument with BMX or Hawg. I did that once on a bourbon bender, and it did not go well.

Congrats on your successful business. I wish you nothing more than future success.

---

If you were sincere, thank you. I agree that I am not an economist. Not even close. I just want to get rich and leave some for my girls. The feds taking a quarter mil annually makes that tougher.

Cheers.