LOYAL AG said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHHHAAHAAHHAH

This is funny.

Esp when I see brainwashed programmed lolpoors here defending the "rich"

---

If you liquidated the nation's billionaires how much do you have? Hint, it's one or two posts above mine? Ok, so we've taxed the rich 100% of their wealth. What's your wealth look like? You like to tell us how you've become wealthy through investing and that's great but guess what? In this hypothetical you're completely wiped out. Poor. Your investments are gone because their values collapsed in the process of liquidating those evil billionaires.

---

If you changed my tax bracket from 20-something percent to ZERO, how much would it hurt the country? ZERO. The country would not miss my dollars one iota.

So I demand my tax bracket changed to ZERO. I should live a taxfree life.

And lets add to your small business analogy that you have a $38M note that you have to repay as well. I would advise you that your austerity is an excellent start, but insufficient to solve your long term structural problems.

Adding to that, structurally our debt has different durations. At $38T, if we refinanced everything to a 30 year note, we would structurally need to run $1.27T surpluses annually. That doesn't account for the fact that whatever black swan will occur in the next 30 years that will necessarily require additional stimulus for defense or some other national emergency that most would agree is money that has to be spent.

If you want to say if you raise taxes, the government will just do X, so you have to live in the real world, I agree with you. But you're also ignoring the real world of every time there is pain, we print money to ease said pain, and make the problem worse in the long run, so you have to live in that real world too.

We first have to analyze the problem, $1.27T in surpluses just to be sustainable in 30 years. To do so requires austerity, and likely supplemental taxation on those whose wealth was socialized. As I mentioned earlier, eliminating carried interest, or having progressive taxation on capital gains above the UHNW are effective strategies to do so.

When I hear "tax the rich" I think "tax the poor" by increasing the sin taxes. The nice thing about a sin tax is that you do not have to pay a tax on something you do not buy.

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

Sure! As long as EVERYONE pays at least 10% net fed income taxes from their first dollar earned. Deal?

Malibu said:

---

Adding to that, structurally our debt has different durations. At $38T, if we refinanced everything to a 30 year note, we would structurally need to run $1.27T surpluses annually. That doesn't account for the fact that whatever black swan will occur in the next 30 years that will necessarily require additional stimulus for defense or some other national emergency that most would agree is money that has to be spent.

If you want to say if you raise taxes, the government will just do X, so you have to live in the real world, I agree with you. But you're also ignoring the real world of every time there is pain, we print money to ease said pain, and make the problem worse in the long run, so you have to live in that real world too.

We first have to analyze the problem, $1.27T in surpluses just to be sustainable in 30 years. To do so requires austerity, and likely supplemental taxation on those whose wealth was socialized. As I mentioned earlier, eliminating carried interest, or having progressive taxation on capital gains above the UHNW are effective strategies to do so.

---

History tells us regardless of the structure of the tax scheme we're going to collect about 17.4% of GDP at the federal level. That's pretty much the average since WWII. Any effort to impact that with rate increases or decreases has little effect on revenue/GDP. Since you're an accountant surely you also realize that while raising revenue is a nice theory you have no control over that, the only thing you can control is expenses. Anything else is make believe at this point. The only stretches of time where we exceed 17.4% is periods of high growth and this is an area where tax code can have an impact but not by taxing our most productive citizens or by taxing the nation's wealth.

ELI5 why the ratio of revenue to GDP matters in eliminating government waste and our current debt overhang. It seems to me like you're basically saying the amount of tax revenue we collect is the same ratio in economic booms or bust, and it's been the same as we've been ballooning our debt.

If we did austerity + some progressive taxation on capital events that really only impact HNW earners, that ratio would necessarily change as one important variable of GDP, government spending, will have decreased for the first time ever, so unless government spending replaced with investment + consumption + net exports, the ratio will likely shift up.

Functionally though, the problem we face is $38T of debt, and how to eliminate it, will require years of a commitment to budget surpluses. I really won't lose a single wink of sleep if OpenAI's IPO (I've seen stratospheric valuations) creates multiple 9 figure multimillionaires who through a more progressive capital gains tax are unfortunately only going to be 8 figure multimillionaires.

One more thing to add, practical real world, we do have some control over increasing revenue through increasing prices. Real estate, consumer packaged goods, distribution, and yes even intercompany billing in charter school CMOs, prices go up, and people tend to pay them. Sometimes the market bites you for being too greedy and you have to reign it in, but no industry I've ever worked for had perfect information on the market clearing price, and usually did incremental increases to test what could be gotten away with, or what had to be done simply to maintain margins.

I am willing to handover my retirement savings to the government if I see only one of these lying, hypocritical politicians give everything they have and write a check to the treasury.

I would refute your points, but it just doesn't seem worth it. Everything you are saying leads to only one possible outcome: collapse. I do believe you are right about the money printing though. And if that is the "solution" government turns to then it will come in the form of hyperinflation.

Gut spending
Cut taxes, especially corporate but also individual
Gut spending again




The only path to actual success.

Malibu said:

---

One more thing to add, practical real world, we do have some control over increasing revenue through increasing prices. Real estate, consumer packaged goods, distribution, and yes even intercompany billing in charter school CMOs, prices go up, and people tend to pay them. Sometimes the market bites you for being too greedy and you have to reign it in, but no industry I've ever worked for had perfect information on the market clearing price, and usually did incremental increases to test what could be gotten away with, or what had to be done simply to maintain margins.

---

I get your point but because we don't know what the market will bear I don't call that control. Every transaction is a test of the market and consumer sentiment can change on a dime. All you really control is quality of your product and cost. The rest is up to the consumer and thus unpredictable and uncontrollable. The exception of course is if you're in a commodity such as oil where demand is much more consistent across the price spectrum.

Malibu said:

---

ELI5 why the ratio of revenue to GDP matters in eliminating government waste and our current debt overhang. It seems to me like you're basically saying the amount of tax revenue we collect is the same ratio in economic booms or bust, and it's been the same as we've been ballooning our debt.

If we did austerity + some progressive taxation on capital events that really only impact HNW earners, that ratio would necessarily change as one important variable of GDP, government spending, will have decreased for the first time ever, so unless government spending replaced with investment + consumption + net exports, the ratio will likely shift up.

Functionally though, the problem we face is $38T of debt, and how to eliminate it, will require years of a commitment to budget surpluses. I really won't lose a single wink of sleep if OpenAI's IPO (I've seen stratospheric valuations) creates multiple 9 figure multimillionaires who through a more progressive capital gains tax are unfortunately only going to be 8 figure multimillionaires.

---

What we see with tax revenue is that it swells in booms and retracts in busts but what it doesn't do is respond much to rate changes. I personally think taxing income is evil and the 16th should be repealed but that's a topic for a different thread.

We know what we can collect which is 17.4%. On a current GDP of $29T that's tax receipts of slightly over $5T. The only sure thing to do from there is cut $2T in spending to be balanced. We won't do that so here we are. There's no appetite for austerity. Go back just 7 weeks to when good stamps weren't gonna get reloaded and you'd have thought the world was coming to an end. The Democrats even had the balls to go on TV and tell us that because people had to buy their own food that their local eyebrow threading place was gonna go out of business. Are you ****ing kidding me? So no, there will be no austerity. We know this for a fact. We'll print our way through this until we can't.

We have to dismantle the welfare state. We are all over taxed now.

BigRobSA said:

---

Gut spending
Cut taxes, especially corporate but also individual
Gut spending again




The only path to actual success.

---

You know very well none of this will happen.

Why not?

Because super rich become ultra rich this way.

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

I think religious orgs need to pay too. Why exempt them?

Folks want to tax 90 year old Aunt Martha who barely gets by, but want to let their pastor go scot-free living a luxurious life on everyone else's money. And I mean this about all religions and religious places.

[You can make your point without being disrespectful to others -- Staff]

I think we're aligned on how this will actually play out. No cuts because it's too politically difficult, more printing with every sign of difficulty. And in the end, a bond market that the Fed can no longer manipulate as hawks finally start to price our debt relative to the risk of default or inflation. We're already starting to see the early warning signs of this. Long term, I am very bearish on the dollar and US debt without immediate structural reforms. That's why I recommend hard assets with low leverage, they generate income now and will go up with inflation and can hedge against a massive deflationary event.

As for how the two of us would solve the problem if we were in charge, we're aligned on cuts and I think have more fortitude than Congress to cut people off. Surprised Section 8 hasn't received the axe yet. After cuts, where we differ is that given the magnitude of the problem, I have no qualms closing loopholes and having more progressive taxation at the UHNW level.

Malibu said:

---

I think we're aligned on how this will actually play out. No cuts because it's too politically difficult, more printing with every sign of difficulty. And in the end, a bond market that the Fed can no longer manipulate as hawks finally start to price our debt relative to the risk of default or inflation. We're already starting to see the early warning signs of this. Long term, I am very bearish on the dollar and US debt without immediate structural reforms. That's why I recommend hard assets with low leverage, they generate income now and will go up with inflation and can hedge against a massive deflationary event.

As for how the two of us would solve the problem if we were in charge, we're aligned on cuts and I think have more fortitude than Congress to cut people off. Surprised Section 8 hasn't received the axe yet. After cuts, where we differ is that given the magnitude of the problem, I have no qualms closing loopholes and having more progressive taxation at the UHNW level.

---

Agreed. I've found over the years you and I generally agree on the problem if not the solution. To it's why we have F16.

Good discussion!

infinity ag said:

---

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

I think religious orgs need to pay too. Why exempt them?

Folks want to tax 90 year old Aunt Martha who barely gets by, but want to let their pastor go scot-free living a luxurious life on everyone else's money. And I mean this about all religions and religious places.

---

So I got moderated for how I responded to this earlier this morning so I'll try to be nicer this time.

You're conflating the church and the pastor. The church is a nonprofit organization just like any other charity and like all nonprofits doesn't pay taxes on income. The pastor is an employee of that organization and pays taxes just like all employees of all organizations. The pastor isn't living it up on tax free income, that's factually incorrect.

LOYAL AG said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

I think religious orgs need to pay too. Why exempt them?

Folks want to tax 90 year old Aunt Martha who barely gets by, but want to let their pastor go scot-free living a luxurious life on everyone else's money. And I mean this about all religions and religious places.

---

So I got moderated for how I responded to this earlier this morning so I'll try to be nicer this time.

You're conflating the church and the pastor. The church is a nonprofit organization just like any other charity and like all nonprofits doesn't pay taxes on income. The pastor is an employee of that organization and pays taxes just like all employees of all organizations. The pastor isn't living it up on tax free income, that's factually incorrect.

---

Plus if Martha is barely getting by she is probably in the bottom have and not paying dick in fed income taxes.

Half pay essentially nothing. The top already pay for everything. This is the main thing InfinityAg is off the mark on.

Everybody should pay at least 10% until everyone is only paying 10% and then we can go below that together.

Malibu said:

---

I think we're aligned on how this will actually play out. No cuts because it's too politically difficult, more printing with every sign of difficulty. And in the end, a bond market that the Fed can no longer manipulate as hawks finally start to price our debt relative to the risk of default or inflation. We're already starting to see the early warning signs of this. Long term, I am very bearish on the dollar and US debt without immediate structural reforms. That's why I recommend hard assets with low leverage, they generate income now and will go up with inflation and can hedge against a massive deflationary event.

As for how the two of us would solve the problem if we were in charge, we're aligned on cuts and I think have more fortitude than Congress to cut people off. Surprised Section 8 hasn't received the axe yet. After cuts, where we differ is that given the magnitude of the problem, I have no qualms closing loopholes and having more progressive taxation at the UHNW level.

---

I can't get on board with more progressive taxation but agree with you otherwise. We need to cut aggressively and if we raise taxes at all we need to broaden the tax base and not continue to shift burden to the 5% who already cover 60% of federal income taxes.

Regardless, we are not going to make any cuts to spending that matter, so I would also not like to see tax increases. Until you make massive spending cuts, then raising taxes is counterproductive and would just worsen the economy. Thus, we are riding this ship to the bottom of the ocean when it's all said and done.

Malibu said:

---

I think we're aligned on how this will actually play out. No cuts because it's too politically difficult, more printing with every sign of difficulty. And in the end, a bond market that the Fed can no longer manipulate as hawks finally start to price our debt relative to the risk of default or inflation. We're already starting to see the early warning signs of this. Long term, I am very bearish on the dollar and US debt without immediate structural reforms. That's why I recommend hard assets with low leverage, they generate income now and will go up with inflation and can hedge against a massive deflationary event. Agree completely

---

Quote:

---

I have no qualms closing loopholes. Agree also. Things like carried interest should be taxed as regular income.

---

Quote:

---

and having more progressive taxation at the UHNW level. No sir. That is the laziest way of dealing with the problem. No matter how high the tax rates for UHNW, it's never enough for liberals. The bottom 50% of income earners need to start putting some skin in the game.

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

I think religious orgs need to pay too. Why exempt them?

Folks want to tax 90 year old Aunt Martha who barely gets by, but want to let their pastor go scot-free living a luxurious life on everyone else's money. And I mean this about all religions and religious places.

---

So I got moderated for how I responded to this earlier this morning so I'll try to be nicer this time.

You're conflating the church and the pastor. The church is a nonprofit organization just like any other charity and like all nonprofits doesn't pay taxes on income. The pastor is an employee of that organization and pays taxes just like all employees of all organizations. The pastor isn't living it up on tax free income, that's factually incorrect.

---

OK.

Tax them all. And of all religions - Church, Synagogue, Hindu Temple, Muslim Mosque.
Everyone.

They are not any special than the rest of us. If the pastor or priest or mullah gets a salary, he needs to be taxed. I am not sure about current rules but they should be.

Tom Fox said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

I think religious orgs need to pay too. Why exempt them?

Folks want to tax 90 year old Aunt Martha who barely gets by, but want to let their pastor go scot-free living a luxurious life on everyone else's money. And I mean this about all religions and religious places.

---

So I got moderated for how I responded to this earlier this morning so I'll try to be nicer this time.

You're conflating the church and the pastor. The church is a nonprofit organization just like any other charity and like all nonprofits doesn't pay taxes on income. The pastor is an employee of that organization and pays taxes just like all employees of all organizations. The pastor isn't living it up on tax free income, that's factually incorrect.

---

Plus if Martha is barely getting by she is probably in the bottom have and not paying dick in fed income taxes.

Half pay essentially nothing. The top already pay for everything. This is the main thing InfinityAg is off the mark on.

Everybody should pay at least 10% until everyone is only paying 10% and then we can go below that together.

---

Let's discuss this. I love your take on stuff. What is "half pay" here?
Can you tell me again on where you and I might disagree on? I can then clarify or change my opinion (I have no problem doing so).

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

I think religious orgs need to pay too. Why exempt them?

Folks want to tax 90 year old Aunt Martha who barely gets by, but want to let their pastor go scot-free living a luxurious life on everyone else's money. And I mean this about all religions and religious places.

---

So I got moderated for how I responded to this earlier this morning so I'll try to be nicer this time.

You're conflating the church and the pastor. The church is a nonprofit organization just like any other charity and like all nonprofits doesn't pay taxes on income. The pastor is an employee of that organization and pays taxes just like all employees of all organizations. The pastor isn't living it up on tax free income, that's factually incorrect.

---

Plus if Martha is barely getting by she is probably in the bottom have and not paying dick in fed income taxes.

Half pay essentially nothing. The top already pay for everything. This is the main thing InfinityAg is off the mark on.

Everybody should pay at least 10% until everyone is only paying 10% and then we can go below that together.

---

Let's discuss this. I love your take on stuff. What is "half pay" here?
Can you tell me again on where you and I might disagree on? I can then clarify or change my opinion (I have no problem doing so).

---

He's referring to the close to bottom half of the population that pay essentially nothing in income tax. And then many actually get paid by the government in the form of credits. They are getting a free ride.

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

I think religious orgs need to pay too. Why exempt them?

Folks want to tax 90 year old Aunt Martha who barely gets by, but want to let their pastor go scot-free living a luxurious life on everyone else's money. And I mean this about all religions and religious places.

---

So I got moderated for how I responded to this earlier this morning so I'll try to be nicer this time.

You're conflating the church and the pastor. The church is a nonprofit organization just like any other charity and like all nonprofits doesn't pay taxes on income. The pastor is an employee of that organization and pays taxes just like all employees of all organizations. The pastor isn't living it up on tax free income, that's factually incorrect.

---

Plus if Martha is barely getting by she is probably in the bottom have and not paying dick in fed income taxes.

Half pay essentially nothing. The top already pay for everything. This is the main thing InfinityAg is off the mark on.

Everybody should pay at least 10% until everyone is only paying 10% and then we can go below that together.

---

Let's discuss this. I love your take on stuff. What is "half pay" here?
Can you tell me again on where you and I might disagree on? I can then clarify or change my opinion (I have no problem doing so).

---

We are talking about net federal income taxes. Raising those does nothing to the UHNW people because they largely do not make their money that way. It decimates small business owners though. It also ossifies the class structure making it harder for HENRYs (high earner not rich yet) to make it to the UHNW category. My current struggle.

Then to compound the problem, the bottom half of taxpayers essentially pay zero net fed income taxes with the top 20% paying 87% of net income taxes. So those largely receiving entitlements, which is the bulk of federal spending, have zero incentive to fix this. In fact, they are incentivized to do the opposite.

So any plan to hit UHNW individuals would have to target carried interest, capital gains, and/or tax wealth.

I would not be in favor of taxing capital gains more and not wealth at all. So that leaves us is a tough spot.

The obvious solution is to gut entitlement spending. It is the one that makes the most sense, but because of the aforementioned proletariat problem is not politically viable.

The other plans that might work would be to limit politicians to a single term or limit suffrage to those that are net fed tax payers. Again, I don't see that as politically viable.

So the plan from my perspective is to keep the proletariat from raising my taxes while I simultaneously invest in hard assets to help weather the coming collapse. I am also investing in what many would consider "prepping." In case it gets really sporty.

infinity ag said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

esteban said:

---

How about this rule: if your pastor owns a private jet, your church should pay taxes like any other business.

---

I think religious orgs need to pay too. Why exempt them?

Folks want to tax 90 year old Aunt Martha who barely gets by, but want to let their pastor go scot-free living a luxurious life on everyone else's money. And I mean this about all religions and religious places.

---

So I got moderated for how I responded to this earlier this morning so I'll try to be nicer this time.

You're conflating the church and the pastor. The church is a nonprofit organization just like any other charity and like all nonprofits doesn't pay taxes on income. The pastor is an employee of that organization and pays taxes just like all employees of all organizations. The pastor isn't living it up on tax free income, that's factually incorrect.

---

OK.

Tax them all. And of all religions - Church, Synagogue, Hindu Temple, Muslim Mosque.
Everyone.

They are not any special than the rest of us. If the pastor or priest or mullah gets a salary, he needs to be taxed. I am not sure about current rules but they should be.

---

Nope. We have long had separation of church and state in this country and will continue to do so. There is no taxation without representation. If we start taxing churches and religious organizations all of a sudden they will have a major presence and a major say in all federal decisions. This our founders did not want.

BS. Elon has showed us the tip of the waste & fraud iceberg. There's certainly at least a couple of $trillion that can be cut.

TexAgs91 said:

---

BS. Elon has showed us the tip of the waste & fraud iceberg. There's certainly at least a couple of $trillion that can be cut.

---

Most of the waste and fraud are in the largest federal programs. Entitlements. Kill them with fire.

We added $2T every year during COVID. Cut all that crap first. Reset to pre-COVID spending levels wherever possible.

YouBet said:

---

We added $2T every year during COVID. Cut all that crap first. Reset to pre-COVID spending levels wherever possible.

---

Politically, we cannot even sell that. Oh noes the middle class now has to pay full freight for their health insurance like the rest of us. They became accustomed to the government assistance and can't imagine going back.

Tough tits. We are broke. Pay for yourselves.

Tom Fox said:

---

YouBet said:

---

We added $2T every year during COVID. Cut all that crap first. Reset to pre-COVID spending levels wherever possible.

---

Politically, we cannot even sell that.

---

Well, yeah, we re-elected the same dufus that started us down this current spiral of inflation. Luckily, he took the place of the person(s) after him that turned that knob to 11. But, still, not who we should be expecting to actually act in a conservative manner.

Malibu said:

---

Guys, we're $38T in the hole right now and rising, and the wealth gap and affordability crisis is getting worse and worse. We have large bills to pay, and only in fantasyland will our insolvency be solved solely be tightening our belts and not raising revenue (taxing the rich) as well.

We bailed out Wall Street. We bailed out Auto. We bailed out all small businesses and big business (CARES ACT). We bailed out the military industrial complex (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). Lots of people got rich on the backs of US debt. Those that get rich off of our debt ought to pay some of that debt off too.

---

The problem is those increases get passed on to the middle class and politicians in DC continue pushing for more govt spending that runs up the debt to appease low income voters.