Pete Buttigieg Admits That When He Says ‘Fair Taxes’ He Means ‘Higher Taxes’

There is a vast separation of wealth that is growing geometrically. It was never intended that a very small percentage of the population would own the majority of the wealth.

Taxing the uber rich is the only practical solution.

 

You're saying there's too many loopholes for the rich, so we should just raise tax rates on them across the board. Then hopefully that will compensate for all those loopholes.

Doesn't seem the fairest.

Shouldn't you deal with those loopholes, if that's what you see as the problem?
Or is that too complicated and involve too much intellectual discussion?

 

That’s literally what I said in post #169, “We could stay with our current tax rates if these entities would simply pay what they should owe.” and in post #129 “That’s why loopholes and the vast majority of deductions need to be eliminated.
Our tax forms need to be:

Your income from all sources = ti
Your tax rate (automatically calculated) = mtr
Your standard deduction = r

((ti x mtr) - r) = amount you owe”



If you could go more than a handful of posts without insulting someone maybe you would have the time to actually follow the thread.

 

I don't think you understand how those loopholes actually work. The loopholes work by how "income" is calculated in the first place.
Some business expenses are legitimate. Someone earning $100,000 shouldn't pay the same taxes as someone else who got $100,000 but had $60,000 in business expenses to earn that $100,000.

 

The problem is not high taxes; it's low wages.

 

The example listed is for personal income.
Not business deductions which are an entirely different discussion including dba’s and pass through entities.

 

Higher taxes on the wealthy they'll never pay, which will slowly be shifted to the middle class. It happens every time.

 

Good luck. They didn't have the electronic transfers and off shore tax shelters that can be accessed on the internet back then. Warren Buffet said it himself, he pays less taxes than his secretary. It may have worked in Kennedy's day, but recent history proves it won't work today.

 

You think that reducing the deficit is "stupid crap"?!?!?!

There you go. Trump supporters don't care about the deficit.

 

30% or more of what the Government spends our money on shouldn't happen. Use that money to pay down the deficit.

 

Good luck collecting it.

 

Until that happens, cutting taxes is just blowing up the deficit. That was Buttigieg's point. Do no harm. Unless tax cuts are accompanied by spending cuts, all you are doing is blowing up the deficit. That is what Republicans and Trump did when they passed the tax cuts.

The responsible thing to do is to get rid of the deficit. That means higher taxes and lower spending. Both of them together. Then, once there is no more deficit, we can look at how to reduce spending and taxes. Together.

That is responsible. But not the way of the current Republicans. I'm a deficit hawk so I liked it when Republicans cared about the deficit. But that only seems to happen when they don't have the presidency. When there is a Republican president, they spend like drunken sailors while cutting taxes, and blow up the deficit.

 

I don't think so. I just think the federal government is the worst place to put it. Most of what federal government does would be better placed in the states, the private sector or trash can.

 

Boy-o-boy. Reagan really got you.

 

If we would raise your rates to the maximum emtr that you would prescribe for others, you'd finally be paying your fair share.
Why don't you want to pay your fair share?
Why should having more than you result in punitive tax rates?

 

I have already said, raise my income to 10MM and I will happily write a check for 5MM back to the government. Or under the current system I would just make myself a consultant to a foreign firm based in Ireland and pay next to nothing in income taxes.

 

He said the opposite. You grossly misrepresented him.

Of course the loopholes need to be reviewed and adjusted. But loophole-free higher tax brackets are needed.

 

Personal attacks like what I bolded and underline are unnecessary and inappropriate. You could/should simply omit them and let the rest of your post be enough. IOW he was correct about your personal attacks.

 

We need severe term limits. Like 2 4year terms for the Senate and 3 2 years terms for the House. If special interests need to keep buying off politicians every couple of years it will become too expensive to keep doing that. Additionally, one and done, meaning that if you term out in any of the congressional seats go home because you can't serve again. Then we tie spending to revenue. They shouldn't be able to spend more than the Government takes in. Revenue goes down....spending goes down by a corresponding amount. If we keep raising taxes, they'll just spend more regardless of the party in power.

 

You hope. It's absurd to assume this can't be corrected. It's a matter of will.

 

I don't disagree with term limits, but senators serve for 6 years, not 4. So 2 x 6 years.
and maybe 4 x 2 years for the House.
I'm a fiscal hawk but I think there should be scope to run deficits at times (e.g. during recessions) - as long as it is balanced out by surpluses when times are good.
Presumably you think that the tax cuts were a bad idea, since they were not accompanied by a corresponding cut in spending.

 

Buttigieg has it right. Add more top tax brackets to tax the excesses of the rich, and eliminate loopholes strategically, all while raising the minimum wage and increasing infrastructure projects like grid upgrades, solar and wind power generation, distribute charging stations for electric cars, high speed rail, fund R&D for powering transportation with alternate energy, fix our roads and bridges, hire more teachers at higher pay, pay off student debt and make education free to qualified students, and cut healthcare costs by revamping our system to make it a national single-payer system. -and more.

 

Oh great. We're now seeing what lack of experience in government will get us!

How do you like Trump's very recent advocacy for as many as FIVE terms for the president? That's the wish of a wannabee despot!

The scary thing is that a woman who has a pretty good record with prophecy has said that Obama would be the last "President" we will have, meaning, after him we will have a dictator stuck in place for years and years. What then? Should he appoint one of his kids to take over?

 

No, just common sense. I was never a fan of Reagan.