The influence of Big-Money

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by LafayetteBis, Sep 27, 2021.

  1. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From here: Influence of Big Money

    A handful of wealthy donors dominate electoral giving and spending in the United States. We need limits on campaign finance, transparency, and effective enforcement of these rules — along with public financing. But, will we ever get them. Unlikely.

    What politicians have you ever heard proposing to Raise Taxation Levels on the Rich? Only two or three.

    Nobody gets paid by BigMoney to vote for a particular person. The money is spent in the usual ways to get people elect, typically speechmaking and newspaper coverage and of course TV.

    And it works. We actually believe the BullShat being fed us. And for as long as that "works" for BigMoney,
    it will keep the Congressional powers in place that will never ever raise taxation rates to where they were before JFK started to drop them.

    Above 90% ...

    PS: History of Federal Tax Rates in graphic here.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2021
  2. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    DOING SOMETHING ABOUT TAXATION? BUT WHAT?

    Further reading on Taxation in America here: Tackling the Tax Code

    Excerpt:

    The above makes for one helluva lotta reading ... !
     
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again, taxation is not about the wealthy versus the poor! What politicians have you ever heard proposing to Raise Taxation Levels on the Poor?

    In the US, spending is out of control, debt is out of control, and NO ONE wants to pay a penny more in taxation. Many of the States and Cities can't even fund their needs without federal government assistance. So...who is really to blame?
     
  4. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ULTRA-HIGH-NET-WORTH INDIVIDUALS

    Yes, spending it out of control at the DoD in a country that has no reason to mount a Massive Defense. Russia is no Great Enemy any more.

    And when the wealthy do not pay their Fair Share of taxation, that simply makes them the Ultra Rich, of which the US has no need whatsoever.

    From here: The World's Number of Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals

    You remain blind to the factual evidence that the rich and ultra-rich do not pay sufficiently high-taxation - like a great many of us Yanks who refuse the factual evidence .... !
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2021
  5. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spending is out of control in all departments. Or perhaps the US should be spending much more? No one really knows...do they?

    The ONLY thing that would be accomplished if the wealthy paid another $500 billion in taxation is a TEMPORARY reduction in deficit spending...there would be no other effect! And even this extra $500 billion will soon be spent on something...
     
  6. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,076
    Likes Received:
    13,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Taxation is one topic. Big money donors is another. You have brought both into the OP. I am not so sure that taxation is the over arching issue. For me, it's Big money donors, PACs, etc. If you want to see a difference in politics and hence, governance, you have to get dark money out of politics. The only way to do that is to revisit the "Citizen's United" ruling. To do that you would have to change the make up of SCOTUS. That's going to take a long time unless they add SCOTUS seats, so I think it's here to stay for decades.
     

Share This Page