Biden says no tax increases for incomes under $400k- It's not true.

I don't see it and I've thought Gates is a crook since he came up his operating system. (I was working with computers when Gates was a child.) We don't check a guy's wallet before he's allowed to speak.

 

Some of us work and like our jobs

 

You aren't going to say Democrats have done less for poor folks, are you? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...

 

Relevance?

 

Math not strong?

 

If you really think Biden will not raise your taxes, no matter how much money you make, you are in luck, today I am selling fractional shares of swamp land in Guatemala. Get yours now before the price goes up.

 

Biden has released his tax plan. It’s going to raise taxes on everyone who currently pays taxes. It’s going to strangle the economy and cost the average working family an additional $6,000.00 a year.

 

Business maximizes revenue and tries to minimize costs--all costs, including taxes. A business no more passes along a tax than it does wage costs.

Startups die for all sorts of reasons.

Taxes make business less profitable, so business fights them.

Not sure what you're saying. Small business is getting squeezed. COVID-19 is killing off restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, hotels, airlines--the list goes on and on. If Amazon or Home Depot will deliver it, why go out and risk getting the virus.

 

Propaganda Alert!

Trump said he wouldn't cut taxes for rich people when he was running in 2016, then turned around and gave 85% of the tax cut to people making $400,000 per year. If he had kept the top rate where it was, as he promised, all the other taxpayers would have shared six times as much money.

 

He said he wouldn't raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year. Hold him to it in January.

 

Republicans have a plan to limit payments. It's extremely unpopular.

 

A nonsensical comment.

 

There is a big difference in thinking the government NEEDS to raise taxes in order to spend (the orthodox view); and understanding taxation is merely one device available to government to limit excess demand in an overheating sector of the economy (ie to control inflation).

Part of the problem is the illusion that money is wealth, an illusion bolstered by the lived experience of individuals.
Money has no intrinsic value, and is merely a convenient measure of the value of real goods and services, that is real wealth, produced by an economy.

Hence, while quantity of money from the point of view of the sovereign currency issuer IS unlimited, in stark contrast: from the point of view of the private citizen (the user of the currency), quantity of money is limited to what can be earned by the individual

Unemployment was disastrous in 1933, and even so FDR had trouble convincing congress to accept government funding to create jobs. Government borrowing is perhaps an easier sell than taxation (of the employed); but how government spending is funded remains the sticking point.

Now you might begin to understand the problem: as long as people have the illusion that money is wealth (as discussed above), you will never gain a majority to vote for the increased taxation required to fund extra government spending on social programs, even though a majority might indeed want change.

However if they understood the real is issue is the availability of resources and productive capacity of the nation, not the quantity of money available to the currency-issuing government - which is unlimited - they will indeed understand how change can be effected without a general increase in taxation.

I don't like Trump because of his survival of the fittest mentality. But as a matter of fact Trump is probably even more likely to ignore huge government deficits than orthodox Biden - deficits which are VERY necessary at this time of pandemic/enforced lockdown (....and which can be simply written off, because the problem at the moment is deflation, (or enforced under-consumption), not inflation....though neither Trump nor Powell will say it...).

Disputed above. Speaking of the sheer necessity to organize a nation's available resources required to win a war; if scientists suddenly proved beyond doubt that we had to close the fossil fuel industry in ten years maximum, then (guess what) we would do it, at no actual 'money' cost to anyone, even if it meant building artificial mountains to construct the massive pumped-hydro storage infrastructure required (in the absence of the necessary battery technology) to store the intermittent green energy from solar and wind farms which can easily be built in the required quantity, utilising the world's sunlit deserts, windy oceans, etc).

That is: the nation's entire resource base and productive capacity would be devoted to building the required infrastructure, funded by central bank 'money printing'. (No booze, gambling, junk consumption, associate transport, sales and advertising...there's several $trillions in resources equivalent released right there...) In short , a planned economy (ever heard of that.....), in order to save the planet ....

No I'm not. I'm saying we CAN organize our resources and productive capacity to produce the outcomes we want (or need...)

(OK... I did mention 'planning'...naughty me, that's 'unconstitutional', apparently...

Well I hope I have elucidated the issues above; who wins and loses in the short- and long term - CAN be a deliberate choice of the electorate, rather than determined by the dictate of a mindless, "invisible hand", market, if people understand money, and how and why it is created.

 

No I don't. But you - true to form - pick ONE point from a long analysis, ignore everything else, draw the wrong conclusion from that ONE point, and think the debate is concluded.

Think again.

 

No. That you say that is merely an indication of your ideology rendering you incapable of comprehension.

Yes, in the obsolete 18th century constitution.

A modern constitution needs to address universal above-poverty participation as a right (in law) - and an obligation (to the nation) - of citizenship.

 

“What I’d be focusing on is eliminating the $1.9 trillion tax cut that [Trump] passed,” Biden said in Cedar Rapids."

That's ALL the tax rate cuts.

 

Nothing obsolete about our right to our freedoms and liberties and property and to pursue our happiness as we see fit within the law with the least interference from the federal government.

 

Great for you. But much necessary work is not necessarily enjoyable. Such work should also be well paid.

 

Property? It does not appear in the Declaration of Independence. The basic rights of citizens includes "Life", "Liberty", and "The pursuit of Happiness". Can you point to a right to property in the US constitution? (I'm fairly certain that even if you can, it will not rank as a 'basic' or 'inalienable' right).

Note "Inalienable" (or "self-evident") rights is a fungible concept:

"In discussion of social contract theory, "inalienable rights" were said to be those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law".]

So, what are those universal, or 'natural' rights available to a free people that exist by virtue of citizenship?

Life: yes; liberty: yes; but property?

For a start, property can be owned only by those who can afford it.

Timeline: the 17th century English philosopher John Locke considered property to be a Right, beyond the reach of confiscation by the King, because Locke was living in a monarchist system which nevertheless was evolving from absolutism - which is why the British monarchy has survived (unlike the absolutist French monarchy).

The US colonists, having freed themselves from arbitrary rule by the British king, and inspired by ideas of the European Enlightenment, omitted the reference to property being an "inalienable" (or "self-evident") right because they had no need of such a right. Obviously a free person CAN own property if he can afford it, in a free society. But such a Right is not basic

Yes, but this is where your reading of the Rights specified in the Constitution is obsolete.

A modern consideration of the social contract ought to include the right and the responsibility to participate in the nation's economic development, at above poverty level. Modern highly productive economies CAN guarantee that right - WITHOUT infringing on anyone's rights - and indeed require it, because unlike in the 18th century with its vast 'unoccupied' frontier lands, people now must earn money first, in order to prosper.

In short, the 18th century Constitution's grasp of the social contract is inadequate to achieve a well-ordered modern community, and further, your ideology of self-sufficiency itself is obsolete. There is no such thing as self sufficiency independent of a social contract, in the modern AI and IT economy.

 

You should get more money because you hate your job?

 

Yes. If my only alternative is a low-paid job in an abattoir, I might turn to crime...

So there needs to be a non-market based, as well as market based mechanism to determine salary, to ensure wage justice.

But back to taxation: what is its relevance to enjoying your job?

 

You chose a career doing something you don't enjoy and feel as if your job satisfaction should be a factor in what your employer should pay you. If you get no pleasure or satisfaction from it you probably aren't giving it your best effort either and that really should factor into what you are paid up to the max level the job allows.

 

Wrong. They're spending now without raising taxes.

All the same "devices" are available for the "orthodox view."

What "problem" are you identifying?

Yes, and...?

Relevance?

"Create jobs" means what? The CCC? Stimulating the private economy? Both?

Taxing during a depression? Recession?

So, people confuse money and wealth, and for that reason they oppose increased spending social programs?

How does your approach work when the economy is running near capacity? Will people support social programs then?

Do you know what Powell has been saying? He says the government is spending too little.

I explained that how we financed WW2 made it clear you're wrong about economists not understanding the approach you're suggesting we take now.

You're going to take ever the economy and ration good and services. Sounds like what we did in WW2.

Anti-market nonsense.

 

Propaganda Alert!

Biden said he won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year.

If he cancels the Trump tax cut for people making $400,000, he should recoup about 85% of the tax revenue.

 

You changed your claim from A to B in response to my post.
Thus, you agreed A was invalid.
Tell me how I am wrong.