2024 Official 1st Trump / Kamala Debate Thread

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Hey hey its the tax man wrote:

What drivers of federal budget deficits / debt may have been different under Clinton/gingrich? what is your stance on tax policy and how less tax revenue contributes to the debt problem you are so worried about? if Trump tax cuts are re-upped, CBO expects $4T extra to deficit over 10 years. tax the wealthy, increase the cap on SS payroll tax, tax corporations, crack down on tax evasion.

The biggest drivers of fiscal responsibility under Clinton were the new technology paradigm and a bulldog in Gingrich who forced fiscal restraint. Admittedly, we have not had that combo since the 1990s.

You seem to be suggesting that all and everywhere it’s a taxing problem and not a spending problem. There is so much waste, fraud, abuse, overlap, and inefficiency in government spending that we could solve the entire deficit problem just by making cuts and making it more productive. Entitlements alone (even though they are “off balance sheet” but not off cash flow), along with interest on the debt eat up a ridiculous an inordinate amount of the deficit.

You want to reform SS, for example??? Alright, let’s do that. Let’s increase the taxable base, but let’s also gradually increase the age of eligibility, allow a chunk of it to be invested (so that your overall return adjusted for inflation isn’t actually negative on that money set aside for you), and perhaps index it to PCE instead of CPI. Or, perhaps not index it all, only raise it relative to GNP in any given year.

Tax policy issues are tricky, but, generally, I’m not a fan of confiscating someone else’s risk capital that can otherwise be spent or loaned through an economy just to inefficiently subsidize someone else’s government pet projects that only seem to grow and never seem to be audited or produce tangible results. A higher corporate tax? It will just cause even more companies and capital to flee for greener pastures in friendlier tax domiciles.

Finally, I’m not sure how much you guys want the rich to pay. They are already paying the bulk of Federal tax and state tax in progressive states. If you want to increase the tax on them, again, fine, but then everyone needs to pay taxes, including the lowest income strata. You do not get to vote if you don’t pay any federal or state income tax. Simple. Everyone need to have a real, tangible stake in this country.

I appreciate the question actually, because this is actually important, unlike all the superficial and peripheral bull$hit about abortion, J6, and poorly attended rallies. Such nonsense. Spoon fed by our media to the sheep.

I’ll leave you with this:

“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”

.

Link:taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/lat...

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

The biggest drivers of fiscal responsibility under Clinton were the new technology paradigm and a bulldog in Gingrich who forced fiscal restraint. Admittedly, we have not had that combo since the 1990s.

You seem to be suggesting that all and everywhere it’s a taxing problem and not a spending problem. There is so much waste, fraud, abuse, overlap, and inefficiency in government spending that we could solve the entire deficit problem just by making cuts and making it more productive. Entitlements alone (even though they are “off balance sheet” but not off cash flow), along with interest on the debt eat up a ridiculous an inordinate amount of the deficit.

You want to reform SS, for example??? Alright, let’s do that. Let’s increase the taxable base, but let’s also gradually increase the age of eligibility, allow a chunk of it to be invested (so that your overall return adjusted for inflation isn’t actually negative on that money set aside for you), and perhaps index it to PCE instead of CPI. Or, perhaps not index it all, only raise it relative to GNP in any given year.

Tax policy issues are tricky, but, generally, I’m not a fan of confiscating someone else’s risk capital that can otherwise be spent or loaned through an economy just to inefficiently subsidize someone else’s government pet projects that only seem to grow and never seem to be audited or produce tangible results. A higher corporate tax? It will just cause even more companies and capital to flee for greener pastures in friendlier tax domiciles.

Finally, I’m not sure how much you guys want the rich to pay. They are already paying the bulk of Federal tax and state tax in progressive states. If you want to increase the tax on them, again, fine, but then everyone needs to pay taxes, including the lowest income strata. You do not get to vote if you don’t pay any federal or state income tax. Simple. Everyone need to have a real, tangible stake in this country.

I appreciate the question actually, because this is actually important, unlike all the superficial and peripheral bull$hit about abortion, J6, and poorly attended rallies. Such nonsense. Spoon fed by our media to the sheep.

I’ll leave you with this:

“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”

.

Link:taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/lat...

Amazing how nobody can articulate a well-reasoned response to this or refute the tax foundation article facts. Just downvote because it doesn’t “feel” or sound right. Rhetoric is what matters, not actions or lack thereof.

I am not bullish on the US of A anymore. This ain’t the “Halcyon Days” in the wake of 9/11 and the temporary unity and solidarity that yielded. Just like nobody really even remembers whar the Revolutionary War was about or the great cost and sacrifice entailed to procure our freedom. No representation without taxation. Simple. Must be a lot of non-working students here.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

The biggest drivers of fiscal responsibility under Clinton were the new technology paradigm and a bulldog in Gingrich who forced fiscal restraint. Admittedly, we have not had that combo since the 1990s.

You seem to be suggesting that all and everywhere it’s a taxing problem and not a spending problem. There is so much waste, fraud, abuse, overlap, and inefficiency in government spending that we could solve the entire deficit problem just by making cuts and making it more productive. Entitlements alone (even though they are “off balance sheet” but not off cash flow), along with interest on the debt eat up a ridiculous an inordinate amount of the deficit.

You want to reform SS, for example??? Alright, let’s do that. Let’s increase the taxable base, but let’s also gradually increase the age of eligibility, allow a chunk of it to be invested (so that your overall return adjusted for inflation isn’t actually negative on that money set aside for you), and perhaps index it to PCE instead of CPI. Or, perhaps not index it all, only raise it relative to GNP in any given year.

Tax policy issues are tricky, but, generally, I’m not a fan of confiscating someone else’s risk capital that can otherwise be spent or loaned through an economy just to inefficiently subsidize someone else’s government pet projects that only seem to grow and never seem to be audited or produce tangible results. A higher corporate tax? It will just cause even more companies and capital to flee for greener pastures in friendlier tax domiciles.

Finally, I’m not sure how much you guys want the rich to pay. They are already paying the bulk of Federal tax and state tax in progressive states. If you want to increase the tax on them, again, fine, but then everyone needs to pay taxes, including the lowest income strata. You do not get to vote if you don’t pay any federal or state income tax. Simple. Everyone need to have a real, tangible stake in this country.

I appreciate the question actually, because this is actually important, unlike all the superficial and peripheral bull$hit about abortion, J6, and poorly attended rallies. Such nonsense. Spoon fed by our media to the sheep.

I’ll leave you with this:

“In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.”

.

Link:taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/lat...

Amazing how nobody can articulate a well-reasoned response to this or refute the tax foundation article facts. Just downvote because it doesn’t “feel” or sound right. Rhetoric is what matters, not actions or lack thereof.

I am not bullish on the US of A anymore. This ain’t the “Halcyon Days” in the wake of 9/11 and the temporary unity and solidarity that yielded. Just like nobody really even remembers whar the Revolutionary War was about or the great cost and sacrifice entailed to procure our freedom. No representation without taxation. Simple. Must be a lot of non-working students here.

Political Analyst wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Amazing how nobody can articulate a well-reasoned response to this or refute the tax foundation article facts. Just downvote because it doesn’t “feel” or sound right. Rhetoric is what matters, not actions or lack thereof.

I am not bullish on the US of A anymore. This ain’t the “Halcyon Days” in the wake of 9/11 and the temporary unity and solidarity that yielded. Just like nobody really even remembers whar the Revolutionary War was about or the great cost and sacrifice entailed to procure our freedom. No representation without taxation. Simple. Must be a lot of non-working students here.

Honestly, I only skimmed it because so many things you've written on this thread and the Kamala thread are disingenuous or just outright lies. That's the consequence of spreading BS. People stop taking you seriously.

After actually reading it, it sounds like something AI wrote for you or that you found somewhere else.

In a nutshell, you're proposing to reduce access to social security and voting. Good luck with that.

Top economists agree that Kamala would be a better President for the economy than Trump.

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Political Analyst wrote:

Honestly, I only skimmed it because so many things you've written on this thread and the Kamala thread are disingenuous or just outright lies. That's the consequence of spreading BS. People stop taking you seriously.

After actually reading it, it sounds like something AI wrote for you or that you found somewhere else.

In a nutshell, you're proposing to reduce access to social security and voting. Good luck with that.

Top economists agree that Kamala would be a better President for the economy than Trump.

No man, speaking of AI, you have to do better than a Demagogued, wildly partisan response. Reducing access to social security and voting? Not even close. I just know one is unsustainable without reform, which, clearly you don’t, and the other should only be reserved for taxpaying citizens who have a stake in the economy. Why is that offensive?

agip wrote:

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

Amazing how nobody can articulate a well-reasoned response to this or refute the tax foundation article facts. Just downvote because it doesn’t “feel” or sound right. Rhetoric is what matters, not actions or lack thereof.

I am not bullish on the US of A anymore. This ain’t the “Halcyon Days” in the wake of 9/11 and the temporary unity and solidarity that yielded. Just like nobody really even remembers whar the Revolutionary War was about or the great cost and sacrifice entailed to procure our freedom. No representation without taxation. Simple. Must be a lot of non-working students here.

geez. it's an essay. make one strongly felt point and then see if anyone has a complaint.

I will say that the US is absolutely soaring right now. Dollar is strong, US stocks as a % of the world has not been higher for decades, if ever, people are coming here to work, our companies are the best and biggest, the dollar as a unit of trade is as high or higher than ever, wages are moving ever higher, our wages are far, far higher than in Europe, the economy is growing at high 2-3% rates, inflation is at that sweet spot of 2%....

the pessimists are always wrong on america and I suspect you will be too.

JPMORGAN: "The US stands out as the only large economy in which GDP has risen faster than our estimated 2019 potential growth rate path would have anticipated. ... The US has been deemed exceptional in its ability to generate a complete post-pandemic recovery in the face of large negative supply shocks and substantial monetary tightening."

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:

agip wrote:

geez. it's an essay. make one strongly felt point and then see if anyone has a complaint.

I will say that the US is absolutely soaring right now. Dollar is strong, US stocks as a % of the world has not been higher for decades, if ever, people are coming here to work, our companies are the best and biggest, the dollar as a unit of trade is as high or higher than ever, wages are moving ever higher, our wages are far, far higher than in Europe, the economy is growing at high 2-3% rates, inflation is at that sweet spot of 2%....

the pessimists are always wrong on america and I suspect you will be too.

JPMORGAN: "The US stands out as the only large economy in which GDP has risen faster than our estimated 2019 potential growth rate path would have anticipated. ... The US has been deemed exceptional in its ability to generate a complete post-pandemic recovery in the face of large negative supply shocks and substantial monetary tightening."

Yeah, I’m not going to disagree with any of what you wrote, though, ironically (per my original Clinton comments) the technology and AI marvel continues to act as a tailwind and we’ve bought ever more of this growth with increasing levels of government credit. That is not a paradigm for long-term flourishing. By the way, a stronger dollar follows higher interest rates, no? And what is annualized inflation (not exempting food, energy, or housing and rent equivalents)? Inflation was government created. Supply shocks were a temporal and small, though real part of it.

Nonetheless, nothing you wrote is germaine to the tax policy discussion, which is what the original poster asked about. You are answering a question that nobody asked. Agip, as long as I continue to call you out on your “existential threat to Democracy” party line, you’re never going to agree with anything I say.