lol

almost no c-suite folks are making anything above 10,000,000 in individual cash compensation

most compensation is in RSU and other stock options. It's not taxed like income.

pacecar02 said:

---

lol

almost no c-suite folks are making anything above 10,000,000 in individual cash compensation

most compensation is in in RSU and other stock options. It's not taxed like income.

---

Actually, when RSUs pay out they are taxed as ordinary income. Same for stock options.

Once those shares are paid to you and taxed as ordinary income, then if you hold it and don't sell immediately, any future gains are taxed as capital gains at lower rates.

Let's say you get a payout of 100 shares of RSUs. You will owe ordinary income tax (assume 35%), so you net 65 shares. If you hold those shares for ten years and they double in value, then you'll pay capital gains tax (assume 20%) on the value increase.

Some people think it's unfair to tax capital gains lower than ordinary income. Aside from the fact there's a strong reason to do it because it encourages investment which indirectly contributes to employment for others, there's a case to made that capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all, because much of the gain over time can simply be due to inflation.

Taking that example above, if half of the stock gain over ten years is simply due to inflation, why should the stock holder pay a tax on inflation? Why should anybody pay a tax on inflation?

Answer: they shouldn't. Capital gains should be indexed for inflation first so that you are only paying tax on real value appreciation. But that's a different conversation...

Don't poll Americans; poll taxpayers. They aren't the same thing. Most Americans get more than they pay in.

If someone was able to produce $100M to have that much wealth, they are 99% more likely to be better at handling that money and using it to better ends than the government. No matter how much of a d-bag they may be, society is more likely better off with them keeping it than it being taxed away from them.

A big tax problem is the politically subjective and often changing definitions of annual income and deductible expenses, with which the public is burdened. Tax policy being used to influence individual and group behavior of the public, so it conforms to some politician's definition of the common good, is not freedom.

Any tax code which allows a person to be taxed more than once on the same dollar of earned income is simply confiscation by the government. Our tax code is pretty much of a mess.

I did have time to read through all this thread so sorry if this has been discussed.


Since early July, Pacifica radio has been HUGE on "Americans dont want tax cuts" stating that citizens want more government. Slowly, but surely, callers are calling in and saying [i'd pay higher taxes to help out struggling immigrants, poor inner city schools, etc]


The marching orders have been out and the idiots are marching.

Francis Macomber said:

---

Quote:

---

I

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/07/tax-bill-cuts/683703/?gift=Y4b-QVtwP1iFbBVgbf3hfTzBIwl80TAFCQzPpPWNcFI

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

I disagree. Someone making $100 million will pay SIGNIFICANTLY more than the $600k/year guy with the same rate. Let's be fair and have everyone pay the same rate.

You don't even need to read this article. 100 people out of 100 think that tax cuts are a good thing and want to pay less taxes. They may be conflating asking those in the lowest tax bracket if it seems right/fair that those in the highest tax bracket who pay more get bigger tax cuts. Which of course they should and do. It's the old 10 guys go into a bar to drink beer example.

I don't understand how the income tax passes the equal protection test...everyone should pay the same rate.

Francis Macomber said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Ok, raise taxes broadly across the spectrum then. See if that gets you a "win" with the electorate.

---

I do not want to raise them across the spectrum, i just want to raise them across those making $100 million or more a year.

---

Bro, almost nobody makes that in a year. There are less than 30,000 people in the world who have a net worth of $100,000,000.

---

So? Tax the **** out of the ones that do. In case you've not noticed, we have concentrated wealth more than just about anytime in our country's history.

---

Okay...then when spending still outpaces intake...drop it to 10M, then 1M, then 100,000? That is the result when you implement what you are implying.

Rapier108 said:

---

The Atlantic, about a trustworthy as ThePeopleVoice.TV.

---

Exactly. Libtard Rag.

Americans aren't tired of tax cuts. Americans are tired of their tax money going to dumbassery things like DEI initatives in 3rd world countries.

Quote:

---

Tax me more then. I have more than i ever thought I would have.

---

You can voluntarily pay more. Isn't it funny how those advocating for higher taxes never do that?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Ok, raise taxes broadly across the spectrum then. See if that gets you a "win" with the electorate.

---

I do not want to raise them across the spectrum, i just want to raise them across those making $100 million or more a year.

---

But why

---

Because that just feels right doesn't it?

/libtard

if we just punitively tax the people who create jobs and build things at this arbitrary benchmark right here, the government will finally have enough money to solve every problem for everyone! because government is so efficient and effective at spending our money and solving every problem for everyone, there will never be reasons to keep lowering that benchmark for punitive taxation to the point that it affects me, right?

10% Flat Tax, only exceptions:

Married or Single by death of spouse:
2.5% reduction per child under 18, max 4 claimed per year

Single:
1% reduction per child under 18, max 4 claimed per year

65+ (single or oldest spouse):
5% reduction

10% can only be increased by constitutional amendment

Francis Macomber said:

---

Loren Visser said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Quote:

---

In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular.

But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump.

The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. "If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later.

If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he didin both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, "Read my lips: no new taxes," and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP presidenthis son, George W.made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/07/tax-bill-cuts/683703/?gift=Y4b-QVtwP1iFbBVgbf3hfTzBIwl80TAFCQzPpPWNcFI

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

What rate should he pay on profits he hasn't recognized?

---

60% or higher.

Honestly, I havent put a lot of thought into it, so do not hold me to it.

---

Let's try to keep the numbers simple…say Elon is worth $20,000,000,000 (vast majority in stock) and that increases by $10,000,000,000 in one year. At 60%, that would be $6,000,000,000. He would have to sell 20% of his net worth just to pay that tax when he hasn't even sold any of that stock.

What happens if his stock price drops in half, does the gov send him $6,000,000,000 dollars?

It's obvious you haven't thought through this, you're just envious.

japantiger said:

---

I don't understand how the income tax passes the equal protection test...everyone should pay the same rate.

---

Good question

Francis Macomber said:

---

Quote:

---

In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular.

But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump.

The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. "If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later.

If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he didin both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, "Read my lips: no new taxes," and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP presidenthis son, George W.made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/07/tax-bill-cuts/683703/?gift=Y4b-QVtwP1iFbBVgbf3hfTzBIwl80TAFCQzPpPWNcFI

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

Why, what rate should he pay? He pays the same sales tax as everyone in yhe state of Texas also. Should that change?

shack009 said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Ok, raise taxes broadly across the spectrum then. See if that gets you a "win" with the electorate.

---

I do not want to raise them across the spectrum, i just want to raise them across those making $100 million or more a year.

---

Bro, almost nobody makes that in a year. There are less than 30,000 people in the world who have a net worth of $100,000,000.

---

That's net worth. Annual income at that level would be even fewr people.

Ag in ATL said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Ok, raise taxes broadly across the spectrum then. See if that gets you a "win" with the electorate.

---

I do not want to raise them across the spectrum, i just want to raise them across those making $100 million or more a year.

---

Bro, almost nobody makes that in a year. There are less than 30,000 people in the world who have a net worth of $100,000,000.

---

That's net worth. Annual income at that level would be even fewr people.

---

Literally my point.

The subjectiveness of what level to take more has no answer, and will constantly change.

Put some real data together and get to that % for all.

Thought the fair tax could work as well, but most wouldn't be able to handle prices going up with their take home pay not being taxed.

shack009 said:

---

Ag in ATL said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Ok, raise taxes broadly across the spectrum then. See if that gets you a "win" with the electorate.

---

I do not want to raise them across the spectrum, i just want to raise them across those making $100 million or more a year.

---

Bro, almost nobody makes that in a year. There are less than 30,000 people in the world who have a net worth of $100,000,000.

---

That's net worth. Annual income at that level would be even fewr people.

---

Literally my point.

---

Was just about to tweak/delete lol

Ag in ATL said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ag in ATL said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

Ok, raise taxes broadly across the spectrum then. See if that gets you a "win" with the electorate.

---

I do not want to raise them across the spectrum, i just want to raise them across those making $100 million or more a year.

---

Bro, almost nobody makes that in a year. There are less than 30,000 people in the world who have a net worth of $100,000,000.

---

That's net worth. Annual income at that level would be even fewr people.

---

Literally my point.

---

Was just about to tweak/delete lol

---

To be fair, I don't think Francis understood it, so maybe it's good for him to see.

Nitro Power said:

---

Flat tax rate for everyone or do away with income tax and go to a straight sales tax

---

If not a sales tax, then everybody has to write a check to the IRS weekly. No more automatic witholdings and keeping the actual amount of taxes hidden - you write that check amigo. Payable to the IRS. Every.Single.Week.

I bet a whole lot of people that are supposedly fatigued on tax cuts (what the F ever that means) would change their tune after that first check is cut.

Misread message

Stupid phone

Sounds like a propaganda piece and self soothing for those with tds

Francis Macomber said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Texas Tea said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Loren Visser said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Quote:

---

In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular.

But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump.

The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. "If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later.

If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he didin both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, "Read my lips: no new taxes," and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP presidenthis son, George W.made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/07/tax-bill-cuts/683703/?gift=Y4b-QVtwP1iFbBVgbf3hfTzBIwl80TAFCQzPpPWNcFI

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

What rate should he pay on profits he hasn't recognized?

---

60% or higher.

Honestly, I havent put a lot of thought into it, so do not hold me to it.

---

Clearly

---

What is your thoughts on it? Should somebody making $1,000,000.00/year be taxed the same as Zuckerberg?

---

Absolutely the same rate. And I make right at that. Someone making $50k should also pay the same rate as me. Then as people with equal skin in the game can go to the ballot box and decide on the appropriate tax rate and what we should spend our money on. Because we are all paying for it.

Now obviously Zuck at 30% will pay significantly more than me in total just as I will pay more than the guys making $50k.

I can totally accept if Americans vote to pay 50% if we are all paying it. But the majority aren't really paying anything. It is Monopoly money to them.

---

Yeah, this doesn't seem very realistic to me. I have been poor as hell and fortunate enough to be in the upper tax bracket. 10%, 20%, 30%, etc is not the sa.e at < $100k a year as it is when you make more than $100k.

I pay >$100k in taxes and I am at the tiop bracket, and I think it is ridiculous we are letting people make enough money to start theie own country and they are getting g taxed at the same rate as me.

---

And what if someone thinks it's ridiculous that you make as much as you claim to make? Somehow it's different for you, I imagine.

---

Tax me more then. I have more than i ever thought I would have.

---

How Do You Make a Gift To Reduce Debt Held By the Public?
If you wish to do so, go to Pay.gov and make a contribution by credit card, debit card, PayPal, checking account, or savings account. If you prefer, you can make a check payable to the "Bureau of the Fiscal Service" and send it to: Bu reau of the Fiscal Service, Attn: Department G, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188. Or you can enclose the check with your income tax return when you file. In the memo section of the check, make a note that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public. Don't add your gift to any tax you may owe. See the instructions for line 37 for details on how to pay any tax you owe. For information on how to make this type of gift online, go to TreasuryDirect.gov/ Help-Center/Public-Debt-FAQs/ #DebtFinance and click on "How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?" You may be able to deduct this gift on your 2025 tax return.

Francis Macomber said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Texas Tea said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Loren Visser said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Quote:

---

In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular.

But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump.

The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. "If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later.

If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he didin both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, "Read my lips: no new taxes," and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP presidenthis son, George W.made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/07/tax-bill-cuts/683703/?gift=Y4b-QVtwP1iFbBVgbf3hfTzBIwl80TAFCQzPpPWNcFI

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

What rate should he pay on profits he hasn't recognized?

---

60% or higher.

Honestly, I havent put a lot of thought into it, so do not hold me to it.

---

Clearly

---

What is your thoughts on it? Should somebody making $1,000,000.00/year be taxed the same as Zuckerberg?

---

Absolutely the same rate. And I make right at that. Someone making $50k should also pay the same rate as me. Then as people with equal skin in the game can go to the ballot box and decide on the appropriate tax rate and what we should spend our money on. Because we are all paying for it.

Now obviously Zuck at 30% will pay significantly more than me in total just as I will pay more than the guys making $50k.

I can totally accept if Americans vote to pay 50% if we are all paying it. But the majority aren't really paying anything. It is Monopoly money to them.

---

Yeah, this doesn't seem very realistic to me. I have been poor as hell and fortunate enough to be in the upper tax bracket. 10%, 20%, 30%, etc is not the sa.e at < $100k a year as it is when you make more than $100k.

I pay >$100k in taxes and I am at the tiop bracket, and I think it is ridiculous we are letting people make enough money to start theie own country and they are getting g taxed at the same rate as me.

---

And what if someone thinks it's ridiculous that you make as much as you claim to make? Somehow it's different for you, I imagine.

---

Tax me more then. I have more than i ever thought I would have.

---

You're free, right now, to send them a check.

Raising taxes, on anyone, is ****ing ruhtarded. GUT spending. We do not now, nor ever have had, a "revenue" problem.

Taxation is theft.

---

Government sucks then? No use for.it? Can I get you to agre to forsake the judicial system if I track you down and rob you at gun point?

---

By your logic, would you agree that the portion of the population that doesn't pay income taxes should also have no access to governmental functions funded by tax dollars?

Nitro Power said:

---

Flat tax rate for everyone or do away with income tax and go to a straight sales tax

---

Flat tax on what income? No deductions? Are you proposing just one rate or do you agree that truck drivers should be allowed to deduct for new tires, fuel, etc?

So tone deaf.

It's like the dems and their lapdog propoganda media think they can hypnotize people into their convoluted way of thinking.

It's really pretty simple:
My son got his first real job big boy paycheck this year. He was stunned at the impact of all of the taxes on his bottom line figure.
I told him to remember that the next time he goes to the ballot box.

They really are morons aren't they.
Evil morons.

Basically, if Trump's doing it and it's good then it's bad.

Francis Macomber said:

---

Loren Visser said:

---

Francis Macomber said:

---

Quote:

---

In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular.

But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump.

The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. "If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later.

If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he didin both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, "Read my lips: no new taxes," and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP presidenthis son, George W.made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy.

---

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/07/tax-bill-cuts/683703/?gift=Y4b-QVtwP1iFbBVgbf3hfTzBIwl80TAFCQzPpPWNcFI

My only comment is that it is ridiculous that somebody making $600k a year is paying the same tax rate as Elon Musk. I do not think we should rase rates for majority of people, but once you breach $100 million you should pay a significantly higher rate than the rest of us.

---

What rate should he pay on profits he hasn't recognized?

---

60% or higher.

Honestly, I havent put a lot of thought into it, so do not hold me to it.

---

With all due respect, that logically makes no sense and is completely devoid of critical thinking. Why should Elon or anyone have to pay a higher % just because they were smarter or worked harder and made more money than me?
I have never understood why money I make over a certain amount should be taxed at a higher rate. If I work harder or smarter than someone else, why should I be penalized?
It Is all emotional based and makes zero sense.