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.

---

Taxes, in the US, fund a wide array of public services and programs provided by federal, state, and local governments. Do people who earn 100+M use more of these services and programs than people who make 600K or 1K a year?

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 have the ability to pay more RIGHT NOW. The tax code has a way built in.

But, you don't pay more because the truth is that you don't WANT to pay more.

I soured on the Atlantic long ago as nothing more than a propaganda rag for the subversive element of America known as the Democratic Party. I see they are still wiping the democrat butt.

Tom Fox 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 can pay more to the government. Knock yourself out.

But stop trying to make others pay more if you are not going to pay the same rate along with every other voter.

---

The left is always the same - make THAT guy pay more, not ME...

Ah yes, The Atlantic.

Laurene Powell Jobs and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Laurene owns the Atlantic and a large stake in Axios which just got the leaked DOJ memo.

A tangled web. pic.twitter.com/khoIT1uIH3

— C3 (@C_3C_3) July 12, 2025

As credible as a complaint from Ghislaine Maxwell about being taxed too much/not enough.

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 are free to give away what you don't need. I assume you don't do that. Funny how you won't volunteer away your "wealth" but are very willing to allow the government to force it away from someone else.

It's a very shallow argument. Saying that a certain cutoff max $ figure bumps you into paying more than everyone else, what happens to the people on that fringe line, both above and below? It continues to create inequality and I thought that was an abiding liberal principle. Everyone paying the same % is equality. Too bad if they are barely eeking out a living. This country allows opportunities to advance if you make good decisions.

If you dug deeper, I would be not one person who opposed the BBB could explain actually what's in it and why they're opposed. They're just doing what the MSM is telling them to do and say.

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 should anyone pay significantly higher rates? We should've punish people for being successful.

Who writes this trash?

I read the WSJ referred to by the Atlantic. This Atlantic quote in particular also applies to the 2025 law. If you read the WSJ article you see that the public is mostly uneducated on what is even in it. So you have people polling that they disagree with it without knowing if they are even impacted.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Most Americans are net tax recipients with regards to income tax. They are only dimly aware of it for the most part. When you are only paying payroll, state, local taxes, you don't have as much of an appreciation for how much more you could be paying to keep bloated government fed.

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.

---

Here is something to consider.

I DON'T CARE WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE PAYS IN TAXES! I just care about MY taxes and figuring out how to pay the least amount possible. If someone else figures out how to pay less taxes, then GOOD FOR THEM!

Maybe they should sour on big government that "uses" the tax money.....

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 is moronic. They tried that in France under Hollande and the rich left in droves; tax revenue went down. They repealed it a couple of years later.

Well they acknowledge that they haven't put any real thinking into this, but it probably just feels right to them. You know… on an emotional level.

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 do know that you can send as much money as you want to the IRS, right?

Here is the URL:

https://www.irs.gov/payments


I'd be willing to bet a significant amount that you don't give anything to charity. Libs never do.

Democrat operatives. Marxists. Politics is their religion.

The US Gov. does not have a tax problem. It has a spending problem.

Also, if you taxed the top 5% at 100% there still would not be enough to fund the government for a year.

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

You need me to explain effective tax rates to you? Someone with an income of 600k is going to have an effective tax rate of about 29%. Someone with an income of 100M will have an effective tax rate of about 36.99% for 2025.

Superfreak said:

---

You need me to explain effective tax rates to you? Someone with an income of 600k is going to have an effective tax rate of about 29%. Someone with an income of 100M will have an effective tax rate of about 36.99% for 2025.

---

It's transparent that his argument is based on spite and envy of the super wealthy rather than a notion of fairness because he seamlessly transitions from advocating tax on income to taxing accumulated wealth.

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's as much envy about what people keep as it is of what they earn. The progressives have been after wealth since the first term of FDR.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/deal-soaked-rich-middle-class-poor/

Quote:

---

Then in 1936 FDR signed into law a graduated undistributed profits tax that penalized companies for building up savings essential for investment. Companies that retained 1 percent of their net income would see 10 percent of it taxed away. Companies that retained 70 percent of their net income would see 73.91 percent of it go to the government. Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Guy Helvering described the purpose of undistributed profits tax rather delicately: "the Federal government shall not be unreasonably and inequitably deprived of necessary revenues."

FDR demonized investors and employers as "economic royalists" and "privileged princes." Opinion surveys of private sector employers suggested widespread fear of the federal government because of FDR's policies. An American Institute of Public Opinion poll reported that a majority of employers anticipated more government control of the economy in the future. In a November 1941 Fortune poll, 93 percent of employers said they expected their property rights to be undermined, and there could be a dictatorship.

It was no wonder that as Robert Higgs has pointed out, investment was at historic lows during the 1930s. Without investment, it was virtually impossible to create new jobs. Economist Lester Chandler observed, "The failure of the New Deal to bring about an adequate revival of private investment is the key to its failure to achieve a complete and self-sustaining recovery of output and employment."

---

Guess who is creating a revival of private investment today?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Why is it ridiculous?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Maybe Americans are tired of being lied to by democrats and their propaganda arm- like the Atlantic.

Most Americans pay almost no income tax.

---

it's probably 100% of the democrat voters who don't pay taxes because they are barely working.

This might be one of the stupidest OPs I have ever seen. And I was around in the days of the two teas theory so that is saying a lot.

Francis Macomber said:

---

Tom Fox 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.

---

You should pay the same rate as them. If that is 60% for you, then I respect that. See if you can get that passed. I am not paying 60%.

And the bottom earners have to start paying at least net 10%.

---

I do not make $100m a year, do you?

---

That's the same logic that got us from, "Only the super wealthy will pay this support minimal income tax," to, "Half the country pays 15% to 35%."

I absolutely believe in the virtue of a flat tax rate for every citizen. At the same time, I believe Americans should be less focused on the taxes they are paying and more focused on the absolute crap on which the government is spending it.

Liberals oppose policy issues they can not possibly understand because everything they know about it, they learned from highly misleading propaganda hit pieces? Color me shocked.

I'm not sure there's any issue that better displays the pure ignorance of the left than tax issues. It's clear they do not have even a rudimentary understanding of taxes, business, or investing.

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.

---

I have a hard time believing you're in the "top tax bracket" with the understanding of taxes you have exhibited here.

Get rid of income tax. It's another way to enslave the populace. It's not needed. It gives the cowardly politicians a reason to spend more.

agracer said:

---

The US Gov. does not have a tax problem. It has a spending problem.

Also, if you taxed the top 5% at 100% there still would not be enough to fund the government for a year.

---

This is the real problem. Let's say everyone pays 50% tax rate and money pours into the treasury. What's more likely? A) the deficit is erased and the government adopts a balanced budget posture for perpetuity? Or B) the government expands and mettles in our lives and interferes even more in world politics putting us right back where we are now?

there are communists on here arguing to "tax the rich" even more.. make them pay their "fair" share. all the commie slogans keep coming out. these are the same people arguing on another thread that Obama did nothing wrong.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Superfreak said:

---

You need me to explain effective tax rates to you? Someone with an income of 600k is going to have an effective tax rate of about 29%. Someone with an income of 100M will have an effective tax rate of about 36.99% for 2025.

---

It's transparent that his argument is based on spite and envy of the super wealthy rather than a notion of fairness because he seamlessly transitions from advocating tax on income to taxing accumulated wealth.

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's as much envy about what people keep as it is of what they earn. The progressives have been after wealth since the first term of FDR.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/deal-soaked-rich-middle-class-poor/

Quote:

---

Then in 1936 FDR signed into law a graduated undistributed profits tax that penalized companies for building up savings essential for investment. Companies that retained 1 percent of their net income would see 10 percent of it taxed away. Companies that retained 70 percent of their net income would see 73.91 percent of it go to the government. Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Guy Helvering described the purpose of undistributed profits tax rather delicately: "the Federal government shall not be unreasonably and inequitably deprived of necessary revenues."

FDR demonized investors and employers as "economic royalists" and "privileged princes." Opinion surveys of private sector employers suggested widespread fear of the federal government because of FDR's policies. An American Institute of Public Opinion poll reported that a majority of employers anticipated more government control of the economy in the future. In a November 1941 Fortune poll, 93 percent of employers said they expected their property rights to be undermined, and there could be a dictatorship.

It was no wonder that as Robert Higgs has pointed out, investment was at historic lows during the 1930s. Without investment, it was virtually impossible to create new jobs. Economist Lester Chandler observed, "The failure of the New Deal to bring about an adequate revival of private investment is the key to its failure to achieve a complete and self-sustaining recovery of output and employment."

---

Guess who is creating a revival of private investment today?

---

Exactly right. The entire foundation of his ridiculous rant is jealousy. He has been asked time and time again why he thinks someone making $100,000,000 (arbitrary as it is) should have to pay more than someone making $100k and he is unable to give any kind of well reasoned or logical response. Thus proving unequivocally that he is simply jealous at other people's success. Typical liberal.

The Atlantic? I'll have to wait to see what the Huffington Post has to say. Jeeeez.

The Atlantic gets virtuous and critical all of a sudden when a Republican is President...water is wet.