yeah thats the same kind of info i was reading as well. if after tax income will only result in that much of a loss if he actually removes tax would it still be a loss on families is what im wondering

Short term doesn't pan out for either party. The question is do you want to invest in future? Answer is if you do, pick Trump. Trump is making a go at turning the economy and shifting it in our favor by changing the way we deal with imports. I agree with this pivot

well trump wants to cut taxes for the mega rich, again, and that is worse for the long term than anything Scamala is promoting

theyre both bad yes but Trumps is worse for the long term and better for mega rich short term. just like the Bush tax cuts in the 2000s
this country will never be sound financially until the rich start paying their fair share - full stop

its not fair for us non-boomers to be indefinitely punished because our parents' generation ruined this country

This post was edited by gnarjay on Nov 2 2024 01:15pm

That isn't how it works, rich paying more taxes? That only influences the government, it has nothing to do with the average day person. Reality is, pools of wealth create opportunities for work, research, and innovative exploration.

pools of wealth dont do anything for average Americans when they are sitting in banks and the stock market. if they have to pay higher taxes, theyll be much more likely to reinvest in their business/ventures/whatever else to reduce their tax burden which WILL help average americans

Well, why do you think the government is a constant sink of money, though? We can reduce the deficit, but we never do. These pools of wealth are for politicians who are only personalities and debaters, representatives if you will. They have no influence on the market. At least in the hands of business man, it can potentially be used for creating jobs and other such scenarios.

Taxing the rich is only going to give the government more money. And the rich being taxed is giving the politicians money, which is their incentive to make bills and policies which favor their lobbyers to make more money, those who donated and helped get them in office.

These sort of ideals is why I'm a centrist that leans right, for less government involvement and less government size. A government having more money to give to those not contributing does nothing for those who work hard, which is who you are referencing as those being cheated.

Now if the democrats promised they'd put in term limits for the house/senate, and also made it illegal for them to trade any stock (since its a conflict of interest); I'd vote for them.

Kamala does agree with you on the sitting in banks and stock market part, though. She wants that money for herself and the government. Were you informed on this?

I don't think this would ever pass, but if it does it'd singlehandedly destroy the American economy.


This post was edited by Ryvulet on Nov 2 2024 01:30pm

the greatest growth period this country has ever experienced was when the effective tax rate much higher , back in the 50's and 60's

https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-of-tax-historical-income-tax-rates

im not some big government weirdo, but we need taxes for medicare, roads, infrastructure like high speed trains, modernization efforts, etc. now i also think we need to end the american military war-machine because thats where a LOT of waste goes but thats another topic

I agree with the American war-machine part, mostly in the effect that we are dabbling in the protecting of other countries. Let them defend themselves, take all our people back.

so you think that the prosperity of the 1950s was solely because income taxes were really high? Have you read history books about some things that happened in the 1940s?

where did I say that?