BUT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS MY DAD'S GODDAMN $29!!!

[Dirty Socialist]

I am getting pretty despondant about whether the ultra rich will ever have to pay any significant taxes now. The Senate Republicans refused to go along with the plan to increase IRS funding, ensuring that the ultra rich can continue to pay Fuck-All nothing to Uncle Sam. But Goddammit, the IRS really wanted that fucking $29 my father made a misteke on. It makes me rather upset, and I wonder why more people outside of this group aren’t all bent out of shape about it.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: the USA is rapidly becoming a nation of Priviledge, if not already.
29 fucking dollars!

End of rant

[onecaliberal]

1. That boat has sailed, IMO.

[OAITW r.2.0]

2. Elect 2 more Democrats that neutralize Manchin and Sinema and we can make this happen. nt

[NBachers]

3. Without losing any Democrats along the way.

[demigoddess]

5. no, flood the House and Senate with democrats.

nothing less will make it permanent.

[Celerity]

9. hopefully by the 2026 elections (2030 at latest) these 26 states become perma Blue for Senate

many already are of course

Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawai'i
Illinois
Maine (Collins will be the last Rethug elected there for ages I predict)
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

so 52 seats


Lucky to get (or keep) one each from these 4


Florida (the number one bad trending/trended state, it is under a death cult spell of QMAGAT old retirees who have flooded in, plus the Latinx are radicalised to a fair degree far too much to the RW amongst too many groups)
Montana
Ohio
Texas (long term, should go perma blue for Senate, etc, but that is into the 2030's or more I wager)

Wild Card

Tennessee (only if Tim McGraw finally runs in 2024 and beats that POS Marsha Blackburn)

West Virginia will soon be lost for decades


gives us 57 if ALL that happens


then it is just a matter of time (granted not short) to eventually grabbing the 2nd Texas seat, so 58

and then 2 flips not expected in 2 other states to get to the magic (for now, hopefully theu lower the filibuster threshold to 55) 60

say Rob Sand beats Ernst in Iowa and Andy Beshear wins McTurtle's open seat when McTreason dies or packs it in finally (they are both young so could sit there for decades)


that is my 15 year long range projection of hope

(obviously all will not go exactly those ways, there will be bumps in the road, as GA, NH, and AZ will be tough in 2022 to hold)

[ramapo]

4. Here's the difference

All our W2, 1099, etc. data gets reported to the IRS. The computers match up what we put on our tax return with what is reported. When we make a mistake, or forget something, then the system just spits out a bill (or less likely a refund). Doesn’t take any effort. We shouldn’t even have to fill out a return most of the time

But the big money returns require the personnel touch, sometimes a lot of expertise and the IRS doesn’t have the resources for that… and the wealthy want to keep it that way.

The deck has long been stacked.

[Dirty Socialist]

7. Exactly!

[moonscape]

10. Yes, and what resources they have, they go

after the low-hanging fruit like very small businesses, home offices, etc.

[uponit7771]

11. +1

[Hoyt]

6. While they clearly need to pay more, remember top 25% pays 85% of

income taxes. Top 10% pay 70%.

We need more of them, but increase their taxes.

[Dirty Socialist]

8. You miss the point

My post has nothing to do with tax rates. It has to do with the fact many very rich people can get away with paying virtually NO taxes. See ramapo’s post.

[Hoyt]

13. My post has nothing to do with RATES either. The top pay most of the tax dollars, they need to pay

more, but that's a fact.

[uponit7771]

12. Come on man, we know the rich don't pay in ***PAYROLL*** taxes nearly the proportion of ETR

... the middle class does.

The full proportional tax ***BURDEN*** on the rich is small and needs to be greater ... PERIOD

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/

This means the rich pay a far lower payroll tax rate than regular people. A nurse making a salary of $50,000 per year pays (counting both the employee and employer side) 12.4 percent in OASDI taxes (for Social Security and disability insurance). But a sitcom star making a thousand times that, or $50 million a year, will pay the 12.4 percent only on the initial $130,000 of their salary, working out to a total OASDI tax rate of just 0.03 percent on their $50 million. And because OASDI taxes are only levied on earned income — meaning, money you make from a job — a billionaire investor with a $50 million annual income from dividends and capital gains will pay exactly zero percent in OASDI taxes.

[Hoyt]

14. The Intercept? Of course they don't pay more in payroll taxes, BECAUSE the law limits

the Maximum Social Security Benefit to like $3120/month if one waits until 66.

Didn't impact me, but are you saying they should pay in tens of millions of dollars to get $3120 a month maximum?

We need more wealthy, just tax them accordingly.

[uponit7771]

15. Sry bout the source but its factual that their burden isn't proportional and I don't think we need

... more wealth since we can't print unlimited money without detriment.

More wealthy concentrates funds into few sources that ... WILL NOT ... spend and keep the funds in ***COMMON*** circulation like the middle class will.

Yeah the wealthy will spend on shit like boats from China and Italian cars etc etc

[Hoyt]

16. Proportional to what? Without the wealthy paying 85% of income taxes, how much would

the rest of us -- including you and me -- have to pay?

Again, I'm for raising their taxes significantly, particularly capital gains and estate taxes. But unless you want to pay a lot more, we better cultivate them.

[uponit7771]

17. Income taxes aren't the only burden of taxes the middle class have to pay. Yes its cap gains on ...

... vested shares they get away with paying a significantly lower tax from income and can afford to.

The "wealthy" also include corporations as persons their proportional ETR is still below what middle class workers pay ... if corporations are people and we had a sane USSC.

Biden has the balance right, anyone over 400k a year gets should have a different tax BURDEN (which includes more than just income tax) than those who make less than 400k a year.

Concentrating CONTROL of so much funds in the hands of the few is counterproductive to healthy economies even if it was heavily taxed

[TexasBushwhacker]

18. Social Security has never only been about paying

you according to what you put in. If it was, heirs of the people who die BEFORE they are able to draw benefits would get a big fat check.

It is INSURANCE. It insures that when you reach 65 (or whatever age you choose to draw benefits) that you will get a basic income that is indexed to the amount you made when you were working and the number of years you worked (up to 35), up to a certain limit. If you die and your spouse had a lower benefit amount, their benefit will go up. If you die and leave dependent children, your surviving spouse and your children will receive a benefit. If you become disabled prior to retirement age, you can receive a benefit.

If you own a home that is insured and it DOESN'T burn down, most people wouldn't be pissed off. If you have insurance on your car and never have to make a claim, most people would feel blessed. If you've been able to work full time until the age when you can draw SS benefits, and not have to squeak by on SSDI or SSI because you were never disabled, most folks would feel lucky.

When Social Security was created, on of the driving motivations was that over 50% of retirees lived in poverty. The poverty rate for married couples is now under 5%. For over 65 singles, it's 15%. Saying that we should pay over the current maximum if we raise the cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes is saying we should give more to those who already have enough.

I would hope that some making over the SS cap (currently $142,800) saved for their retirement, BECAUSE THEY HAD THE MONEY TO DO SO. They were also more likely to have retirement programs like 401Ks that had tax benefits and may have had employer contributions.

The Social Security taxes that we and our employers pay is the price of living in a civilized society, because the elderly, widows and widowers, dependent children and the disabled shouldn't be living in poverty.

[Hoyt]

20. Of course it's insurance, including disability. Would you pay millions

for an insurance $10,000 benefit?

Almost every credible proposal to remove the cap includes removing cap on benefits too, although benefit rate declines for higher incomes.

Plus, if we tax the wealthy an additional 12.4 percentage points for social security, how much more do you think we get for income taxes for healthcare, childcare, education, deficit and debt reduction, safety net, infrastructure, jobs, etc.?

If you take every penny in wealth— which is mostly on paper, BTW — we’d be lucky to have enough to run the country for a few years at best. Then what?

It’s time for politicians to tell the truth— Even if wealthy pay everything in taxes, there is not enough to do all the stuff we want without increasing taxes for the rest of us.

Cultivate the wealthy, but increase their taxes.

[Sogo]

19. I'll see your $29 and throw in my $5.20.

Yeah, I got a letter that I short paid by $5.20 in 2019....I probably cost them more to send that letter than $5.20.