Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...

[clubdeac]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Isnt Trumps bill going to increase the debt by $2.4 trillion? sounds like its the conservatives running this country into the ground.

In the five minutes required to write this response, pausing to sip coffee, the nation will pay $11 million (about $38,000 a second) toward servicing the national debt. Congress is debating how many trillions to increase the debt.

The debate concerns extending or revising portions of, or perhaps extending all of, the first Trump administration’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟳𝟱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟱𝟴 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲. Such an imbalance is an accelerating consequence of the changed relationship between the citizenry and the federal government that began 90 years ago.

In the 19th century, this government touched most Americans (other than Civil War veterans receiving pensions, the first large federal entitlement) rarely and tangentially: when they sent or received mail, or bought something taxed by tariffs. But the post-1935 growth of federal social welfare programs (principally Social Security, enacted in 1935, and Medicare and Medicaid, in 1965) has, as James C. Capretta of the American Enterprise Institute says, “put the government in a direct financial relationship with millions of individual citizens.”

In 2024, spending on those three programs “equaled 10.8 percent of [gross domestic product], up from 3.7 percent in 1970. That large jump in spending was not matched by an increase in revenue,” which, as a percentage of GDP, was higher in 1970 (17.4 percent) than in 2024 (17.1 percent)....

Without substantially revamping these programs, we’re headed off a fiscal cliff.

As, second by second, the government borrows substantial sums to pay interest on the money it has borrowed, remember: The national debt was $20 trillion when Trump began his first administration, having vowed to eliminate the debt in eight years. It was $28 trillion when Joe Biden’s presidency began. As Maya MacGuineas at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget notes, it reached $32 trillion on June 15, 2023; $33 trillion 92 days later; $34 trillion 105 days after that; $35 trillion in another 210 days; and $36 trillion in another 118. It will reach $37 trillion after Congress raises the debt ceiling sometime this summer.

I don’t think the current bill does nearly enough and I certainly don’t agree with those on here defending the increase and expansion of our entitlement programs. Without severe and deep cuts to these programs, we’ll continue on our current disastrous path

 

[SSdoc33]

In the five minutes required to write this response, pausing to sip coffee, the nation will pay $11 million (about $38,000 a second) toward servicing the national debt. Congress is debating how many trillions to increase the debt.

The debate concerns extending or revising portions of, or perhaps extending all of, the first Trump administration’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟳𝟱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟱𝟴 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲. Such an imbalance is an accelerating consequence of the changed relationship between the citizenry and the federal government that began 90 years ago.

In the 19th century, this government touched most Americans (other than Civil War veterans receiving pensions, the first large federal entitlement) rarely and tangentially: when they sent or received mail, or bought something taxed by tariffs. But the post-1935 growth of federal social welfare programs (principally Social Security, enacted in 1935, and Medicare and Medicaid, in 1965) has, as James C. Capretta of the American Enterprise Institute says, “put the government in a direct financial relationship with millions of individual citizens.”

In 2024, spending on those three programs “equaled 10.8 percent of [gross domestic product], up from 3.7 percent in 1970. That large jump in spending was not matched by an increase in revenue,” which, as a percentage of GDP, was higher in 1970 (17.4 percent) than in 2024 (17.1 percent)....

Without substantially revamping these programs, we’re headed off a fiscal cliff.

As, second by second, the government borrows substantial sums to pay interest on the money it has borrowed, remember: The national debt was $20 trillion when Trump began his first administration, having vowed to eliminate the debt in eight years. It was $28 trillion when Joe Biden’s presidency began. As Maya MacGuineas at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget notes, it reached $32 trillion on June 15, 2023; $33 trillion 92 days later; $34 trillion 105 days after that; $35 trillion in another 210 days; and $36 trillion in another 118. It will reach $37 trillion after Congress raises the debt ceiling sometime this summer.

I don’t think the current bill does nearly enough and I certainly don’t agree with those on here defending the increase and expansion of our entitlement programs. Without severe and deep cuts to these programs, we’ll continue on our current disastrous path

how about a footnote, FFS?

 

[clubdeac]

View attachment 404867

how about a footnote, FFS?

hey if it’s good enough for the first black female president of Harvard, it’s good enough for me

 

[SSdoc33]

hey if it’s good enough for the first black female president of Harvard, it’s good enough for me

yeah, uh, she got fired for it. should you be kicked off the site for pawning that off as your own?

the whole point is to be able to fact check the numbers. b/c whoever wrote that piece DID include footnotes for their numbers.

its pretty basic

 

[clubdeac]

yeah, uh, she got fired for it. should you be kicked off the site for pawning that off as your own?

the whole point is to be able to fact check the numbers. b/c whoever wrote that piece DID include footnotes for their numbers.

its pretty basic

I can provide that if you care to look it up

 

[SSdoc33]

I can provide that if you care to look it up

its more for future discussions

 

[hyperalgesia]

I can provide that if you care to look it up

Liberals love to use gotcha moments to divert from the topic.

It means you won the argument.

 

[SSdoc33]

Liberals love to use gotcha moments to divert from the topic.

It means you won the argument.

clubdeac has never "won" an argument.

and asking to provide references is not a gotcha moment.

its common knowledge and required if you expect to be taken seriously

 

[clubdeac]

clubdeac has never "won" an argument.

and asking to provide references is not a gotcha moment.

its common knowledge and required if you expect to be taken seriously

Hey now…I’m pretty sure you’ve become more conservative over the last 10 yrs we’ve known each other. I’d like to think I’m partly responsible

 

[SSdoc33]

Hey now…I’m pretty sure you’ve become more conservative over the last 10 yrs we’ve known each other. I’d like to think I’m partly responsible

i actually have, and when i really think about why that it, it just has to be the influence of clubdeac.

 

[lobelsteve]

i actually have, and when i really think about why that it, it just has to be the influence of clubdeac.

Or it’s cause you know how hard you had to work to make this life work for you and your family.

 

[Agast]

It’s because he’s turning into a grouchy old curmudgeon

 

[hyperalgesia]

I think he just realized he doesn't quite fit in with other Democrats. Almost, but not quite...

904K views · 6.9K reactions | They are all weirdos | Grass Roots Latinos

They are all weirdos.

www.facebook.com

 

[Ducttape]

@kstarm @Ducttape @SSdoc33

It’s the bleeding heart liberals that have and will continue to run this country into the ground in debt. Do you guys hear yourselves? You think everyone “deserves” a handout and the bar is apparently so low everyone qualifies. No one deserves anything in this world especially on the backs of our future generations. Let’s cut the fat and start making sure those that need it and deserve it get the help they need. Everyone else needs to be cut off, and sadly that’s a lot despite what you think duct

no president in recent times has decreased the federal debt. in terms of what presidents can do, they can work on the federal deficit with their budgets.

besides the WW1/WW2 presidents, the presidents with the highest % increase in debt are Reagan, GW Bush, Obama, HW Bush, Trump, Nixon, then Biden, in that order. 5 of those are Republicans, only 2 Democrats.

i should note that both Dems took over during a time of significant financial crisis.

U.S. Debt by President: Dollar and Percentage

The national debt has increased under most U.S. presidents. Here is how much each president's time in office added to the U.S. debt by percentage and dollar amounts.

www.investopedia.com

the only president that reduced the deficit in the last 50 years was Clinton. Not bush or bush. Not Reagan. Not Trump. and yes, not biden.

If memory serves, Clinton was a democrat.



it is very shortsighted to say that people who are at lowest margins should be cut off. Why are the rich getting much richer? If the rich paid their share, then all these social programs would be more than adequately funded.


progressives are not saying the people deserve a handout. They are saying that there is much more enough money in the economy that everyone can have a bare minimum and giving the ultra rich even more is antithetical.

hey if it’s good enough for the first black female president of Harvard, it’s good enough for me

you need to hold yourself to the highest standard and that includes links.

fwiw, it is a political commentary written by George Will, a well known libertarian, that posted it on Washington Post on April 4, 2025.

 

[clubdeac]

no president in recent times has decreased the federal debt. in terms of what presidents can do, they can work on the federal deficit with their budgets.

besides the WW1/WW2 presidents, the presidents with the highest % increase in debt are Reagan, GW Bush, Obama, HW Bush, Trump, Nixon, then Biden, in that order. 5 of those are Republicans, only 2 Democrats.

i should note that both Dems took over during a time of significant financial crisis.

U.S. Debt by President: Dollar and Percentage

The national debt has increased under most U.S. presidents. Here is how much each president's time in office added to the U.S. debt by percentage and dollar amounts.

www.investopedia.com

the only president that reduced the deficit in the last 50 years was Clinton. Not bush or bush. Not Reagan. Not Trump. and yes, not biden.

If memory serves, Clinton was a democrat.



it is very shortsighted to say that people who are at lowest margins should be cut off. Why are the rich getting much richer? If the rich paid their share, then all these social programs would be more than adequately funded.


progressives are not saying the people deserve a handout. They are saying that there is much more enough money in the economy that everyone can have a bare minimum and giving the ultra rich even more is antithetical.

you need to hold yourself to the highest standard and that includes links.

fwiw, it is a political commentary written by George Will, a well known libertarian, that posted it on Washington Post on April 4, 2025.

Duct, if you confiscated all the wealth from the top 100 wealthiest people in our country, you’d have enough money to run the country for a week. Get real, stealing more money from the very people that keep our economy going is a farce.

Curious, what do you think your fair share is? What about someone who makes 5 million? And why is it fair that 50% of the country essential pay no taxes?

 

[hyperalgesia]

Duct, if you confiscated all the wealth from the top 100 wealthiest people in our country, you’d have enough money to run the country for a week. Get real, stealing more money from the very people that keep our economy going is a farce.

Curious, what do you think your fair share is? What about someone who makes 5 million? And why is it fair that 50% of the country essential pay no taxes?

When arguing with liberals, I think it's best to imagine you're arguing with your irrational sister, mom, or girlfriend. The only difference now is many of them are grown men and have Google.

They are driven by emotion. Whether the deficit is negative or 10x what it is today, arguing to "tax the rich" gives them a sense of self righteousness.

Just like with moms, sisters, and girlfriends, don't try to explain they are being irrational. Just say, "You're right, honey".

Plenty of exceptions and they know exactly who they are...

 

[Ducttape]

the medicare and medicaid cuts to the big beautiful bill would amount to $600 billion.

the top 1% of the US owns $34.1 trillion, or 34100 billion dollars. a <1% increase in taxes to the top 1% of the US would more than cover all the cuts in the big beautiful bill.

the farce is stealing money from the poorest 80% of the US to allow the top 1% to sequester wealth.


that 50% of the country do pay taxes.
property tax (when they can afford to own).
taxes on groceries in certain states (tenn, s dakota, oklahoma, missouri, mississippi, maryland, kansas, illinois, idaho, hawaii, akansas, alabama).
payroll tax
gas tax
the proportion of these taxes on their income far exceed those of the 1%.

 

[Ducttape]

When arguing with liberals, I think it's best to imagine you're arguing with your irrational sister, mom, or girlfriend. The only difference now is many of them are grown men and have Google.

They are driven by emotion. Whether the deficit is negative or 10x what it is today, arguing to "tax the rich" gives them a sense of self righteousness.

Just like with moms, sisters, and girlfriends, don't try to explain they are being irrational. Just say, "You're right, honey".

Plenty of exceptions and they know exactly who they are...

modus operandi of the conservative right.

if they cant produce a meaningful counterargument, then impugn the reputation of the other side.

sadly, par for the course.

 

[ghost800]

When arguing with liberals, I think it's best to imagine you're arguing with your irrational sister, mom, or girlfriend. The only difference now is many of them are grown men and have Google.

They are driven by emotion. Whether the deficit is negative or 10x what it is today, arguing to "tax the rich" gives them a sense of self righteousness.

Just like with moms, sisters, and girlfriends, don't try to explain they are being irrational. Just say, "You're right, honey".

Plenty of exceptions and they know exactly who they are...

Wow thats exactly how I feel when arguing with republicans. Funny how that is.

 

[Agast]

Just like with moms, sisters, and girlfriends, don't try to explain they are being irrational. Just say, "You're right, honey".

I’m astounded that you’re not married 😂

 

[clubdeac]

the medicare and medicaid cuts to the big beautiful bill would amount to $600 billion.

the top 1% of the US owns $34.1 trillion, or 34100 billion dollars. a <1% increase in taxes to the top 1% of the US would more than cover all the cuts in the big beautiful bill.

the farce is stealing money from the poorest 80% of the US to allow the top 1% to sequester wealth.


that 50% of the country do pay taxes.
property tax (when they can afford to own).
taxes on groceries in certain states (tenn, s dakota, oklahoma, missouri, mississippi, maryland, kansas, illinois, idaho, hawaii, akansas, alabama).
payroll tax
gas tax
the proportion of these taxes on their income far exceed those of the 1%.

I have to disagree. Also what would you consider your fair share? 38% 50% 70%? give me a number and then the rational. What if you make 5 million? What then?

Also here’s a little more info from my friend who is a retired economics professor

“All 801 U.S. billionaires could fund most of the federal government for a year (with $6.2 trillion).... but only if their entire net worth was confiscated.

Someone, I can't remember who, said we would need a 40% across-the-board tax increase to fully fund current spending.

However the top 5% already pay 66% of all federal income taxes.”

Spending is the problem. Not taxes.

 

[ED50]

If spending is the problem then why is the Republican lead house, Senate, and presidency adding 2T to the debt and not simply fixing the issue? Now is the time right? All the power is in the Republican's hands. Who cares about the Democrats, they currently don't control squat.

 

[clubdeac]

If spending is the problem then why is the Republican lead house, Senate, and presidency adding 2T to the debt and not simply fixing the issue? Now is the time right? All the power is in the Republican's hands. Who cares about the Democrats, they currently don't control squat.

I agree, I’m not a huge fan of the bill but it’s still far less than what Biden added during his term. And if Kamala and the Dems were running the country it wouldn’t be any better. There would be even more spending countered by higher taxes

 

[Ducttape]

I have to disagree. Also what would you consider your fair share? 38% 50% 70%? give me a number and then the rational. What if you make 5 million? What then?

Also here’s a little more info from my friend who is a retired economics professor

“All 801 U.S. billionaires could fund most of the federal government for a year (with $6.2 trillion).... but only if their entire net worth was confiscated.

Someone, I can't remember who, said we would need a 40% across-the-board tax increase to fully fund current spending.

However the top 5% already pay 66% of all federal income taxes.”

Spending is the problem. Not taxes.

and who said that the billionaires would fund the entire federal government? that is an exaggeration to protect the rich. and btw, while the top 885 billionaires have $7 trillion now, the 1% now have 34 trillion. 1.3 million households. or just focus on the top 0.5%, which is essentially those households over $20 million net worth.

the rich 1% made an extra 6.5 trillion dollars profit last year. if they funded 1/6th of that amount, then they would balance the budget.

---

fwiw, previously, the federal income tax on the wealthy was 70% before the reagan tax cuts. it is now 37% with too many tax loopholes.

if one closed the medicare loophole for the rich and that would bring in $250 billion over 10 years

close the carried interest tax loophole - (private equity and hedge fund owners get earned income taxed as capital gains rather than earned income) would bring in $14 billion per year.


in 2019, 20% of large corporations paid $0.00 in taxes.


yet trump plans on eliminating those branches of the IRS meant to enforce these laws, because it benefits himself and his oligarchy.


---
2T is his first year of this term.

you do realize that both biden and trump increased the federal debt by roughly 7T, right?

2T this year, 3T next, and then who knows. trumps deficit during his first term started at 670 billion (with Obama), then even though the economy was good went to 1.2 T, 1.2T then 4T. if history repeats itself, and it commonly does, then the sky's the limit.

(as a friendly reminder, please consider how many times did trump file for bankruptcy)

 

[lobelsteve]

the medicare and medicaid cuts to the big beautiful bill would amount to $600 billion.

the top 1% of the US owns $34.1 trillion, or 34100 billion dollars. a <1% increase in taxes to the top 1% of the US would more than cover all the cuts in the big beautiful bill.

the farce is stealing money from the poorest 80% of the US to allow the top 1% to sequester wealth.


that 50% of the country do pay taxes.
property tax (when they can afford to own).
taxes on groceries in certain states (tenn, s dakota, oklahoma, missouri, mississippi, maryland, kansas, illinois, idaho, hawaii, akansas, alabama).
payroll tax
gas tax
the proportion of these taxes on their income far exceed those of the 1%.

MANY GOOD IDEAS HERE.
property tax can go down a few %, or raise the assessed values so lower valued properties have less tax burden.

taxes on groceries, payroll, gas tax: all need to go away

Taxes on the rich: Eliminate the hidden money by including net worth as personal plus owner/trust. Then increase rate on those with net worth over 5 million. Eliminate tax loopholes and shelters. Get rid of deductions. Simplify tax code so a HS kid could understand it. Force the government to tell us what we owe, not that we have to do calculations and then guess.

 

[hyperalgesia]

What's the NUMBER ONE reason you want to levy more taxes on people you consider to be "rich".

1. It will help to balance the budget and eventually benefit the economy. (this selection indicates you are thinking rationally)
2. Fairness, and I recognize this is an emotional position (this indicates you are emotional and self-aware)
3. Fairness and think I'm not emotional (this indicates you are emotional and have no self-awareness)
4. Other (this indicates you are emotional and have no self-awareness)
5. No response (this indicates you are emotional and have no self-awareness)

 

[Ducttape]

that is a knee jerk conservative meme.

striving for equity is not emotional based. it is pragmatic. and social justice, if anything, shows social maturity.



fwiw, trump is not fair and is emotional.

 

[Ducttape]

to answer your question - 4. other.

if you want to say that i am emotional and not self aware, then go float your wee little boat...

the reason to tax rich people more than currently is to provide services for underserved communities. to prevent unnecessary death and disability (which affects us all economically), to prevent riots and uprisings by the lowest class (which affects us economically, socially and politically), and to follow the teachings of all the great prophets to help those of us who need help.

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

 

[ED50]

Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths

As Washington prepares for a 2025 dominated by tax policy—led by the issue of whether to extend the expiring 2017 tax cuts—the debate is likely to bring a fresh recirculation of the most common myths about the federal tax system from both the left and the right. On the one hand, the false...

manhattan.institute

This is from a tax strategist in a Republican think tank. It's really a good read if you want a straight answer on the lies both parties tell their bases. I've listened to this person on a few podcasts, really engaging.


Myth 1: “Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves”Myth 2: “Tax Cuts Will Starve the Beast”Myth 3: “The Middle Class Pays Higher Tax Rates than the Rich”Myth 4: “Those Old 91% Tax Rates Raised Large Tax Revenues”Myth 5: “Europe’s Higher Tax Revenues Derive from Aggressively Taxing the Rich”Myth 6: “ ‘Tax Cuts for the Rich’ Drive Soaring Budget Deficits”Myth 7: “Taxing Millionaires and Corporations Can Eliminate the Deficit”Myth 8: “Most of the 2017 Tax Cuts Went to Corporations and the Wealthy”Myth 9: “Repealing All Post-1980 Tax Cuts Provides Painless Deficit Reduction”Myth 10: “America’s Corporate Taxes Are Far Below International Standards”

 

[hyperalgesia]

Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths

As Washington prepares for a 2025 dominated by tax policy—led by the issue of whether to extend the expiring 2017 tax cuts—the debate is likely to bring a fresh recirculation of the most common myths about the federal tax system from both the left and the right. On the one hand, the false...

manhattan.institute

This is from a tax strategist in a Republican think tank. It's really a good read if you want a straight answer on the lies both parties tell their bases. I've listened to this person on a few podcasts, really engaging.


Myth 1: “Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves”Myth 2: “Tax Cuts Will Starve the Beast”Myth 3: “The Middle Class Pays Higher Tax Rates than the Rich”Myth 4: “Those Old 91% Tax Rates Raised Large Tax Revenues”Myth 5: “Europe’s Higher Tax Revenues Derive from Aggressively Taxing the Rich”Myth 6: “ ‘Tax Cuts for the Rich’ Drive Soaring Budget Deficits”Myth 7: “Taxing Millionaires and Corporations Can Eliminate the Deficit”Myth 8: “Most of the 2017 Tax Cuts Went to Corporations and the Wealthy”Myth 9: “Repealing All Post-1980 Tax Cuts Provides Painless Deficit Reduction”Myth 10: “America’s Corporate Taxes Are Far Below International Standards”

I would have no objection to a bipartisan bill that:
1. Maintains low corporate tax rate.
2. Ends ALL personal tax deductions without any exceptions.
3. Ends ALL tax loopholes.
4. Allows tax rates on higher brackets to return to prior, higher levels.
5. Balances the budget.

 

[SSdoc33]

I’m astounded that you’re not married 😂

I’m not

 

[clubdeac]

to answer your question - 4. other.

if you want to say that i am emotional and not self aware, then go float your wee little boat...

the reason to tax rich people more than currently is to provide services for underserved communities. to prevent unnecessary death and disability (which affects us all economically), to prevent riots and uprisings by the lowest class (which affects us economically, socially and politically), and to follow the teachings of all the great prophets to help those of us who need help.

Ha! You are so twisted. So all the great prophets encouraged compulsory giving through government taxation, particularly of others. Yeah that’s exactly what Jesus taught. And in light of what the government wastes money on, I personally do a lot more good for the poor with my personal annual giving

 

[clubdeac]

MANY GOOD IDEAS HERE.
property tax can go down a few %, or raise the assessed values so lower valued properties have less tax burden.

taxes on groceries, payroll, gas tax: all need to go away

Taxes on the rich: Eliminate the hidden money by including net worth as personal plus owner/trust. Then increase rate on those with net worth over 5 million. Eliminate tax loopholes and shelters. Get rid of deductions. Simplify tax code so a HS kid could understand it. Force the government to tell us what we owe, not that we have to do calculations and then guess.

And change our income tax to a flat tax. We have one of, if not the most progressive income tax systems in the entire world

 

[Ducttape]

I would have no objection to a bipartisan bill that:
1. Maintains low corporate tax rate.
2. Ends ALL personal tax deductions without any exceptions.
3. Ends ALL tax loopholes.
4. Allows tax rates on higher brackets to return to return to prior, higher levels.
5. Balances the budget.

your big beautiful bill only will do bullet point 1.



cannot agree with flat tax, flat tax is just a distraction of the rich.

unless the flat tax does not include those under the poverty line and there are no loopholes (which the 1% will never agree with), it means that the poor and middle class would pay more of the overall tax burden and would negatively impact much more than the rich and ultrarich who have significantly more "disposable" income.


the US actually is not in the top 10 of highest tax rates in the world. as a country, the top tax bracket of 37.5% ranks 45th highest amongst all of the countries in the world. japan, finland, netherlands, germany, uk, ireland, spain, china, italy, portugal, denmark, austria, france, sweden, aruba, belgium, israel, slovenia, netherlands all higher.

Highest Taxed Countries 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

(and please dont come on here quoting some study from 2012 by the Mercantus Center, a libertarian think tank paid for by the Koch bros)

 

[clubdeac]

your big beautiful bill only will do bullet point 1.



cannot agree with flat tax, flat tax is just a distraction of the rich.

unless the flat tax does not include those under the poverty line and there are no loopholes (which the 1% will never agree with), it means that the poor and middle class would pay more of the overall tax burden and would negatively impact much more than the rich and ultrarich who have significantly more "disposable" income.


the US actually is not in the top 10 of highest tax rates in the world. as a country, the top tax bracket of 37.5% ranks 45th highest amongst all of the countries in the world. japan, finland, netherlands, germany, uk, ireland, spain, china, italy, portugal, denmark, austria, france, sweden, aruba, belgium, israel, slovenia, netherlands all higher.

Highest Taxed Countries 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

(and please dont come on here quoting some study from 2012 by the Mercantus Center, a libertarian think tank paid for by the Koch bros)

Most other countries however also tax the bottom 50%. Here in America the bottom 50% pay 3% of all taxes. I have a hard time seeing how that’s fair and equitable

 

[clubdeac]

your big beautiful bill only will do bullet point 1.



cannot agree with flat tax, flat tax is just a distraction of the rich.

unless the flat tax does not include those under the poverty line and there are no loopholes (which the 1% will never agree with), it means that the poor and middle class would pay more of the overall tax burden and would negatively impact much more than the rich and ultrarich who have significantly more "disposable" income.


the US actually is not in the top 10 of highest tax rates in the world. as a country, the top tax bracket of 37.5% ranks 45th highest amongst all of the countries in the world. japan, finland, netherlands, germany, uk, ireland, spain, china, italy, portugal, denmark, austria, france, sweden, aruba, belgium, israel, slovenia, netherlands all higher.

Highest Taxed Countries 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

(and please dont come on here quoting some study from 2012 by the Mercantus Center, a libertarian think tank paid for by the Koch bros)

You’re making a false comparison. You have to include state income taxes if you’re going to compare to Europe

For a more accurate comparison of income taxes, the average combined state and federal top income tax rate for the 50 US states and the District of Columbia lies at 42.14 percent as of January 2025, with rates ranging from 37 percent in states without a state income tax to 50.3 percent in California.

And I didn’t even include social security and Medicare and Medicaid taxes added into the US income tax

 

[clubdeac]

your big beautiful bill only will do bullet point 1.



cannot agree with flat tax, flat tax is just a distraction of the rich.

unless the flat tax does not include those under the poverty line and there are no loopholes (which the 1% will never agree with), it means that the poor and middle class would pay more of the overall tax burden and would negatively impact much more than the rich and ultrarich who have significantly more "disposable" income.


the US actually is not in the top 10 of highest tax rates in the world. as a country, the top tax bracket of 37.5% ranks 45th highest amongst all of the countries in the world. japan, finland, netherlands, germany, uk, ireland, spain, china, italy, portugal, denmark, austria, france, sweden, aruba, belgium, israel, slovenia, netherlands all higher.

Highest Taxed Countries 2025

Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.

worldpopulationreview.com

(and please dont come on here quoting some study from 2012 by the Mercantus Center, a libertarian think tank paid for by the Koch bros)

This chart summarizes the fairness of our tax system. How much would you propose we increase the already disproportionately high rates for the top tiers?

And please read what ED50 posted. It shows that most of your posts regarding taxes are just plain false. You should find this very educational

Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths

As Washington prepares for a 2025 dominated by tax policy—led by the issue of whether to extend the expiring 2017 tax cuts—the debate is likely to bring a fresh recirculation of the most common myths about the federal tax system from both the left and the right. On the one hand, the false...

manhattan.institute

 

[clubdeac]

Right, making several hundred thousand dollars a year. I imagine if you offered even half that amount of money to people on medicaid you would find many, many willing to work.

I see your point but this is non sequitur and not grounded in economic reality. Not everyone deserves to be paid extremely well regardless of job description or difficulty, yrs of education, sacrifice, or incurred debt.

You’re essentially arguing that one deserves a $250k salary regardless of job description, and if not given, then one is “entitled” to a government handout. I disagree with this approach

 

[bubaghanush]

This chart summarizes the fairness of our tax system. How much would you propose we increase the already disproportionately high rates for the top tiers?

View attachment 405089

And please read what ED50 posted. It shows that most of your posts regarding taxes are just plain false. You should find this very educational

Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths

As Washington prepares for a 2025 dominated by tax policy—led by the issue of whether to extend the expiring 2017 tax cuts—the debate is likely to bring a fresh recirculation of the most common myths about the federal tax system from both the left and the right. On the one hand, the false...

manhattan.institute

I'm curious what you think a fair system looks like? I think you mentioned flat tax. Is that right? What about safety net? No Medicaid, no food stamps, no disability?

 

[hyperalgesia]

I'm curious what you think a fair system looks like? I think you mentioned flat tax. Is that right? What about safety net? No Medicaid, no food stamps, no disability?

You're not asking me but I've never seen compelling evidence that safety nets can't be at the discretion of the community/state level.

The last ridiculous argument I heard was that liberals have such big hearts they simply can't bear the thought of people in Arkansas getting inferior care than that managed by Washington DC.

 

[Ducttape]

Most other countries however also tax the bottom 50%. Here in America the bottom 50% pay 3% of all taxes. I have a hard time seeing how that’s fair and equitable

we do tax the lower 50%. we force them to pay property tax, sales tax, gas tax. these taxes are regressive.

other countries do tax the poor, but the key difference is that the rich pay a more proportional share. 57% in sweden and no loopholes for the rich to avoid.

i think you need to think of our system differently because you focus on the total $ amount and that is only part of the equation.

someone making 10k per year pays no taxes. but they pay, say, $1000 per year on gas, sales, homeowner, etc. that is 10% of their overall spendable money.

someone making 100k per year pays taxes. if they pay the same $1000 per year, it is 1% of their spendable money.

someone making 1,000k per year paying the same $1000 per year is paying 0.001% of their spendable income.

now suppose that same person needs to get car fixed for $100. costs each of them the same amount, but the 10k person gets hit the hardest relative to how much money they have.

This chart summarizes the fairness of our tax system. How much would you propose we increase the already disproportionately high rates for the top tiers?

View attachment 405089

And please read what ED50 posted. It shows that most of your posts regarding taxes are just plain false. You should find this very educational

Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths

As Washington prepares for a 2025 dominated by tax policy—led by the issue of whether to extend the expiring 2017 tax cuts—the debate is likely to bring a fresh recirculation of the most common myths about the federal tax system from both the left and the right. On the one hand, the false...

manhattan.institute

the heritage foundation is one of the most biased organizations out there. i would not recommend using their arguments as basis for a financial system.

but just one comment. the top 1% of american households is 1 out of 100 people. you do know you are comparing1 persons income with that of 99 others, right? you expect that 1 person to pay the same as all 99 others when they have significantly more than other people? that 1 person has 10 times more than the 50 people in the bottom half.

1.3 million americans (the top 1%) are worth financially the same as 180 million americans (the bottom 50).

 

[clubdeac]

I'm curious what you think a fair system looks like? I think you mentioned flat tax. Is that right? What about safety net? No Medicaid, no food stamps, no disability?

Flat tax - yes
Medicaid and SNAP with work requirements if you don’t have kids
Disability if you’re truly disabled

But close the loop holes in these programs so they are truly benefiting those who they were intended to help. I personally know several MAs who make extra money off their SNAP benefits and have several friends and acquaintances who are “actors” in California that receive disability and unemployment even though they are trust fund babies and not actively looking for work other than the occasional extra on a sitcom.

 

[kstarm]

I see your point but this is non sequitur and not grounded in economic reality. Not everyone deserves to be paid extremely well regardless of job description or difficulty, yrs of education, sacrifice, or incurred debt.

You’re essentially arguing that one deserves a $250k salary regardless of job description, and if not given, then one is “entitled” to a government handout. I disagree with this approach

I am not arguing for entitlement programs. In what world would it make sense to give people $250,000 regardless of the job they are in???! Thats ridiculous. I was merely pointing out the basics of human nature; sticks and carrots. Your example of trying to get the lead on everyday despite your neck pain is apples and oranges to what people are getting through entitlement programs. You think somehow your example applies to this topic when it doesn't. There are many good arguments both for and against entitlement programs, some that you have made in this thread. "Because I figured out a way to work for $500,000 and thus everyone else should figure out a way to work for 28,000" is not one of them, that is all I was pointing out.

 

[bubaghanush]

You're not asking me but I've never seen compelling evidence that safety nets can't be at the discretion of the community/state level.

The last ridiculous argument I heard was that liberals have such big hearts they simply can't bear the thought of people in Arkansas getting inferior care than that managed by Washington DC.

So federally funded and mandated, but administered at the local level? Or funding at state/city level as well?

Flat tax - yes
Medicaid and SNAP with work requirements if you don’t have kids
Disability if you’re truly disabled

But close the loop holes in these programs so they are truly benefiting those who they were intended to help. I personally know several MAs who make extra money off their SNAP benefits and have several friends and acquaintances who are “actors” in California that receive disability and unemployment even though they are trust fund babies and not actively looking for work other than the occasional extra on a sitcom.

So a flat tax rate with a safety net sounds reasonable. By default the rich are still paying more than the poor, and the poor are effectively paying a lower rate accounting for safety net benefits. I'd bet this is palatable to many Democrats.

No one likes loopholes. I had a Medicaid patient that had their Uber 1.5 hour roundtrip paid for only to be told no Norco when I saw them. I'm all for closing these and tax loopholes. Any large system people will take advantage. It is difficult to execute in practice.

 

[Ducttape]

flat taxes are not that effective economically. it has been tested in multiple countries.

taxes hurt everyone.

but the flat tax, while proportionally similar for each individual, impacts those who are in the lowest incomes, who have the least reserve, significantly harder. it may seem fair to those who pay more but because of economy of scale, it is not.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Here's where the irrational emotion comes into play... People who are concerned for the safety/food/security of the indigent in their community should naturally want a community safety net, which has NOTHING to do with a flat tax. This safety net could be run by charities or local/state governments. No one objects to this.

When people insist on their childhood vision of "fairness", where jealousy is legitimized and the "rich" are punished at the expense of the country, that's when they cross into emotional territory. Instead of voting, these folks' time is better spent gossiping while playing Mah Jong...

 

[Ducttape]

in which world are the rich punished? not in America. we have never punished the rich.

the last time the rich was punished was in 1917 in Russia, when most of the aristocracy was killed. or France in 1789.



i noticed you completely ignored the fact that my post was countering someone else's claim that flat tax is fair and naturally you had to resort to insults. typical.

the safety net "run" by charities and local/state governments are strained even in our current system. it would be totally inadequate, as it was during the 1900s-1950s.


but then again you want to "make 'merica great again", like it was in the 1930s.

 

[hyperalgesia]

So federally funded and mandated, but administered at the local level? Or funding at state/city level as well?


So a flat tax rate with a safety net sounds reasonable. By default the rich are still paying more than the poor, and the poor are effectively paying a lower rate accounting for safety net benefits. I'd bet this is palatable to many Democrats.

No one likes loopholes. I had a Medicaid patient that had their Uber 1.5 hour roundtrip paid for only to be told no Norco when I saw them. I'm all for closing these and tax loopholes. Any large system people will take advantage. It is difficult to execute in practice.

If liberals could accept a safety net that is managed and financed locally or at the state level, everyone would be happier. Liberals could fight like crazy at their local and state level to expand services and tax the "rich". We would have very different systems in different parts of the country which would be absolutely fine.

 

[clubdeac]

we do tax the lower 50%. we force them to pay property tax, sales tax, gas tax. these taxes are regressive.

other countries do tax the poor, but the key difference is that the rich pay a more proportional share. 57% in sweden and no loopholes for the rich to avoid.

i think you need to think of our system differently because you focus on the total $ amount and that is only part of the equation.

someone making 10k per year pays no taxes. but they pay, say, $1000 per year on gas, sales, homeowner, etc. that is 10% of their overall spendable money.

someone making 100k per year pays taxes. if they pay the same $1000 per year, it is 1% of their spendable money.

someone making 1,000k per year paying the same $1000 per year is paying 0.001% of their spendable income.

now suppose that same person needs to get car fixed for $100. costs each of them the same amount, but the 10k person gets hit the hardest relative to how much money they have.



the heritage foundation is one of the most biased organizations out there. i would not recommend using their arguments as basis for a financial system.

but just one comment. the top 1% of american households is 1 out of 100 people. you do know you are comparing1 persons income with that of 99 others, right? you expect that 1 person to pay the same as all 99 others when they have significantly more than other people? that 1 person has 10 times more than the 50 people in the bottom half.

1.3 million americans (the top 1%) are worth financially the same as 180 million americans (the bottom 50).

I’m talking strictly about income taxes but we can include consumer taxes since you went there.

You say consumer taxes hit lower income citizens harder bc they make up a larger proportion of their income. We however also have a very progressive income tax system. Just as consumer taxes disproportionately affect the lower class, income taxes disproportionately affect the middle and upper class. Again the bottom 50% pay virtually no taxes. In addition to being in a higher tax bracket, the middle and upper class also pay additional Medicare surtax, the NIIT tax, AMT tax as well as other additional taxes. So yes the progressive system we use disproportionately affects the upper 3/5ths of Americans significantly. Again how much more progressive should our system be duct to make you happy? What is the so called fair share you speak of

I am not arguing for entitlement programs. In what world would it make sense to give people $250,000 regardless of the job they are in???! Thats ridiculous. I was merely pointing out the basics of human nature; sticks and carrots. Your example of trying to get the lead on everyday despite your neck pain is apples and oranges to what people are getting through entitlement programs. You think somehow your example applies to this topic when it doesn't. There are many good arguments both for and against entitlement programs, some that you have made in this thread. "Because I figured out a way to work for $500,000 and thus everyone else should figure out a way to work for 28,000" is not one of them, that is all I was pointing out.

I agree that I’m going to be much more incentived to continue to work despite pain due to remuneration. However just bc someone isn’t well compensated which may be due to numerous factors, some of which are under one’s control and some of which aren’t, shouldn’t be a reason to excuse or even incentivize false disability claims unless of course our disability benefits are so high that they disincentivize work in which case benefits should be decreased

 

[SSdoc33]

i dont actually hate the spending bill.

it seems like people are kvetching equally that we are spending too much and that too many things are being cut. so maybe the bill is about right. i personally would like to see more defense cuts, but i do like the tax cuts. we'll see what the final bill looks like but this isnt awful