Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...

[hyperalgesia]

---

Members don't see this ad.

if you’re in an area where there’s stiff competition from hospital employed docs, sure, I can see how it would help. But for me, I’m already as busy as I want to be, so more patients won’t help me, just result in lounger wait times.

I guess probably too much to hope for a minor bump in payment for office procedures...

 

[clubdeac]

the risks that you think billionaires take are very little.

billionaires have multiple tactics to reduce risk.

you think that the average Joe can declare bankruptcy and still be a millionaire/billionaire? (hint, drusso is an average joe)

look at Donald Trump. he declared bankruptcy 6 times. but specifically, it was not him but his companies. he was shielded from losing any real wealth even tho he did so.

but in fact, most billionaires never have to declare bankruptcy because of tax shields and how their money is managed.


and as of this point, there is only a small chunk of business that is going to the government. the top corporate tax rate in the 1980s was 46% and it was in the 50s during the era that trump has stated was great. it is now 21%.


(now i am not including billionaires that go bankrupt because of criminal activity)

I was thinking more about all the small business owners who succeeded and are now rich. Many risked their livelihood to start their businesses. I know many personally. My uncle for one. You or I know nothing about that kind of risk

And yeah if we’re arguing about taxing billionaires, sure let’s over tax the hell out of them. As long as it doesn’t negatively affect us. That’s the thought process right? People always support higher taxes when it doesn’t affect them

I’m fine with over taxing the uber wealthy. According to the data however, I unfortunately don’t think it’ll accomplish what you think it will

And after reading some of the big beautiful bill, it appears that those of us wealthy enough to make over $600k will be paying MORE in taxes which should make those of you on the left very happy. Interestingly the main stream media has failed to mention that

 

[hyperalgesia]

I’m fine with over taxing the uber wealthy. According to the data however, I unfortunately don’t think it’ll accomplish what you think it will

The problem arguing with these guys is the final end goal for them is increasing taxes on the rich. They only use poverty and safety nets as a pretext to get to the final social justice of more taxes on the "rich".

Rational people always get lured into these discussions because we actually DO want to decrease poverty and ensure there is a safety net but the discussion inevitably goes off the rails because that's not really what they're trying to do.

Bracing for ad hominem attacks in 3, 2, 1...

 

[Dr. Ice]

I was thinking more about all the small business owners who succeeded and are now rich. Many risked their livelihood to start their businesses. I know many personally. My uncle for one. You or I know nothing about that kind of risk

And yeah if we’re arguing about taxing billionaires, sure let’s over tax the hell out of them. As long as it doesn’t negatively affect us. That’s the thought process right? People always support higher taxes when it doesn’t affect them

I’m fine with over taxing the uber wealthy. According to the data however, I unfortunately don’t think it’ll accomplish what you think it will

And after reading some of the big beautiful bill, it appears that those of us wealthy enough to make over $600k will be paying MORE in taxes which should make those of you on the left very happy. Interestingly the main stream media has failed to mention that

As with all tax brackets..sux to be making just over 600k to get ****ed by the tax law and also live in a state to have to get prior auth for Medicare epidurals and rfa..getting horse ****ed by both sides of the aisle

My wife is content though 😏

 

[clubdeac]

This guy’s response sums up my take pretty well. This is a good summary of the new provisions as well

“I’m gonna tell you what I ask my very leftist sister and brother in law who sit around all day collecting government aid, have been on Medicaid for 12 years, and have not worked jobs for 12 years (they are 60 and 66 now)— how in the world would you like us to cut your taxes? The response is “but I don’t pay taxes.” That’s right you don’t so nobody CAN lower your taxes. Furthermore, they have around 800k in securities, 401k and a small union pension. Their Medicaid is needs based on their income. Not their assets. They paid their home and acreage off in 2009 On top of their securities holdings.

I’m not going to state what the tax cuts mean for me but it’s a hell of a lot of money. I will use that attractive tax cut and development to open 3 sites of a new business locally. I’ll need to hire between 40-60 people and all full time workers will be offered high quality health insurance with all part time also being eligible for a little more out of pocket. We don’t need to do it— in fact my accountant thinks we are crazy and exclaimed “what the hell are you doing — you will never be able to outlive your wealth?”Why, because I can.

What I do know is that I’ve never been hired by a destitute person. What I can surmise is if we gifted a lump sum to the majority of that 40% of people who pay no income taxes —they’d be flat broke in a year.”

https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/taxes/trump-tax-bill-personal-taxes-319dbceb?st=qxoHEm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

[Ducttape]

No, exactly the opposite (again).

Prioritizing nutrition, free market capitalism, and the dangers of socialism, etc will help people navigate life in America so they are NOT destined for obesity and poverty.

It's totally unacceptable that people spend 12 years of their life, full time in school and they think capitalism is more likely to drive them to poverty than socialism and that rich people are the source of their problems. This education is suitable for students in China and North Korea, where the government absolutely requires people are dependent and subservient to the state. Not here.

I really hope that's on Trump's list.

you choose to ignore the history of the US and the rest of the world before 1940, dont you?

The problem arguing with these guys is the final end goal for them is increasing taxes on the rich. They only use poverty and safety nets as a pretext to get to the final social justice of more taxes on the "rich".

Rational people always get lured into these discussions because we actually DO want to decrease poverty and ensure there is a safety net but the discussion inevitably goes off the rails because that's not really what they're trying to do.

Bracing for ad hominem attacks in 3, 2, 1...

okay, then you figure out how to get rid of the poverty issue,

you give a solution to the issue why americans are distinctly unhappy with wealth discrepancy, how to convince americans they are better off if their tax money is going to coddle the ultra rich, and how them not being able to afford a house or buy groceries is an impetus to giving musk and trump and bezos and soros even more money to buy more yachts.

and we tried trickle down economics already. we are still trying trickle down economics.

 

[Ducttape]

This guy’s response sums up my take pretty well. This is a good summary of the new provisions as well

“I’m gonna tell you what I ask my very leftist sister and brother in law who sit around all day collecting government aid, have been on Medicaid for 12 years, and have not worked jobs for 12 years (they are 60 and 66 now)— how in the world would you like us to cut your taxes? The response is “but I don’t pay taxes.” That’s right you don’t so nobody CAN lower your taxes. Furthermore, they have around 800k in securities, 401k and a small union pension. Their Medicaid is needs based on their income. Not their assets. They paid their home and acreage off in 2009 On top of their securities holdings.

I’m not going to state what the tax cuts mean for me but it’s a hell of a lot of money. I will use that attractive tax cut and development to open 3 sites of a new business locally. I’ll need to hire between 40-60 people and all full time workers will be offered high quality health insurance with all part time also being eligible for a little more out of pocket. We don’t need to do it— in fact my accountant thinks we are crazy and exclaimed “what the hell are you doing — you will never be able to outlive your wealth?”Why, because I can.

What I do know is that I’ve never been hired by a destitute person. What I can surmise is if we gifted a lump sum to the majority of that 40% of people who pay no income taxes —they’d be flat broke in a year.”

https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/taxes/trump-tax-bill-personal-taxes-319dbceb?st=qxoHEm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

you know what the problem is?

he is not the target of tax cuts. he is a lucky bystander.

he thinks but he is not the benefactor.



getting back to taxing the rich - the target of taxes should the businessman that will buy his business after he is successful then run it to the ground until its worth nothing and deduct all of the costs off of his income taxes.

the target of taxes should be those people who never have to work because the interest on their backup accounts- be it stock or gold or just gathering 2% interest in a savings account - far exceed what the average american would earn in 100 lifespans.


as examples of some of the billionaires that do no work for their source of income:

Alice Walton is worth $101 billion. has no role in family business. (though to her credit she is a significant philanthropist)

Miriam Adelsen is worth $32.1 billion. she got her money when her husband died.

Johannes von Baumbach is worth $5.4 billion. he is 19.

Mark Mateschitz is worth $40..6 billion. he worked for 1 year and now is "a shareholder".



the other fact is that we know from multiple instances in the past that tax cuts for the rich not only worsen inequality while they do not help the economy.

 

[clubdeac]

you know what the problem is?

he is not the target of tax cuts. he is a lucky bystander.

he thinks but he is not the benefactor.



getting back to taxing the rich - the target of taxes should the businessman that will buy his business after he is successful then run it to the ground until its worth nothing and deduct all of the costs off of his income taxes.

the target of taxes should be those people who never have to work because the interest on their backup accounts- be it stock or gold or just gathering 2% interest in a savings account - far exceed what the average american would earn in 100 lifespans.


as examples of some of the billionaires that do no work for their source of income:

Alice Walton is worth $101 billion. has no role in family business. (though to her credit she is a significant philanthropist)

Miriam Adelsen is worth $32.1 billion. she got her money when her husband died.

Johannes von Baumbach is worth $5.4 billion. he is 19.

Mark Mateschitz is worth $40..6 billion. he worked for 1 year and now is "a shareholder".



the other fact is that we know from multiple instances in the past that tax cuts for the rich not only worsen inequality while they do not help the economy.

Well I am not aware of any significant ways other than the step up basis that billionaires avoid taxes. Are you aware of specific techniques or is it just a talking point?

And like I’ve said in prior posts, I’m fine with taxing the crap out of billionaires just like you are bc it doesn’t affect us. I just am not sure they are getting the breaks you speak of or if increasing their taxes would do much. Data says otherwise

 

[hyperalgesia]

you choose to ignore the history of the US and the rest of the world before 1940, dont you?



okay, then you figure out how to get rid of the poverty issue,

you give a solution to the issue why americans are distinctly unhappy with wealth discrepancy, how to convince americans they are better off if their tax money is going to coddle the ultra rich, and how them not being able to afford a house or buy groceries is an impetus to giving musk and trump and bezos and soros even more money to buy more yachts.

and we tried trickle down economics already. we are still trying trickle down economics.

You're not hearing anything I'm saying.

You don't care about poverty or lifting people up so stop talking about it.

You care about taking money away from rich people. This is what Communist governments instill in their subjects.

 

[drusso]

You're not hearing anything I'm saying.

You don't care about poverty or lifting people up so stop talking about it.

You care about taking money away from rich people. This is what Communist governments instill in their subjects.

 

[Ducttape]

You're not hearing anything I'm saying.

You don't care about poverty or lifting people up so stop talking about it.

You care about taking money away from rich people. This is what Communist governments instill in their subjects.

you clearly know nothing about me.

 

[Ducttape]

Well I am not aware of any significant ways other than the step up basis that billionaires avoid taxes. Are you aware of specific techniques or is it just a talking point?

And like I’ve said in prior posts, I’m fine with teaching the crap out of billionaires just like you are bc it doesn’t affect us. I just am not sure they are getting the breaks you speak of or if increasing their taxes would do much. Data says otherwise

as an introduction:

Ten Ways Billionaires Avoid Taxes on an Epic Scale

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

www.propublica.org

why do you think that donald trump said, to quote: “I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me,” Trump told Norah O’Donnell in an interview that aired on “CBS This Morning.” “I’ve made a fortune by using debt, and if things don’t work out I renegotiate the debt. I mean, that’s a smart thing, not a stupid thing.”

 

[mdo1738]

you know what the problem is?
as examples of some of the billionaires that do no work for their source of income:

Alice Walton is worth $101 billion. has no role in family business. (though to her credit she is a significant philanthropist)

Miriam Adelsen is worth $32.1 billion. she got her money when her husband died.

Johannes von Baumbach is worth $5.4 billion. he is 19.

Mark Mateschitz is worth $40..6 billion. he worked for 1 year and now is "a shareholder".

I agree that being given money while not doing work is one of the biggest problems we have. Lots of people on benefits that need cut off.

 

[clubdeac]

as an introduction:

Ten Ways Billionaires Avoid Taxes on an Epic Scale

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

www.propublica.org

why do you think that donald trump said, to quote: “I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me,” Trump told Norah O’Donnell in an interview that aired on “CBS This Morning.” “I’ve made a fortune by using debt, and if things don’t work out I renegotiate the debt. I mean, that’s a smart thing, not a stupid thing.”

Interesting read. The tax rate on capital gains and dividends is not an example of an unfair loophole only the wealthy use. I think there were maybe 1 or 2 sketchy loopholes in the entire article. The others were just examples of people following the law as they should. Several were just vague accusations without any clear proof or substantive evidence. And as I’m sure you’re aware, Propublica is a very far left leaning source so likely not credible. Do you have any credible sources?

 

[Ducttape]

so the ends justifies the means, eh?

of course you primarily see that these tactics as legal. they are legal.

these laws were set up so these billionaires would be able to use these "loopholes" to avoid their share of taxes, either through creative means or by buying off lawmakers to make the laws themselves.

you will find few of your conservative talk media pundits publish anything, because they are/are owned by the ultra rich. but here is one from fox news, interestingly (from 2015):

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

It is rumored that some of the wealthiest Americans manage to pay less in taxes than some of their employees. They achieve this by one of two methods: doing their own financial and tax planning or paying someone to do it for them. Simple, isn’t it?

www.foxbusiness.com

The point is that the rich are able to avoid taxes through legal processes. Some mega-rich may use sketchy methods to avoid taxes, and everyone’s definition of sketchy is different. However, most of the mega-rich use superior understanding of the tax laws to take advantage of all of the legal methods available to reduce their taxes.

remember that Congress is made up of the ultra rich.


and here is another article:

How The Rich Use The Buy, Borrow Die Strategy To Avoid Large Tax Bills

"Buy, Borrow, Die" and has become a way for the uber-wealthy, with tax planning experts by their sides, to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their taxes along the way.

www.forbes.com

 

[Ducttape]

I agree that being given money while not doing work is one of the biggest problems we have. Lots of people on benefits that need cut off.

the actual numbers - possibly 14 million. a large portion with musculoskeletal pain, 33% (ie back pain) with average payment of $1581 per month.

are doctors who declare disability part of the problem?



and do you know which states have the highest rate of disability?

the red states (with the exception of Maine).

 

[clubdeac]

so the ends justifies the means, eh?

of course you primarily see that these tactics as legal. they are legal.

these laws were set up so these billionaires would be able to use these "loopholes" to avoid their share of taxes, either through creative means or by buying off lawmakers to make the laws themselves.

you will find few of your conservative talk media pundits publish anything, because they are/are owned by the ultra rich. but here is one from fox news, interestingly (from 2015):

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

It is rumored that some of the wealthiest Americans manage to pay less in taxes than some of their employees. They achieve this by one of two methods: doing their own financial and tax planning or paying someone to do it for them. Simple, isn’t it?

www.foxbusiness.com

remember that Congress is made up of the ultra rich.


and here is another article:

How The Rich Use The Buy, Borrow Die Strategy To Avoid Large Tax Bills

"Buy, Borrow, Die" and has become a way for the uber-wealthy, with tax planning experts by their sides, to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their taxes along the way.

www.forbes.com

Short term capital gains are taxed the same as ordinary income. I’m assuming you would like that for long term capital gains as well? Qualified and non qualified dividends are also taxed differently. You prefer those be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income? And what is your justification for this? They are not ordinary income and money used/ invested to produce that income has already been maximally taxed. In addition, the investor is taking a risk and that money is inaccessible as long as it’s invested. Economically speaking, there is a significant downside that must be balanced by an upside otherwise no one would invest

The more you tax investment, the more you stifle growth or push it over seas. There is no legitimate moral argument to justify what you desire regarding investments

 

[Ducttape]

i would be much more interested in closing loopholes and deductions that are specifically tailored for the rich to reduce paying taxes. capital gains are only one component of tax law that could be changed.

for example, increasing the IRS ability to go after wealthy clients who avoid paying taxes. biden's IRA increased money to IRS, and for 2024 apparently $1.1 billion was obtained from the weatlhiest 1600 americans, up from $38 million. no. none of us are in this group.

IRS tops $1 billion in past-due taxes collected from millionaires; compliance efforts continue involving high-wealth groups, corporations, partnerships | Internal Revenue Service

IR-2024-185, July 11, 2024 — As part of continuing compliance efforts under the Inflation Reduction Act, the Internal Revenue Service today announced the agency has surpassed the $1 billion mark in collections from high-wealth taxpayers with past-due taxes.

www.irs.gov

another change to help would be to remove the social security cap. and do those who are worth billions gain from collecting on social security?


here are some options, including discussion on flat tax proposals.

Are there better ways to tax the rich? | Brookings

New research shows that there are better ways to tax the affluent that can increase revenue while minimizing distortions.

www.brookings.edu

===
here is an article that seems to refute your position that lower capital gains tax improves the economy.

What is the effect of a lower tax rate for capital gains?

taxpolicycenter.org

By reducing the disincentive to invest, a lower capital gains tax rate might encourage more investment, leading to higher economic growth. Many factors determine growth, but the tax rate on capital gains does not appear to be a major factor, as evidenced in figure 1, which shows the top tax rates on long-term capital gains along with real economic growth from 1954 to 2022

Low tax rates on capital gains contribute to many tax shelters that undermine economic efficiency and growth. These shelters employ sophisticated financial techniques to convert ordinary income (such as wages and salaries) to capital gains. For top-bracket taxpayers, tax sheltering can save up to 17 cents per dollar of income sheltered.

and fyi, coming from those who are much more learned than you and i regarding the issue - raising the dividends could actually improve the economy and GDP, not make matters worse economically speaking.

Assessing the Effects of a Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Increase

This brief provides a new analysis of the macroeconomic effects of raising taxes on dividend income and capital gains. Increasing dividend income and capital gains taxes from 20% to 39.6% for households earning over $1 million would raise government revenue by about 5% and GDP by about 1% in the...

aura.american.edu

 

[hyperalgesia]

Short term capital gains are taxed the same as ordinary income. I’m assuming you would like that for long term capital gains as well? Qualified and non qualified dividends are also taxed differently. You prefer those be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income? And what is your justification for this? They are not ordinary income and money used/ invested to produce that income has already been maximally taxed. In addition, the investor is taking a risk and that money is inaccessible as long as it’s invested. Economically speaking, there is a significant downside that must be balanced by an upside otherwise no one would invest

The more you tax investment, the more you stifle growth or push it over seas. There is no legitimate moral argument to justify what you desire regarding investments

One of the reasons Singapore is such an oasis in SE Asia is that there's no capital gains tax. It might not stimulate growth in a closed system but definitely attracts capital and enterprise.

We should strive for economic freedom. Trying to punish rich people is communist and un-American. Like Liz Warren's plan to tax people to oblivion and then, if they try to escape, seize their assets. What a crazy communist!

Index of Economic Freedom: All Country Scores | The Heritage Foundation

Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 31st edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage

www.heritage.org

 

[clubdeac]

i would be much more interested in closing loopholes and deductions that are specifically tailored for the rich to reduce paying taxes. capital gains are only one component of tax law that could be changed.

for example, increasing the IRS ability to go after wealthy clients who avoid paying taxes. biden's IRA increased money to IRS, and for 2024 apparently $1.1 billion was obtained from the weatlhiest 1600 americans, up from $38 million. no. none of us are in this group.

IRS tops $1 billion in past-due taxes collected from millionaires; compliance efforts continue involving high-wealth groups, corporations, partnerships | Internal Revenue Service

IR-2024-185, July 11, 2024 — As part of continuing compliance efforts under the Inflation Reduction Act, the Internal Revenue Service today announced the agency has surpassed the $1 billion mark in collections from high-wealth taxpayers with past-due taxes.

www.irs.gov

another change to help would be to remove the social security cap. and do those who are worth billions gain from collecting on social security?


here are some options, including discussion on flat tax proposals.

Are there better ways to tax the rich? | Brookings

New research shows that there are better ways to tax the affluent that can increase revenue while minimizing distortions.

www.brookings.edu

===
here is an article that seems to refute your position that lower capital gains tax improves the economy.

What is the effect of a lower tax rate for capital gains?

taxpolicycenter.org

and fyi, coming from those who are much more learned than you and i regarding the issue - raising the dividends could actually improve the economy and GDP, not make matters worse economically speaking.

Assessing the Effects of a Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Increase

This brief provides a new analysis of the macroeconomic effects of raising taxes on dividend income and capital gains. Increasing dividend income and capital gains taxes from 20% to 39.6% for households earning over $1 million would raise government revenue by about 5% and GDP by about 1% in the...

aura.american.edu

Sigh, you don’t invest much do you?

Many of these sources are very left leaning and unreliable. In addition these are opinion pieces not objective data sources as they purport.

Unfortunately yrs of evidence shows that lower tax rates for capital gains and dividends offset taxes already paid at the corporate level, spur economic growth, encourage risk taking and entrepreneurship, offset the effects of inflation, prevent “lock-in” (the disincentive to sell assets), and mitigate the tax penalty on savings under the income tax. Again this is money that has already been taxed and these investment opportunities and tax breaks are available to anyone willing to invest. Have you read much of Dave Ramsey? As he says, you don’t need to be a millionaire to invest and save. You just need discipline

 

[Ducttape]

Of course you are not going to see right leaning publications advertising taxing their rich owners.

Years of evidence do not show that reducing taxes improves the economy overall. It does show that as the rich get richer, there is more inequality and as a whole the economy does worse. Taxes went down during Reagan; the economy did poorly during bushes presidency. Taxes went up during Clinton's and the economy boomed.


Singapore has lower taxes overall. What Singapore does not have that the US does are pass throughs, exemptions and loopholes that allow the rich to reduce or avoid a significant portion of taxes. They also have a General Anti-Acoidance Rule and have taxes on luxury items and property. They also change taxes specifically to promote wealth equity unlike the US.

 

[clubdeac]

Of course you are not going to see right leaning publications advertising taxing their rich owners.

Years of evidence do not show that reducing taxes improves the economy overall. It does show that as the rich get richer, there is more inequality and as a whole the economy does worse. Taxes went down during Reagan; the economy did poorly during bushes presidency. Taxes went up during Clinton's and the economy boomed.


Singapore has lower taxes overall. What Singapore does not have that the US does are pass throughs, exemptions and loopholes that allow the rich to reduce or avoid a significant portion of taxes. They also have a General Anti-Acoidance Rule and have taxes on luxury items and property. They also change taxes specifically to promote wealth equity unlike the US.

Poverty and economic inequality over the last 300 yrs has decreased exponentially. What you are proposing can only be achieved through socialism which seems ideal from a theoretical standpoint. Unfortunately real world examples have shown it leads to massive poverty and inequality due to human corruption

 

[SSdoc33]

Poverty and economic inequality over the last 300 yrs has decreased exponentially. What you are proposing can only be achieved through socialism which seems ideal from a theoretical standpoint. Unfortunately real world examples have shown it leads to massive poverty and inequality due to human corruption

300 years? we have only been a country for 250. why not go back to the stone age?

poverty has decreased with innovation and technology, but economic inequality in the states is increasing. you already conceded that point earlier.

socialism/communism is based on how you define it. didnt work too well in stalin's russia, mao's china, or castro's cuba. i dont think anyone is arguing for that.

 

[hyperalgesia]

300 years? we have only been a country for 250. why not go back to the stone age?

poverty has decreased with innovation and technology, but economic inequality in the states is increasing. you already conceded that point earlier.

socialism/communism is based on how you define it. didnt work too well in stalin's russia, mao's china, or castro's cuba. i dont think anyone is arguing for that.

You realize ducttape is a self described "Democratic socialist"?

 

[SSdoc33]

You realize ducttape is a self described "Democratic socialist"?

so are AOC and bernie. they still believe in capitalism, tho....

 

[clubdeac]

300 years? we have only been a country for 250. why not go back to the stone age?

poverty has decreased with innovation and technology, but economic inequality in the states is increasing. you already conceded that point earlier.

socialism/communism is based on how you define it. didnt work too well in stalin's russia, mao's china, or castro's cuba. i dont think anyone is arguing for that.

We could go back 2000yrs and yes income inequality has decreased exponentially over that time period. Compared to back then it’s not even comparable. You must look at things from the 3000 ft view. The left is so myopic in this regard that they’ve lost all common sense. They need perspective and context. In their view, no one is responsible for the consequences of their actions or choices. Poverty is a systemic societal problem that is thrust upon the less fortunate by a series of misfortunes, inequalities, slights and injustices by the wealthy, ruling class. It’s never a result of one’s own actions and that is why they support compulsory government wealth confiscation and subsequent transfer.

Let me share a basic example that is played out repeatedly throughout our country and why increased taxes on the rich is ineffective and unfair

My best friend was the most popular kid in high school. He didn’t study and got Cs and Ds throughout high school and college. After college he went to LA to become a “famous actor.” Over the last 25 yrs he has barely scraped by and only survives bc of help from his wealthy parents. He draws on food stamps and unemployment benefits bw “acting gigs” which means he and many of his friends are on unemployment for over 1/2 the year. He has paid no income taxes in the last 25 yrs. I’ve tried to help him find various other jobs like IT, waiting tables, real estate etc but these never last bc he’s not happy doing them. He has a 3 bedroom condo paid for by his parents that he rents out for additional income. Many of his friends live a similar lifestyle. They have no incentive to work

Again, he has paid no income taxes in the last 25 yrs. How much additional revenue would we generate by just correcting this issue? Fix this problem and then we can maybe start to talk about raising capital gains taxes…

 

[hyperalgesia]

Defunding propaganda will be another huge accomplishment for our country.

A closer look at where Senate Republicans stand on Trump's rescission request

Let’s lay out what is happening and why it matters.

www.pbs.org

 

[SSdoc33]

We could go back 2000yrs and yes income inequality has decreased exponentially over that time period. Compared to back then it’s not even comparable. You must look at things from the 3000 ft view. The left is so myopic in this regard that they’ve lost all common sense. They need perspective and context. In their view, no one is responsible for the consequences of their actions or choices. Poverty is a systemic societal problem that is thrust upon the less fortunate by a series of misfortunes, inequalities, slights and injustices by the wealthy, ruling class. It’s never a result of one’s own actions and that is why they support compulsory government wealth confiscation and subsequent transfer.

Let me share a basic example that is played out repeatedly throughout our country and why increased taxes on the rich is ineffective and unfair

My best friend was the most popular kid in high school. He didn’t study and got Cs and Ds throughout high school and college. After college he went to LA to become a “famous actor.” Over the last 25 yrs he has barely scraped by and only survives bc of help from his wealthy parents. He draws on food stamps and unemployment benefits bw “acting gigs” which means he and many of his friends are on unemployment for over 1/2 the year. He has paid no income taxes in the last 25 yrs. I’ve tried to help him find various other jobs like IT, waiting tables, real estate etc but these never last bc he’s not happy doing them. He has a 3 bedroom condo paid for by his parents that he rents out for additional income. Many of his friends live a similar lifestyle. They have no incentive to work

Again, he has paid no income taxes in the last 25 yrs. How much additional revenue would we generate by just correcting this issue? Fix this problem and then we can maybe start to talk about raising capital gains taxes…

correcting what issue? taxing those who barely make any money? the answer is hardly any additional revenue. it would also disincentivize work even more.

your anecdote is pretty meaningless b/c your friend has a benefactor who basically is his own safety net.

 

[hyperalgesia]

We could go back 2000yrs and yes income inequality has decreased exponentially over that time period. Compared to back then it’s not even comparable. You must look at things from the 3000 ft view. The left is so myopic in this regard that they’ve lost all common sense. They need perspective and context. In their view, no one is responsible for the consequences of their actions or choices. Poverty is a systemic societal problem that is thrust upon the less fortunate by a series of misfortunes, inequalities, slights and injustices by the wealthy, ruling class. It’s never a result of one’s own actions and that is why they support compulsory government wealth confiscation and subsequent transfer.

Let me share a basic example that is played out repeatedly throughout our country and why increased taxes on the rich is ineffective and unfair

My best friend was the most popular kid in high school. He didn’t study and got Cs and Ds throughout high school and college. After college he went to LA to become a “famous actor.” Over the last 25 yrs he has barely scraped by and only survives bc of help from his wealthy parents. He draws on food stamps and unemployment benefits bw “acting gigs” which means he and many of his friends are on unemployment for over 1/2 the year. He has paid no income taxes in the last 25 yrs. I’ve tried to help him find various other jobs like IT, waiting tables, real estate etc but these never last bc he’s not happy doing them. He has a 3 bedroom condo paid for by his parents that he rents out for additional income. Many of his friends live a similar lifestyle. They have no incentive to work

Again, he has paid no income taxes in the last 25 yrs. How much additional revenue would we generate by just correcting this issue? Fix this problem and then we can maybe start to talk about raising capital gains taxes…

Sooo many people like this. Learned dependence. Keep shooting for the dream acting breakthrough while sucking the govt teet. Absolutely no disrespect intended, i would do the same thing.

But no, we shouldn't be supporting this. People need to lower themselves and take whatever job they can get.

 

[clubdeac]

correcting what issue? taxing those who barely make any money? the answer is hardly any additional revenue. it would also disincentivize work even more.

your anecdote is pretty meaningless b/c your friend has a benefactor who basically is his own safety net.

Your response is idiotic and thoughtless. Kinda like debating with a brick wall. Actually worse

 

[clubdeac]

Sooo many people like this. Learned dependence. Keep shooting for the dream acting breakthrough while sucking the govt teet. Absolutely no disrespect intended, i would do the same thing.

But no, we shouldn't be supporting this. People need to lower themselves and take whatever job they can get.

Unfortunately, the left doesn’t understand that. Instead of making these people reap the consequences of their actions they’d rather enable them through government entitlements so they can continue to be a drain on society. Or they’d rather just hire cheap illegal immigrant labor to do their work. It’s no wonder we’re 33+ trillion in debt with no end in sight.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Unfortunately, the left doesn’t understand that. Instead of making these people reap the consequences of their actions they’d rather enable them through government entitlements so they can continue to be a drain on society. Or they’d rather just hire cheap illegal immigrant labor to do their work. It’s no wonder we’re 33+ trillion in debt with no end in sight.

Totally brainwashed. I'm so happy Trump is going after the core sources of propaganda, like academia and federally funded "news".

 

[hyperalgesia]

Singapore has lower taxes overall. What Singapore does not have that the US does are pass throughs, exemptions and loopholes that allow the rich to reduce or avoid a significant portion of taxes. They also have a General Anti-Acoidance Rule and have taxes on luxury items and property. They also change taxes specifically to promote wealth equity unlike the US.

Singapore has an incredibly robust safety net and cherishes wealth and prosperity.

You would hate it there.

From chatGPT:

Singapore and the United States have significantly different legal, economic, and cultural approaches to wealth equity, which broadly refers to the distribution of wealth across a population and the mechanisms governments use to address inequality. Here's a comparative overview of their laws and policies related to wealth equity:

---

​

Category	Singapore	United States
Income Tax	Progressive, but top marginal rate is 24% (as of 2024)	Progressive, top marginal federal rate is 37%
Capital Gains Tax	No capital gains tax	Yes – up to 20% federally, plus state taxes
Inheritance Tax	None	Yes – federal estate tax (up to 40%), state taxes vary
Wealth Tax	None	None federally (but proposals exist), some local taxes
Property Tax	Low	Varies by state, often a significant burden

Implication: Singapore’s low-tax model favors capital accumulation and wealth preservation, particularly for the wealthy. The U.S. uses taxation more aggressively as a redistributive tool, though still modest compared to Scandinavian models.

 

[Ducttape]

Poverty and economic inequality over the last 300 yrs has decreased exponentially. What you are proposing can only be achieved through socialism which seems ideal from a theoretical standpoint. Unfortunately real world examples have shown it leads to massive poverty and inequality due to human corruption

poverty and economic inequality was worse 300 years ago. revolutions were done because of this.

so you think we should go back to the yesteryears and your Make America Great Again is to go back to the 1600s?

good luck with that.

then again, many on the right are against advances in health such as vaccines and public safety, and "getting infected will make you stronger".

===

about 100 years ago, people realized that economic inequality was bad, so humans made changes and improved the lot of most humans in 1st world countried.

but over the last 50 years, we have backslided.

Singapore has an incredibly robust safety net and cherishes wealth and prosperity.

You would hate it there.

From chatGPT:

Singapore and the United States have significantly different legal, economic, and cultural approaches to wealth equity, which broadly refers to the distribution of wealth across a population and the mechanisms governments use to address inequality. Here's a comparative overview of their laws and policies related to wealth equity:

---

​

Category	Singapore	United States
Income Tax	Progressive, but top marginal rate is 24% (as of 2024)	Progressive, top marginal federal rate is 37%
Capital Gains Tax	No capital gains tax	Yes – up to 20% federally, plus state taxes
Inheritance Tax	None	Yes – federal estate tax (up to 40%), state taxes vary
Wealth Tax	None	None federally (but proposals exist), some local taxes
Property Tax	Low	Varies by state, often a significant burden

Implication: Singapore’s low-tax model favors capital accumulation and wealth preservation, particularly for the wealthy. The U.S. uses taxation more aggressively as a redistributive tool, though still modest compared to Scandinavian models.

statistics show that Singapore's wealth inequality has increased significantly over the past 30 years.

Wealth inequality in Singapore surpasses other APAC nations

Wealth inequality in Singapore has surged by almost 30% from 2008 to 2023, surpassing that of Asia-Pacific neighbours.

sbr.com.sg

and there is increasing talk on making changes to tackle the rising wealth inequality in Singapore.

https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/income-inequality-can-be-solved-with-multi-thronged-social-policies-that-are-prudent-and-on-time

Unfortunately, the left doesn’t understand that. Instead of making these people reap the consequences of their actions they’d rather enable them through government entitlements so they can continue to be a drain on society. Or they’d rather just hire cheap illegal immigrant labor to do their work. It’s no wonder we’re 33+ trillion in debt with no end in sight.

your one example is meaningless. i can tell you 100s of them - because some of these people are the ones that i see every day.

of these people, they were born with almost every societal factor against the potential of getting out of poverty.

for you, they are a drain to society and so in your world view they are the problem.

in my world view, we should encourage everyone to be their best from even before they are born. that means providing basic healthcare, providing base level of food and proper nutrition so that everyone gets a fighting chance at not being in poverty.



being in debt is non-sequitur to this discussion, but id be remiss to not remind you that 7 trillion of that 33 trillion debt was by your leader.

1/5th of the debt (from his first term). in 4 short years.

(not including the anticipated 2-3 trillion from the big beautiful bill)

21%.

 

[clubdeac]

poverty and economic inequality was worse 300 years ago. revolutions were done because of this.

so you think we should go back to the yesteryears and your Make America Great Again is to go back to the 1600s?

good luck with that.

then again, many on the right are against advances in health such as vaccines and public safety, and "getting infected will make you stronger".

===

about 100 years ago, people realized that economic inequality was bad, so humans made changes and improved the lot of most humans in 1st world countried.

but over the last 50 years, we have backslided.


statistics show that Singapore's wealth inequality has increased significantly over the past 30 years.

Wealth inequality in Singapore surpasses other APAC nations

Wealth inequality in Singapore has surged by almost 30% from 2008 to 2023, surpassing that of Asia-Pacific neighbours.

sbr.com.sg

and there is increasing talk on making changes to tackle the rising wealth inequality in Singapore.

https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/income-inequality-can-be-solved-with-multi-thronged-social-policies-that-are-prudent-and-on-time

your one example is meaningless. i can tell you 100s of them - because some of these people are the ones that i see every day.

of these people, they were born with almost every societal factor against the potential of getting out of poverty.

for you, they are a drain to society and so in your world view they are the problem.

in my world view, we should encourage everyone to be their best from even before they are born. that means providing basic healthcare, providing base level of food and proper nutrition so that everyone gets a fighting chance at not being in poverty.



being in debt is non-sequitur to this discussion, but id be remiss to not remind you that 7 trillion of that 33 trillion debt was by your leader.

1/5th of the debt (from his first term). in 4 short years.

(not including the anticipated 2-3 trillion from the big beautiful bill)

21%.

2-3 trillion over 10 yrs. Again I don’t like the BBB. I would’ve wanted significantly more cuts but dems wouldn’t let us

And did you know we could’ve easily provided every homeless person in America a living wage of $60k per year with the current income from taxes had we not wasted billions on fraudulent, wasteful and frankly criminal NGOs funded by the Biden admin. Remember, once Trump won the election, billions were wastefully thrown out the door. It’s very unfortunate. We could take care of everything you and I want helping the poor and needy had the swamp not been so corrupt. It truly is sad and unfortunate

Yer tax dollars at work.

“It truly feels we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge,” the EPA employee told his date in late November last year, as dozens of billions of dollars were rushed out the door without proper due diligence in the final days of the Biden administration.

❝ In its last two working days, the Biden administration’s Energy Department signed off on nearly $42 billion for green energy projects – a sum that 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗟𝗼𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲 (𝗟𝗣𝗢) 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲.

The frenzied activity on Jan. 16 and 17, 2025, capped a spending binge that saw the LPO approve at least $93 billion in current and future disbursements after Vice President Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election in November, according to documents provided by the department to RealClearInvestigations....

The agreements were made despite a warning from the department’s inspector general, urging the loan office to suspend operations in December over concerns that post-election loans 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁.

In just a few months, 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘆, leading to fears that the Biden administration has created multiple Solyndras, the green energy company that went bankrupt after the Obama administration gave it $570 million.❞

#throwingmoneyoutthedoor
#itsyourmoney

Read the whole thing:

Shovel Ready: Despite Warnings, Biden’s Energy Department Disbursed $42 Billion in Its Final Hours

In its last two working days, the Biden administration’s Energy Department signed off on nearly $42 billion for green energy projects – a sum that exceeded the total amount its Loan Progra

preview.realclearinvestigations.com

 

[hyperalgesia]

statistics show that Singapore's wealth inequality has increased significantly over the past 30 years.

Wealth inequality in Singapore surpasses other APAC nations

Wealth inequality in Singapore has surged by almost 30% from 2008 to 2023, surpassing that of Asia-Pacific neighbours.

sbr.com.sg

and there is increasing talk on making changes to tackle the rising wealth inequality in Singapore.

https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/income-inequality-can-be-solved-with-multi-thronged-social-policies-that-are-prudent-and-on-time

Exactly what I've been trying to tell you: the safety net has INCREASED and poverty has DECREASED in Singapore.

You're posting articles that completely refute your entire argument and support my argument.

So, thanks I guess?

 

[bubaghanush]

Singapore is totally different than the US. Sure taxes are lower. They have high quality government-subsided housing where 80%+ of the population lives in. Education system is stronger and more equitable.

 

[Ducttape]

you really have bought the koolaid club.

please show me articles not written by OAN or Newsmax that shows the billions that DOGE apparently saved.

even DOGE itself has posted that they have "saved" $105 billion. lets see. thats 0.003% of the debt.

oh and how much did the big beautiful bill give to ICE? $170 billion? whats bigger, 170 or 93?

wait, never mind. a true trumper will say that of course 93 billion is more than 170 billion...



and hyperalgesia, you are obfuscating your own arguments.

singapore takes an active role in reducing wealth inequality. these are the safety nets you are talking about. and they are funding it actively with progressive taxes and not allowing the loopholes and have very serious penalties for tax evasion that the ultra rich rely on to avoid paying their share of taxes.

there apparently is a cap on deductions of 80k?

there is universal healthcare in singapore. there is mandatory payment of 8-10% of salary for Medisave. people are also required to pay for MediShield Life, and premiums are up to a couple of thousand dollars per year for the elderly.

there are multiple articles online that post about ideas on what to do next to reduce Singaporean wealth inequality.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Singapore is totally different than the US. Sure taxes are lower. They have high quality government-subsided housing where 80%+ of the population lives in. Education system is stronger and more equitable.

Yes, exactly. They have huge income inequality and wealth inequality and an excellent safety net, extremely low poverty and low corruption.

Unlike the US, there aren't a lot of liberals in Singapore upset that income inequality is not fair. There are some fringe outliers like the opinion article that ducttape shared. But for the most part, Singaporeans are happy with their government and system.

Singapore flies in the face of the ridiculous liberal argument that income inequality leads to revolution and a failed state.

 

[cowboydoc]

of these people, they were born with almost every societal factor against the potential of getting out of poverty.

for you, they are a drain to society and so in your world view they are the problem.

in my world view, we should encourage everyone to be their best from even before they are born. that means providing basic healthcare, providing base level of food and proper nutrition so that everyone gets a fighting chance at not being in poverty.

You could get a reasonable number of people behind a progressive tax and social safety net as you describe to give people a fighting chance. Trusting the government to tax for the explicit purpose of redistributing wealth is a completely different level, and where you lose most people. Equalizing opportunity (relatively) is way different than equalizing outcomes. Who could we possibly trust to justly and incorruptibly be our "Department of Robin Hood"?

Your going strawman to destroy a MAGA extremist caricature doesn't seem useful to the topic at hand.

 

[callmeanesthesia]

The new tax bill changes it so that only donations above 0.5% of your AGI are deductible. So, several thousand dollars of lost deductions.

 

[bubaghanush]

Yes, exactly. They have huge income inequality and wealth inequality and an excellent safety net, extremely low poverty and low corruption.

Unlike the US, there aren't a lot of liberals in Singapore upset that income inequality is not fair. There are some fringe outliers like the opinion article that ducttape shared. But for the most part, Singaporeans are happy with their government and system.

Singapore flies in the face of the ridiculous liberal argument that income inequality leads to revolution and a failed state.

Singapore has less income inequality and more social mobility than the US.

 

[cowboydoc]

The new tax bill changes it so that only donations above 0.5% of your AGI are deductible. So, several thousand dollars of lost deductions.

That's an odd parameter. In our realm, I'm not sure who gives at such levels and expects to itemize a relatively token amount. If you want to change the rules and not allow the deduction, ok. This may be a strange compromise or more aimed at the "super rich" where 0.5% is a more significant sum.

 

[hyperalgesia]

The new tax bill changes it so that only donations above 0.5% of your AGI are deductible. So, several thousand dollars of lost deductions.

None of it should be deductible imo.

If they want to raise the threshold gradually, I'm ok with that.

People should donate because they want, not for a tax benefit.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Singapore has less income inequality and more social mobility than the US.

Yes, exactly!

Low top income tax of 24%
No capital gains tax
No inheritance tax
No wealth tax
Low property tax

 

[bubaghanush]

Yes, exactly!

Low top income tax of 24%
No capital gains tax
No inheritance tax
No wealth tax
Low property tax

My point was Singapore is a unique case and a poor comparison to the US. Their location has given them a major advantage as an economic and trading hub. You are cherry picking.

Are you going to advocate for the US to provide 80%of the population subsidized housing? Heavy government control of centrally planned and equitable education system? No tariffs? Limits on personal freedoms? Because I don't think those for your narrative.

Low taxes are a slice of the story of Singapore.

 

[hyperalgesia]

My point was Singapore is a unique case and a poor comparison to the US. Their location has given them a major advantage as an economic and trading hub. You are cherry picking.

Are you going to advocate for the US to provide 80%of the population subsidized housing? Heavy government control of centrally planned and equitable education system? No tariffs? Limits on personal freedoms? Because I don't think those for your narrative.

Low taxes are a slice of the story of Singapore.

You're still missing the point. "Income inequality" and the "wealth gap" have nothing to do with a robust safety net.

Singapore's success in SE Asia, relative to its neighbors in the same region, is due to its ECONOMIC FREEDOM.

If American liberals had their way in Singapore, they would fixate on "income inequality" and perceived unfairness and try to tax it out of existence, just they do here in the US, without any consideration of safety net or social support programs.

Once again, Singapore does NOT make any attempt to redistribute wealth. It doesn't start with the premise that "inequity" is unfair and a primary problem, in and of itself that leads to a failed state.

 

[bubaghanush]

You're still missing the point. "Income inequality" and the "wealth gap" have nothing to do with a robust safety net.

Singapore's success in SE Asia, relative to its neighbors in the same region, is due to its ECONOMIC FREEDOM.

If American liberals had their way in Singapore, they would fixate on "income inequality" and perceived unfairness and try to tax it out of existence, just they do here in the US, without any consideration of safety net or social support programs.

Once again, Singapore does NOT make any attempt to redistribute wealth. It doesn't start with the premise that "inequity" is unfair and a primary problem, in and of itself that leads to a failed state.

I was discussing Singapore as a poor example because many other factors are at play, not just low taxes. Singapore built a safety net from the ground up through heavy government central planning. They didn't lower taxes and the safety net magically appeared.

I could care less about income inequality if there is a reasonable safety net and reasonable debt/budget. Countries that more closely resemble the US and recent US history show that lowering taxes for the wealthy does not improve the safety net or lower the debt.

 

[clubdeac]

you really have bought the koolaid club.

please show me articles not written by OAN or Newsmax that shows the billions that DOGE apparently saved.

even DOGE itself has posted that they have "saved" $105 billion. lets see. thats 0.003% of the debt.

oh and how much did the big beautiful bill give to ICE? $170 billion? whats bigger, 170 or 93?

wait, never mind. a true trumper will say that of course 93 billion is more than 170 billion...



and hyperalgesia, you are obfuscating your own arguments.

singapore takes an active role in reducing wealth inequality. these are the safety nets you are talking about. and they are funding it actively with progressive taxes and not allowing the loopholes and have very serious penalties for tax evasion that the ultra rich rely on to avoid paying their share of taxes.

there apparently is a cap on deductions of 80k?

there is universal healthcare in singapore. there is mandatory payment of 8-10% of salary for Medisave. people are also required to pay for MediShield Life, and premiums are up to a couple of thousand dollars per year for the elderly.

there are multiple articles online that post about ideas on what to do next to reduce Singaporean wealth inequality.

You avoided this. Thoughts? Sounds horribly corrupt and wasteful by your party. Is this what you support?

Shovel Ready: Despite Warnings, Biden’s Energy Department Disbursed $42 Billion in Its Final Hours

In its last two working days, the Biden administration’s Energy Department signed off on nearly $42 billion for green energy projects – a sum that exceeded the total amount its Loan Progra

preview.realclearinvestigations.com

 

[hyperalgesia]

I could care less about income inequality if there is a reasonable safety net and reasonable debt/budget. Countries that more closely resemble the US and recent US history show that lowering taxes for the wealthy does not improve the safety net or lower the debt.

In that case, you differ sharply from ducttape and other liberals. I'm totally with you on this point.

I would just argue that most safety net and social programs should be administered by state governments or delegated by states to counties/cities. If a program is successful and sustainable with minor tweaks like maybe ss, then fine with me to remain federal.

The reason you're not getting what you want is bc you're trying to reconcile your approach with people from Mississippi and Arkansas. It's completely inappropriate and unnecessary.