Fetterman drops a large truth bomb in the Dem toilet

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by jayjaychrome

What does any of this nonsense even mean to the people who whine about it? No one can seem to clearly define the "socialism" that democrats seem to want so badly.

It's incredibly surreal to see so many people so vehemently opposed to socialism but none of them being able to explain what exactly they're against...

I just wish this conversation had more substance.

Ok, I'll play.

But first - what's YOUR definition of socialism and how would YOU answer the question of whether you view it favorably or unfavorably?

Newsflash: Over the years, there have been dozens of very substantive threads and conversations in the Political Forum on this topic.

[Tiny]

We've discussed this before Adav8s28. I far prefer something like Singapore's Central Provident Fund for medical care, including drugs, and Australia's superannuation scheme for retirement. The employee and employer have to pay more into the system. But the programs are far superior to what we've got. Benefits are better. And they don't run up huge entitlement liabilities. Do a site search with username Tiny, or adav8s28, with keyword "provident," "superannuation," or "Ponzi." You might recall that we got into it over whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

See short answers in red text below.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

@Tiny, I will agree with paragraph #1. I think paragraph #2 is over simplified. Questions for you.


1. Do you think FDR was right to implement the Social Security program? No. I far prefer something like the Australia's superannuation scheme, where people have their own retirement accounts. That's better than participating in a Ponzi scheme, i.e. Social Security
2. Do you think Bush43 was right to implement Medicare Part D subsidy? No. He was doubling down on a failed health care system.
3. Do you think Obama was right to implement the ACA (AKA Obamacare)? No. He was doubling down on a failed health care system.


All three of the above are examples of redistributive policies. Does that make the USA socialist? Keep in mind when Bush43 left office Jan. 2009 the DJIA was 7,000 points it is now above 45,000 points. Capitalism is alive and well in the USA. Guys like Larry Ellinson, , Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Bill Gates have more money than they can count. I am okay with that. I just want them to have the same tax rate percentage that I have. The tax rate table says their tax rate percentage is higher. The reality is they are not paying what's in the tax table. Have a nice day.

David Splinter, an economist with Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, came out with a piece recently that's worth a look.

https://www.davidsplinter.com/Toptax.html

Your perception of how much tax the highest income earners pay is clouded by deceptive work by socialist economists, which gets picked up by MSNBC and the like and incorporated into talking points of many progressives. They don't count taxes paid by businesses owned by the wealthy. They include unrealized capital gains in income. And they don't deduct charitable donations from income.

Splinter and his frequent co-author, Gerald Auten, who works for the U.S. Treasury, have published papers where they go back and correct for bogus assumptions made by far left economists like Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez.

Anyway, if you take a look at Figure 2 in the link above, you'll see that the U.S. tax system is sharply progressive. People in the lowest quintile pay all taxes (federal, state, local) at an average rate of about 2%. People in the top 0.1% pay at 45%. People in the top .01% pay at 45% too. But when you take a look at the 400 wealthiest Americans, the rate goes down, to "only" 38%. If you're in the top 1% of income earners, then you indeed might be paying at a higher rate. If you're not, then you're probably paying less.

What's going on? Well a part of it is that the billionaires are giving away a lot of what they make to charitable causes. Taxes plus charitable giving eat up around 59% of the Forbes 400's income. If you add end-of-life giving (bequests to charities spread out over the last 30 years of life), then it goes to 73%.

Now, for Saez, Zucman, and many Progressives, who believe the chief end of man is to serve government, I guess it makes sense to ignore charitable contributions. I on the other hand would a hell of a lot rather people like Bill Gates and Charles Koch hand over money to charitable causes instead of the federal government.

With the estate (aka death) tax, the federal government is going to end up with 40% of whatever the billionaires have left after everything that the government stole from them during their lifetimes anyway.

I'd like to see the billionaires keep more of their money and use it to invest and build businesses, instead of paying it to a federal government that's largely going to flush the money down the toilet.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ok, I'll play.

You should take LustyLad up on that JayJay. He's one of the two top economic minds on eccie.net. I've learned from his posts, not only about the economy but also how to use the word "principle" correctly.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Anybody here have experience living under the oppressive and exploitive form of Sovie socialism?

Anyone from the socialistic years of Norway and Sweden?

Let us all her how wonderful that was please.

There's a reason why Norway, Sweden and the Soviet Union/Russia backed off of socialist policies. It's because they didn't work well.

The top tax rate for individuals in Russia is now 22%. In the PRC (Peoples' Republic of California) it's 54.1%.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Anybody here have experience living under the oppressive and exploitive form of Sovie socialism?

Anyone from the socialistic years of Norway and Sweden?

Let us all her how wonderful that was please.

Why being so razor edge narrow on countries with socialism or programs of such? Alot more places than the ones you name.

I've lived in a place that qualifies and I loved it. One of the best places i've lived.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

There's a reason why Norway, Sweden and the Soviet Union/Russia backed off of socialist policies. It's because they didn't work well.

The top tax rate for individuals in Russia is now 22%. In the PRC (Peoples' Republic of California) it's 54.1%.

I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that California has a top tax rate of 54%?


Here is a list of California’s income tax rates.

https://states.aarp.org/california/state-tax-guide

Income Tax Rate
$0 to $10,756. 1%
$10,756 to $25,499. 2%
$25,499 to $40,245. 4%
$40,245 to $55,866. 6%
$55,866 to $70,606. 8%
$70,606 to $360,659. 9.3%
$360,659 to $432,787. 10.3%
$432,787 to $721,314. 11.3%
$721,314 to $1,000,000. 12.3%

And of course the highest tax rates are only charged on income made above that amount.

So for someone making 70,000 annually in california they would pay
1% of the first 10,000
2% of the next 15,000
4% of the next 15,000
6% of the next 15,000
8% of the next 15,000

Not to mention that state sales taxes are deductible from your federal income tax.


But beyond income taxes the property tax rate in california is lower than in many other states including Texas which has one of the highest property tax rates in the country.

https://smartasset.com/financial-adv...-vs-california
Comparing Property Taxes in Texas vs. California

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that California has a top tax rate of 54%?

It's the top marginal rate - all-in including state, local and federal taxes. It means you only get to keep 46 cents out of every marginal dollar you earn.

When Government starts confiscating 54 cents of every dollar - why work? At that point, the most productive and hard-working wealth creators in our society start saying - fuck it, I'm quitting! I didn’t sign up for forking over more than half of every dollar I earn to these shiftless greedy guvmint fucks who waste every dollar they seize!

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

It's the top marginal rate - all-in including state, local and federal taxes. It means you only get to keep 46 cents out of every marginal dollar you earn.

When Government starts confiscating 54 cents of every dollar - why work? At that point, the most productive and hard-working wealth creators in our society start saying - fuck it, I'm quitting! I didn’t sign up for forking over more than half of every dollar I earn to these shiftless greedy guvmint fucks who waste every dollar they seize!

Actually it doesn’t mean that at all. Only money earned above 750,000 is taxed at the highest rate. Money earned at a lower amount is taxed at a different lower rate.

The average household income in California is 95,000 and according to this tax calculator here: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/incom...or/california/

The taxes come to

Federal taxes
Marginal tax rate. 22%
Effective tax rate 16.79%
Standard Deduction. $0
Federal income tax. $15,953
State taxes
Marginal tax rate. 9.3%
Effective tax rate 5.24%
California state tax $4,976
Gross income. $95,000
Total income tax. -$20,928
After-Tax Income. $74,072

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Anybody here have experience living under the oppressive and exploitive form of Sovie socialism?

Anyone from the socialistic years of Norway and Sweden?

Let us all her how wonderful that was please.

Norway & Sweden are by definition democratic socialists.

socialism by democracy!

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

...After-Tax Income. $74,072

And then what happens?
Compare these two charts:

https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=CA
https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=TX

I happen to live in one where it's below $2.70 in one of those states. Guess it's pretty easy to guess which state it is of the two. Eh Comrade?

What if <gasp>, you want to buy a house?!?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Actually it doesn’t mean that at all. Only money earned above 750,000 is taxed at the highest rate. Money earned at a lower amount is taxed at a different lower rate.

I'll let Tiny break down the 54% for you. In the meantime, you need to look up the meaning of the word "marginal".

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

You should take LustyLad up on that JayJay. He's one of the two top economic minds on eccie.net.

More like top three. Behind you and Texas Contrarian. Doesn't look like JayJay wants to play. Too bad. Still holding out hope that someday an intelligent liberal will pop up in this forum.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by lustylad

More like top three. Behind you and Texas Contrarian...

As the OP of this here discussion: I agree completely! Though I might actually list Tiny as the #3 candidate. But I luv him and everything.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Doesn't look like JayJay wants to play. Too bad. Still holding out hope that someday an intelligent liberal will pop up in this forum.

Luv ya and everything, but that brand of hopium likely belongs in the Comedy Central forum. Juss say'n