Dear Willard,
Hola Alan!
Once again your emotions cloud your analysis/comments.
Take a look at today’s CNN articles about the CNN meeting with Harris/Walz.
First, Walz was not a crutch in that meeting. Harris dominated the discussions and Walz took the “back seat”.
And, Walz really didn’t answer the direct questions. He was evasive (as all politicians tend to be).
Second, review the CNN article about checking the facts about what Harris said. Admittedly, in my opinion,she really didn’t add anything new, policy wise.
No Kamala didn't add anything new policy-wise.
But she does have a set of policies. https://en.
On the other hand, Trump doesn't make policy. Nor does the Republican Party - at least nothing that contributes to the common good, the general welfare or a genuinely social contreact. All we humans have to do to insure all manner of goodness is to "get out of the way" and "let the invisible hand of the marketplace work its magic.
Or maybe I should say that Trump doesn't have any politices that he will not reverse or delete tomorrow., just as he finds himself squirming to get out of the abortion hole he's dug for himself.
Third, Harris was very adept at side stepping some issues. She usually said “my values haven’t changed”.
I think that by and large - with the notable exception of fracking - Kamala's values haven't changed.
Here they are (again): https://en.wikipedia.
In so far as you comments on taxing capital gains, the proposals advanced indicate taxpayers with a net worth of $100million (or more)
would be subject to the tax. That’s only one tenth of one percent of taxpayers. But, that still could be substantial. Also, there could be economic problems if the added taxes reduce investments—fewer improvements or investments in new businesses, fewer new jobs, etc.
One way or another the United States is not paying its bills because it doesn't take in enough tax revenue. So, how we gonna do it.
Kamala's plan to tax unrealized capital gains looks both smart and significant to me. (The billionaire minimum tax also looks smart and significant, although perhaps easier for the Fat Cats to "loophole."
On the other hand, what does Trump offer but trickle down -- and ungodly tax cuts for the rich?
Take a look at this article:
Who Pays Federal Income Taxes? Latest Federal Income Tax Data (taxfoundation.org)
Once again, it indicates that the wealthy – top 10% of taxpayers pay considerably more than the lower 50%/half of the taxpayers.
Willard, I understand that the ungodly rich pay more than their fair share of INCOME tax.
But the whole notion of income tax is fundamental to the ruse.
Because the ultra rich have run off with a hugely disproportionate amount of WEALTH (which is mostly different from income), it's NOT ABOUT income tax.
It's about taxing ACCUMULATED WEALTH.
Although they may not be paying their “fair share” they do pay considerably more than the lower half. Another article I read provides break points on the taxable income that places people in the various categories. For example, the top 1% on average earn about $682,577. The top 5%-$251,840; the top 10% breakpoint is $169,800, the top 25% - $94,440. The lowest 50% breakpoint is around $46.637.
So, how do we define “wealthy” or “rich”; the top 1%, 5% 10% when we talk about tax increases? As mentioned previously, doubling the tax collections from corporations would add about $500 billion to revenue and reduce the deficit. But, the deficit was around $1.7 trillion in the past. Of course, the politicians really don’t worry about deficits and national debt. Our children, grandchildren will take care of that!!
Meanwhile there’s the proposed child tax credit, tax credit for housing, etc. And, naturally, projected savings from other program cuts and increased corporate and wealthy persons tax increases will balance the budget (if you believe that I have some beach front property in Nebraska that I’m willing to sell to you).
Within the existing model -- and until there's a meaningful WEALTH TAX -- there is no solution to the budget and the debt.
As you might gather, I’m somewhat upset about politicians and their promises to provide opportunities to better the lives of their constituents – IN THE SHORT TERM! I agree with Warren Buffet when he says politicians can only increase the deficit by no more than 5%; if they exceed that amount they will be ineligible for reelection.
The following fact-checked analysis by Warren Buffett - arguably America's most successful pure investment capitalist - bears continual repetition.
If you watch the clip once, watch it again.
Watch it as many times as it takes to make you forward it to people in your email directory.
Fact Checked By Snopes: Warren Buffett Says If Just 800 Other American Companies Paid The Same 21% Tax Rate That His Company "Berkshire Hathaway" Pays, There Would Be No Need For Any Individual American To Pay Any Federal Income Tax Or Any Social Security Tax
Videos Featuring Robert Reich, Richard Wolff, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Paul Krugman, Nick Hanauer And Ben Franklin: How To Understand "The Economy" Without The 1%'s Obfuscatory Avalanche
"1910 Income Tax Promised To Never Shift Burden From Richest 1 - 4%"
Sorry about the rambling. Just had to get it off my chest!
Thanks for rambling.
I do my fair share, and think we'd be better off if more people did.
Que te vaya bien!!
Willard
Here are the two new blog posts I referenced at the beginning of this email.
No comments:
Post a Comment