Harris' tax proposals

[Boilermaker03]

Harris has backed Biden's tax proposals and here are a couple of the major points.

28% Corporate tax
44.6% Capital gains tax
25% Unrealized Capital gains tax

The corporate tax: what this means is that corporations are going to have to either raise their prices, reduce their work force or pay employees less or all three. This is what some here would call corporate greed vs the realities of economics.

The capital gains tax: what this means is that any time someone sells a stock, home, business, etc roughly half the value gained is immediately gone.

The unrealized capital gains tax: what this means is that anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc will be taxed 25% of their value gained WITHOUT SELLING IT. This is the most insane proposal of the 3. That means that a large number of private businesses will instantly struggle to survive because that tax will sap the entirety of their income for a year.

Someone that supports Kamala please tell me why you would vote for this. Something intelligent outside of simply that she isn't the orange man. Someone please tell me you vote for policy and not the person. Explain why this is good policy.

 

[bonefish1]

Harris has backed Biden's tax proposals and here are a couple of the major points.

28% Corporate tax
44.6% Capital gains tax
25% Unrealized Capital gains tax

The corporate tax: what this means is that corporations are going to have to either raise their prices, reduce their work force or pay employees less or all three. This is what some here would call corporate greed vs the realities of economics.

The capital gains tax: what this means is that any time someone sells a stock, half the value gained is immediately gone.

The unrealized capital gains tax: what this means is that anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc will be taxed 25% of their value gained WITHOUT SELLING IT. This is the most insane proposal of the 3. That means that a large number of private businesses will instantly struggle to survive because that tax will sap the entirety of their income for a year.

Someone that supports Kamala please tell me why you would vote for this. Something intelligent outside of simply that she isn't the orange man. Someone please tell me you vote for policy and not the person. Explain why this is good policy.

This is where the phrase "it's the economy stupid" comes from.
The Trump campaign needs to hammer this home at every moment and explain it in clear, simple terms so everyone understands how it impacts them personally.

But, people like BNI love high taxes because he's got this magical belief that dems will simply start writing checks to poor people.

 

[Boilermaker03]

This is where the phrase "it's the economy stupid" comes from.
The Trump campaign needs to hammer this home at every moment and explain it in clear, simple terms so everyone understands how it impacts them personally.

But, people like BNI love high taxes because he's got this magical belief that dems will simply start writing checks to poor people.

Every single one of those items negatively effect the poor the most.

 

[TheGunner]

Harris has backed Biden's tax proposals and here are a couple of the major points.

28% Corporate tax
44.6% Capital gains tax
25% Unrealized Capital gains tax

The corporate tax: what this means is that corporations are going to have to either raise their prices, reduce their work force or pay employees less or all three. This is what some here would call corporate greed vs the realities of economics.

The capital gains tax: what this means is that any time someone sells a stock, half the value gained is immediately gone.

The unrealized capital gains tax: what this means is that anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc will be taxed 25% of their value gained WITHOUT SELLING IT. This is the most insane proposal of the 3. That means that a large number of private businesses will instantly struggle to survive because that tax will sap the entirety of their income for a year.

Someone that supports Kamala please tell me why you would vote for this. Something intelligent outside of simply that she isn't the orange man. Someone please tell me you vote for policy and not the person. Explain why this is good policy.

Here I thought Harris was trying to separate herself from Biden when it comes to the economy…but in reality THEY ARE THE SAME, except for the liberal handout side of the equation. And if they cannot raise taxes, they will still provide the handouts

Thus Democrat/liberal induced inflation

Oops, I mean the (add air quotes here)

“Inflation Reduction Act”. Wink 😉 😉

 

[Riveting]

Every single one of those items negatively effect the poor the most.

True, but price controls will make it up for them.

 

[BleedinGold]

America has to pay off its debt. Cutting costs isn't going to get you there. Printing money isn't going to get you there ... unless you want mega-inflation to go with it.

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of this.

So if you don't like Harris's plan ... tell us the Trump plan that you do like. Hint: he already passed it. Cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy with no expiration and taxes for the rest that were used to shield it have now reached expiration. ... but news flash that doesn't work either -- it just made the deficit worse and thus requires more money printing making inflation worse and kicks the can down the road.

So which is it? Is the Republican party the party of fiscal responsibility or not? That's why I was initially independent. I aligned more with the John Kasich's of the turn-of-the-centry GOP.

But when it comes to fiscal policy the two parties have very little differences. Both want to spend us into oblivion. The only difference is that one party at least wants to come up with a plan to pay for it, while the other just wants to complain about the effects of it (deficit and inflation).

So give me the party that at least is presenting policy up for debate that attempts to cut into the deficit -- even if I don't think that policy is perfect.

 

[tjreese]

Harris has backed Biden's tax proposals and here are a couple of the major points.

28% Corporate tax
44.6% Capital gains tax
25% Unrealized Capital gains tax

The corporate tax: what this means is that corporations are going to have to either raise their prices, reduce their work force or pay employees less or all three. This is what some here would call corporate greed vs the realities of economics.

The capital gains tax: what this means is that any time someone sells a stock, half the value gained is immediately gone.

The unrealized capital gains tax: what this means is that anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc will be taxed 25% of their value gained WITHOUT SELLING IT. This is the most insane proposal of the 3. That means that a large number of private businesses will instantly struggle to survive because that tax will sap the entirety of their income for a year.

Someone that supports Kamala please tell me why you would vote for this. Something intelligent outside of simply that she isn't the orange man. Someone please tell me you vote for policy and not the person. Explain why this is good policy.

last night as I was watching the theatrics of the DNC on Fox, there was a time somewhere through the night where they captured some video and audio of a Dem telling the others...to be nice for 75 days...to just be nice. Obviously or what should be obvious in addition to hiding is the acting of what they want to project to get votes...just be nice for 75 more days!

 

[BoilerJS]

America has to pay off its debt. Cutting costs isn't going to get you there. Printing money isn't going to get you there ... unless you want mega-inflation to go with it.

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of this.

So if you don't like Harris's plan ... tell us the Trump plan that you do like. Hint: he already passed it. Cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy with no expiration and taxes for the rest that were used to shield it have now reached expiration. ... but news flash that doesn't work either -- it just made the deficit worse and thus requires more money printing making inflation worse and kicks the can down the road.

So which is it? Is the Republican party the party of fiscal responsibility or not? That's why I was initially independent. I aligned more with the John Kasich's of the turn-of-the-centry GOP.

But when it comes to fiscal policy the two parties have very little differences. Both want to spend us into oblivion. The only difference is that one party at least wants to come up with a plan to pay for it, while the other just wants to complain about the effects of it (deficit and inflation).

So give me the party that at least is presenting policy up for debate that attempts to cut into the deficit -- even if I don't think that policy is perfect.

But, But Trump tax cuts increased revenue by increasing the GDP.
Lower tax% doesn't mean lower tax revenue.
If it hadn't been for COVID the revenue would have increased more.

Quick EDIT
Before some IDIOT posts but GDP is equal to or higher now than under Trump.
Inflation is up 20%, GDP is up 2%, thus GDP is down 18%.
People are spending more money, everything is good, my God inflation is up 20% of course people are spending more money.

 

[Boilermaker03]

True, but price controls will make it up for them.

No they won't. Price controls will be a disaster too, just like they were for Woodrow Wilson.

 

[Boilermaker03]

America has to pay off its debt. Cutting costs isn't going to get you there. Printing money isn't going to get you there ... unless you want mega-inflation to go with it.

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of this.

No it isn't. Trump already proved that revenue went up when he cut taxes. Spending needs to be curtailed. That is the ONLY way.

So if you don't like Harris's plan ... tell us the Trump plan that you do like. Hint: he already passed it. Cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy with no expiration and taxes for the rest that were used to shield it have now reached expiration. ... but news flash that doesn't work either -- it just made the deficit worse and thus requires more money printing making inflation worse and kicks the can down the road.

No, what made the deficit worse was the ever increasing spending. Yes, in the first year or two deficits will increase because of cuts. The increase in revenue doesn't happen overnight. They do go up though.

The Numbers Are In: Trump’s Tax Cuts Paid Off

The Congressional Budget Office’s May 2022 forecast shows that the government now expects to bring in more tax revenue in the decade following the 2017 “Trump tax cuts” than it had projected prior to the December 2017 passage of tax reform.

www.heritage.org

So which is it? Is the Republican party the party of fiscal responsibility or not? That's why I was initially independent. I aligned more with the John Kasich's of the turn-of-the-centry GOP.

But when it comes to fiscal policy the two parties have very little differences. Both want to spend us into oblivion. The only difference is that one party at least wants to come up with a plan to pay for it, while the other just wants to complain about the effects of it (deficit and inflation).

So give me the party that at least is presenting policy up for debate that attempts to cut into the deficit -- even if I don't think that policy is perfect.

The problem is that tax cuts work but Democrats always come in and subvert them before we're able to see the full benefits. You have to reduce spending and that's never happened under a Democrat.

 

[tjreese]

America has to pay off its debt. Cutting costs isn't going to get you there. Printing money isn't going to get you there ... unless you want mega-inflation to go with it.

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of this.

So if you don't like Harris's plan ... tell us the Trump plan that you do like. Hint: he already passed it. Cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy with no expiration and taxes for the rest that were used to shield it have now reached expiration. ... but news flash that doesn't work either -- it just made the deficit worse and thus requires more money printing making inflation worse and kicks the can down the road.

So which is it? Is the Republican party the party of fiscal responsibility or not? That's why I was initially independent. I aligned more with the John Kasich's of the turn-of-the-centry GOP.

But when it comes to fiscal policy the two parties have very little differences. Both want to spend us into oblivion. The only difference is that one party at least wants to come up with a plan to pay for it, while the other just wants to complain about the effects of it (deficit and inflation).

So give me the party that at least is presenting policy up for debate that attempts to cut into the deficit -- even if I don't think that policy is perfect.

I think you stated something very important in that both parties have spent too much. One party is much more guilty than the other, but both have added to the "debt" over the years...and again that is not the same for both parties (and we also have to temper that with the house, senate and approval by any current president at a given time). It is logically impossible to get debt without over spending.

Whatever revenue is brought in, that can be exceeded, and has, by spending more. Spending is the problem for the debt issue. Hard choices like a business or an individual family must make has to happen, but unlike a family needing to balance a budget, the government is spending your money as they see fit, with any errors not causing them any grief...unlike a family or business owner. The larger the government the larger the spending and buying votes...and the increase in waste in so many levels. Rand Paul provides some of this from time to time. The deficit may be solved much quicker, but it too is a huge problem.

 

[TheGunner]

America has to pay off its debt. Cutting costs isn't going to get you there. Printing money isn't going to get you there ... unless you want mega-inflation to go with it.

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of this.

So if you don't like Harris's plan ... tell us the Trump plan that you do like. Hint: he already passed it. Cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy with no expiration and taxes for the rest that were used to shield it have now reached expiration. ... but news flash that doesn't work either -- it just made the deficit worse and thus requires more money printing making inflation worse and kicks the can down the road.

So which is it? Is the Republican party the party of fiscal responsibility or not? That's why I was initially independent. I aligned more with the John Kasich's of the turn-of-the-centry GOP.

But when it comes to fiscal policy the two parties have very little differences. Both want to spend us into oblivion. The only difference is that one party at least wants to come up with a plan to pay for it, while the other just wants to complain about the effects of it (deficit and inflation).

So give me the party that at least is presenting policy up for debate that attempts to cut into the deficit -- even if I don't think that policy is perfect.

So you are implying that Harris is going to operate at a budget surplus when she raises taxes? I missed that part of her budget proposal. Both budget surplus and $25k handouts to new home buyers. She must really have a big magic wand to pay for her $1.7T handouts.

MSN

 

[bonefish1]

Every single one of those items negatively effect the poor the most.

But the low information voter doesn't understand this. The dems will sugar coat, or completely avoid talking about this because they don't want lazy people to understand it. They just want the lazy people to believe what they say.

 

[bonefish1]

True, but price controls will make it up for them.

"Corporate Greed".
What is that?

 

[bonefish1]

America has to pay off its debt. Cutting costs isn't going to get you there. Printing money isn't going to get you there ... unless you want mega-inflation to go with it.

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of this.

So if you don't like Harris's plan ... tell us the Trump plan that you do like. Hint: he already passed it. Cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy with no expiration and taxes for the rest that were used to shield it have now reached expiration. ... but news flash that doesn't work either -- it just made the deficit worse and thus requires more money printing making inflation worse and kicks the can down the road.

So which is it? Is the Republican party the party of fiscal responsibility or not? That's why I was initially independent. I aligned more with the John Kasich's of the turn-of-the-centry GOP.

But when it comes to fiscal policy the two parties have very little differences. Both want to spend us into oblivion. The only difference is that one party at least wants to come up with a plan to pay for it, while the other just wants to complain about the effects of it (deficit and inflation).

So give me the party that at least is presenting policy up for debate that attempts to cut into the deficit -- even if I don't think that policy is perfect.

Interesting.....
Just some I'm clear. You're happy with paying higher taxes? Why can't same thing be accomplished by cutting expenses and raising revenue through consumer spending (more money in consumers pockets usually results in more consumption).

 

[Boiler Buck]

America has to pay off its debt. Cutting costs isn't going to get you there. Printing money isn't going to get you there ... unless you want mega-inflation to go with it.

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of this.

So if you don't like Harris's plan ... tell us the Trump plan that you do like. Hint: he already passed it. Cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy with no expiration and taxes for the rest that were used to shield it have now reached expiration. ... but news flash that doesn't work either -- it just made the deficit worse and thus requires more money printing making inflation worse and kicks the can down the road.

So which is it? Is the Republican party the party of fiscal responsibility or not? That's why I was initially independent. I aligned more with the John Kasich's of the turn-of-the-centry GOP.

But when it comes to fiscal policy the two parties have very little differences. Both want to spend us into oblivion. The only difference is that one party at least wants to come up with a plan to pay for it, while the other just wants to complain about the effects of it (deficit and inflation).

So give me the party that at least is presenting policy up for debate that attempts to cut into the deficit -- even if I don't think that policy is perfect.

You are correct both parties over spend.

But I am done sipping up the Govt line that costs cannot be cut to handle much of the problems. With 438 agencies & sub-agencies that manage 2200 giveaway programs there is alot of cuts to be made.

To start with cut salaried employees. Cut 90% of these waste canyons of federal mismanagement by eliminaating whole departments and programs. That would be maybe a $1 trillion in cuts a year.....with salaries and give away programs managed by the salaries.

I am approaching 70, and I like most Americans cannot think of a Federal program that I have used. And perhaps when I finally do take Medicare & SS that will be the first. And no matter what I draw, it will NEVER equal what I could have done with the same financial inputs....not close.

 

[TheGunner]

Interesting.....
Just some I'm clear. You're happy with paying higher taxes? Why can't same thing be accomplished by cutting expenses and raising revenue through consumer spending (more money in consumers pockets usually results in more consumption).

I would actually be for paying higher taxes to pay down the debt, but Harris is adding $1.7T in additional handouts and all of that won’t be covered by her tax increases

 

[HUD628]

Harris has backed Biden's tax proposals and here are a couple of the major points.

28% Corporate tax
44.6% Capital gains tax
25% Unrealized Capital gains tax

The corporate tax: what this means is that corporations are going to have to either raise their prices, reduce their work force or pay employees less or all three. This is what some here would call corporate greed vs the realities of economics.

The capital gains tax: what this means is that any time someone sells a stock, half the value gained is immediately gone.

The unrealized capital gains tax: what this means is that anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc will be taxed 25% of their value gained WITHOUT SELLING IT. This is the most insane proposal of the 3. That means that a large number of private businesses will instantly struggle to survive because that tax will sap the entirety of their income for a year.

Someone that supports Kamala please tell me why you would vote for this. Something intelligent outside of simply that she isn't the orange man. Someone please tell me you vote for policy and not the person. Explain why this is good policy.

Why mischaracterize the proposal by saying things like "any time someone sells a stock" and "anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc"?

 

[Riveting]

Why mischaracterize the proposal by saying things like "any time someone sells a stock" and "anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc"?

Right, please clarify what an unrealized capital gains tax means.

It sounds very much like it means a tax on unrealized capital gains.

 

[BleedinGold]

Interesting.....
Just some I'm clear. You're happy with paying higher taxes? Why can't same thing be accomplished by cutting expenses and raising revenue through consumer spending (more money in consumers pockets usually results in more consumption).

Because I'm good at math, and you likely haven't researched to attempt the math. And yes, I'm well into the very top tax bracket, and all of Harris's policies will cost me more tax money. I'll consider that an investment in stopping Trump.

But to answer your question, it's simply not mathematically possible to cut our way out of the deficit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't watch and cut spending; it just means it's not mathematically possible to do so.

Let me put it another way. If you made 100k per year but had a $1,000,000 credit card balance, how many expense items could you cut to pay off that balance, or would your cuts just go to help cover the interest that your income wasn't already keeping up with?

That's the state of American fiscal reality right now. Americans will have to pay for the spending of both parties. That payment is coming from taxes or from inflation, but it is getting paid.

None of this matters to me in this election (or in 2020 or even in 2016), though. I'd vote for a rock before I'd ever vote for Trump.

I haven't voted for the GOP since Kasich in the 2016 primary, and I won't consider them again until after MAGA is dead and buried. I'd rather spend our way to death, and I'll manage my businesses and finances within the game's rules as they are.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

America has to pay off its debt. Cutting costs isn't going to get you there. Printing money isn't going to get you there ... unless you want mega-inflation to go with it.

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of this.

So if you don't like Harris's plan ... tell us the Trump plan that you do like. Hint: he already passed it. Cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy with no expiration and taxes for the rest that were used to shield it have now reached expiration. ... but news flash that doesn't work either -- it just made the deficit worse and thus requires more money printing making inflation worse and kicks the can down the road.

So which is it? Is the Republican party the party of fiscal responsibility or not? That's why I was initially independent. I aligned more with the John Kasich's of the turn-of-the-centry GOP.

But when it comes to fiscal policy the two parties have very little differences. Both want to spend us into oblivion. The only difference is that one party at least wants to come up with a plan to pay for it, while the other just wants to complain about the effects of it (deficit and inflation).

So give me the party that at least is presenting policy up for debate that attempts to cut into the deficit -- even if I don't think that policy is perfect.

HAHA. This isn't about fiscal responsibility. This is about the slow and steady takeover of the American economy by the rancid liberals. If they really wanted to balance budgets they would go after their high paid CEO buddies and their bullshit tax loopholes. The top 10 stocks have a market cap of about 17 Trillion. All corporate pretax profits were 3,808 Billion in the 1st quarter alone.
This is about control of the American public.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

To put that in perspective, the last time we had a balanced budget, corporate pretax profit was at about 800 Billion per quarter.

 

[Riveting]

None of this matters to me in this election (or in 2020 or even in 2016), though. I'd vote for a rock before I'd ever vote for Trump.

In other words, you will vote for Iran appeasement, high inflation, and open borders with all the drug, sex and child trafficking that goes with it - just so you can feel virtuous about yourself?

You don't really mean that, do you?

 

[bonefish1]

Because I'm good at math, and you likely haven't researched to attempt the math. And yes, I'm well into the very top tax bracket, and all of Harris's policies will cost me more tax money. I'll consider that an investment in stopping Trump.

But to answer your question, it's simply not mathematically possible to cut our way out of the deficit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't watch and cut spending; it just means it's not mathematically possible to do so.

Let me put it another way. If you made 100k per year but had a $1,000,000 credit card balance, how many expense items could you cut to pay off that balance, or would your cuts just go to help cover the interest that your income wasn't already keeping up with?

That's the state of American fiscal reality right now. Americans will have to pay for the spending of both parties. That payment is coming from taxes or from inflation, but it is getting paid.

None of this matters to me in this election (or in 2020 or even in 2016), though. I'd vote for a rock before I'd ever vote for Trump.

I haven't voted for the GOP since Kasich in the 2016 primary, and I won't consider them again until after MAGA is dead and buried. I'd rather spend our way to death, and I'll manage my businesses and finances within the game's rules as they are.

I get it. You're a 'never Trumper'. You have trouble separating the person from the policy. You'd cut off your nose (pay higher taxes) to spite your face (elect Trump and benefit from lower taxes).

 

[Boiler Buck]

Because I'm good at math, and you likely haven't researched to attempt the math. And yes, I'm well into the very top tax bracket, and all of Harris's policies will cost me more tax money. I'll consider that an investment in stopping Trump.

Boy, Trump must have stole your cereal or something? Might stop and think about that one.....bordering on mental disorder to think a President of either party is worth losing that much of your finances annually.

Besides the $10,000 in higher prices per year on every family -- you're so good with that, you're also ok with higher taxes on top of that. Must be a guy that likes punishment.

 

[tjreese]

Interesting.....
Just some I'm clear. You're happy with paying higher taxes? Why can't same thing be accomplished by cutting expenses and raising revenue through consumer spending (more money in consumers pockets usually results in more consumption).

as we see the divide agenda of pitting those wealthy not paying enough taxes being promoted, even though they pay most, against those that contribute so very little and get back so little as a mathematical consequence I'm reminded

 

[tjreese]

HAHA. This isn't about fiscal responsibility. This is about the slow and steady takeover of the American economy by the rancid liberals. If they really wanted to balance budgets they would go after their high paid CEO buddies and their bullshit tax loopholes. The top 10 stocks have a market cap of about 17 Trillion. All corporate pretax profits were 3,808 Billion in the 1st quarter alone.
This is about control of the American public.

as are what seems to be ALL their policies. This falls inside the Conflict of Vision book that covers several decades...or a couple of centuries. They know what is best, even though it is obvious they don't...and if by some miracle that their island of knowledge was bigger than yours, mine or another, it still is dwarfed by the sea of the ignorance. or all the things that should be known in their decisions but are not.

 

[TheGunner]

Why mischaracterize the proposal by saying things like "any time someone sells a stock" and "anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc"?

How would you characterize the proposal and who it impacts. Would you just say any time a rich person sells stock?

 

[tjreese]

Harris has backed Biden's tax proposals and here are a couple of the major points.

28% Corporate tax
44.6% Capital gains tax
25% Unrealized Capital gains tax

The corporate tax: what this means is that corporations are going to have to either raise their prices, reduce their work force or pay employees less or all three. This is what some here would call corporate greed vs the realities of economics.

The capital gains tax: what this means is that any time someone sells a stock, half the value gained is immediately gone.

The unrealized capital gains tax: what this means is that anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc will be taxed 25% of their value gained WITHOUT SELLING IT. This is the most insane proposal of the 3. That means that a large number of private businesses will instantly struggle to survive because that tax will sap the entirety of their income for a year.

Someone that supports Kamala please tell me why you would vote for this. Something intelligent outside of simply that she isn't the orange man. Someone please tell me you vote for policy and not the person. Explain why this is good policy.

It is only insane if you wish to preserve freedom and the quality of life we and our ancestors had previously. It makes perfect sense if you want to grow government dependency.

 

[HUD628]

How would you characterize the proposal and who it impacts. Would you just say any time a rich person sells stock?

Yes, centimillionaires to be exact.

 

[SKYDOG]

Because I'm good at math, and you likely haven't researched to attempt the math. And yes, I'm well into the very top tax bracket, and all of Harris's policies will cost me more tax money. I'll consider that an investment in stopping Trump.

But to answer your question, it's simply not mathematically possible to cut our way out of the deficit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't watch and cut spending; it just means it's not mathematically possible to do so.

Let me put it another way. If you made 100k per year but had a $1,000,000 credit card balance, how many expense items could you cut to pay off that balance, or would your cuts just go to help cover the interest that your income wasn't already keeping up with?

That's the state of American fiscal reality right now. Americans will have to pay for the spending of both parties. That payment is coming from taxes or from inflation, but it is getting paid.

None of this matters to me in this election (or in 2020 or even in 2016), though. I'd vote for a rock before I'd ever vote for Trump.

I haven't voted for the GOP since Kasich in the 2016 primary, and I won't consider them again until after MAGA is dead and buried. I'd rather spend our way to death, and I'll manage my businesses and finances within the game's rules as they are.

Your stance is a very selfish one. You don’t seem to care about the open border with Americans dying from fentanyl, and sex trafficking of kids. Who knows what evil people are coming into the country to do harm to Americans. Democrats support crime and criminals as they are soft on this and the victims are the perpetrators. Don’t harm a criminal or you’re going to be charged. You got the big bucks so your insulated from inflation and other things many people are subjected to.

 

[HUD628]

It’s interesting to me that the OP, who responds to just about anything, nor any of the others who just love his posts, have anything to say about the blatant lies in this post. It’s almost like it was propaganda cut and pasted.

 

[Riveting]

It's inter

It’s interesting to me that the OP, who responds to just about anything, nor any of the others who just love his posts, have anything to say about the blatant lies in this post. It’s almost like it was propaganda cut and pasted.

It's interesting to me that you are making this statement after ducking my question to you earlier today asking you to clarify what you meant about an unrealized capital gains tax.

 

[TheGunner]

Yes, centimillionaires to be exact.

I didn’t realize Harris’s proposals for capital gains only impacted centimillionaires….thats a relief. That will save me a ton of cash.

 

[Indy_Rider]

Because I'm good at math, and you likely haven't researched to attempt the math. And yes, I'm well into the very top tax bracket, and all of Harris's policies will cost me more tax money. I'll consider that an investment in stopping Trump.

But to answer your question, it's simply not mathematically possible to cut our way out of the deficit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't watch and cut spending; it just means it's not mathematically possible to do so.

Let me put it another way. If you made 100k per year but had a $1,000,000 credit card balance, how many expense items could you cut to pay off that balance, or would your cuts just go to help cover the interest that your income wasn't already keeping up with?

That's the state of American fiscal reality right now. Americans will have to pay for the spending of both parties. That payment is coming from taxes or from inflation, but it is getting paid.

None of this matters to me in this election (or in 2020 or even in 2016), though. I'd vote for a rock before I'd ever vote for Trump.

I haven't voted for the GOP since Kasich in the 2016 primary, and I won't consider them again until after MAGA is dead and buried. I'd rather spend our way to death, and I'll manage my businesses and finances within the game's rules as they are.

Apparently, you are not as good at math as you think because you would vote for the person the math would tell you that you shouldn't vote for because you don't like the other person's personality despite the policies.

Of course, I doubt you actually know any of them, so you are going by their perceived personality as portrayed by sources you also don't actually know.

And you are missing the most important thing with all of this, once something becomes a policy, it becomes harder to remove the policy that cripples you then it was to institute it. That's why we have such a deficit and as you said, reducing spending doesn't really work because once you have the spending it is almost impossible to get rid of it even if that is what really needs to happen.

 

[TheGunner]

Because I'm good at math, and you likely haven't researched to attempt the math. And yes, I'm well into the very top tax bracket, and all of Harris's policies will cost me more tax money. I'll consider that an investment in stopping Trump.

But to answer your question, it's simply not mathematically possible to cut our way out of the deficit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't watch and cut spending; it just means it's not mathematically possible to do so.

Let me put it another way. If you made 100k per year but had a $1,000,000 credit card balance, how many expense items could you cut to pay off that balance, or would your cuts just go to help cover the interest that your income wasn't already keeping up with?

That's the state of American fiscal reality right now. Americans will have to pay for the spending of both parties. That payment is coming from taxes or from inflation, but it is getting paid.

None of this matters to me in this election (or in 2020 or even in 2016), though. I'd vote for a rock before I'd ever vote for Trump.

I haven't voted for the GOP since Kasich in the 2016 primary, and I won't consider them again until after MAGA is dead and buried. I'd rather spend our way to death, and I'll manage my businesses and finances within the game's rules as they are.

It’s not possible to spend your way out of the deficit either. $25k for new home buyers and $1.7T in New Democrat hand say the deficit will just keep growing under Kamala just like it did for Joe. And both will vote the deficit faster than Trump, even with the pandemic.

But I get it, the Equality pandemic is more important than spending money wisely

 

[tjreese]

It’s not possible to spend your way out of the deficit either. $25k for new home buyers and $1.7T in New Democrat hand say the deficit will just keep growing under Kamala just like it did for Joe. And both will vote the deficit faster than Trump, even with the pandemic.

But I get it, the Equality pandemic is more important than spending money wisely

Living in "Indiana" and for a bit more money than what Soros may buy a voter, I too under the "right" price will not vote for Trump to help @BleedinGold "stop" Trump should he wish to extend his strong desire by compensating me accordingly. I realize this may be more than paying with a pack of cigarettes, but this is a crucial point in the history of this country and now that a legacy of the "old" democrats longer than almost all who pass here will join Trump to address some issues he too sees in the opposition to America while it is still spelled with a "c" instead of a "k" under Comrade Kamala...that elevates the price. I might not be willing to sell my soul in a different state

 

[Boilermaker03]

I would actually be for paying higher taxes to pay down the debt, but Harris is adding $1.7T in additional handouts and all of that won’t be covered by her tax increases

No way I would be willing to pay more in taxes. Why? Because we've already shown that lower taxes bring in more revenue. However, the main reason is because raising taxes is a signal to the uniparty that it's ok to keep spending more.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Why mischaracterize the proposal by saying things like "any time someone sells a stock" and "anyone that owns a home, stock, business etc"?

I didn't say "anytime someone sells a stock". I said anytime someone OWNS a stock, home, etc. All you have to do is own it. The imaginary gains unrealized will be taxed at 25%.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Because I'm good at math, and you likely haven't researched to attempt the math. And yes, I'm well into the very top tax bracket, and all of Harris's policies will cost me more tax money. I'll consider that an investment in stopping Trump.

But to answer your question, it's simply not mathematically possible to cut our way out of the deficit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't watch and cut spending; it just means it's not mathematically possible to do so.

Let me put it another way. If you made 100k per year but had a $1,000,000 credit card balance, how many expense items could you cut to pay off that balance, or would your cuts just go to help cover the interest that your income wasn't already keeping up with?

That's the state of American fiscal reality right now. Americans will have to pay for the spending of both parties. That payment is coming from taxes or from inflation, but it is getting paid.

None of this matters to me in this election (or in 2020 or even in 2016), though. I'd vote for a rock before I'd ever vote for Trump.

I haven't voted for the GOP since Kasich in the 2016 primary, and I won't consider them again until after MAGA is dead and buried. I'd rather spend our way to death, and I'll manage my businesses and finances within the game's rules as they are.

It's not mathematically possible to raise taxes out of a deficit either. Lowering taxes can and did increase revenue because it increases production. However, spending has to cut in major ways.