Vast majority of Americans support paying for BBB ACT by taxing the wealthy

[VW MAN]

You probably didn't get any granite counter tops. Oh yea, that's passé. I meant quartz.

Believe it or not, I actually do have granite counters in the kitchen - came that way when we got the house 7 years ago. It was originally built during WW2 as housing for ship builders and dock workers. Was renovated 7-8 years before we purchased it. Granite counters, double pane windows, central air, updated electrics and plumbing etc. The issue as to why it was very inexpensive for my area is mainly due to being somewhat removed from the core of the Bay Area (eastern contra costa county) and the fact it is barely 1000 sqft, but no problem for me, wife and kid.

 

[dank69]

I could do a detailed breakdown of spending for such a household, maybe I will later, but first, please answer what is the problem you are trying to solve for here?

You want to redirect a portion of some people's income from their family and to the federal government. Why?

Are the politics beneficial?

The Ds hold the slightest of margins in the House, tied in Senate, and are heading into an off year election where the majority historically loses seats. Ok.

Will this help Ds win in 2022?
How did they win in 2020?

Shifting voting patterns in the suburbs won the WH and Senate.

Ok. These "rich" $250 to 4/500k income earners... Where do they live?
Suburbs.

Generally raising people's taxes is negative towards election chances, and margins are slim, and losing means Bidens agenda dies until a majority can be win back... But ok. Maybe there is another reason?

Budgetary reasons?

How much will be raised off of this portion of the electorate? Is that a deal breaker? We already have significant deficits, this is the dollar that breaks us? No other offsets or revenue sources can be looked at?

Doubt it. Certainly not worth endangering the majority for.


So what then? Fairness? Inequality?
Is it really the upper middle class hoarding the nation's wealth?
Shall we look at data?

First off, these tax proposals go after INCOME, but income doesn't necessarily translate to WEALTH.

A 50 yo middle/sr manager who worked his way up the ladder didn't necessarily start well off. Did they inherit lots of generational wealth? Did they not probably struggle for years paying off student loans to get them into their job? Aren't they busy saving for retirement as to not depend on government support?

Usually yes to all these.
Net worth is probably comfortable, but they are still concerned about being prepared for retirement and care in old age. They may still be caring for elderly parents even.
That's not where all the money is locked up.

You have to focus on wealth. That's what Warren has smartly proposed.

Here's who has all the money, and how is been trending.

It's not your well to do neighbor who has one more garage on his house than you, or affords to pay the fee for the exit row seat on the American airlines flight. He's right at the bottom of that asymptote too.

It's the obscenely rich whom you never meet because they are too rich to live in your universe.

Your neighbor isn't spending billions to build his own personal dick missile to fly Captain Kirk into orbit.

That's where the money is. Democrats shouldn't be so stupid to fall into the middle class warfare trap to score some cheap political points with the base, but lose the election and not address the actual problem.

So really, what are you trying to gain with your proposal?

You are acting like someone who makes $400k is going to get soaked. If you make $410,000, you are going to have to pay an extra $3300 or whatever (guessing at the 33%). People who rake in millions? Yeah, they're going to have to pay.

 

[Bitek]

I live in literally one of the highest cost of living spots on the planet (SF Bay Area). Household income varies a bit but has generally been around 140-155k for the 8-9 years or so and we save on average 25-30k a year on top of our 401k's. A decent percentage (if I had to put a number on it I would say about 35%) of our yearly savings goes towards fun and wants and desires, and the rest goes to investments and retirement and other long term goals. It is done by living smart - Putting 30% down on a house that cost under $400k in a region where well over a million asking is considered normal. Buying used affordable cars (my 2013 Jetta only cost my 11k 4 years ago and was paid off in under a year and I will be driving it for at least another 4 or 5 years if not more). Making other smart choices when it comes to household goods, electronics etc, for example, I think there is little reason to pay $1500 or an Iphone when there are perfectly acceptable phones for $150 or less that are just fine. We travel regularly with at least 1 big trip every 18-24 months or so, mostly US/CA/MX based but have been abroad several times, Europe, Africa, East Asia, although we really do enjoy day trips and weekend get-aways that are mostly local to us. We still have luxuries in our life, an awesome home theater and a doubly awesome stereo, 3 classic cars that are each worth a pretty penny etc.

People who make 250k or more and cant figure out how to live and save money without crying will just get pointed at and laughed loudly at by me, doubly so if they are in low COL areas making big money.

Like my other post, what's the problem you are trying to solve for here?

We can trade stories on how to save money. A rich person could also turn this around asking my a middle income person couldn't also dig a little deeper and fund these things themselves by cutting into other expenses?

Just because someone has marginally more income, why are you creating an automatic assumption their proportion of spend on basics (housing, transportation, food) should not stay consistent?

You are proposing spending should stay flat as a matter of govt tax policy, and if we can tax more we should.

What's missing is again considering where the truly excess wealth is. It's not your neighbor just because he bought a BMW instead of your Jetta. He spent 12% on transportation, you spent 7%. Good for you. Don't care for that as policy.

It's the truly wealthy where spending on essentials is no longer a meaningful portion of their income. That's also where all the growth has been. Older chart, wish I could find one with the 0.1% and 0.01% as it's more dramatic, but that's where the real disparities are.
Not between a 30yo making $80k, and his 50yo boss making $130k.

 

[ondma]

I could do a detailed breakdown of spending for such a household, maybe I will later, but first, please answer what is the problem you are trying to solve for here?

You want to redirect a portion of some people's income from their family and to the federal government. Why?

Are the politics beneficial?

The Ds hold the slightest of margins in the House, tied in Senate, and are heading into an off year election where the majority historically loses seats. Ok.

Will this help Ds win in 2022?
How did they win in 2020?

Shifting voting patterns in the suburbs won the WH and Senate.

Ok. These "rich" $250 to 4/500k income earners... Where do they live?
Suburbs.

Generally raising people's taxes is negative towards election chances, and margins are slim, and losing means Bidens agenda dies until a majority can be win back... But ok. Maybe there is another reason?

Budgetary reasons?

How much will be raised off of this portion of the electorate? Is that a deal breaker? We already have significant deficits, this is the dollar that breaks us? No other offsets or revenue sources can be looked at?

Doubt it. Certainly not worth endangering the majority for.


So what then? Fairness? Inequality?
Is it really the upper middle class hoarding the nation's wealth?
Shall we look at data?

First off, these tax proposals go after INCOME, but income doesn't necessarily translate to WEALTH.

A 50 yo middle/sr manager who worked his way up the ladder didn't necessarily start well off. Did they inherit lots of generational wealth? Did they not probably struggle for years paying off student loans to get them into their job? Aren't they busy saving for retirement as to not depend on government support?

Usually yes to all these.
Net worth is probably comfortable, but they are still concerned about being prepared for retirement and care in old age. They may still be caring for elderly parents even.
That's not where all the money is locked up.

You have to focus on wealth. That's what Warren has smartly proposed.

Here's who has all the money, and how is been trending.

It's not your well to do neighbor who has one more garage on his house than you, or affords to pay the fee for the exit row seat on the American airlines flight. He's right at the bottom of that asymptote too.

It's the obscenely rich whom you never meet because they are too rich to live in your universe.

Your neighbor isn't spending billions to build his own personal dick missile to fly Captain Kirk into orbit.

That's where the money is. Democrats shouldn't be so stupid to fall into the middle class warfare trap to score some cheap political points with the base, but lose the election and not address the actual problem.

So really, what are you trying to gain with your proposal?

Maybe, they want to like, you know, help people? Not to mention that improved infrastructure, better medical care, and lower cost of post secondary education will also benefit those who will pay the higher taxes.

 

[Bitek]

You are acting like someone who makes $400k is going to get soaked. If you make $410,000, you are going to have to pay an extra $3300 or whatever (guessing at the 33%). People who rake in millions? Yeah, they're going to have to pay.

And that does what for whom?
Trivial income from the upper middle, but big lose on the politics.
Why are you drawing the line there?

We suddenly caring about the deficit here?

That's the fix to inequality?

That's worth losing the Senate over?

It's dumb politics.

People can envision themselves getting into upper middle class.. It's attainable for mere mortals. Yet we are lumping them in with Bezos and the Walton's.

 

[Bitek]

I agree with Warren 100% and voted for her in the primaries last year, but her proposal is going nowhere because this country is too regressive to figure that shit out. As far as the tax rates on income over 400K, I still don't see a problem with it. Don't forget a large amount of revenue will come from taxing passive income higher AND the key is corporations paying more. And you ask what that money is for - what is in the Build Back Better bill is not a secret. From Medicare covering dental, vision and hearing for our seniors, to tuition free community college to helping implement cleaner energy to a child tax credit and more, these things are in the bill. That's what the money would go toward. I think helping people get better education and helping seniors have better healthcare are very good things.

And the taxes are a must have to pass the bill?

Have we learned nothing from Republicans?

Why insist on tax increases for these folks rather than bullshit the CBO score and add it to the deficit (or get it from the actual billionaires...)

Getting this bill to pass and surviving 2022 will be hard enough. It makes no sense to do it this way so it's even harder.

 

[woolfe9998]

And that does what for whom?
Trivial income from the upper middle, but big lose on the politics.
Why are you drawing the line there?

We suddenly caring about the deficit here?

That's the fix to inequality?

That's worth losing the Senate over?

It's dumb politics.

People can envision themselves getting into upper middle class.. It's attainable for mere mortals. Yet we are lumping them in with Bezos and the Walton's.

1.8% of wage earners make more than 400K per year. And only some of those oppose raising their taxes. And only some of that subset are normally inclined to vote for democrats. And only some of that subset will flips their vote from D to R over that one issue, as other issues also matter.

This is hardly a "big lose on the politics." It may not be a lose at all. According to polling, it may in fact be a gain, particularly if people see benefits of the legislation.

You're way overstating the point.

 

[dank69]

And that does what for whom?
Trivial income from the upper middle, but big lose on the politics.
Why are you drawing the line there?

We suddenly caring about the deficit here?

That's the fix to inequality?

That's worth losing the Senate over?

It's dumb politics.

People can envision themselves getting into upper middle class.. It's attainable for mere mortals. Yet we are lumping them in with Bezos and the Walton's.

AFAIK Democrats have always actually cared about deficits. Most of their proposals include tax increases to pay for additional spending. That aside, the messaging needs to focus on making sure everyone understands how it works. After that, if Americans go back to the abusive GOP because taxes are raised on income over $400K, we deserve to all fry.

 

[nakedfrog]

AFAIK Democrats have always actually cared about deficits. Most of their proposals include tax increases to pay for additional spending. That aside, the messaging needs to focus on making sure everyone understands how it works. After that, if Americans go back to the abusive GOP because taxes are raised on income over $400K, we deserve to all fry.

They get poor people to bitch and moan about "the death tax"

 

[MrSquished]

And that does what for whom?
Trivial income from the upper middle, but big lose on the politics.
Why are you drawing the line there?

We suddenly caring about the deficit here?

That's the fix to inequality?

That's worth losing the Senate over?

It's dumb politics.

People can envision themselves getting into upper middle class.. It's attainable for mere mortals. Yet we are lumping them in with Bezos and the Walton's.

Why would we lose the Senate when every poll from anywhere says the majority of Americans support taxing the wealthy and corporations, including around 50% of Republicans?

 

[woolfe9998]

AFAIK Democrats have always actually cared about deficits. Most of their proposals include tax increases to pay for additional spending. That aside, the messaging needs to focus on making sure everyone understands how it works. After that, if Americans go back to the abusive GOP because taxes are raised on income over $400K, we deserve to all fry.

The sad part is, a crucial provision to pay for the bill is allowing Medicare to negotiate drugs prices. This is a spending cut, not a tax increase. Taxpayers pay over $100 billion/year more for Medicare because it has to pay through the nose for pharmaceuticals. But we can't get it through because of a corrupt democrat who takes gobs of money from Big Pharma.

 

[VW MAN]

Like my other post, what's the problem you are trying to solve for here?

We can trade stories on how to save money. A rich person could also turn this around asking my a middle income person couldn't also dig a little deeper and fund these things themselves by cutting into other expenses?

Just because someone has marginally more income, why are you creating an automatic assumption their proportion of spend on basics (housing, transportation, food) should not stay consistent?

You are proposing spending should stay flat as a matter of govt tax policy, and if we can tax more we should.

What's missing is again considering where the truly excess wealth is. It's not your neighbor just because he bought a BMW instead of your Jetta. He spent 12% on transportation, you spent 7%. Good for you. Don't care for that as policy.

It's the truly wealthy where spending on essentials is no longer a meaningful portion of their income. That's also where all the growth has been. Older chart, wish I could find one with the 0.1% and 0.01% as it's more dramatic, but that's where the real disparities are.
Not between a 30yo making $80k, and his 50yo boss making $130k.

The only "problem I am trying to solve for here" as you say is a direct reply to this post full of various assumptions, nothing more, nothing less -

Bitek said:

Doing well and "rich" are not the same things.

Go to a high COL state, fund your savings properly, and watch how fast it goes.

The savings rate for the US is still very low, and the vast majority do not have enough savings for retirement or to help their kids with stunting college debt that will further depress savings into the next generation.

You made assumptions and claims that I refuted with my own experience and lifestyle, and I know I am not the only one who is in a position like mine. You are now appearing to be making a mountain out of a mole hill in regards to my post. My reply to your post stands on its own and does not need to go down the paths of "what ifs" and "the putting of words in my mouth" thank you very much.

 

[Bitek]

1.8% of wage earners make more than 400K per year. And only some of those oppose raising their taxes. And only some of that subset are normally inclined to vote for democrats. And only some of that subset will flips their vote from D to R over that one issue, as other issues also matter.

This is hardly a "big lose on the politics." It may not be a lose at all. According to polling, it may in fact be a gain, particularly if people see benefits of the legislation.

You're way overstating the point.

"Tax and spend" liberals.. democrats punishing success.. socialists and all their damn taxes.. Where have we heard that before?
We're you sleeping through the ACA fight? 2010 midterms?

That was going to save people money and majorities hated it for years.

Oh... But fixing healthcare polled well and was a focus of Obama's winning campaign...


... Until it came time to actually do it, and all the years afterwards.


You don't need it, will likely turn out bad in already unfavorable year, fixes no root causes, but you want to do it anyway. How is this smart policy or politics?

 

[MrSquished]

"Tax and spend" liberals.. democrats punishing success.. socialists and all their damn taxes.. Where have we heard that before?
We're you sleeping through the ACA fight? 2010 midterms?

That was going to save people money and majorities hated it for years.

Oh... But fixing healthcare polled well and was a focus of Obama's winning campaign...


... Until it came time to actually do it, and all the years afterwards.


You don't need it, will likely turn out bad in already unfavorable year, fixes no root causes, but you want to do it anyway. How is this smart policy or politics?

You are completely wrong on almost everything. The vast majority of programs in the BBB plan are supported by a majority of Americans, and taxing the wealthiest and corporations are also very popular. The question should be why are you so against actually good and popular policies that will help Democrats get elected? Republicans are going to call Democrats communists no matter what. So you are just saying to avoid making good policy because Republicans are going to do the same thing whatever they actually do. Absolutely terrible political call.

 

[nOOky]

when did these rich people actually pay their taxes? Much like Gates, Bezos and the Orange man, tax loopholes are always there to make sure they never pay more than the rest of us. Let's not even go into offshore accounts and loss leader business ventures, casinos restaurants and TV shows.

I know that most here don't read Slate, but here's something to look at. I also found 3 or four other sites opinions, but they were more politically charged than this one (both agreeing and disagreeing)

The history of tax rates for the rich. (slate.com)

I'd like to find more info on how much exactly the rich skip out of paying via loopholes and tax shelters versus the theory of taxing those that actually pay taxes more of their income. And it is true that the Democrats never talk about cutting spending for anything. I'm fairly liberal, but there have to be many opportunities to cut some pork also. I'll spend some time after work looking this stuff up because IIRC those that avoid taxes are a far larger problem than upper middle class folks paying a few more thou a year.

 

[woolfe9998]

"Tax and spend" liberals.. democrats punishing success.. socialists and all their damn taxes.. Where have we heard that before?
We're you sleeping through the ACA fight? 2010 midterms?

That was going to save people money and majorities hated it for years.

Oh... But fixing healthcare polled well and was a focus of Obama's winning campaign...


... Until it came time to actually do it, and all the years afterwards.


You don't need it, will likely turn out bad in already unfavorable year, fixes no root causes, but you want to do it anyway. How is this smart policy or politics?

I already refuted your entire absurd argument that raising taxes on people making over 400K is "bad politics." It is not. There aren't enough of such people and many of them already vote R anyway. And the polling consistently shows that the vast majority of Americans support raising taxes on high wage earners.

Your entire argument above rests on the degree of success of the political right in mischaracterizing what democrats are doing. If there is a way to mischaracterize it, you suggest, we should not do it. But there is a way to mischaracterize everything.

Democrats do not lose elections on raising taxes on high wage earners. They lose elections because republicans turn out their base in high numbers through the divisive use of culture war issues. Period. They can say whatever they want about raising taxes on high wage earners, but it's not a winning argument for them. They do better prattling on about Dr. Suess and "critical race theory" instead.

 

[Bitek]

You are completely wrong on almost everything. The vast majority of programs in the BBB plan are supported by a majority of Americans, and taxing the wealthiest and corporations are also very popular. The question should be why are you so against actually good and popular policies that will help Democrats get elected? Republicans are going to call Democrats communists no matter what. So you are just saying to avoid making good policy because Republicans are going to do the same thing whatever they actually do. Absolutely terrible political call.

Why are you insisting on giving them ammunition?

What's the rationale behind the magic 400k figure?

Yes, I want to win. I don't want to own goal on a dumb policy provision that fixes nothing but will be easy politics for the Republicans.

Enough will bitch about the corporate rates going up even though they don't pay them.. but it's a winnable issue.
Start fuckin around with income taxes and think you'll insulate the fall out and you'll lose.

Easy cheap shots for Republicans. They do this all the time. You will earn no deficit hawk brownie points.

Then no more house. No more senate. No more SCOTUS picks. Biden is dead in the water as are all the other D priorities.

What did Obama accomplish after 2010? Not much.

But hey, I taxed my boss a couple bucks, so I guess it's worth it.

 

[Bitek]

I already refuted your entire absurd argument that raising taxes on people making over 400K is "bad politics." It is not. There aren't enough of such people and many of them already vote R anyway. And the polling consistently shows that the vast majority of Americans support raising taxes on high wage earners.

Your entire argument above rests on the degree of success of the political right in mischaracterizing what democrats are doing. If there is a way to mischaracterize it, you suggest, we should not do it. But there is a way to mischaracterize everything.

Democrats do not lose elections on raising taxes on high wage earners. They lose elections because republicans turn out their base in high numbers through the divisive use of culture war issues. Period. They can say whatever they want about raising taxes on high wage earners, but it's not a winning argument for them. They do better prattling on about Dr. Suess and "critical race theory" instead.

So you want to test that after watching Bush tax cuts and Obama ACA.

I don't share your optimism for Ds ability to conduct good politics.

Last 20 years is pretty good proof. Takes a giant fuck up like Bush or Trump for Ds to win, and they don't keep control for long. Country swings back to Rs (and vote for their tax cut platforms.)

Your other post about actually going after tax dodging corps is a far better plan, and actually accomplishes something towards inequality and would actually move the needle revenue wise.

 

[Bitek]

Why would we lose the Senate when every poll from anywhere says the majority of Americans support taxing the wealthy and corporations, including around 50% of Republicans?

Toomey-R-PA is retiring, and Ds need a pick up, but PA is not kind to Ds off year.

Yet you want to campaign in high income Philly suburbs on raising their taxes?

Can we just stop at fixing the roads and getting Amazon to pay it's fair share?

Then there is Warnock in GA. He won a tight special election in a presidential year with Trump on the ballot. Not this time, and GA legislature has been busy with their voter suppression bills.

And we're going to go into Atlanta suburbs with him running on tax increases? Again, why not stop at new highways?

 

[MrSquished]

Again you act like the .8% of the population this will affect slightly are all voting for Dems already and we are going to lose them. And the ones that do vote for Dems know what the Dems are about. This won't be the losing issue. The Republicans are going to call the Dems tax and deficit irresponsible socialists and communists no matter what they actually do, might as well implement what is good policy, and coincidentally, very popular policy.

 

[woolfe9998]

So you want to test that after watching Bush tax cuts and Obama ACA.

I don't share your optimism for Ds ability to conduct good politics.

Last 20 years is pretty good proof. Takes a giant fuck up like Bush or Trump for Ds to win, and they don't keep control for long. Country swings back to Rs (and vote for their tax cut platforms.)

Your other post about actually going after tax dodging corps is a far better plan, and actually accomplishes something towards inequality and would actually move the needle revenue wise.

The ACA is a bad comparison to raising taxes on the wealthy. The problem was that people initially didn't understand the bill and so the GOP could get away with mischaracterizing it. It was years later when people started seeing benefits that its popularity turned around, but too late for the democrats in the 2010 elections. By contrast, raising taxes on high wage earners is not at all hard to understand, and it's quite popular by all polling I've seen.

The larger issue with democrats and politics is complicated. Conservatives are fighting a propaganda culture war against the entire left, and all its subgroups, going on decades now, culminating in this insanity which is the Trump era. There isn't a lot we can do about it other than make sure to turn out our own base.

Beyond that, I have two suggestions. First is to curb the excesses of the left in the area of identity politics. We see a rising tide of racism on the right and react with PC/cancel culture/defund the police, etc. It's like "reaction formation" in psychology where you see something threatening and react by defining yourself as far toward the opposite extreme as possible. The energy of this young activism is great, and there are good ideas in the mix, but it's taken too far, and has shoved some swing voters towards Trump. The media needs to amplify it less than they do.

Second, the democrats need to focus on passing legislation which has an immediate material impact on people's lives. Such as the child tax credit in this legislation. It's tough for wonks to explain policy effectively to the masses, but little explanation is required when people see tangible benefits.

This is why the current legislation cannot fail or else we're looking at more GOP dominance in the near future.

 

[mect]

when did these rich people actually pay their taxes? Much like Gates, Bezos and the Orange man, tax loopholes are always there to make sure they never pay more than the rest of us. Let's not even go into offshore accounts and loss leader business ventures, casinos restaurants and TV shows.

I know that most here don't read Slate, but here's something to look at. I also found 3 or four other sites opinions, but they were more politically charged than this one (both agreeing and disagreeing)

The history of tax rates for the rich. (slate.com)

With Roosevelt's new deal, we were quite successful at decreasing wealth and income inequality in this country. Yes, they will always try to dodge the taxes, but that doesn't mean that it is futile. If they are decreasing their tax liability by increasing investment into their employees, for example, that is a good thing. The important thing is to try to bring back a more reasonable level of income and wealth inequality in our country.

 

[maluckey1]

With Roosevelt's new deal, we were quite successful at decreasing wealth and income inequality in this country. Yes, they will always try to dodge the taxes, but that doesn't mean that it is futile. If they are decreasing their tax liability by increasing investment into their employees, for example, that is a good thing. The important thing is to try to bring back a more reasonable level of income and wealth inequality in our country.

Kind of, but a lot was happening at the time. Recovery from the Great Depression and then WWII in a row. FDR really had only part of the puzzle right

WinklerTestimony33109TheNewDealSenateTestimony.pdf

Keynes advised that the PRIVATE SECTOR to should be the driving force to counter-react.. Only if the PRIVATE SECTOR couldn't muster a strong enough response should the govt get into it. even then, the government should spend money on large public works projects, LOWER taxes, or both. He also talked about "deliberate, sustained countercyclical spending".

The wealth inequality was already diminished by the Great Depression and WWII (men left the workforce for over 4 years). FDR only stabilized the patient so that it could recover.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Kind of, but a lot was happening at the time. Recovery from the Great Depression and then WWII in a row. FDR really had only part of the puzzle right

WinklerTestimony33109TheNewDealSenateTestimony.pdf

Keynes advised that the PRIVATE SECTOR to should be the driving force to counter-react.. Only if the PRIVATE SECTOR couldn't muster a strong enough response should the govt get into it. even then, the government should spend money on large public works projects, LOWER taxes, or both. He also talked about "deliberate, sustained countercyclical spending".

The wealth inequality was already diminished by the Great Depression and WWII (men left the workforce for over 4 years). FDR only stabilized the patient so that it could recover.

And the private sector has done jack shit. So yes, the government needed (needs) to step in.

 

[MixMasterTang]

WTF? Lower taxes do exist in some other place, plenty of other places, yet they're still here.

Exactly, enjoy your 120 degree summers in Dubai with limited access to pork and booze!