This is a college libertarian majoring in finance (of course). And beliefs like his are the norm among finance and business majors. We are breeding a generation to believe in utter nonsense.
My comments are in
bold. All rational minded people can see we're headed for a monetary crisis because of our fiscal policy. Roughly half of those people are roughly republican and generally want to reduce government expenditures and hold (or cut) taxes. Roughly half of those people are roughly democrats and generally want to hold (or raise) government expenditures while also raising taxes
Maybe we compromise like rational and pragmatic people. Cut expenditures and raise taxes? Ok, but you better not cut programs that affect me! And the taxes, they better be on rich people and corporations! And the politicians, they can't do anything to hurt people who vote for them. So republicans want to keep giving ridiculous amounts of money to old people while democrats want to keep giving ridiculous amounts of money to the poor. They decided that the best compromise is to do nothing.
20 hours ago · Like
I think we should cut defense funding by 75%. Dismantle the standing army. That cuts over 500 billion alone. We should defund oil subsidies and the multibillion dollar weaponized plutonium processing industry.
Increase the top marginal income tax rate back to 90% and force corporations to start paying taxes (which most of the wealthiest do not).
I'd like to cut both the private and corporate income tax to 20%, raise the retirement age to 70, privatize social security, slash medicare and medicaid, end the wars, and clean up the corruption and waste in our federal government.
Of course, our proposals have one very important thing in common: They will never be implemented short of a revolution and/or civil war. And maybe that's a good thing.
Cutting corporate tax actually does nothing to stimulate the economy. And, in fact, even as corporate taxation has decreased dramatically over the past several decades, there has been a steadily increasing rate of outsourcing of jobs. So dropping corporate taxes is not only pointless, it's lost public revenue.
Similar sentiments are true about personal income tax. Productivity was at it's highest during several decades in the 20th century when the highest marginal income tax rate was above 90%. Slashing social security is really just criminal. We all pay into it. The only reason why it's at risk of running out of funds is because congress passed a law more than a decade ago allowing the SS fund to be used as a general fund. So all the money was spent.
Social security is a necessity for the retired. Medicare is a necessity for the retired. Medicaid is a necessity for the poor and unemployed. I'm not sure why you want to cut those. From both an ethical and practical standpoint.
As for war, if we get rid of a standing army and heavily defund defense, we will see the end of imperialism.
Private income tax was high briefly during WWI (for obvious reasons). It soared under FDR. Nixon brought it down from about 90% to about 70%. Reagan brought it down further. Bush Sr. raised them slightly to their current levels. Also note that our highest tax levels were during and immediately following: WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.
So in the late 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's, income tax was relatively high. In the 20's, 80's, 90's, and 00's it was relatively low. The 30's and 70's were both horrible economic decades. The 20's, 80's, and 90's were all fantastic (especially the 80's, the longest bull market in American history).
I don't exactly know what you mean by "productivity," but I'm basing my opinion on Real GDP growth and stock market performance.
Lower corporate tax rate means more net income is retained by the firm. This allows corporations to either lower prices, pay higher salaries, re-invest more into the business, or pay out greater dividends to shareholders. I'd much rather have greater revenues flowing towards productive firms/individuals rather than the federal government.
You think my opinions on 3 big entitlement programs are criminal? I'm not sure if I can convince you any differently. People don't have the right to receive medical treatment when they get sick. I'm well aware of our government's abuses of SS funds; that doesn't mean we can ignore the problem. No one should have to pay for my retirement except me and maybe my children if I fall on hard times.
Yeah I am not talking about the 1930s because that's during the great depression. Let's be reasonable and respect each others intelligence.
The 1970s were actually a decent time for GDP growth. There were obviously other financial problems. But the market didn't start going down until Reagan took office. And, in fact, the market suffered quite badly during the mid to late 80s all the way through the early 90s. We also saw a surge in unemployment rates and poverty rates from 1980 to about 1985. The high poverty rates remained until the very late 1990s. The idea that the 1980s was a great time for the economy is actually quite the myth. Also, as the highest marginal income tax rate decreased throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s from over 90% to a mere 28% by 1991. Yet the unemployment rate saw sustained surges throughout each era.
Lower corporate tax rates (and in current form, nonexistent tax rates) have been shown to produce no positive effect on the economy. I am not doubting the benefits of said lower rates on corporations. I'm sure they very much enjoy paying less as the only reason for their existence is to retain maximum profit. But that's not really a relevant argument as I care about our economy as a whole. As I'm sure you can see, there is no correlation between lower corporate taxes and statistics like job growth. In fact, like I said earlier, even as corporate taxes have decreased dramatically for several decades, outsourcing of jobs has been increasing at an ever increasing rate.
As for the "entitlement" programs, I don't really know how to change your mind. If you honestly believe persons don't have the right to be treated when they are sick, you have some serious character flaws. The same goes for the entirety of the welfare state. It is both a moral necessity and beneficial to the country as a whole. For instance, more generous welfare states have consistently demonstrated lower rates of drug abuse and higher rates of addiction recovery. You may be able to afford your retirement. And your kids (who technically still do not exist) may be able to handle your financial troubles if you were to fall on hard times.
But there is a very large portion of the population living either well below the poverty line or hovering around it. And poverty rates from family to family tend to remain the same. It's an intergenerational problem. So there will be no one there to pay for their retirement. Neither will there be any children to pay for their financial problems. The children are just as bad off as the parents.
Maybe you should ponder that possibility instead of assuming the world is exactly like, I assume, your middle class upbringing and comfortable lifestyle. Just a thought.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
