Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

yup, things get bad enough in the USofA....... things could get bad for everyone on the planet

The Trump administration is promising to release videos from its sex trafficking investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, but many are skeptical.
Attorney General Pam Bondi claims to be releasing 'tens of thousands' of videos of Jeffrey Epstein
____________________________

skeptical????

I wonder who all the redacted content is about!?!

it seems obvious raising tax rates would provide more revenue, but through any period of recent history that has not proven to be true, and the reasons are fairly obvious.

Hauser and all that, amply discussed herein.

Maybe let's just try getting the wealthy to pay some taxes.  You know, the ones worth billions of dollars with no actual income.  Let's get them to throw in some money and see what happens.

Maybe let's just try getting the wealthy to pay some taxes.  You know, the ones worth billions of dollars with no actual income.  Let's get them to throw in some money and see what happens.

This also has been discussed at considerable length.  For one thing, a wealth tax MAY be unconsitutional.  For another, Europe has tried it, and most countries there rescinded it.  It raised little revenue, was very difficult to enforce, caused some to flea, and basically wasn't worth the effort.  Maybe the US could try some variation that worked, but I suspect not.  

I've posted links to that as well.

Let's hear your proposal for doing so.

I'd like the ones to be taxed to come up with it.  Or more specifically, their accountants.  

This is an analysis of the Sen. Warren wealth tax proposal:

Budgetary and Economic Effects of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Legislation — Penn Wharton Budget Model

PWBM projects that the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2021, introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren, would raise $2.1 trillion over the standard 10-year budget window (2022-2031) under scoring conventions used by government agencies. Incorporating the effects of enhanced IRS enforcement, our projection rises to $2.4 trillion over 2022-2031 and $2.7 trillion over 2023-2032. Also incorporating macroeconomic effects of the Act reduces estimated revenue to $2.0 trillion over 2022-2031 and $2.3 trillion over 2023-2032. We estimate that the Act would reduce GDP by 1.2 percent in 2050.

Now, that isn't chopped liver, but if this worked as advertised, it's $200 billion a year, about 11% of the current deficit.  I could personally be in favor of some modification of it with the understanding it can't solve the deficit problem, and likely would incur other issues such as Europe already discovered.

Maybe let's just try getting the wealthy to pay some taxes.  You know, the ones worth billions of dollars with no actual income.  Let's get them to throw in some money and see what happens.

This, IMHO, is a major part of the problem.  

Back in 1980 Democratic Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale said that taxes would have to be increased whether he or Ronal Reagan was President.  He tried to make it an honesty issue by adding "He won't tell you so, I just did."  

Back then, my impression is that Democrats were not so solely focused on "raising taxes on the rich".  

I'm not exactly blaming Democrats, it obviously didn't work out for Mondale.  Subsequently Clinton promised a Middle Class Tax cut, then didn't deliver it saying that it just wasn't possible.  He had promised to only raise taxes on "the rich" but when he got in office it turned out that anyone with a job was apparently "rich".  

The problem with the focus on raising taxes on "the rich" is that it doesn't work for a multitude of reasons including:

• Democrats rarely actually do it.  Their donors are rich so it tends to get de-prioritized after elections.  
• Wealthier people have greater flexibility.  If you raise say the SS Tax rate people at the bottom and in the middle pretty much have to pay.  Their only alternative is to not work.  People at the high end aren't impacted so much because of the cap (~$176k/yr) and because a lot of them can move income from active (pays SS) to passive (doesn't pay SS).  
• On the flexibility front:  As @Cincydawg pointed out, a number of European countries dropped their wealth taxes because the wealthy can do things like tax avoidance (legal), tax evasion (illegal), or just simply move to a lower-tax jurisdiction.  

As I see it the situation today is that Republicans talk about cutting spending but then when they get in office they only make, at most, miniscule cuts.  Democrats talk about raising taxes on the rich but then when they get in office they only make, at most, miniscule increases in revenue.  Meanwhile Republicans do keep their tax cut promises and Democrats do keep their spending promises so spending keeps going up.