Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 09 2026 07:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote: Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth.
Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former.
Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ?
That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do.
The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
I don’t think you realize how much resources are available by just asking the top 1% and the big businesses to pay their fucking share. I mean, just Musk is a trillionaire. A trillionaire. That’s one person.
They won’t, because they own the politicians, but, yeah, you could have your cancer treatment covered by society and your kids could go to college for free.
Wow how much resources are available exactly? That almost sounds too good to be true. Maybe you could just quantify what US taxes you'd raise by how much and what revenue that would bring in.
Well, say you get back to 1975 levels, a basic research gives the following :
Reaching the tax levels of 1975 for top earners and corporations would generate roughly $2.5 trillion to nearly $4..0 trillion annually in additional economic value or tax recovery, according to macroeconomic and inequality studies.
Context of 1975 Tax Levels Individual Rates: In 1975, the top marginal individual income tax rate was 70% for the highest bracket (compared to 37% today). Corporate Rates: The top statutory federal corporate income tax rate was around 48% (compared to 21% today).
Revenue Estimates The Income Shift: Research from the RAND Corporation calculates that the divergence in income growth since 1975 has shifted roughly $3.9 trillion a year away from the bottom 90% and into the pockets/holdings of the top 1%. Annual Tax Yield: Re-imposing 1970s-era progressive brackets and corporate tax burdens would capture a substantial portion of this concentrated annual flow, estimated conservatively at several hundred billion to over $2.5 trillion per year depending on behavioral responses and deductions.
That’s quite a lot of cancer treatments, but i agree it’s more fun when Amazon and Musk hoard all the wealth generated by the country. And since you can afford a good insurance, who cares about the untreated cancers. Not your problem.
On August 09 2026 07:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote: Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth.
Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former.
Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ?
That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do.
The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
I don’t think you realize how much resources are available by just asking the top 1% and the big businesses to pay their fucking share. I mean, just Musk is a trillionaire. A trillionaire. That’s one person.
They won’t, because they own the politicians, but, yeah, you could have your cancer treatment covered by society and your kids could go to college for free.
He's not anymore and you're comparing a stock (wealth) to a flow (income- expenditure). A wealth tax isn't going to make a significant difference. Saez and Zucman estimated that Warren's proposed wealth tax would bring in 1% of GDP. That's almost certainly an upper limit as it's their own proposal. That's not even close to what's required for a European type welfare state.
I suggest you look at how Norway taxes unrealized gains primarily through an annual net wealth tax on asset values and how the country has installed an exit tax on latent capital gains when leaving the country.
You could absolutely do that in the US. The fact that we tax (heavily) work but not wealth at all is fucking ludicrous. This whining about how it’s not taxable because it’s « unrealized » is a fucking joke.
On August 09 2026 07:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote: Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth.
Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former.
Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ?
That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do.
The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
I don’t think you realize how much resources are available by just asking the top 1% and the big businesses to pay their fucking share. I mean, just Musk is a trillionaire. A trillionaire. That’s one person.
They won’t, because they own the politicians, but, yeah, you could have your cancer treatment covered by society and your kids could go to college for free.
He's not anymore and you're comparing a stock (wealth) to a flow (income- expenditure). A wealth tax isn't going to make a significant difference. Saez and Zucman estimated that Warren's proposed wealth tax would bring in 1% of GDP. That's almost certainly an upper limit as it's their own proposal. That's not even close to what's required for a European type welfare state.
I suggest you look at how Norway taxes unrealized gains primarily through an annual net wealth tax on asset values and how the country has installed an exit tax on latent capital gains when leaving the country.
You could absolutely do that in the US. The fact that we tax (heavily) work but not wealth at all is fucking ludicrous. This whining about how it’s not taxable because it’s « unrealized » is a fucking joke.
There is some logic to not taxing unrealized gains if they have to be cashed out to actually spend, which can be the case for more middle class people who have a small stock portfolio. But the rich don't have to sell their stocks, they take out low interest loans backed by their stocks when they need money. This way they can realize their unrealized gains without actually having to pay taxes on them. Which is not what you want from a government tax perspective.
On August 09 2026 07:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote: Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth.
Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former.
Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ?
That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do.
The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
I don’t think you realize how much resources are available by just asking the top 1% and the big businesses to pay their fucking share. I mean, just Musk is a trillionaire. A trillionaire. That’s one person.
They won’t, because they own the politicians, but, yeah, you could have your cancer treatment covered by society and your kids could go to college for free.
He's not anymore and you're comparing a stock (wealth) to a flow (income- expenditure). A wealth tax isn't going to make a significant difference. Saez and Zucman estimated that Warren's proposed wealth tax would bring in 1% of GDP. That's almost certainly an upper limit as it's their own proposal. That's not even close to what's required for a European type welfare state.
I suggest you look at how Norway taxes unrealized gains primarily through an annual net wealth tax on asset values and how the country has installed an exit tax on latent capital gains when leaving the country.
You could absolutely do that in the US. The fact that we tax (heavily) work but not wealth at all is fucking ludicrous. This whining about how it’s not taxable because it’s « unrealized » is a fucking joke.
That does not adress my point. Looking it up Norways revenue from the net wealth tax is not even one percent of gdp. You can't fund a welfare state with that. You'd need a broad based VAT and much higher income tax rates that kick in at much lower incomes.
The WWF, WCW, and NWA used to be a good gauge on how well the bottom 30% of Americans were doing. Nothing is more "working poor" and "lower middle class" than rasslin'. the WWF's meteoric rise mirrored the USA's amazing economic growth from 1983 to 1989. WWF/WWE was dirt cheap for many decades making it a great entertainment option for people with not much cash.
In 1987, and NES Basic Bungle was $100 including Super Mario and $90 without a pack in game. That is $265 today. In 1992 the SNES was $100. That is $238 today. The NES and SNES were the cutting edge consoles at the time. How much is the Switch 2 with a pack-in game? It'll be $500 in September I think.
In 2002, I paid $250 CANADIAN for 10th row seats in a 68,000 seat venue for the WWF's #1 Pay Per View Event of the year. For a "once a year" expense that is 100% reasonable for a working poor person or lower middle class or a teenager with a part time and summer job. In 1990, those same seats in that same venue for the same event were $150 CANADIAN. Again , a reasonable deal for a lower middle class person once a year. Those seats are now $9,000 USD.. You do not see pensioners, kids, teenagers and young adults at WWF events any longer. They have all been priced out. Its now all 35 year olds who really aren't fans and when you ask them "who was the 9th WWF Champion" they'd look at you like you're from another planet. Check out all the poor people in the first few rows. Its cool.
Once Vince Mcmahon gave up sole ownership of the company and it was run by a board of directors the WWF was no longer a reasonable entertainment choice for people without much spending money.
I used to go to Toronto BLue Jays games in 2005 with $3. $1 for the ticket and $2 in nickels for public transit. I went to a Toronto Raptors playoff game with tickets in the 20th row of the lower bowl in 2006 at a ticket price of $66 CANADIAN. Again, for a lower middle class person that is reasonable for a two times a year. On the Raptors 2019 playoff run, I went to ONE GAME and 1 ticket cost me $3000. This same ticket price trend is happening throughout the USA with MLB and NBA.
It isn't just that the working poor and lower middle class are not sharing in the economic growth... its also that all their low cost options are gone. I'm talking salmon and spare ribs as forms of cheap, nutritious meat to important fresh produce like spinach and kale. THen we have WWF Wrestling, "cheap seat" baseball tickets, NBA basketball games, video games are now crazy expensive entertainment sources.
Epstein email that Todd Blanche attempted to break the law by refusing to unredact with the subject line "Trump" reveals Epstein was never expelled from Mar-a-Lago as Trump repeatedly said: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-2677676382/
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056. In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064 In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows: Tax level when deficit hits 0%: Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends: Scenario 1: 50-53% Scenario 2: 60-60% Scenario 3: 70-74% If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP). If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
On August 09 2026 07:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:
On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote: Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth.
Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former.
Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ?
That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do.
The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
I don’t think you realize how much resources are available by just asking the top 1% and the big businesses to pay their fucking share. I mean, just Musk is a trillionaire. A trillionaire. That’s one person.
They won’t, because they own the politicians, but, yeah, you could have your cancer treatment covered by society and your kids could go to college for free.
Wow how much resources are available exactly? That almost sounds too good to be true. Maybe you could just quantify what US taxes you'd raise by how much and what revenue that would bring in.
Well, say you get back to 1975 levels, a basic research gives the following :
Reaching the tax levels of 1975 for top earners and corporations would generate roughly $2.5 trillion to nearly $4..0 trillion annually in additional economic value or tax recovery, according to macroeconomic and inequality studies.
Context of 1975 Tax Levels Individual Rates: In 1975, the top marginal individual income tax rate was 70% for the highest bracket (compared to 37% today). Corporate Rates: The top statutory federal corporate income tax rate was around 48% (compared to 21% today).
Revenue Estimates The Income Shift: Research from the RAND Corporation calculates that the divergence in income growth since 1975 has shifted roughly $3.9 trillion a year away from the bottom 90% and into the pockets/holdings of the top 1%. Annual Tax Yield: Re-imposing 1970s-era progressive brackets and corporate tax burdens would capture a substantial portion of this concentrated annual flow, estimated conservatively at several hundred billion to over $2.5 trillion per year depending on behavioral responses and deductions.
Okay... "according to... studies" which are not cited. Unsourced quote, with strings that give no results in search engines. Whom do I have the privilege of speaking with now? ChatGPT? Grok?
1) I don't know what "additional economic value" means, this was supposed to be about tax revenue 2) If you somehow got $2.5 trillion in revenue and just spent it on healthcare and college, you'd still have a $1.5 trillion bipartisan deficit. And no way to climb back up the fiscal cliff. (What would there be LEFT to tax?) 3) According to this for 1975 you're taxing single at 70% from $100k, and married at 62% from $100k, and head of household at 66% from $100k. Great way to repay the middle class.
On August 09 2026 17:24 Biff The Understudy wrote: That’s quite a lot of cancer treatments, but i agree it’s more fun when Amazon and Musk hoard all the wealth generated by the country. And since you can afford a good insurance, who cares about the untreated cancers. Not your problem.
Amazon has something like $100 billion in cash and US wealth is over $100 trillion.
No hospital that I know of takes SpaceX or Tesla stock vouchers. Do you want to tax Musk at $1.1 trillion from months ago or $800 billion from today?
On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056. In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064 In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows: Tax level when deficit hits 0%: Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends: Scenario 1: 50-53% Scenario 2: 60-60% Scenario 3: 70-74% If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP). If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
There’s no connection between tax revenue and spending, only between tax revenue and the deficit. The Trump tax cuts didn’t lead to reduced spending so why would reversing them lead to increased spending?
It’s simply two unrelated subjects. Republicans (because it’s always them doing it) cutting taxes on the rich never have to explain how this will impact spending. It won’t. Unrelated subject. Republicans spending trillions on the military (and again it’s always them starting wars) never have to explain where the tax revenues to pay for it will come from.
Spending is what it is, regardless of tax revenues. It won’t go up or down based on tax hikes, it will go up because the American public elected Republicans.
The idea that if taxes were raised they’d just spend it is nonsense, whenever taxes aren’t raised they still go ahead and spend it. Whenever taxes are cut they somehow still go ahead and spend more. There’s no correlation.
Besides the typical Hamster Wheel problem, when people talk about this, people don't realize that rhetorically "the 1%" works, but there aren't solutions that don't include sacrifices from the rest of the ~top 10%. Unfortunately the top ~10% are currently being bribed to maintain the status quo exploitation of the rest of the population/victims worldwide. It also includes lots of people that errantly consider themselves "middle class".
As others have pointed out though, the US just needs to spend the resources it is already consuming comparably to other post-industrial countries to dramatically improve outcomes and reduce the cost. And then we're back on the Hamster Wheel.
On August 09 2026 23:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The WWF, WCW, and NWA used to be a good gauge on how well the bottom 30% of Americans were doing. Nothing is more "working poor" and "lower middle class" than rasslin'. the WWF's meteoric rise mirrored the USA's amazing economic growth from 1983 to 1989. WWF/WWE was dirt cheap for many decades making it a great entertainment option for people with not much cash.
In 1987, and NES Basic Bungle was $100 including Super Mario and $90 without a pack in game. That is $265 today. In 1992 the SNES was $100. That is $238 today. The NES and SNES were the cutting edge consoles at the time. How much is the Switch 2 with a pack-in game? It'll be $500 in September I think.
In 2002, I paid $250 CANADIAN for 10th row seats in a 68,000 seat venue for the WWF's #1 Pay Per View Event of the year. For a "once a year" expense that is 100% reasonable for a working poor person or lower middle class or a teenager with a part time and summer job. In 1990, those same seats in that same venue for the same event were $150 CANADIAN. Again , a reasonable deal for a lower middle class person once a year. Those seats are now $9,000 USD.. You do not see pensioners, kids, teenagers and young adults at WWF events any longer. They have all been priced out. Its now all 35 year olds who really aren't fans and when you ask them "who was the 9th WWF Champion" they'd look at you like you're from another planet. Check out all the poor people in the first few rows. Its cool.
Once Vince Mcmahon gave up sole ownership of the company and it was run by a board of directors the WWF was no longer a reasonable entertainment choice for people without much spending money.
I used to go to Toronto BLue Jays games in 2005 with $3. $1 for the ticket and $2 in nickels for public transit. I went to a Toronto Raptors playoff game with tickets in the 20th row of the lower bowl in 2006 at a ticket price of $66 CANADIAN. Again, for a lower middle class person that is reasonable for a two times a year. On the Raptors 2019 playoff run, I went to ONE GAME and 1 ticket cost me $3000. This same ticket price trend is happening throughout the USA with MLB and NBA.
It isn't just that the working poor and lower middle class are not sharing in the economic growth... its also that all their low cost options are gone. I'm talking salmon and spare ribs as forms of cheap, nutritious meat to important fresh produce like spinach and kale. THen we have WWF Wrestling, "cheap seat" baseball tickets, NBA basketball games, video games are now crazy expensive entertainment sources.
It's sad man.
It is, likely the beginning of the end: even the Romans knew to subsidize panem et circenses! But I presume that your solution is to Hunger Games your way out of it in some Randian dystopia?
Poor people in New York City used to be able to attend the biggest sporting events for the nation.. the World Series..check this out...
Pro athletes today whine when someone throws popcorn at them. Lol. Whoda thought we'd live in a time when the average hospital nurse is 100X tougher than an NBA basketball player.
This game was freely available on broadcast TV from coast to coast. The USA no longer has shared cultural moments like this. Half the population is priced out.
The USA is becoming more of a free trade economic zone than it is a nation... But lemme tell ya man...I'm here for it.
On August 10 2026 01:03 Gorsameth wrote: a thing to note, top 1% of tax payers isn't the same as top 1% of wealthy individuals if they try hard to not pay taxes.
Yep, this. Both Trump terms defunded the IRS for this exact reason.
There's basically two sides to the question about the debt and deficit:
A) it's a solvable problem so long as Republicans don't make it worse
B) it's an unfixable problem because Republicans keep making it worse.
Budget hawks either don't recognize this because they're the financial equivalent to Flat Earthers and then go on to vote Republican, or they don't care about this issue at all because they're liars and only talk about it to trick idiots into voting Republican.
On August 10 2026 01:03 Gorsameth wrote: a thing to note, top 1% of tax payers isn't the same as top 1% of wealthy individuals if they try hard to not pay taxes.
Yep, this. Both Trump terms defunded the IRS for this exact reason.
There's basically two sides to the question about the debt and deficit:
A) it's a solvable problem so long as Republicans don't make it worse
B) it's an unfixable problem because Republicans keep making it worse.
Budget hawks either don't recognize this because they're the financial equivalent to Flat Earthers and then go on to vote Republican, or they don't care about this issue at all because they're liars and only talk about it to trick idiots into voting Republican.
The later. 'fiscal conservative' is a dogwhistle.
No one actually fiscally conservative votes Republican because the numbers are beyond question.
On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056. In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064 In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows: Tax level when deficit hits 0%: Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends: Scenario 1: 50-53% Scenario 2: 60-60% Scenario 3: 70-74% If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP). If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely.
On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056. In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064 In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows: Tax level when deficit hits 0%: Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends: Scenario 1: 50-53% Scenario 2: 60-60% Scenario 3: 70-74% If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP). If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely.
Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077.
On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056. In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064 In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows: Tax level when deficit hits 0%: Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends: Scenario 1: 50-53% Scenario 2: 60-60% Scenario 3: 70-74% If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP). If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely.
Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077.
On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056. In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064 In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows: Tax level when deficit hits 0%: Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends: Scenario 1: 50-53% Scenario 2: 60-60% Scenario 3: 70-74% If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP). If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely.
Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077.
We're a lot closer to Cyberpunk then we all like to admit. The corporate dystopia anyway, not the cool cyberware for everyone.
On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056. In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064 In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows: Tax level when deficit hits 0%: Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax. Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends: Scenario 1: 50-53% Scenario 2: 60-60% Scenario 3: 70-74% If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP). If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely.
Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077.
We're a lot closer to Cyberpunk then we all like to admit. The corporate dystopia anyway, not the cool cyberware for everyone.
Yeah, the sooner people realize this is all already happened/happening, the sooner they can find themselves on the right side of things.
There's a small chance that we get another "New Deal" just before shit really hits the fan, but it doesn't seem like the capitalists or the workers that want to keep capitalism going even remember/know how to do something like that.
Millions of voters don't remember the US before the Patriot Act, nevermind the corporate police state from FLOCK and RING type devices combined with massive databases and neural nets.
I really wish voting for Democrats was a meaningful path away from the dystopia developing around us, but the cold hard truth is they've been and continue to be instrumental in building it.
EPT
