What a coincidence! Good thing that after the DOGE cuts and tax increases through tariffs, the deficit has been closed. Huh, I'm seeing a deficit of $1.8T in 2025, same as the deficit of $1.8 in 2024, the gauge must be broken...
Edit: hold on, breaking news from 1776: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices" -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Sad. What we need is higher taxes on the largest and most powerful corporations and lower taxes for small business and startups so they can compete fairly. This just extends the reign of the corporate oligarchs.
What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest.
Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a money hoarder. Inequality is the number one problem.
What do you mean? We all agree that billionaires shouldn’t exist. I just think that millionaires also shouldn’t. Though now that I think of it, is it okay that hundred thousand aires should exist? This Aires is definitely not Buenos.
I agree with you 100% at least in spirit, I don't think any such simplistic solution would function.
That being said the current system desperately needs balance changes to nerf the stacking buffs from having money. It should be the opposite, the more money you have the harder it should be for you to get any additional money, and this difficulty curve should be asymptotic.
I agree in principle, but I think the limit should be $1 million. You get to be a millionaire but that's it. Enough money to live well, but not enough to run a pedophile island. Not enough to purchase a government. Not enough to be above the law. Certainly not enough to keep you from working and entirely alienate you from the human condition if you do want to live well.
The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. This doesn't include the jobs created to support everything (and the taxes paid from these jobs).
We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. This promotes forward-thinking and almost always adds new jobs during the investment phase and after.
More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is a good example of this. They pay more in taxes than any other state and have almost nothing to show for it but a failing education system, crumbling infrastructure, and high crime.
The main issue is that those companies should be require to hire US citizens and not outsourcing, for these jobs.
That's incorrect information, roughly half of US tax revenue is from income taxes, roughly a third is payroll taxes (not sure whether to attribute that to employees or corporations paying), and then corporate taxes and excise taxes are only about a tenth of US tax.
In general, no they aren’t. But there is the social security tax, which is individually tracked and collectively allocated for that office. And the Medicare tax which goes off directly to that program. These two constitute a major component of money going into the system.
> The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes.
First, not true.
Second, even if true it wouldn’t be surprising, if you have most of the wealth you pay most of the tax money. It’s surprising that that’s not even the case.
Third, it explains California.
Of course the state with the highest GDP has also the highest tax income
> The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes.
When you hoard far more than just a slim majority, paying a majority isn’t unexpected and it can still be unfair. But I think you are talking about federal personal income tax not corporate tax.
> We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development.
They already do in various ways.
> More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is a good example of this.
I agree California is wasteful. But we can tax and just give the money directly to people.
> The main issue is that those companies should be require to hire US citizens and not outsourcing, for these jobs.
Not even close to the main issue. Why not just redistribute the gains instead of playing games with these other schemes?
I mean sure it might be wasteful (name one entity private or public that doesn’t suffer from assholes and corruption), but the quality of life here is far better than in Texas or any other state.
We have labor rights, environmental protection, hell even the ethical farming practices like how eggs are produced. Life here is objectively better for the people.
It’s obviously more expensive. There’s demand for people to live here. Even if some people leave more want to move here or wish they could. Shitting on California is 90% of the time some form of cope for many people. They know they could never make it here so the best they can do is complain about it from whatever **hole they’re in.
The major reason California is expensive isn't because of the things that make it nice to live here, it's because a faux-environmentalist love of sprawl and protection of single family zoning from denser, more sensible housing options for those that want them.
Instead, Californians with high incomes, but not enough to pay the outrageous price for ownership, pay outrageous rents to landlords that repackage unupdated 1970s starter homes at extreme luxury prices.
Once we stop letting landlords exploit productive labor by removing the regulatory capture, the quality of life will increase, merely through allowing more people to experience the higher quality of life. However, reversing that trend is proving extremely difficult, despite fairly widespread support among the voting population.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying. But the rise in spending per capita, even if you adjust for inflation or population growth or other factors, doesn’t make sense.
I agree the demand drives up certain costs like housing. But those are in the private markets. But I don’t understand is what the state government and local governments are spending all of the money on. And there are certainly some prominent wasteful programs such as the high-speed rail project or various programs for homelessness. I expect there’s more of those kinds of waste.
In the end, I think simply giving people money is an effective way to make society better. I’m not against the taxation as much as the low return for the additional spending that has happened in the last few decades.
It looks like the increase in spending has come from expansion of Medicaid, K-12 education, housing programs and homelessness programs.
I can't speak to the Medicaid expansion or K-12 funding that much, but I do know that the spending on housing programs have been a boondoggle, mostly to fund more first-time purchasers chasing after the same fixed supply of housing, driving up prices even more. And the homelessness problem is created by the refusal to allow housing to be built. Even the supposed successes, like SB 79, have been minor, and not allowed much more building at all. And in more conservative places like Southern LA, state laws attempting to force cities to permit more housing have been met with extreme resistance, even for the small gains that the state laws make.
For K-12 spending, that's been a disaster ever since Prop 13 gutted property tax systems and forced the state to step in to make up the difference. And Prop 13 is at the core of the housing problem as well, incentivizing underuse of land by giving such massive tax breaks to those who stay in a massive house after they have an empty nest (mostly fixed very recently), and inducing severe tax penalties to those who would like to stay in the same location but build a bunch more housing (like Greece's polykatoikias, which solved Athen's severe housing crunch...).
And high housing costs means that all labor is far more expensive than it would be otherwise, which makes building the housing expensive, which makes it difficult to expand the workforce to build housing, etc. etc. etc. Lack of housing is at the core of all rising costs in California, and the bad policies such as Libertarian Prop 13 and NIMBYs are most of it.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2025/04/03/multimedia/00biz-...
What a coincidence! Good thing that after the DOGE cuts and tax increases through tariffs, the deficit has been closed. Huh, I'm seeing a deficit of $1.8T in 2025, same as the deficit of $1.8 in 2024, the gauge must be broken...
Edit: hold on, breaking news from 1776: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices" -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Yes obviously this would be the case. They're taxes on income, not revenue. If they decide to invest in the future, it eats into their income.
Sad. What we need is higher taxes on the largest and most powerful corporations and lower taxes for small business and startups so they can compete fairly. This just extends the reign of the corporate oligarchs.
What we need is to cap all wealth at $200k. Any more than that and it is 100% taxed away. Inequality is the number one problem. And it should apply to unrealized gains as well. E.g. houses should not be more than $100k. And if you have a beneficial interest in something it should count as owning the whole thing. The taxes should be distributed to the poorest.
Of course if you oppose this you are wealthy and are a money hoarder. Inequality is the number one problem.
It doesn't feel like you’ve thought through the nuances and implications of this policy, and the tone makes me think you don’t really want to.
Agree on both counts… but I do.
I’m sure there are systemic changes that are possible, and it’s a topic worthy of brainstorming
I guess it’s sarcasm
What do you mean? We all agree that billionaires shouldn’t exist. I just think that millionaires also shouldn’t. Though now that I think of it, is it okay that hundred thousand aires should exist? This Aires is definitely not Buenos.
I agree with you 100% at least in spirit, I don't think any such simplistic solution would function.
That being said the current system desperately needs balance changes to nerf the stacking buffs from having money. It should be the opposite, the more money you have the harder it should be for you to get any additional money, and this difficulty curve should be asymptotic.
Why 200k? Why not 100k? Or just $10. Let's just burn all the money, that way our problems will be solved for sure.
I agree in principle, but I think the limit should be $1 million. You get to be a millionaire but that's it. Enough money to live well, but not enough to run a pedophile island. Not enough to purchase a government. Not enough to be above the law. Certainly not enough to keep you from working and entirely alienate you from the human condition if you do want to live well.
The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes. This doesn't include the jobs created to support everything (and the taxes paid from these jobs).
We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development. This promotes forward-thinking and almost always adds new jobs during the investment phase and after.
More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is a good example of this. They pay more in taxes than any other state and have almost nothing to show for it but a failing education system, crumbling infrastructure, and high crime.
The main issue is that those companies should be require to hire US citizens and not outsourcing, for these jobs.
The tariffs Trump had in place were a good start.
That's incorrect information, roughly half of US tax revenue is from income taxes, roughly a third is payroll taxes (not sure whether to attribute that to employees or corporations paying), and then corporate taxes and excise taxes are only about a tenth of US tax.
Payroll is mostly the employees money gping to social programs.
I didn’t think payroll taxes were hypothecated in the US?
There was a time when that was the intent, but it doesn’t really matter anymore, as there are not enough payroll taxes to cover the programs anymore.
In general, no they aren’t. But there is the social security tax, which is individually tracked and collectively allocated for that office. And the Medicare tax which goes off directly to that program. These two constitute a major component of money going into the system.
>We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development.
The US tax code does allow business to write off R & D.
> The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes.
First, not true.
Second, even if true it wouldn’t be surprising, if you have most of the wealth you pay most of the tax money. It’s surprising that that’s not even the case.
Third, it explains California. Of course the state with the highest GDP has also the highest tax income
We don’t tax wealth though so wouldn’t we expect the highest income to pay the most tax?
> The top companies (and the wealthiest for that matter) already pay the majority in taxes.
When you hoard far more than just a slim majority, paying a majority isn’t unexpected and it can still be unfair. But I think you are talking about federal personal income tax not corporate tax.
> We should be allowing businesses to write off research and development.
They already do in various ways.
> More tax money just gets wasted at the top. California is a good example of this.
I agree California is wasteful. But we can tax and just give the money directly to people.
> The main issue is that those companies should be require to hire US citizens and not outsourcing, for these jobs.
Not even close to the main issue. Why not just redistribute the gains instead of playing games with these other schemes?
Do you live in California?
I mean sure it might be wasteful (name one entity private or public that doesn’t suffer from assholes and corruption), but the quality of life here is far better than in Texas or any other state.
We have labor rights, environmental protection, hell even the ethical farming practices like how eggs are produced. Life here is objectively better for the people.
It’s obviously more expensive. There’s demand for people to live here. Even if some people leave more want to move here or wish they could. Shitting on California is 90% of the time some form of cope for many people. They know they could never make it here so the best they can do is complain about it from whatever **hole they’re in.
Lived in California for 30 years -- it's an amazing place. But it's hubris to assume your definition of quality of life is objective or universal.
California has seen negative net domestic migration for over 20 years. So multiple things can be true:
* It's a desirable place to live and work, for some. * For others, the net quality of life is higher elsewhere.
Triumphalism ("They know they could never make it here...") isn't a good look whether you live in Silicon Valley or Dallas.
The major reason California is expensive isn't because of the things that make it nice to live here, it's because a faux-environmentalist love of sprawl and protection of single family zoning from denser, more sensible housing options for those that want them.
Instead, Californians with high incomes, but not enough to pay the outrageous price for ownership, pay outrageous rents to landlords that repackage unupdated 1970s starter homes at extreme luxury prices.
Once we stop letting landlords exploit productive labor by removing the regulatory capture, the quality of life will increase, merely through allowing more people to experience the higher quality of life. However, reversing that trend is proving extremely difficult, despite fairly widespread support among the voting population.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying. But the rise in spending per capita, even if you adjust for inflation or population growth or other factors, doesn’t make sense.
I agree the demand drives up certain costs like housing. But those are in the private markets. But I don’t understand is what the state government and local governments are spending all of the money on. And there are certainly some prominent wasteful programs such as the high-speed rail project or various programs for homelessness. I expect there’s more of those kinds of waste.
In the end, I think simply giving people money is an effective way to make society better. I’m not against the taxation as much as the low return for the additional spending that has happened in the last few decades.
It looks like the increase in spending has come from expansion of Medicaid, K-12 education, housing programs and homelessness programs.
I can't speak to the Medicaid expansion or K-12 funding that much, but I do know that the spending on housing programs have been a boondoggle, mostly to fund more first-time purchasers chasing after the same fixed supply of housing, driving up prices even more. And the homelessness problem is created by the refusal to allow housing to be built. Even the supposed successes, like SB 79, have been minor, and not allowed much more building at all. And in more conservative places like Southern LA, state laws attempting to force cities to permit more housing have been met with extreme resistance, even for the small gains that the state laws make.
For K-12 spending, that's been a disaster ever since Prop 13 gutted property tax systems and forced the state to step in to make up the difference. And Prop 13 is at the core of the housing problem as well, incentivizing underuse of land by giving such massive tax breaks to those who stay in a massive house after they have an empty nest (mostly fixed very recently), and inducing severe tax penalties to those who would like to stay in the same location but build a bunch more housing (like Greece's polykatoikias, which solved Athen's severe housing crunch...).
And high housing costs means that all labor is far more expensive than it would be otherwise, which makes building the housing expensive, which makes it difficult to expand the workforce to build housing, etc. etc. etc. Lack of housing is at the core of all rising costs in California, and the bad policies such as Libertarian Prop 13 and NIMBYs are most of it.