HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Hoyt » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Hoyt

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Jan 20, 2005, 08:46 PM
Number of posts: 51,990

Journal Archives

Wish there were a way to define "fair share." Is it 10 additional percentage points

above current tax rates, 20 points, 30 points, or whatever it takes?

I’d like to see a long-term tax plan that would pay for healthcare, childcare, education, and all the other things we need.

While no tax increase will impact me at my age and income, I think it would help if we had a long term plan. If I were a high earner, I’d probably pucker too at the thought of tax increase piled upon previous year tax increases.

We'll keep kicking the can down the road until an automatic cut of 25% is about to happen. Obama

Obama tried to address this and was bashed by Republicans and Dems.

People think all they have to do is increase tax on incomes above the current cap, except that isn't going to happen because that roughly 12 percentage point tax increase is needed for other things.

We better pra that GOPers are not in charge when it gets closer.


"CBO projects a Social Security deficit of $120 billion this year that will steadily grow to $384 billion by 2030. Two years later, the trust fund will be fully depleted. If we do not act soon, the Social Security Administration will not have the resources or authority to pay full benefits, leading to an immediate 25 percent benefit cut. Such an outcome would be a crisis for most of the 80 million Americans who will be receiving Social Security in that year."

"This information is disturbing, but not surprising. Had we heeded earlier calls by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, we could have phased in tax and benefit changes gradually to minimize the disruption to people’s lives. Instead, Social Security became increasingly polarized and both parties became less honest about the implications. Too many Republicans pinned their hopes on an ill-conceived plan to convert Social Security into a nationwide 401(k) style system. Democrats have been content to minimize the scope of the problem, even calling for benefit increases despite not having a plan to pay for those benefits already promised.

"In a world of combatting narratives and alternative facts, it is worth remembering that mathematics does not distort or lie. And the mathematics of Social Security are clear: benefits are at risk. And the longer we wait to face this, the more disruptive those changes will be.

"If we wait until the trust fund runs dry, then we will be faced with a mix of ugly choices. We could immediately cut benefits for 80 million recipients by 25 percent. We could raise payroll tax rates for 180 million workers from 12.4 percent to about 16.4 percent. In either case, further spending cuts or tax increases would be required going forward. Neither of these options or the others that could close the funding gap are economically attractive, let alone politically palatable. . . . . ."

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/555972-the-time-is-now-for-action-on-social-security

I hope so. The first video they released showed a man chasing Rittenhouse, probably for good reason.

Here is a link to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that includes a video the defense "pieced" together and moderated to allegedly show that the punk was attacked. I'm sure it is completely objective.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/09/26/new-video-focuses-one-side-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-kenosha/3537879001/

The video the article refers to is:

&t=1s

Personally, I'd stick the little pissant in prison for life for showing up with a rifle dangling from his neck, and double the sentence for wearing his hat backwards.

Understand significance of fight over TX voting rights, and detest the legislation

proposed by GOPers, but I hope this “leaving to avoid a quorum” thing ends soon. Don’t think it will look good long-term and it’s not going to change anything.

I can see most State Supreme Courts ruling similar to Texas on a a political party stalling on voting on an issue by leaving state. To me, it’s unbecoming no matter which Party does it. The quorum rule was written to prevent calling a quick vote to pass some controversial legislation when members cannot get to the vote.

Again, I applaud doing anything necessary to try to avert “big lie” voting laws. But, that kind of stuff can be used by any minority party to block significant legislation.

Plus, I believe courts may offer some relief from onerous voting legislation. And, whatever obstacles are left, Democrats— and Stacy Abrams’ group, etc. — will figure out a way to mitigate damage.

Amazon paid zero taxes. That's different from Bezos and millions of

stockholders. They pay taxes.

Under current tax laws, right or wrong, young companies get accelerated depreciation and deductions for research, etc. That stuff, we often call loopholes, has been approved and promoted by Democrats and GOPers over the years to spur jobs and the economy.

When those accelerated deductions fizzle out, Amazon will pay taxes, but perhaps offset by continued growth.

In the meantime, the US Treasury has collected tens of billions from stock sales, people who helped build Amazon (I’ll grant you some employees on the lower end did not fare as well) paying taxes, etc. And they built a damn delivery system that helped a lot of people during the pandemic.

Again, I’m for more Bezos, albeit taxed properly including a minimum tax for companies like Amazon.

Yes, Sen Warren, Amazon doesn't pay a lot of taxes. But Bezos does.

He pays when he sells stock to fund his lifestyle. Plus, every time some small or large stockholder sells his stock, they pay taxes.

When Bezos’ xwife gives billions to charity, she pays taxes, although she often gets a deduction.

Amazon — what most call Bezos — will eventually pay taxes on income as startup, research, etc., deductions phase out.

I don’t despise Bezos. In fact to fund all the stuff we want/deserve, we need a bunch of Bezos.

We just need to increase their taxes.

They should definitely have the right to sue. Gun profiteers pay big bucks to lobbying organizations

like the NRA to spread lies, attempt to buy legislators, promote buying gunz, run ads like the one below, promote violence, etc. Heck, yeah, there are grounds for lawsuits.

?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

Feel the same. Dream on.

There are hundreds of articles out there on how trump would be removed from office because he colluded with Russians, paid hush money to porn stars, Cohen, Flynn and Manafort would flip on him, Mueller would take him down, Ukraine would be his downfall, Epstein would get him, they’d get him in impeachment, extorting votes from state officials, Jan 6 insurrection would nail him, and much more.

If those didn’t bring him down, a scheme run by trump’s CFO and Controller likely won’t either. Sorry, I wish it would. But it won’t.

Sorry, but I don't see how this is devastating. First, how hard is it to get to the right precinct?

I think Democrats are smart enough to get that right. Those few who can't determine their correct precinct should be able to call local Dem organizations for help.

Nor, do I see it a particular problem to deliver your own ballots, either in person or putting in in the mailbox outside your door.

Now, I don't believe the laws were necessary, but they are not devastating unless we think Democrats are stupid or helpless. Now, if the Supreme Court rules something like you have have a chip implanted to vote, we've got a serious problem. But they aren't going to rule that.

That's exactly what happened to me, not that I had not already seen things that bothered me in high

school -- separate, and unequal, schools, segregated water fountains, employment ads in a large newspaper that actually said "Only Caucasians need apply," and much worse crud. But truth is, I still was at a point where I'd hesitate a bit to make sure I was using "integration" and "segregation" correctly because those issues weren't really talked about in classes.

I was very lucky. I went to a typical southern conservative university in 1967. We are talking about colleges where the fraternity houses had big confederate flags hanging on the antebellum houses. One of the reasons I avoided fraternities. The alumni did include the likes of Jimmy Carter, Sam Nunn, and numerous scholars. So, it was not totally rubesville, although a lot of students were rubes.

Anyway, my first quarter there I needed one more course to fill out my hours. Only thing I could find was a Sociology class at 8:00AM three days a week, including Saturday. I almost didn't take it because I hated early classes.

The first few sessions were pretty normal, although the professor was an odd, but likable type. One Monday he walked in with a big bandage on his head. He had been at the city park over the weekend for a large demonstration -- civil rights and Vietnam -- and had been arrested/beaten by police.

After telling us what happened, he said go ahead and sell your sociology books because we are going off script. The class turned into something very similar to Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States written over a decade later.

I never learned as much in any other class. Just a few years ago I saw where he had died in his 80s. I wrote a long response to the notice expressing my sincere thanks for his class and the risks he took teaching such matters back in the 1960s.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »