The Government does a good job redistributing income

[Godless Socialist CEO]

You haven't disagreed with anything posted...

at Cato and a Shapiro gif for no reason rn.

What's your productive opinion of the OP?

You explain to me why I should waste time looking over anything from a right wing think tank funded and founded by the Koch brothers and a myriad of other corporate entities and billionaires. Cato exists to cut their tax bills and push right wing propaganda. The messenger matters here

The idea that our government does a good job of gathering and redistributing wealth to the bottom 99% is absurd and has no basis in reality.

 

[OfTheCross]

You explain to me why I should waste time looking over anything from a right wing think tank funded and founded by the Koch brothers and a myriad of other corporate entities and billionaires. Cato exists to cut their tax bills and push right wing propaganda. The messenger matters here

The idea that our government does a good job of gathering and redistributing wealth to the bottom 99% is absurd and has no basis in reality.

Read the title again. It says income. Not wealth. And the information Cato provided is from the Congressional Budget Office.



You're an embarrassment to liberal thought.

 

[Ezra]

I remember bernie’s MMT economist saying that tax revenue doesnt actually fund any of our social programs, and the “how will we pay for it” “raise taxes on the rich” stuff is all nonsense.

This is partly true. True that tax revenue does not fund the federal government. State and local governments do rely on tax revenue.

Any question of 'how do we pay for it' is bullshyt. I

The reasons for taxation are: Creates demand for the currency, control inflation to a lesser degree, redistribute wealth, incentivize behavior.

There are reasons to tax the rich, but it's not to fund anything.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Read the title again. It says income. Not wealth. And the information Cato provided is from the Congressional Budget Office.



You're an embarrassment to liberal thought.

Good thing I’m not a liberal, I’m also not gullible enough to engage anything involving the Cato institute. Once again the messenger matters

 

[Ezra]

So...what are some solutions to this conundrum?

Come at it from all angles. I'm assuming that most of you want to increase social spending...

What is the conundrum in your opinion? What is the issue we need a solution for?

 

[inndaskKy]

Your post would have more impact if you posted the link where she said that. I don't disagree. But you have a reputation.....

Make it make sense.

The budget, expenses, and revenues are posted in the OP.

If the tax dollars weren't used, our deficit would be the entire budget.

Read The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton.Or if you don't wanna read, youtube her or MMT. Basically it's how Ezra's post says below.

This is partly true. True that tax revenue does not fund the federal government. State and local governments do rely on tax revenue.

Any question of 'how do we pay for it' is bullshyt. I

The reasons for taxation are: Creates demand for the currency, control inflation to a lesser degree, redistribute wealth, incentivize behavior.

There are reasons to tax the rich, but it's not to fund anything.

 

[Red Shield]

Agreed. Over the past 40 years w the government and courts cutting out unions negotiating power, cutting regulations, tax abatements ect, the government has done a very good job redistributing wealth towards the top, away from the middle and lower class.

It's why you see the wealth disparity in this country. We've done a good job in investing in infrastructure, research and outsourcing to allow these privatized gains.

yeah

 

[OfTheCross]

Good thing I’m not a liberal, I’m also not gullible enough to engage anything involving the Cato institute. Once again the messenger matters

in this case, the messenger is the Congressional Budget Office.

 

[OfTheCross]

What is the conundrum in your opinion? What is the issue we need a solution for?

I kind of left that open to interpretation because I figured that everyone would have their own set of priorities and solutions.

The conundrum could be limiting inequality... A desire to increase social spending...or whatever other issue you might want to add that costs money.

 

[Uitomy]

That would limit money supply.

The current Fed actually admits that they fukked up during the Great Recovery and subscribe to running the economy "hot" because that's when the people at the bottom finally get to feel it and be lifted.

If you limit the money supply the poorest suffer.

More info:

Inequality is on the Fed’s agenda at Jackson Hole - Marketplace

Money if it's worth something has to have some kind of limit, but if we tie it back to an asset like gold (or whatever else) then at the very least we have an asset that is still plentiful but retains value due to the fact that on this planet at least it has to have a cap of some kind even if we don't know that exact amount. The poor are going to suffer more imo if the currency is worthless and prices keep increasing. If the dollar is backed up and has value then they get more bang for their buck, even if it's only a sandwich.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

in this case, the messenger is the Congressional Budget Office.

Dude I work in data, waste on your time on someone else. It can be easily manipulated. I'm not buying what you or The Cato Institute are selling.

 

[OfTheCross]

Dude I work in data, waste on your time on someone else. It can be easily manipulated. I'm not buying what you or The Cato Institute are selling.

If we can't agree on the baseline facts there's nothing to discuss.

 

[OfTheCross]

This is partly true. True that tax revenue does not fund the federal government. State and local governments do rely on tax revenue.

Any question of 'how do we pay for it' is bullshyt. I

The reasons for taxation are: Creates demand for the currency, control inflation to a lesser degree, redistribute wealth, incentivize behavior.

There are reasons to tax the rich, but it's not to fund anything.

I'm a MMT advocate. But that's it's going to take at least 30 more years until we get to that point, imo. There has to be a cultural change in how we view government spending.

Anyway...I wouldn't say that the tax revenue doesn't fund the federal government. It does.

 

[Ezra]

I kind of left that open to interpretation because I figured that everyone would have their own set of priorities and solutions.

The conundrum could be limiting inequality... A desire to increase social spending...or whatever other issue you might want to add that costs money.

I dont think wealth inequality is inherently a bad thing. If people could buy affordable homes making close to minimum wage, go to college without crushing debt, have a good quality of life ect, people wouldnt care about the Bezos of the world. However, the Bezos's of the world are able to reach that level of wealth due to hollowing out the work force, sucking wages into profit and filtering upwards. (Lots of wealth distribution up)

Late 40s to mid 70s was the greatest period of economic growth in this country where all those things were achievable. They were achievable because 1. Workers had a lot of negotiating power to keep wages rising above average inflation, a strong social safety net that helped get people back on their feet so they didnt drop out of the work force, a shytload of investment in infrastructure and research that allowed private business to thrive.

We should be working back towards that ecosystem and allocating whatever resources necessary to do so. The federal budget should reflect policy goals of this country's citizens, not an arbitrary number.

And this time, allow black people and people of color access to and participation in the economy.

 

[Hood Critic]

An aging population means a consistent increase in things like Social Security and Medicare, thats why we've had an increase in mandatory spending since 1965 when both Medicare and Medicaid were introduced. How do you solve that? You probably don't directly, it solves itself through attrition - older people die.

As far as the redistribution of income is concerned, you don't even have to look at the raw numbers to understand that the above is a bit disingenuous because a big topic taking place right now is the fact that a large swathe of the population can't or can barely afford rent/mortgage in most cities in the country.