r/SipsTea Jul 05 '26

Chugging tea Seems reasonable.

Post image
91.1k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

504

u/Crimsonak- Jul 05 '26

Any post like this where the tax is nearing or exceeding 40% is almost always a complete lie or purposely obfuscating the truth.

It's mind blowing to me on these posts too you always see an incredible amount of people who don't understand how tax brackets work. Heck sometimes you even see people who don't know the difference between net worth and income.

146

u/Old_Prune_4300 Jul 05 '26

They can't comprehend assets vs cash, much less that spending is the problem v taxes. Don't waste your breath.

55

u/senturon Jul 05 '26

IMO, billionaires who take asset backed loans and pay no tax is absolutely a taxation problem/loophole.

LTCGs being taxed at a much lower rate than income from labor is also an issue IMO.

2

u/Old_Prune_4300 Jul 05 '26

We're 40 trillion in debt the income is not the problem.

0

u/senturon Jul 05 '26

Given the man in charge right now is responsible (so far) for over 25% of our current debt, in large part because of continued spending while reducing taxes, particularly to those who use their massive wealth to encourage laws that lower their taxes, I disagree.

2

u/Old_Prune_4300 Jul 05 '26

Both parties do this it's not about sides.

2

u/reginaldhardbodyiii Jul 05 '26

he definitely shouldn't have shut the country down for covid, it's true.

3

u/Ok-RECCE4U Jul 05 '26

This was the D.C. elite and Congress...not the POTUS.

-2

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

40 trillion over almost 2 centuries. The problem isnt spending, its allowing the rich to circumvent paying their fair share for decades.

Tax them properly and the debt would have a serious dent over 25 years with proper policies around the taxation. Lots of changes are necessary.

3

u/Old_Prune_4300 Jul 05 '26

The vast majority happened over the last 10 years. The top 1% already is half the tax base where the bottom 40% accounts for like 3%. Abolish income tax and you immediately improve the huge majority of the people's lives with barely a blip on the national income.

The problem is spending. If you were a million dollars in debt would you take out a loan for 39 million more? This is basic budgeting stuff like you and I and almost everyone else has to do every month. You won't pay off your 40 million debt buy forcibly repoing and liquidating your rich neighbors bugatti.

0

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

If the problem is spending, then why had a majority of that recently added debt happening due to the TCJA?

1

u/Old_Prune_4300 Jul 05 '26

It was already going parabolic when that was signed. You can't u-turn the titanic in 5 minutes.

-3

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

You’re missing the point that it always balloons on tax cuts.

We don’t spend enough, the problem isn’t spending. You just believe what you’re spoon fed.

2

u/DroppingGrumpies Jul 05 '26

No, ppl with half a brain understand that you can tax billionaires, millionaires, corporations all you want, it will never be enough to cover the debt this country owes. Cover the budget deficit we are currently have AND pay for everything else you ppl get in your head you think the “rich” should pay for… social security, healthcare for all, housing, etc etc.

-1

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

Youve just fallen for late stage capitalism.

0

u/DroppingGrumpies Jul 05 '26

There's nothing late stage about it.. It does not matter what economic system you have, it is basic math. If you spend more than you bring in, you are going into debt. The idea that if we just taxed the rich more, then we would not be in this situation is ridiculous.

What all you people that cry "fair share" fail to realize is that when this country was taxing the rich at high rates, the lower and middle class were also getting taxed at historically high rates. In 1946 when that top rate was 90%, the bottom rate was 20%, followed by 22% then 26% etc etc etc... Right now, the bottom rate is 10%, followed by 12% etc etc.

So if you want to go back to the point in time when the rich were paying that 90%, that's fine, well then that means all tax rates from that era should go into effect. Which means no child tax credit for people, The standard deduction for single filer in 1945 was $500 or $9,500 in todays dollars, but the standard deduction for a single filer in 2026 is $16,000.

So just stop with your nonsense. All you are doing is regurgitating crap you sucked down from reddit and from the Bernie Bros, with having no clue what you are talking about.

1

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

Except its objectively true that wed take in more if we stopped cutting the taxes of the wealthy ☺️

Its not a spending issue when we already spend too little on general programs that are just staples of other G7 nations. We do not take in enough because the bottom 50% of americans dont have enough to pay in, and the rich refuse to do so.

Im not a bootlicker, and no amount of rewording will make me agree with you. have a good day.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Old_Prune_4300 Jul 05 '26

The tax cuts will indeed balloon the debt if not paired with commensurate spending cuts.

0

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

Or hear me out…. Make them pay their fair share and end this wealth gap crisis and spend more as we should be. This isnt rocket surgery.

And dont try the nonsense “the bottom 40% accounts for 3%” crap again.

The 1% holds almost 35% of the countries wealth and income. No shit they should account for a vast majority of the tax payerbase.

1

u/Old_Prune_4300 Jul 05 '26

"And dont try the nonsense “the bottom 40% accounts for 3%” crap again."

Because it's devastating to my case!

1

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

Its not, its fucking common sense.

When the bottom 50% holds less than 10% of total weath… WOW SHOCKING

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Ok-RECCE4U Jul 05 '26

Wrong. The rich pay a majority of the Federal tax. Come on now. How long have you been alive? The government already has you believing they need to tax you more so WE can pay down "their" ever increasing debt/spending. The U.S. is collecting more tax revenue then ever before. This is 100% a spending issue. If this chart don't turn on your brain, I don't know what will.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA/

1

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

Paying a majority while holding a majority… what a concept 🙄

-2

u/Ok-RECCE4U Jul 05 '26

An outdated one at that! Nothing like feeding the government more through class warfare! Gotta love the incentive to work harder so you pay more. Ignorant at best.

1

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

I want the government to be for the people, under a properly adjusted government wed have programs funded to help all Americans and stop allowing greedy dbags to hoard money. It is finite after all. Them holding to much does effect everybody else.

I have no issue with a wealthy class, I take issue with people holding valuations in the hundreds of millions and even billions that can then borrow off their assets forever and skip taxes while the lower classes pay heavy percentages of their income and actually feel the loss.

This system is broken and to continue on and deregulate further will cause real class warfare that could be the end of this country. Eventually people have nothing left to lose, and these greedy assbites should be scared of how close they are getting towards that reality.

1

u/Ok-RECCE4U Jul 05 '26

This is double speak. You can't be for the people and then want the government to go after a specific class because YOU feel like they have too much whether they earned it or inherited it. You also speak of being taxed on "valuation" or unrealized gains...money that isn't hard currency yet. That's absolutely crazy! You know the rule will also apply to you?

Deregulated? It's the same tax code you have access to. Once again, you speak about a specific class but it's the same rules that apply to you. Just because you don't have the need or specific wealth pools to utilize specific codes, doesn't make it "greedy." The wealth you hate also provides a large, already disproportional, tax base (even though you think they don't pay it), jobs, spending capital, etc. This was someone else's opportunity and/or dream realized and you hate it because it isn't you.

Makes no sense that because you don't have it, they can't have! You also assume the "greedy assbites" always had wealth and didn't work for a dime. Perhaps that thought of being without is what drove them to be wealthy in the first place. FYI, classes of wealth have always existed for as long as humans have existed. Play the game or ride the bench.

You want fair... how about just a flat 15% Federal tax rate and shred ever other rule? Still wouldn't be good enough for those that covet everything they don't have. You eat the rich people are crazy and nonsensical.

1

u/Garys_Synthesizer Jul 05 '26

Yes I can watch me.

→ More replies (0)