Pete Buttigieg Admits That When He Says ‘Fair Taxes’ He Means ‘Higher Taxes’

There is nothing fair about that. I thought that was my point. I must have expressed myself badly.

 

I think the federal tax rates should be a lot lower than that. My view is that the federal government has no business doing 70% of what it does.

 

fairy taxes.

 

There was a time in the United States, when, except for property taxes, nearly all the taxes were paid by businesses. Around the time I was born, I think business was still paying about 70% of the taxes. After nearly 40 years of Reaganomics, common people pay 60% of the taxes. That is the story of Reaganomics. The tax burden went down for the wealthy, and up for the average man. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Sure you get all excited about a 3% growth, but that 3% is a lot further down the pay scale than perhaps it should have been. Before Reaganomics; an average man could get a job and with that job support a wife, a few kids, a couple of cars, a dog, cat, and yearly vacations. Few can still do that.

Relatively speaking people are much worse off than they were 40 years ago.

 

I know how it is. I went away to college and opened my mind to all kinds of knowledge, all kinds of ideas. It allowed me to see the world from a more enlightened vantage point. I have been successful in my career because I clearly see the world for what it is, not for what I believe it to be. My brothers found me so frustrating. They stayed home and wallowed in the ignorance of the conservative Christian world we grew up in.

 

The worst part about it is what isn't fair is the waste, fraud and abuse that they want to raise taxes to pay for.

 

Its how they do.

 

Libertarianism didn't kill 100 million (mostly starving) poor last century.

Marxism did.

 

What time were you born 1900? The story of Reagonmics is that more and more people at the bottom have paid a smaller and smaller share of the federal tax burden. And unless your are claiming those in the top 20% and the common people your statement is about the bottom 60% pay a higher share of income taxes is laughable but do cite something to support your claim.

You can do it if you want to live that standard of living but the fact is we all live a higher standard of living and women want to be a part of the workforce so they work.

Realitive to what and by what measure?

 

I'm not seeing that.

 

It's common knowledge, bub, so I will ignore any such further requests from you.

No one has to justify to the rich why they should pay higher. They know why. Beginning in the next administration the rates are going to become much fairer for the poor, working and middle classes.

 

The middle class tax cut disappears, PP, eight years after implementation. You are looking at an incorrect and inaccurate chart.

 

One thing you guys always leave out is that these are higher taxes but they are higher taxes for the wealthy who have more than enough money to pay them. You also didn't provide any detail into his spending proposals and how they aren't going to help me. Do you have any evidence he wants unlimited resources for illegals and asylum seekers? Any quote? What do you mean by unlimited resources?

 

Libertarianism is a philosophy of individual freedom and responsibility, things Marxist class warriors such as yourself know nothing and care nothing about...

 

As O'Reilly used to say, one man's 'fair' is another man's con.

 

Ok. I wish I made 500k and I would gladly pay it.
I am in the second to the highest bracket and agree my taxes should increase as my current emtr is only around 20%.

Your concern is noted though

 

You should pay the highest emtr that you would have any other citizen pay, then pat yourself on the back for paying your fair share for a change

 

I whole heartedly agree.

 

You've got it exactly backwards, half the people pay no income tax. We had 5.5% growth under Reagan, I'll take more of that.

 

Individual taxes are never fair because they are usually focused more on one income source or group, e.g. business revenue, investment profits, purchases, property, or imports. The income tax is an extremely progressive tax, but most of our taxes are very regressive and hit the poor the hardest, so the income tax counter-balances them. I don't really care about whether taxes are fair, but instead on their impact on our population's prosperity.

 

Most other taxes are excise taxes and hit everyone the same. I agree that the "tax fairness" issue is not what the progressives make it out to be so they can use the tax system for political means. The tax system should be designed and rates should be set to collect the most revenues with the least effect on the economy and jobs and investment. That means the 15% capgains rate of Bush43 rather than the 29% rate of Clinton. It means income taxes at rates that do not punish success and rewards lack of achievement. But all you have to do is read/listen to the residents leftist here, it's all about getting back at the evil rich and evil successful people because of jealousy and envy.

 

What if the higher rate means less tax revenue and who pays the most skews back towards the lower incomes? After the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts and the Bush43 tax rate cuts the highest earners paid FAR more in revenues and a higher share of taxes while more and more at the bottom had their entire tax liabilities eliminated.

 

Hey tell Pelosi to get with McConnell and pass a bill to make them permanent then, the Republicans will have no objection. It could have happened in Trumps bill if a few Democrats had supported it. They sunset BECAUSE of the Democrats not Republicans.

 

As always, thanks for you completely uninformative remarks

 

Yes, the GOP will kill it in the Senate, blues.

The GOP passed the original, unfair bill, and their opinion won't change.