https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/politics/medicaid-food-stamps-gop-proposed-cuts


MAGAts love you if you are rich, otherwise nah

VOTE BLUE

Go Bears Forever

bearister said:

---

"I am old enough to remember when the US's super-rich financed the government with their tax payments. Under Dwight Eisenhower ….hardly a leftwing radical ….the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. (Even after all tax credits and deductions were figured in, the super-rich paid way over half their top marginal incomes in taxes.)

But since the Reagan, George W Bush and Trump 1 tax cuts, tax rates on the super-rich have plummeted.

So instead of financing the government with their taxes, the super-rich have been financing the US government by lending it money.

(You may have heard that the US's debt is held mainly by foreigners. Wrong. More than 70% of it is held by Americans …..and most of them are wealthy.)

This means that an ever-increasing portion of the taxes from the rest of us are dedicated to paying ever-increasing interest payments on the debt payments that go largely to the super-rich.

So when the debt of the United States is downgraded because Trump Republicans are planning another big tax cut mainly benefiting the rich and big corporations, most Americans could end up paying in three different ways:

1
They'll pay even more interest on the growing debt ….to the super-rich.

2
They'll pay higher interest rates on all other long-term debt. (As higher rates on treasury bonds waft through the economy, they raise borrowing costs on everything from mortgages to auto loans.)

3
The debt crisis will give Republicans even more excuse to do what they're always wanting to do: slash safety nets. So many Americans could lose benefits they rely on, such as Medicaid and food stamps."

Robert Reich

---

It's unbelievable.

MAGAts cheat America

VOTE BLUE

Go Bears Forever

Another clear-eyed analysis by Reich.

And now for some satire directed at the GOP's fake Christians in Congress.

pic.twitter.com/NDBEUHix4e

— MAGA Cult Slayer🦅🇺🇸 (@MAGACult2) May 20, 2025

Trying to hide things from the constituency is not a good sign.

"Of course, you don’t want anybody to know what you’re doing here,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said around 1:30 a.m. “It’s because you know this bill betrays the people who voted for you.”

Story: https://t.co/qEU5IwBL6L pic.twitter.com/TA1AASRJsk

— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) May 21, 2025

bearister said:

---

"I am old enough to remember when the US's super-rich financed the government with their tax payments. Under Dwight Eisenhower ….hardly a leftwing radical ….the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. (Even after all tax credits and deductions were figured in, the super-rich paid way over half their top marginal incomes in taxes.)

But since the Reagan, George W Bush and Trump 1 tax cuts, tax rates on the super-rich have plummeted.

So instead of financing the government with their taxes, the super-rich have been financing the US government by lending it money.

(You may have heard that the US's debt is held mainly by foreigners. Wrong. More than 70% of it is held by Americans …..and most of them are wealthy.)

This means that an ever-increasing portion of the taxes from the rest of us are dedicated to paying ever-increasing interest payments on the debt payments that go largely to the super-rich.

So when the debt of the United States is downgraded because Trump Republicans are planning another big tax cut mainly benefiting the rich and big corporations, most Americans could end up paying in three different ways:

1
They'll pay even more interest on the growing debt ….to the super-rich.

2
They'll pay higher interest rates on all other long-term debt. (As higher rates on treasury bonds waft through the economy, they raise borrowing costs on everything from mortgages to auto loans.)

3
The debt crisis will give Republicans even more excuse to do what they're always wanting to do: slash safety nets. So many Americans could lose benefits they rely on, such as Medicaid and food stamps."

Robert Reich

---

The 91% number has been so thoroughly debunked you should be embarrassed resorting to that claim. The highest marginal rate was 91%, but virtually no one paid that due to loopholes and other dodges.

Historically, regardless of marginal rates, income taxes have always been approximately 20% of GDP. People adjust their behavior based on tax rates. That is why you need to grow GDP.

Here is some actual data for you based on latest information available (Tax Year 2022) pulled from the link below:

Taxpayers reported nearly $14.8 trillion in AGI on 153.8 million tax returns in 2022, an increase of $30 billion in AGI and 211,000 returns compared to 2021. Total income taxes paid fell by $57 billion to $2.1 trillion, a 3 percent decrease from 2021. The average individual income tax rate inched down from 14.9 percent in 2021 to 14.5 percent in 2022.

Because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) classifies the refundable part of tax credits as spending, the IRS does not include it in tax share figures. The result overstates the tax burden of the bottom half of taxpayers.

• In 2022, taxpayers filed 153.8 million tax returns, reported earning nearly $14.8 trillion in adjusted gross income(AGI), and paid $2.1 trillion in individual income taxes.
• The average income tax rate in 2022 was 14.5 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 23.1 percent average rate, six times higher than the 3.7 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers. [NOTE: I'M QUOTING FROM THE LINK, BUT i BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE TOP 5%, NOT TOP 1%]
• The top 1 percent's income share fell from 26.3 percent in 2021 to 22.4 percent in 2022, and its share of federal income taxes paid fell from 45.8 percent to 40.4 percent.
• The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.

Per the chart in the article:

The top 1% of earners pay 40.4% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 61%, and the top 10% pay 72%. the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, particularly when tax credits are accumulated.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/

So it was under Biden (not Trump) that the top 1% paid less proportionately speaking. That was presumably because they were earning less taxable income under Biden's economy.

But more generally, the numbers demonstrate that the rich pay the overwhelming amount of taxes. The fact that 50% of the country pays basically nothing is problematic. Everyone should pay something so they have $$ at risk.

Per a google search/AI, the top 1% is $787,712 adjusted gross income and the top 5% $250,000 AGI. Top 10% is $178,611. A taxpayer in Coastal California, metro NY, DC, Boston, etc. making $250,000 is far from rich. But you want to tax them more.

The problem is not inadequate taxation. It is excessive spending that is driving the national debt. It is rather humorous you want to put the blame on Trump when Biden wanted to spend even more. Sadly, neither party cares about the national debt. If that is your real concern (it is one of mine), then we need to reduce spending. You can't tax your way out of this.

I do agree that tax loopholes should be closed. Carried interest seemingly can't be killed. Tax gains in school and charitable endowments. Tax the creation/operation of "charitable" foundations created by the uber wealthy (a huge estate tax dodge). I'm on board for all of that. But I think on the whole, "the rich" (i.e., top 10%) are paying their fair share of total taxes.

I've yet to be embarrassed in any back and forth with your crew. You are a Johnny One Note*. Now lecture me on why you are a fan of an extension of the Trump Tax Cuts that will cost $4,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years.

*Yogi labels me a Republican because of some of the positions I take. Do you think you are at risk of ever being accused of being a Democrat because of the positions you take? Your position on issues all appear in the same manual.

*Yeah, the wealthy are really getting f@ucked in America.

bearister said:

---

"I am old enough to remember when the US's super-rich financed the government with their tax payments. Under Dwight Eisenhower ….hardly a leftwing radical ….the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. (Even after all tax credits and deductions were figured in, the super-rich paid way over half their top marginal incomes in taxes.)

---

I agree the Republican bill is atrocious. But I'm bothered by Reich's statement in bold because it's typical of 'pundit speak' (on both the right and left). It takes a statement that is I assume is factually correct but leaves out context. in order to bolster their thesis. I bet a lot, if not most, people will ignore or not understand "marginal" and conclude that the super rich paid way over half of their income in taxes -- way, way more than now.

What's relevant of course is the effective tax rate. From what I've read it was estimated to be 40-45% in the 1950's and is currently around 26%. And that difference is probably overstated. There were a lot of benefits in the 50's (cars, country club memberships) that weren't taxed then and are now. You could personally incorporate in the 50's to gain a tax advantage; you can't now. And I have to believe that tax evasion was a lot easier then.

I was too lazy to see if the super-rich paid a larger share of total tax collections in the 50's than they do now, but I'd bet that if they did the change from today's situation is nowhere near as big as Reich is implying.

bearister said:

---

I've yet to be embarrassed in any back and forth with your crew. You are a Johnny One Note*. Now lecture me on why you are a fan of an extension of the Trump Tax Cuts that will cost $4,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years.

*Yogi labels me a Republican because of some of the positions I take. Do you think you are at risk of ever being accused of being a Democrat because of the positions you take? Your position on issues all appear in the same manual.

*Yeah, the wealthy are really getting f@ucked in America.

---

You have not been embarrassed because you have no shame or desire to engage in an actual honest debate.

I never said the wealthy are getting screwed. I did say that the definition of wealthy is very misleading - a person earning $250K in coastal CA is not wealthy (and in fact likely cannot afford a home in a place like SFO, LA, Silicon Valley, San Diego or Orange County). Yet you want to tax them more and feel they don't pay their fair share.

I note you didn't engage with any of the non-partisan data I presented. You haven't said who should pay more and how much they should pay. You haven't indicated how that additional taxation: (i) will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way (it won't); and/or (ii) would result in more net tax revenues. You just want to demagogue republicans (you said nothing about deficits during the Biden admin) while offering no actual proposals.

In terms of my being accused of being a Democrat by today's standards - I hope that never happens. Many of my proposals above (raising taxes in certain cases) would have been considered "democrat mantra" 10 years ago. I am pretty much a free speech absolutists which used to be the liberal/democrat position. I can't help that the Dems have gone nutty.


Beyond that, I'm not opposed to all tax increases. Under Trump, my marginal ttax rates actually went up due to SALT limitations and the fact that our shared profession is not eligible for many of the best tax breaks. So be it. Fortunately, the additional taxes are not an imposition on me. But the overall dynamic where 50% of the people pay nothing and people like you think the current system is unfair is just absurd.

dajo9 said:

---

The right also doesn't want to acknowledge that the United States is near the bottom of the list for taxes collected as percent of GDP among OECD countries. We also have the most inefficient healthcare system because it is profit based in an industry in which it can be extremely hard to say "no" to the services.

The United States does not have a spending problem, the United States has a healthcare problem. We need to nationalize our healthcare insurance which would make it far more efficient. All current premiums need to be re-routed to taxes. Payroll taxes should be reimplemented at $500k of individual income. Additionally, we need to implement a wealth tax beginning at something like $50 million of wealth. Bringing down wealth inequality in the U.S. is fiscally responsible, good economics, good for the culture, and it is good for political power balances.


https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/sources-federal-revenues-share-gdp
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/oecd-taxes-share-gdpNot

---

I'm not sure I'd characterize the healthcare system as 'profit based'. I just looked it up and the breakdown on health spending I saw was 32% private, 47% federal and 16% state.

And I have a very difficult time believing that turning the whole system over to the government would make it more efficient. One rationale for this conclusion is that Medicare's overhead is said to be only 5% so bringing everything into that system would save an enormous amount by eliminating a huge amount of administrative costs and profits. But that figure is calculated with the cost of care as the denominator and Medicare benificiarys' cost of care is three to four times as large as the private insurance figure. A more appropriate measure, in my view, is looking at it on a per capita basis and with that metric Medicare's admin costs are higher than private insurance. In addition, some of Medicare's admin functions are through other agencies. Part B premiums, for example, are largely collected from Social Security payments.

I spent my career in healthcare finance and can give you lots of anecdotal examples of Medicare's inefficiencies, but the experience that really cemented my view was the period in 90's when I ran a hospital/physician joint venture that was formed to service a Medicare HMO product. To convince the physicians to participate we promised that they would be no worse off in the fixed monthly payment program than they would be had they provided the same service through Medicare's fee for service system, with the hospital funding any shortfall.

With over 5,000 Medicare recipients in both the HMO and traditional fee for service, we had a sort of de facto experiment. The hospital never had to fund a 'physician payment shortfall', because the utilization on the HMO side was 15% lower than the fee for service cohort, with no difference in outcome or patient satisfaction. Turns out that when physicians are in charge of paying for service out of their own pockets, upcoding, redundant office visits and other unnecessary costs tend to vanish.

Medicare has a 70+ trillion unfunded liability. I can't imagine we can raise taxes enough to fill that hole and sustain the program as it exists, let alone expand it. Something has to change and I'm certainly not smart enough to come up with the answer. I would, however, like to see premium support for Kaiser like systems, so we can get away from fee for service.

dajo9 said:

---

bearister said:

---

I've yet to be embarrassed in any back and forth with your crew. You are a Johnny One Note*. Now lecture me on why you are a fan of an extension of the Trump Tax Cuts that will cost $4,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years.

*Yogi labels me a Republican because of some of the positions I take. Do you think you are at risk of ever being accused of being a Democrat because of the positions you take? Your position on issues all appear in the same manual.

*Yeah, the wealthy are really getting f@ucked in America.

---

Reich is absolutely correct - as he said, "even after all tax credits and deductions were figured in, the super-rich paid way over half their top marginal incomes in taxes". BearGoggles is making the same claim that Reich already made. Last I checked, half is 50%, not 91%. But that is only the first of many mistakes made by BearGoggles.

BearGoggles says historically, income taxes have always been approximately 20% of GDP. That is false. Since ~1970 income taxes have historically been around 8% of GDP. Corporate taxes (which ultimately are paid mostly by the wealthy) have gone from ~3% of GDP to ~1.5% of GDP. In that time, payroll taxes (which are regressive) have gone from ~4.2% of GDP to ~6.4% of GDP. So, in our lifetimes we have seen a gradual shift in tax burden from the wealthy to the middle (I am using 1970 because it is after the implementation of Medicare and before Reagan).

The attempt by the right to try to disappear the growing burden of payroll taxes is not an accident. They want you to falsely believe that 50% aren't contributing anything which is patently false.

I also notice that BearGoggles tries to put demands on you that he doesn't put on himself. He says we have to cut spending but he didn't say specifically what spending should be cut. He didn't say how that reduced spending would reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. He just wants to demagogue Democrats while offering no actual proposals. And anybody who says "waste, fraud, and abuse" is not interested in having a serious conversation.

There are 3 spending levers that would have any meaningful impact - social security, healthcare, and defense. I don't think we should cut any of those (even defense spending is historically low at 2% of GDP). In fact, the opposite, we need to expand government healthcare which would make it more efficient.

The right also doesn't want to acknowledge that the United States is near the bottom of the list for taxes collected as percent of GDP among OECD countries. We also have the most inefficient healthcare system because it is profit based in an industry in which it can be extremely hard to say "no" to the services.

The United States does not have a spending problem, the United States has a healthcare problem. We need to nationalize our healthcare insurance which would make it far more efficient. All current premiums need to be re-routed to taxes. Payroll taxes should be reimplemented at $500k of individual income. Additionally, we need to implement a wealth tax beginning at something like $50 million of wealth. Bringing down wealth inequality in the U.S. is fiscally responsible, good economics, good for the culture, and it is good for political power balances.


https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/sources-federal-revenues-share-gdp
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/oecd-taxes-share-gdp

---

Hi dajo. Welcome back to the board (you were very quiet after the November elections), though I'm surprised you're posting outside of the circle jerk thread you created for only people who agree with you.

You and Bearister have not answered my question. Who should pay more income taxes and how much should they pay?

Instead you criticize me for not answering a question that I was never asked and then putting words in my mouth that I never said (waste fraud abuse). You literally construct fallacious arguments with your own caricature of the opposing viewpoint, but never engage with the actual arguments.

It is factually true that approximately 50% of the US pay virtually no income taxes. My point is that the income tax system is very progressive already (far from regressive) and that everyone but the very poor should pay something in the way of income taxes. Discussions of payroll taxes don't change that. And it is false to simply say corporate taxes are paid by the wealthy. In fact, they are generally passed through to consumers which make corporate taxes regressive.

Comparisons to the European system may be appealing to you, but not to most US citizens. I'll take the US growth rate over the European model, though others might disagree. At the same time, I have no desire to see a nationalized healthcare system. Canada and UK have terrible quality of care.

Unlike you, I'm happy to engage with the substance of your question (which was posed to me for the first time). In terms of spending cuts and potential revenue/tax changes, here is what I'd start with:

1. Across the board freeze of all governmental spending. No more automatic spending increases. No more defining a reduction of growth in spending as a "spending cut" which is arguably the worst practice in government. This includes foreign aid and the military spending where in particular I think there is a tremendous amount of waste and procurement fraud (yes, I said it in the context of Military bloat).

2. Across the board hiring freeze and salary freeze for all government offices outside of the military and critical law enforcement (which for me is DHS and border). The goal is to shrink the federal government through attrition. Relocate government out of the DC metro area which is expensive to lower cost areas.

3. Tax social security on high earners. Tax carried interest as income. Eliminate the charitable deduction for private foundations in excess of $30M, indexed for inflation (essentially an estate tax dodge for the very wealthy). Tax earnings from all university and other private charity endowments.

4. Increase the retirement age for social security - and index it based on US expected live span. This should be combined with enhanced retirement savings options. Social security should be a true lock box but the reality is that it is a ponzi scheme.

5. Enact a line item veto. Need a constitutional amendment for that, but I'm up for trying. Make the President responsible for all spending and accountable for any pork.

6. Eliminate as many transfers of $$ to states as possible. Let the states vote on and fund their own spending.

7. Make all illegal immigrants ineligible for federal benefits, including indirect federal benefits (i.e., healthcare and education paid for by the feds). If people want to pay for these things, they can do so at the state level. Expand legal immigration using a merit based system similar to what other countries already use. All of this needs to be accompanied by guest worker programs and strict enforcement against employers of hiring laws.

8. To reduce the cost of healthcare, I'm in favor of laws requiring transparent pricing and other similar types of private market reforms. Any governmental subsidies should be aligned with that - i.e., funding HSAs for people who can't afford them rather than throwing money at medical providers/insurance companies.

That is where I'd start. I'm sure there are many other ideas out there.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the bill, including the renewal of Trump's TCJA of 2017 (impact in 2026) would increase deficits by $3.8 TRILLION through 2034, equal to 1.1% of GDP.

Even before these expanded future deficits, the U.S. govt is running red ink at an annual rate of $2 Trillion, or close to 7% of GDP --- a level unprecedented except for recessions or wartime.

Just the FACTS.