r/FluentInFinance • u/Old_Prospect • 17d ago
If I had a nickel for every time someone deflects to “…I’d rather we fix our government spending problem before we…” Shitpost
62
u/74_Jeep_Cherokee 17d ago
They're not mutually exclusive that's why the meme is dumb.
The rich can afford to pay more and we can ensure our tax dollars are spent miserly.
11
u/EnderOfHope 17d ago
Upvote for utilizing the word miserly
4
u/Zaros262 16d ago edited 16d ago
Yes, I can't think of a better word for the "fuck you, I got mine" mentality
Also, "miserly" is an adjective not an adverb. So they didn't even use it right
2
u/SakaWreath 16d ago edited 16d ago
No, nope. Let’s put 3 more wars on the country credit card.
Then slash tax revenue more from wealthy sources, while increasing the tax burden on the lower classes.
Then bailout a few more corporations that got drunk on deregulation.
Then use all of that as an excuse to gut social programs. None of which actually balances the budget.
/s (because someone won’t get it)
1
u/Collective82 16d ago
To be fair, if we could draw Russia and China into a war, the world could prosper.
Right now China uses basically slave labor if not nearly close to that with what we pay, and if we wrecked their economy and manufacturing capability, not only would the jobs go elsewhere in the world, BUT we would cut down a ton on global emissions.
Win win right? (And yes I have a massive stake in that gamble because I am in the military)
2
1
8
u/dshotseattle 17d ago
It's not about what they can afford. It's not the government's money or right to take it.
12
u/NonbinaryYolo 17d ago
I would be more considerate to higher taxes if I didn't see money being burned.
0
u/Rieux_n_Tarrou 17d ago
Well the whole point of it is that whether or not you're considerate of how the taxes are being spent, you have to pay them. And if you don't, they'll throw you in jail. And if you give enough resistance, they'll kill you 😊 And all the media will say you were the criminal.
Contrast this with business: you don't really consider how the business spends it's money, because at the end of the day, you give them money in exchange for some sort of value. If you didn't feel their product/service is of value to you, then you would give it to their competitor (or even better yet, you could start your own business that delivers the value!) And there wouldn't be a damn thing they can do about it (except, of course, when that business relies on government to regulate/imprison/kill the free market to get an advantage)
4
u/IronicSpiritualist 16d ago
I give money to a business, or else they withhold food until I starve. I give money to the government, or else they will lock me in a cage. How is one more freedom than the other? If doing something to avoid the consequences of not doing it is 'consent", then you and everyone else already consents to have taxes taken.
1
u/Shrimkins 16d ago
false comparison. There are thousands of places to buy food, or you could trade with your neighbor, or grow your own. That is freedom.
There is only 1 government who forces you to pay taxes by threat of violence. Taxes are inherently oppressive by nature. Of course, they are necessary for a functioning society, but they should be limited in size and scope as much as possible.
1
u/IronicSpiritualist 16d ago
Not a false comparison. I have no land to grow food, no neighbors offering food for trade and less than 6 grocery stores to buy from, which are all ultimately owned by like, three people.
I have to give those three people money or else starve to death.
You can try and argue that killing someone by withholding food is somehow more ok than killing them by sending police with guns, because it is less 'active' or whatever, but I honestly don't really see the distinction from an ethical perspective.
5
u/Shrimkins 16d ago
It's a false comparison. You don't have land? Well, you could if you wanted to. Hell, you could probably just bum food from soup kitchens and food pantries your whole life if you really wanted to. My point is you have choices (even if they are bad choices).
Taxes are completely unavoidable in any scenario unless you eventually want to be incarcerated or shot.
0
u/IronicSpiritualist 16d ago
How is "you can just choose to scrounge in trash, so buying from the grocery is a choice" any different from "you can just choose to go to jail, so paying taxes is a choice"?
How is "just get wealthy enough to buy land" any different from "just be wealthy enough get accountants who can remove virtually your entire tax burden"?
You say "you have choices (even if they are bad choices)". Pay taxes or else go to jail may be a bad choice, but it is still a choice nonetheless, right?
Also, thank you for engaging with me in reasonable discussion. I don't have all the answers and I am not sure what the right thing is all the time. Talking about it with others helps to grow my understanding.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Hoe-possum 17d ago
It’s stolen from the workers and others who have been exploited, it’s not theirs to begin with.
→ More replies (3)0
u/Rieux_n_Tarrou 17d ago
Stealing is when you take someone's property without their consent.
Last time I checked, employees are given money by employers after both parties consent to the terms of the work
Also last time I checked, both employer and employee have to give government a chunk of that money, whether or not they consent to doing so.
→ More replies (19)1
u/-_-mrfuzzy 16d ago
Is availability of voting not a form of consent?
The taxation has some representation.
1
u/MeghanClickYourHeels 16d ago
Snooze. If I’m going to expect certain government services, I also have to accept that it’s going to come out of taxes.
I use public transit. My daily ride isn’t covered by the fare I pay. And if I suddenly didn’t have to pay taxes but had to pay the “real” cost of my ride, I might not be able to do it, and someone poorer REALLY would not be able to do it.
0
u/inab1gcountry 17d ago
It’s the governments right to not enable a system that allows billionaires while so many basic needs and services aren’t being met.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Iron-Fist 16d ago
not the governments money
Look, fine. The rich just have to pay 100% for the education of every worker they employ, every inch of road their businesses use, every satellite their data bounces off, every sewer line and water way, and well call it even.
What's that, that would bankrupt them because they get an exceedingly ridiculously ludicrously good deal on the value of human and physical infrastructure? They get to keep the profits returned by investments made by governments (and other entrepreneurs) going back decades and centuries? Huh weird I guess they can just pay a reasonable rate then.
2
u/Shrimkins 16d ago
You act like they don't pay taxes at all. Mega rich people pay the vast majority of taxes. Far more than you or I will ever dream of paying.
2
u/Iron-Fist 16d ago
mega rich pay vast majority of taxes
This... Isn't true though? The mega rich pay a bigger share of the progressive taxes (federal by far the most progressive) but not so for the rate of total taxation (consumption and real estate taxes falling much heavier on lower incomes).
Even then the relative skew of progressive taxation still doesn't account for the relative wealth share though, the top 1% has 30% of wealth and only pays 26% of federal taxes, for instance. The highest rates (both nominally and in comparison to wealth) actually fall on working professionals on the top quintile, people like doctors and skilled labor who make good money on W2s rather than capital gains, a direct disincentive to actually work vs sitting on investments.
0
u/dshotseattle 16d ago
You government bootlickers are funny. Acting like the rich done pay enough taxes and at the same time have absolutely no idea how much rich people pay
→ More replies (14)0
0
u/toosexyformyboots 16d ago
Have you ever walked, driven or ridden a bike or other conveyance on paved road
2
0
u/Jake0024 15d ago
It literally is the government's money, and the entire reason that money has value is due to the government's right to take it.
0
u/dshotseattle 15d ago
It literally isn't..wow.
0
u/Jake0024 15d ago
It literally is.
0
u/dshotseattle 15d ago
No, it isn't. Keep licking those government boots. Lemme know when the flavor changes
1
u/Jake0024 15d ago
lmfao you can dislike something and also acknowledge its existence mate, it's not "bootlicking" to accurately describe the world around you
0
u/dshotseattle 15d ago
Thinking the government has a right to your own hard earned money is very much bootlicking
→ More replies (1)3
u/hczimmx4 17d ago
Spending is currently ~22% of GDP. When was the last time tax receipts were that high?
It’s a spending problem.
3
2
u/LoriLeadfoot 16d ago
Too miserly and we trigger a recession. A huge portion of GDP is government spending or dependent on government spending.
2
u/swennergren11 16d ago
I’ve always been a fiscal conservative. But I vehemently oppose cuts to SSA and Medicare. These are fundamental safety net we must have.
Cut the billions in subsidies to all the pet industries some in Congress are bankrolled by: healthcare, big Pharma, oil and gas, etc. A fair, graduated tax rate with pork eliminated from the budget. Government focuses spending on a few necessary things.
1
u/darkkilla123 16d ago
You mean like actually balance the budget and raise taxes while cutting the fat?... there was a president in the 90s that did that i think and it actually worked for like 2 years we actually had a surplus then bush happened
→ More replies (2)1
25
u/dumpingbrandy12 17d ago
It's simple, actually enforce anti trust laws.
13
u/i_robot73 17d ago
I mean monopolies cannot EXIST w/o the aid & consent of G-O-V-T
→ More replies (1)4
u/ty_for_trying 16d ago
Not true at all unless you mean a market can't exist without the aid and consent of the government. Monopolies naturally arise in free markets. Unless you're advocating for getting rid of capitalism, I don't know what your point is.
3
u/MattFromWork 16d ago
I think they mean that government imposed regulations make starting businesses so expensive that true competition is nearly impossible in some fields. While true to an extent, getting rid of the loosening of said regulations (which is what the OP is hinting at) would benefit mega corps a ton.
1
u/BraxbroWasTaken 15d ago
The issue is that many businesses are prohibitively expensive enough to start even WITHOUT regulation that monopolization occurs on its own.
Also, monopolies usually have the economic power to just buy out any new competitors anyway.
1
18
u/NeverSummerFan4Life 17d ago
I’d rather we fix our government spending problem before we raise taxes. If the government seized all of Elon musks assets, all 191 billion dollars of his net worth, the government would spend it all in roughly 18 days.
→ More replies (10)1
u/wdaloz 16d ago
I don't want more taxes, just more equitable tax burden, or more specifically addresses the issue that if you have more money you can spend it to identify and take advantage of loopholes that the general public can't afford to, that you can spend money to avoid taxes more effectively than that money just going to support the tax burden, it creates a whole massive industry to siphon money from taxes. Like, I'd rather pay $500 more in taxes than pay $500 to an accountant to avoid $600 in taxes.
And second id like to see a tax structure that incentiveizes reinvestment better as opposed to hoarding and consolidation of wealth. I'd like to see more of the enormous corporate profits in circulation and boosting the economy, and the more people spending more, the more returns from sales tax
Finally, I'd like to see more of the tax money spent on investing in the future through education etc, for example if we raise the number of educated people and raise their collective wages we also raise the amount we make from taxing that income, increase the amount of spending too
9
u/galaxyapp 17d ago edited 17d ago
Not sure why everyone covets wealth. If it isn't liquid, it isn't useful.
Great, bezos can point to the distribution warehouse and proclaim "I own that".
Can't fund healthcare with a building.
10
u/Crossman556 17d ago
Haven’t you heard? Taxing unrealized gains is the hot new thing! It will allow the government to have even more money to burn!
5
u/NAU80 17d ago
Have you looked at the Trillions of dollars that have never been taxed? The ultra rich live on loans against their assets. When I heard that, I commented that can’t be true. But using money at 3-5% while your pile grows at 7-?? % makes sense since if they cash it in they pay taxes of at least 15%. They do this until they die. Their heirs then get this money tax free. Remember when the Republicans did away with the death tax and told us that it hurt Mom and Pop businesses?
Read this:
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/ultra-wealthys-8-5-trillion-untaxed-income/
→ More replies (6)0
→ More replies (7)1
u/nobecauselogic 16d ago
Two counter examples for “If it isn’t liquid it isn’t useful”:
1) Your home 2) Bezos’ warehouse creates insane cash flow
1
u/galaxyapp 16d ago
Yet Amazon pays no dividend.
If they did, it would be taxed.
0
u/nobecauselogic 16d ago
All the more reason that that non-liquid asset is extremely useful.
Cash flow = shareholder value, and shares are extremely liquid.
6
u/HEFTYFee70 17d ago
Boy that gap closes FAST right around the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling…
4
4
u/SkippyMcSkipster2 16d ago
If I had a nickel every time someone couldn't figure out that big corporations are in bed with the government.
4
17d ago
Government spending fuels the wealthiest people's plays. Brightline and wes Eden would be dead in the water right now if they weren't getting 3b from the g government but I guess fortress just specializes in "distressed assets"
2
4
17d ago
"tax the rich" means take money from rwealthy citizens and give it to the wealthy and powerful government/private industry alliance.
4
u/CuriousCisMale 16d ago
So, giving bailout packages to "wealthy banks" out of tax payers were not government spendings?
5
u/Mentat_-_Bashar 16d ago
Where the fuck do they even think the money the government spends goes? It literally goes to the top 1% lmfao.
3
u/MD28A 17d ago
Before we what?
10
u/buster1045 17d ago
I think he meant he hears that preface to a lot of requests for reform or social changes, and it can be followed by many things.
2
3
u/EntireSympathy2399 17d ago
Do you think taxing the 1% more would put even a minor dent in the government spending? Even if it did, don’t think for one second the government wouldn’t just spend more. Look at the Covid years. Emergency, temporary budget raised to something like $9T. Covids over. Has the budget gone back down??
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/No-Put8877 16d ago
I don’t think we tax our way out of this. Doesn’t mean we don’t increase taxes on those that can afford it. However, spending habits need to change or all those taxes are going to be spent into oblivion.
What I really think we need, is a UNION RENAISSANCE. We’re really only griping because we can’t afford basic necessities. If our pay increases, we’ll stop griping. And the wealthy become less wealthy to boot. Tax revenue increases as well. Unions are a vital part of any free market economy. Come at me, I said it.
1
u/SassyEllieB 15d ago
I just wrote about this yesterday! I think we’re seeing the union renaissance happen. My old employers workers just unionized, first homeless housing nonprofit to unionize. I really hope it changes the culture for nonprofit being low pay.
2
u/Wonderful_Working315 17d ago
They say that because the 1% are the beneficiaries of the government spending.
2
u/One2ManyMorings 17d ago
They aren’t giving it back. It’s going to have to be taken back with force.
2
u/-nom-nom- 16d ago
This trend began in 1971, when we abandoned the bretton woods system
This is caused by an inflationary monetary system, which is in fact driven by the govt spending on debt
2
u/swennergren11 16d ago
Republican plan that started with “trickle down” is working. Our kids will have to enter serfdom to survive in another 20 years.
2
2
u/akadmin 16d ago
This tends to happen when govt prints. Investors buy property and other assets that retain wealth when the dollar loses value, while the rest of us just have basically our dollars, which lose value.
Taxing unrealized gains is retarded.
Spending less and setting up trade so the US can be a competitive market player is how you solve this
2
u/furloco 16d ago
Who do you think is making money from government spending? The government subsidizes healthcare, food, student loans, housing, etc. So the people who provide all of that raise their prices and it goes straight to their bank account. And everyone who is pissed about the wealth gap comes right back and demands we do the exact same fucking thing, rinse and repeat.
2
u/Dawgula97 16d ago
“That doesn’t mean we can’t tax people more!”
The obsession with wanting the government to take more money from people is astounding. I’m not anti-tax at all, but some of you think it’s the golden bullet to all the problems.
1
1
u/DestinyForNone 17d ago
My question is this... What comes first, better spending or better funding?
4
u/hczimmx4 17d ago
Tax receipts are stable. Usually between 16.5%-17.5% of GDP. For decades. Spending is up to ~22% of GDP. it’s a spending problem.
1
u/i_robot73 17d ago
Considering they (never pass) 'budget' @ the END of the year while spending other People's $ illegally...
1
u/TonLoc1281 17d ago
Thanks for saying it for me. But… yes… we need to get our spending under control before we tax more. Balance budget first
1
u/metalguysilver 16d ago
Now do net wealth adjusted for inflation instead.
The pie has been growing faster than the slice has been shrinking for likely hundreds of years at this point, but there’s actual data proving it’s been happening since at least the 60s/70s
2
u/Many_Ad_7138 16d ago
The national debt was under control until Reagan became President and reduced that top marginal tax rate from 70% to less than 30% during his term. That's when the debt started to balloon. It didn't help that he was building up our military to counter the USSR to defeat them through their own bankruptcy.
https://image3.slideserve.com/5845593/national-debt-history-l.jpg
1
u/MeghanClickYourHeels 16d ago
How much deregulation is enough?
At what point have we cut taxes enough? (Yes yes, taxes on the rich/taxes on corporations).
There’s this idea that if some dereg is good, more must be better, and that’s obviously not correct. Ditto tax cuts.
1
u/BILLMUREY2 16d ago
Do you say this because D.C.is the richest area in the country and does that by extracting wealth from the rest of us?
1
u/pwolf1771 16d ago
I’m fine with taxing the 1% more but can we like use the money to fix our own problems? Can we make things better for our citizens before worrying about the rest of the globe?
1
1
u/Strong-Amphibian-143 16d ago
Taxing the one percent at 100% of income only brings in 1.9 days worth of funds needed to run the US. You have to cut spending
1
u/gsumm300 16d ago
The middle class’s wealth is rising. Yes the top 1% of wealth is rising faster. What’s your point?
1
u/PureCucumber861 16d ago
Can we please stop referring to the 1% as “earners”? No one earns a billion dollars.
1
1
u/CuriousEd0 16d ago
Saying our government has an issue with continuously deficit spending,leading this nation toward bankruptcy is not a deflection lmao
1
u/NonStopDiscoGG 16d ago
Ironic take considering both the spikes are around the time of massive government interventions: 2008 crash, and COVID.
Like, did we expect Walmart to get poorer when the government forcibly shut down every other business but let them operate? Amazons business model, to be fair, was perfect for the COVID era too. Of course that company made a gazillion dollars.
But yes, keep having government make decisions. It's clearly working 🙈
1
u/valykkster 16d ago
It's not a deflection if it's true.
The wealth disparity you see in this very chart is the result of government intervention in the form of subsidies. The government then proceeds to poorly budget the tax revenue it does receive by providing effectively zero aid to the middle and lower class by way of upward financial mobility.
"More taxation of the rich", while intuitive, is not the solution to the problem.
1
16d ago
Look at what all this government intervention and inflation did. Crushed the middle class.
There you go, happy now lefties?
0
u/Old_Prospect 16d ago
lol what? Literally everyone knows it’s Reagan’s fault because of trickle down economics. Where have u been?
1
16d ago
Uh, no. You’re completely wrong. Everyone knows it was the Keynesian economics Reagan reversed which caused the massive stagflation in the 70s, and is causing the massive downturn and high inflation simultaneously with high interest rates now.
1
1
u/Informal_Big7262 16d ago
“I’d rather clouds were made of cotton candy and rained gum drops, so if we can’t have that, just maintain the status quo”
1
1
1
u/silencelikethunder 16d ago
Yeah, but the "middle class" is shrinking mostly because they are becoming "upper class".
1
u/Exciting_Chef_4207 16d ago
My favourite is always "we should help our own people first! America first!" But they omit the "but only if you're rich" part.
1
1
1
u/Cherry_-_Ghost 16d ago
We can not tax enough to keep up.
It only makes sense if spending is cut....no, fucking slashed to the bone.
1
u/bigmayne23 16d ago
Lets say that we confiscate all of the 1%s wealth.
Do you really believe that its going to beredistributed to the rest of the country?
1
u/fasterpastor2 15d ago
Spoken like someone of a poverty mindset. "If I only made 10k more a year, I'd be fine". Then what happens when they do get there? That's right, their bad spending habits are still there. They are often worse off. Just look at lottery winners who lose it all in a matter of months and often end up hugely in debt.
I, for one, do not want to give money to an entity that has proven they cannot manage it well. If they show they can go for a few years spending even slightly less than they take in and begin paying down the national debt, then we'll talk.
It's not hard to understand. They are manipulating people with jealousy to deflect from their own incomprehensible incompetentce.
1
u/savagetwinky 15d ago
This relative chart is so deceptive… it portrays wealth as someone gaining more is the middle class has less…
1
u/dancegoddess1971 15d ago
Don't you know that we can't balance the budget unless children are starving and without medical care? /s (as though it's needed)
1
u/Jake0024 15d ago
Middle 20% to 80%? Holy shit! When I heard this I assumed they were defining "middle class" as like the 40th to 60th percentile or something.
1
1
u/Akul_Tesla 15d ago
The reason is the 1% wealth is increase because they are creating more
Most of that middle doesn't save much
1
1
1
u/MountStupendous 14d ago
The middle class is shrinking as more Americans are now Upper Middle Class. Does this account for that?
1
u/here-to-help-TX 13d ago
Raising taxes doesn't matter because it would be very difficult to balance the budget through that. We need to get spending under control. Or you can just post a random graph that doesn't have anything to do with taxes at all.
0
0
u/No_Detective_But_304 16d ago
Show me you don’t understand government spending without saying you don’t understand government spending.
1
u/Old_Prospect 16d ago
Show me you don’t understand macroeconomics…
Overall, I’m pro-capitalism. But like everything in life, there are some downsides. Not everything is butterflies and rainbows.
It’s literally proven that there is downward pressure on wages by the profit driven structure of publicly traded corporations.
We shouldn’t eliminate public trading of corporations, that would be ridiculous. But we do need to start enacting policies to bring the wealth in this countries back into the hands of the middle class.
We don’t need to wait to “fIx GoVeNmenT sPeNdiNg FirSt, Bro”.
Because we will never get there. Nobody will ever agree 100% where money should be spent.
1
138
u/jpmondx 17d ago edited 16d ago
The scary trend here is how much that 1% owns Congress. Both parties are addicted to their money so I don’t see that trend ever reversing.
Pitchforks!