[kstrauser]

Here are the official spending numbers[0]. The largest categories are:

* Social Security

* Medicare

* National Defense

* Interest payments

* Health

* Income Security

* VA Benefits

Which of those categories are we overspending on? Which specific cuts do you want to make? It's impossible for one to claim they're serious about saving money without talking about slashing Social Security, Medicare, and the military, which together make 40% of the budgets, so... which are you in favor of reducing?

When you've cut your budget as far as you can and you're still losing money, the only solution is to make more money. Here, that means taxes, and specifically that we must start taxing the rich. I'm not saying that as some far-left "eat the rich" kind of thing, but as basic arithmetic and economics. We need more revenue, and it has to come from somewhere.

[0] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

[bpt3]

What gives you the impression we don't tax the rich?

The American middle and lower class are the least taxed individuals in the developed world. The upper classes, especially given a disproportionate percentage live in places like NYC and CA, are carrying EU-levels of tax burden already.

I'm certainly open to changing how things like dividend income are treated, but the rich don't have enough money to solve our budget problems.

I think your question about what spending to reduce was intended to be rhetorical, but the answer is: everything.

[kstrauser]

> What gives you the impression we don't tax the rich?

Math and history. One example explainer: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/80552/total-tax...

> The upper classes, especially given a disproportionate percentage live in places like NYC and CA, are carrying EU-levels of tax burden already.

Citation urgently needed. That doesn't jibe with literally any report I've read about such things, except from anti-tax extremist organizations.

[bpt3]

> Math and history. One example explainer: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/80552/total-tax...

I honestly have no idea why you think information about aggregate tax revenue over time is relevant to your original claim. If you want to see the tax rate increased on the upper extremes (like the top 400 mentioned at that link), I would too but it's a drop in the bucket.

> Citation urgently needed. That doesn't jibe with literally any report I've read about such things, except from anti-tax extremist organizations.

From https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-ta...

The average statutory top personal income tax rate in the EU is 42.8%.

"For comparison, the average combined state and federal top income tax rate for the 50 US states and the District of Columbia lies at 42.14 percent as of January 2025, with rates ranging from 37 percent in states without a state income tax to 50.3 percent in California."

Feel free to call the Tax Foundation an "anti-tax extremist organization" if you'd like, but I wouldn't agree and they are just reporting facts here.

[seanmcdirmid]

Could we stop talking about top marginal income tax rates as if graduated income taxation wasn't a thing? You will pay less taxes in California than Mississippi or Alabama if you are poor.

Even if you are a single person in California making $400k/year (which I would call pretty rich!), you are only paying 8.38% of your income in state tax (you don't even hit the 13.3% bracket until a million dollars or so?). In total, you are paying 39.22% of your income in taxes (including federal and payroll). As a baseline, if you are in Texas which doesn't have state income tax, you are paying around 31% for the same income.

[bpt3]

The OP of this thread wants to keep spending the same and says that taxing the rich is the solution to our budget woes, so that's why the top marginal rates are relevant, and most state income taxes aren't as progressive as the ones in CA.

Your example of a CA resident who is making $400k is paying a marginal rate of 35% at the federal level and 10.30% at the state level (not 8.38%), which is above the EU average.

[seanmcdirmid]

> and most state income taxes aren't as progressive as the ones in CA.

That's why poor wind up paying more in flat tax states, it is simply WAI.

Marginal rates don't matter as much as how much you actually pay. On paper, CA has a top rate of 12.3%...on income over 720k dollars. It exists, but it doesn't seem like a thing we should ponder too much.

States only have so much power in setting tax rates, given that people are somewhat mobile. California being overpopulated for so long gave them some latitude here, but honestly income inequality isn't going to be handled at any level below federal.

But the point about Europe is right, but only in the sense that Europeans don't pay nearly as much in income taxes as most Americans think they do.

[throw0101a]

> What gives you the impression we don't tax the rich?

The top tax rate perhaps:

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IITTRHB

Maybe just a coïncidence that inequality started going up around 1980, when it was cut the most.

[bpt3]

Yes, it's likely it was a coincidence given that many loopholes were closed at the same time and the effective rate wasn't changed much.

The US has the most progressive tax code in the developed world, and the average American has more disposable income than their peers anywhere else on Earth. Why is it that the upper class is the only one that needs to kick in more?

[lenerdenator]

> The upper classes, especially given a disproportionate percentage live in places like NYC and CA, are carrying EU-levels of tax burden already.

And?

They can afford more, and taxation is a way to reintroduce actual risk of financial ruin for the wealthy. If financial ruin is a good motivator for the rest of us, it should be for them, too.

It's not about percentage, it's about the reality that taxation brings about for you. When you have a net worth that's equal to the entire economic output of a major American city, you can endure massive tax bills because you make enough off of your holdings to equal the average lifetime earnings of dozens of Americans.

[bpt3]

It's very convenient to sign other people up to pay for your preferred government services and I'm sure your peers are willing to eagerly pat you on the back for your generosity, but ultimately even taxing the wealthy at 100% won't cover the deficit no matter how good it would make you feel. That's the "And".

There's a reason nearly every developed nation has a VAT.

[lenerdenator]

>It's very convenient to sign other people up to pay for your preferred government services and I'm sure your peers are willing to eagerly pat you on the back for your generosity, but ultimately even taxing the wealthy at 100% won't cover the deficit no matter how good it would make you feel.

Other people sign me up to pay for their preferred government services all the time. It's called living in a civilization. And don't get me started on the retirees getting a slice of my labor because they have a piece of paper saying they own part of my company.

I'm under no illusion that taxing at 100% would cover the deficit. It'd probably mean a better financial picture for the government, though, and if this whole national debt thing is the existential threat that fiscal conservatives say it is, well, is any improvement not good?

[bpt3]

> Other people sign me up to pay for their preferred government services all the time. It's called living in a civilization.

Unless you're one of the wealthy you're talking about (which would be odd to say the least), no one is asking you to pay for government services for somewhere between dozens to thousands of your fellow citizens who pay approximately $0 federal income tax on average, so it's not the same.

> And don't get me started on the retirees getting a slice of my labor because they have a piece of paper saying they own part of my company.

Hint: it's not actually your company. Those people actually employ you.

> I'm under no illusion that taxing at 100% would cover the deficit. It'd probably mean a better financial picture for the government, though, and if this whole national debt thing is the existential threat that fiscal conservatives say it is, well, is any improvement not good?

Confiscatory tax rates are counterproductive, other than making the envious far left feel better about themselves.

[lenerdenator]

> Unless you're one of the wealthy you're talking about (which would be odd to say the least), no one is asking you to pay for government services for somewhere between dozens to thousands of your fellow citizens who pay approximately $0 federal income tax on average, so it's not the same.

Really? You think I don't pay for services I don't use?

> Hint: it's not actually your company. Those people actually employ you.

Do they? What do they know of the company? If I asked the beneficiary of a pension fund what the company does and where it was headquartered, would they know?

> Confiscatory tax rates are counterproductive, other than making the envious far left feel better about themselves.

It's not far left to want general stability in your society. People with too much money and a government with too much debt are destabilizing forces.

The world is literally filled with examples of how this works, if you'd stop pretending that the current system in the US is working.