Your statements like "moving my wealth" to the wealthy or the poor. This sounds like the classic nonsense about the rich "taking" wealth rather than creating it.
Regarding taxation, your misunderstanding of how AMT really works.
Yes. Seriously:
https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/child-hunger-facts
$150 billion would do it... $1.5 trillion over 10 years. We just cut taxes on the wealthy $2.3 trillion. So obviously we could.
Also: it's not like we are spending $0 now; so you could subtract that from the $150 billion. On top of that: there are real fiscal costs to food insecurity. Those would go away as well.
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2018/18_0058.htm
Okay, let's start with the $150B/year assertion. There are about 74 million children in the US, meaning under 18 years old. Assuming a cost of $200/month to feed each one, that's $14.8B per month, or $177B per year. But's that's for every child in the US, and even taking the most inclusive number about the food insecure population, that's 21% of children. So, 21% of $177B is $37B per year. So how do you get to $150B per year?
Your statement about cutting taxes on the wealthy by $2.3T isn't accurate. That's the overall cost of the program, lots of wealthy working peoples' taxes went up because of the SALT deductibility limit of $10K (like mine),and 80% of the population got a tax cut. Personally, I hate the tax bill as written by Congress, but when about 45% of the working population aren't paying federal income taxes at all, the only way to really change the distribution is expand something like the earned income credit.
OK. So you oppose providing healthcare to needy children because they are "unwilling to take responsibility"?
Jerry, this is beneath you. You know I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about adults.
I assume you also oppose other socialist activities in the US like public roads, public police departments, public schools, etc? Not to mention "entitlement" programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the VA.
These are not socialist programs, these are the natural functions of a government.
Speaking of a very skewed view. Do you have any support that there's some relationship between "wealthy" and "hard working"?
Even among the wealthy who didn't inheiret their wealth; there's certainly no relationship between hard work and income. An investment banker doesn't work harder than a migrant farmer; but they sure do make more money.
Investment bankers (which I'm not personally impressed by, but this is your example) add a lot more value than a migrant farm worker. The investment banker has more knowledge and does more complex tasks, the results of their labors have a greater return, and their skill sets are more rare. Comparing the two is a weak argument.
I know very few wealthy people (and I know a lot of wealthy people) who didn't work long hours, obtain rare skills, take significant risks, and make numerous sacrifices to get where they are. Many I know are business owners. Many are engineers and corporate executives. It is not more noble to be a migrant farm worker than a successful business owner or employee. And the successful people I know didn't get there because of "privilege", which seems to be an in-vogue notion going around lately.
Yea! To hell with those kids wanting food and medicine. That guy working three jobs who can't afford his kids medication? Why should I help him out. the soldier on food stamps? He should have thought of that before he joined the military. I could have gotten a new car!
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/17/586759930/military-families-and-snap-benefits
And damn it! You earned it. It's not like your life was made possible by the hard work of those people. It's not like the road you would drive that car on was paid by the taxes of others.
Alright, now you've twisted my words around to the point of insult. The only two words I can think of right now for you *aren't* "Happy Easter".
And without the AMT, you get billionaires with lower tax rates than the poor half of the US.
You really don't understand how AMT works, and what a failure it was as tax policy.
So, to be clear, From 1940-1980 we were "exploiting the rich"?
No, the rich paid lower taxes back then. There were more deductions, and capital gains and royalties were taxed at lower rates than wage income, just like they are now.
You've done exactly that in this post. You've blamed the poor, you've blamed "the elites", you've blamed "the democrats", you've blamed "the socialists".
But you are both juxtiposing two issues (blame vs fix) and also being dishonest.
I have only "blamed" the Democratic Party candidates proposing socialism and wealth redistribution. I probably am one of "the elites", though I'm not sure what the definition of an elite is.
And because of your personal attacks and twisting of my statements, we're done.
