The Biden Administration Is Taking From the Poor and Giving to the Rich
From student debt cancellation to green subsidies, the White House is giving handouts paid for by hardworking lower-wage Americans.

If you had any doubts that those in power have dropped the pretense of fighting for the working class, you can dispense with them after President Joe Biden administration's latest concessions to the laptop class. From student loan forgiveness to subsidies for people who drive pricey electric cars and profitable semiconductor company CEOs, this administration is working hard to shower its friends with handouts paid for by hardworking lower-wage Americans.
We learned of the most outrageous handout of them all, of course, when Biden announced that he will—unilaterally, mind you, and for no apparent reason that I can see—extend the pause on student loan payments until the end of the year and forgive up to $10,000 for those persons making less than $125,000 a year. This generosity with other people's money extends up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.
As David Stockman, a former director of the Congressional Office of Management and Budget, reported recently, "Only 37% of Americans have a 4-year college degree, only 13% have graduate degrees and just 3% have a PhD or similar professional degree. Yet a full 56% of student loan debt is held by people who went to grad school and 20% is owed by the tiny 3% sliver with PhDs."
Picture two young married lawyers who together earn just under $250,000 and are on their way to making even more money in the future. They will be able to collect from Uncle Joe a nice bonus of $40,000, taken from the pockets of the many people who didn't go to college—perhaps because they did not want to take on debt—and from those who have responsibly already paid back their debt.
It's no wonder that so many left-leaning economists and policy wonks have loudly criticized this so-called student loan forgiveness. The Washington Post, for instance, editorialized that the decision is "regressive," "expensive" and "likely inflationary," nullifying "nearly a decade's worth of deficit reduction from the Inflation Reduction Act."
Meanwhile, Jason Furman, who headed former President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, napalmed the plan in a brutal Twitter thread. He explained that, thanks to Biden's move, interest rates would have to rise by an additional 50 to 75 basis points to counteract the added inflationary effect. Furman made clear that he regards this outcome as remarkably unfair and regressive.
Then there's the Inflation Reduction Act's gusher of green subsidies, many of which disproportionately benefit wealthier Americans. Take the extension of the tax credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of new electric vehicles. For those buying used EVs, the tax credit is now $4,000, little consolation for people who can't afford the luxury of buying electric cars, which remain much pricier than their gasoline-powered alternatives. The bill hopes to address this issue by making expensive EV cars ineligible for the credit, but it counteracts this provision with a requirement that only cars assembled in the United States are eligible.
To underscore how disconnected policymakers are from average Americans, the vehicle credits are limited to those making less than $150,000 annually (single filing) and $300,000 (joint filing), presumably to avoid criticism for subsidizing the rich. That still leaves about 93 percent of individuals or 97 percent of households able to seize the subsidy. And given that it's mainly been taxpayers with annual incomes over $100,000 using the credit in the past, this subsidy will mostly still serve a swath of fairly well-off people.
But politicians are not just showering higher-income individuals with subsidies; they do the same for companies. A quick look at the semiconductor subsidies in the CHIPS Act reveals that the well-publicized $52 billion giveaway will benefit well-connected and rich companies.
We could go on and on with more examples, such as Democrats' incessant demand to restore remarkably regressive state and local tax ("SALT") deductions to their pre-2017 heights. The only persons who will gain are high-income earners—and their big-spending elected officials—in high-tax blue states. They lost parts of these deductions when the Trump tax cuts were implemented, and they want them back.
If you're surprised by any of this, you haven't been paying attention to Democrats' recent record. Few are even pretending to be the party of anyone other than the privileged laptop class.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
To make it even more interesting, many states will treat the loan forgiveness as income. That will put the recipient on the hook for as much a a thousand dollars at the end of the year. That won't be much to professionals with money in the bank, but those living paycheck to paycheck are in for a big surprise!
That's good because it IS income. It is no different than a gift of $20,000.
And if you are earning ~$100,000 a year, you are talking about a 24% tax rate, which means a $5,000 tax bill.
It will not be taxed at the federal level. They've made that abundantly clear. But states are different. And that's going to be a surprise. Especially to people who are living paycheck to paycheck.
I was not aware of the federal level. That is an extra side of fuck you to the people who paid taxes on the income they used to responsibly pay for school.
I was not aware of the federal level.
I looked it up on several sources and got the same answer. No federal income tax. If you don't trust me google it yourself. It's the premise of my entire argument.
No I am not doubting you- just stating that I wasn't aware of that. Contrast it with the federal programs during the financiappocalypse to forgive loans on your house. People got fucked over with federal income tax as their $300,000 reduction in mortgage was suddenly seen as a $300,000 income.
Ha! No sympathy. Sorry for not being sorry.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (as-06) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
No the IRS is after me, a Blue Collar Laborer, for an encumbrance of $400000 ? Never came close to making that in a year ?
Loan forgiveness is ON the federal tax forms, bigger'n Dallas, right now. You expect them to take it OFF?
And why is that good? It kind of defeats the purpose. It's like when people on those tv shows win their dream home. Very few of them get to keep it. They have to sell it to pay the taxes. Or someone wins a Porsche but ends up with a Toyota because they had to sell the prize to pay the taxes on it.
Forgiving loans for people who can't afford them, and then giving them a tax bill that they can't afford to pay, seems to defeat the whole purpose.
And it's not like they can say "Apply $9k to the loan, I need the rest for the taxes."
"And why is that good? "
I mean, I am no lover of the income tax. But if income is going to be taxed, then it should be taxed evenly. If I work to get a paycheck (paying taxes) and buy a home, why should someone else just get the home and not pay taxes?
"Or someone wins a Porsche but ends up with a Toyota because they had to sell the prize to pay the taxes on it."
There is a reason why most car give aways at casinos give you the car with cash- so that you can use the cash to pay the taxes.
"seems to defeat the whole purpose."
The purpose of what? The government's purpose (sadly) is to take our money. I am sure you can understand how excluding certain forms of income from taxation might create a mess of things. For example, just look at how it has fucked up health care.
If you get paid and buy health insurance, you are taxed. If your employer gives you health insurance, it is an expense that is tax free. And now we have a fucked up health insurance market.
There is a reason why most car give aways at casinos give you the car with cash- so that you can use the cash to pay the taxes.
That's not happening here. Which is my point.
That and to point out the irony in relieving people of loan payments they can't afford only to stick them with a tax bill they can't afford.
1) Most of these people can afford their loan payments, so there is no irony there.
2) My understanding is that these people do not have to claim this gift. They can forego this income, and not pay taxes on it, just as you could forego winning some prize that is taxed.
3) I have zero tears for these people. Even if they have to pay taxes, they are getting a net $18k gift. Is that as good as $20k? No. But it is better than 0.
4) And the fact that the federal government isn't going to tax this as income is an even bigger fuck you to the people who were prudent with their money. If there is someone to feel bad for, it is the adult who worked his ass off for 4 years earning $25,000, paying $5k to the government, so that they could pay $20k to a college...only to see the kids that floated through on loans do zero work, and pay none of those federal taxes.
1) Most. Which means what I say is correct. It's correct about the people this program is advertised as helping. Are you intentionally missing my point?
2) Not sure what you mean. You mean people have to apply? Yeah. No argument. And the fed on the other end is going to tell them there are no taxes involved. Then when the state taxes them, surprise!
3) Sympathy is a dictionary word between shit and syphilis. I don't care either. Just pointing out the irony.
4) Aye.
I will add in, that your point about who it is advertised to be helping is besides the point because it's a minor segment of those who it will actually be helping. They can say anything in public they want, but this is clearly a payment out to their constituency to buy votes. It's transparently so, and then fact that this is so offensive that they can't say it shouldn't shift the argument to their false pivot.
I will add in, that your point about who it is advertised to be helping is besides the point because it's a minor segment of those who it will actually be helping.
Are you saying I'm wrong, or that my point doesn't matter because yours is bigger?
Also, do you think people should refuse to apply as a matter of principle? It's not like the virus checks that you'd have to send back or not cash. You've got to sign up for this. Would you tell someone still has loans to say no? That's a lot of money to pass up on.
I would tell them to say no if they don't think they can pay the taxes. Otherwise, I have zero problem with a specific person choosing to avail themselves of the government handouts made available to them.
I wish they WERE taxed, so they understand that this really IS income that they are getting- not just some abstract number that Gramppy Biden x's out in a ledger.
What about someone who is currently working their ass off to pay their loans, and now they have an opportunity to make that expense go away. Should they say no?
No. But they should also pay taxes on the gift...just as they should if they get a $20k bonus from their employer, or a $20,000 gift from dad. Income is income is income.
You asked me why I think it is good that these people pay taxes on the forgiveness. I think it is good because getting a bribe from the government is bad enough, but also failing to treat it as income hides just what they are getting.
No. But they should also pay taxes on the gift...
Thing is, that tax payment can't be taken out of the gift. This car doesn't come with cash. And you're stuck with the car. Can't sell it. If you don't have money in the bank, what do you do? Take out a loan to pay the taxes on the loan forgiveness?
This doesn't apply to me. It probably would have before I listened to David Ramsey.
If the point is to relieve people of an expense they can't afford, why give them a new expense they can't afford?
Seems contradictory. I know you're a stickler for principles. Not asking for you to agree with me. Do you at least grock what I'm saying?
The whole purpose is to get the other half of the Kleptocracy--the girl-bullying, even worse looter prohibitionists, off the gubmint payroll. That--plus the schadenfreude of seeing it on the tax forms--makes it WAY less emetic.
Ok grandpa. Now back into hospice.
It's called personal responsibility. Besides, over 90 percent of the loans forgiven can afford to repay them. Curse the federal government and universities that paid for B.S. degrees on the backs of taxpayers who cannot even afford to go to college.
It's like when people on those tv shows win their dream home. Very few of them get to keep it. They have to sell it to pay the taxes
Except its not like that at all. Not when you can take out a loan against real property to pay the taxes. If you won a $500k house and taxes were $166k, you would have a $1500/month mortgage-insurance-tax payment. Borrow $250k and you have already covered the mortgage for the next four years. Same with winning a car. Banks would loan you 50% of the value without blinking.
But please, keep opening your mouth and proving how foolish you are.
Some people get really offended when someone points out that they're wrong. I call them dicks. Some people actually appreciate it, because they'd rather be corrected than believe something that isn't true. They're nice people.
It goes likewise with correcting people. The dicks have to be dicks. Thing is, it encourages the person they are correcting to just ignore what they said. Why learn from someone who is a complete prick?
So what's the purpose of the discussion? To trade ideas, or to attack people with ideas you don't like? To help out people who have incorrect information, or to ridicule them?
I think it's pretty obvious where you're at.
Why learn from someone who is a complete prick?
History and psychology show that people actually learn the most from humiliation and trauma. Your roadblock is that you have no shame, just pure ego. So you post inane bullshit that does not stand up to the lightest critical thinking, then you defensively resort to fallacy and gaslighting, like you just did.
BTW, based on your own criteria in your response you are a dick for not handling criticism well and a dick for criticizing me in turn.
Not a surprise to find you self-identify as a whole bag of dicks.
I look at that post and see "you, you, you, you... you, you.." and end up ignoring what is in between.
Should I have written about an anonymous 3rd person? Everyone would have still known who I was referring to.
The part where everything in between gets ignored is the reason the pattern never changes.
Broken. Sad!
If I thought what was in between was constructive I might pay attention to it. When it is from people who are mean because they like to be mean I generally ignore it.
When it is from people who are mean because they like to be mean I generally ignore it.
LOL!
A SHORT PLAY ABOUT GASLIGHTING by Chuckles and the Piggy Players
intro: CHUCK enters a room where SARC is (LOOKING CASUAL) flipping a light switch on and off
Sarc: "Look at these lights. Just as steady as can be. They are definitely not flickering. You know, I have heard that crazy people sometimes see the lights flickering when they are not actually flickering."
Chuck: "Dude, I can see see your hand on the light switch."
Sarc: "My hand is not on the light switch, you mean bastard, I don't have to listen to you!"
curtain
Booo! I want my money back!
Your original reply could have been something like "Dude, that's an urban legend. Here's what's really up."
Instead you made it all about me. The "you, you, you" I ignore.
A notable lack of critical thinking is never going to engender goodwill from me. The same has been written many times by many other commenters.
Translation: I'm employing critical thinking and you are not, so everything you say is stupid. Har har har.
You should have read the quote by Orwell. Everything you say is stupid because you don't apply critical thinking. I didn't magically make it stupid by coming along and and pointing it out.
You can change the pattern by thinking and not posting something stupid. I cannot change your pattern.
Everything you say is stupid because you don't apply critical thinking.
That's textbook ad hominem!
"Everything you say is stupid because you don't..."
Go to Costco and get some self awareness.
That's textbook ad hominem!
1) Dude, it was your own argument from your comment at 7:00, I was just expanding on it by comparing it to the quote by Orwell.
2) Even if that were not the case, since I was commenting about your behavior over time that would make it a generalization based on observation. I would have to be applying it to a specific argument that was otherwise valid for it to be an ad hominem.
"You have written stupid stuff before and so your argument on X is not valid," is the ad hominem fallacy.
"What you wrote here is not valid because X and, by the way, you write stupid stuff all the time and you should apply some critical thinking," is constructive criticism.
From r ‘you’s’ in one breath makes you sound a rather over sensitive young lady.
‘Four you’s’
Seems like the point of your original comment was that my entire argument was wrong because I got something wrong in one of several analogies. Because I'm a stupid fuck for not knowing these things about winning houses, everything else I said was wrong.
That's your argument.
I think there's a word for it.
That's your argument.
I think there's a word for it.
An observation is not an ad hominem attack and I did not fallaciously put words in your mouth like you just did to me. The reason I post such observations is much deeper than any petty annoyance over the inane crap you post. Here is a gorgeous summary of the argument for such behavior by George Orwell:
You need to take a class in critical thinking. I hear you can borrow money to attend a college.
You observe I'm wrong about this, and because of that I'm ad hominem wrong about everything. Understood.
Fuck you, shitweasel. I only call attention when you post ridiculous twaddle. You don't get to make me the villain.
I only call attention when you post ridiculous twaddle.
And I ignore what you say because you can't resist calling me names.
You don't get to make me the villain.
No. You're just someone who'd rather start a fight than have a civil conversation. Not sure what the word for that is.
That not what he said, but we all knew it wouldn’t take long for you to return to type.
You're just someone who'd rather start a fight than have a civil conversation. Not sure what the word for that is.
The word for that is critical.
Great quote.
That is so much more than just a great quote. Reading that essay clarified things that I didn't even know were causing me to behave neurotically.
It made me realize that I had been reluctantly taking experts at their word when, for many experts, their expertise is only in the jargon they use to confound the laymen. It is not just politicians that use language as a weapon, it is bankers and contractors and salespeople. They want you to think that you can't understand, when the reality is that are failing to explain it.
It certainly made me a better dad. I refused to feed my kids bullshit. When they had trouble learning, I changed the language I used and suddenly they would understand.
I bet you believe the boiling a frog slowly thing is true. It isn't. They jump out. That means you're a totally stupid idiot asshole blah blah blah I'm not as good a this as you...
I bet you believe the boiling a frog slowly thing is true. It isn't.
Dissemble, deflect, distract. First you made shit up, then you tried to make it about me, now you post a complete non sequitur. I know the playbook you are using.
blah blah blah I'm not as good a this as you...
Wait. Are we finally finding some common ground?
Wait. Are we finally finding some common ground?
Yeah. When I talk about hypotheticals and refer to certain people as behaving like a dick, we both agree that I'm talking about you. Definitely common ground.
I already made that joke. You fail for lack of effort.
I think it's curious that you list off what you do, then accuse the person you're doing it to of doing what you are doing. There's probably a word for it, but I don't know what it is.
Are you arguing with a fucking mirror? Holy shit, I literally just described what you did.
Get some help, dude.
Lay it out, step by step. If you're trying to educate me, tell me what I did. Assuming you can do it without being a dick. If you can be civil I'll listen. Otherwise this conversation is over.
If you're trying to educate me, tell me what I did.
Find the comment at 6:00 to which you replied by saying you wouldn't read it because it contained the word 'you'.
Read the sentence before the one you quoted.
Dissemble, deflect, distract.
What was the dissemble? What was the deflect? What was the distract?
List it out.
The way you describe it it seems like a pattern work recognizing. So lay it out to me. Teach me something, wise master. Step by step. What did I do?
Ohhhhhhh, it's just some bullshit you don't understand that you say to make you sound smart!
But I knew that.
Dissembling is not just lying. It is often blurting out the first thing that comes into one's head. You identified this just yesterday posting about DJT. Your comment about not being able to afford taxes on an item you just won was dissembling. Why? Because it was said to sound clever, not because it was something you knew to be correct. How do I justify such an assertion? The fact that it is quickly rebutted with just a slight bit of critical thought - namely that it completely fails to account for the value of the asset you just obtained at no cost.
Deflection? You very first response was to call me a dick for applying critical thought to your post, moving the topic away from the glaring flaw in logic to the perceived impoliteness of the response.
Distraction? The complete non sequitur about boiling frogs which I took as an admonition for applying logic in response to nonsense as if that is not proper. Or really, anything in the next hour about what a mean person I am.
The fact that it is quickly rebutted with just a slight bit of critical thought - namely that it completely fails to account for the value of the asset you just obtained at no cost.
Well then you missed my point which was the irony of someone having to take out a loan to pay for the taxes on their loan forgiveness.
That's really all I was saying.
Whoosh.
Good night.
Ohhhhhhh, it's just some bullshit you don't understand that you say to make you sound smart!
But I knew that.
Ooh, shot your wad a little prematurely there. I am sure it happens to a lot of guys.
It takes a few minutes to post when you are not just trying to sound smart, but are actually thinking things though critically.
Yes, step by step, maybe you need 12 steps. That could be done through some kind of program……..
Well then you missed my point which was the irony of someone having to take out a loan to pay for the taxes on their loan forgiveness.
If I had missed your point, then why do you think I felt the need to point out that it was so dissimilar to the analogy you used?
Even at that, paying state taxes on a forgiven federal loan is not ironic. Irony stems from unforeseen consequences and the recognition of the present value of money that won't be paid in the future may be complex, but it is certainly foreseeable. Then there is also the fact that the taxes on the forgiveness will in many cases be offset by the reduction in the amount or quantity of the payments. If someone applies for forgiveness in January, they will have 16 months until the taxes are due.
Are getting an inkling of how shallow your comment was?
Can you make a comment about what I said without making a comment about me? I'll buy a bum a pack of cigarettes if you can.
Can you make a comment about what I said without making a comment about me?
No. The object of my original reply was about the pattern of behavior exhibited in your posts. Does that count?
So you have nothing to say about what I said. Your entire argument is about me as a person.
There's some common ground.
So you have nothing to say about what I said.
I believe that we have been corresponding for over an hour about what I wrote about what you said.
Your entire argument is about me as a person.
No. Again, my argument was that people write stupid things because they think stupid thoughts because they write stupid things. Go read Politics and the English Language and come back and tell me you don't engage in that kind of behavior. Your writing is infused with circular thinking.
Well, okay, it is a form of income. But it's a one-time gift that the recipient will have to pay taxes on right now compared to a loan that was being paid off over years.
That makes it bad even for the recipient if the tax penalty is greater than the prospective savings in year one.
"Well, okay, it is a form of income. But it's a one-time gift that the recipient will have to pay taxes on right now compared to a loan that was being paid off over years."
You can work out with your tax man how to schedule tax payments, FYI.
I don't understand what is so controversial here. If someone came up to you and gifted you $20,000, you'd have to pay taxes on it. But if someone says, "Here [wink, wink] is a loan of $20,000...pay me back eventually", it is suddenly not income?
The whole "Elon Musk doesn't pay income tax" schtick comes from the fact that Elon took out a massive loan against his un-exercised stock. The schtick is a lie because he, of course, has to pay back those loans...which requires earning just as much income- which is taxed- prior to making the loan. So every dollar that he received as a loan (and also the dollars of interest) ultimately will get taxed. But any loan amount that is forgiven is no longer a loan, but income...and ought to be taxed.
No, you stupid piece of shit, you would not. The recipient of a gift is NEVER responsible for paying tax on that gift - the gift tax applies to the GIVER not the RECEIVER. On top of that, you can give up to $16,000 annually to an individual without even having to REPORT the gift, let alone pay tax on it. If you as a GIVER give more than $16,000 annually to any one individual, then you have to file form 709 with the IRS on your annual taxes indicating the amount of your gift. You will not actually owe any tax on those gifts until your LIFETIME amount of gifting exceeds 12 million dollars.
Educate yourself before you say idiotic shit in the future. And be prepared to do it a LOT because most of what you say is idiotic, non-factual shit you pull directly out of your ass.
Typically any debt forgiveness is treated as income for Federal Tax purposes, This includes mortgage forgiveness when someone can't pay their mortgage.
However, buried in the bowels of the infrastructure bill passed in June 2021 was a special exemption for all student loan debt forgiven.
Like Nancy said "you won't know what is in the bill until you pass the bill".
Well, no more mean tweets, so pretty much even. - Reason Editors
It's times like these that make me miss the Orange Man.
"The Biden Administration Is Taking From the Poor and Giving to the Rich"
Yep! 🙂
I didn't even need to get a Ph.D. in economics to predict this is how a Biden Administration would play out. I developed OBL's First Law just by noting which groups vote for and donate to Democrats these days — Wall Street, Silicon Valley, multimillionaire entertainers (movie stars, sitcom stars, rock stars, pop stars), billionaires, and Koch-funded libertarians.
#VoteDemocratToComfortTheComfortable
#VoteDemocratToSpiteTheWorkingClass
It’s like the ballad of Dennis Moore from Monty Python.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJo3wwRCdhU
I understand the intentions of this. I've known a few people who went to college then left for whatever reasons, and got saddled with loan payments that won't even go away with bankruptcy. It sucks. I'm sure there are plenty more people out there is a similar situation. So these politicians want to help these folks in the name of fairness. I get it. I don't agree, but I understand.
But as it's been repeatedly pointed out, those people will be a fraction of the total number of folks benefiting from this program.
Example number I've-lost-count of intentions and results having very little relationship with each other.
The whole "Student Loan Crisis (TM)" is absurd. If you make $100k and owe $50k, then suck it up. If you make $100k and owe $250k, then you have a real problem. These problems are typically solved in bankruptcy court.
The sensible solution is to allow all SL's bankrupt-able. Let a real judge a determine if the person is eligible to have the loan "forgiven" or just restructure the payments, like any other unsecured debt.
Of course, that will never happen.
Too easy. Got to make everything complicated.
Not until the universities and not the taxpayer is ultimately left holding the bag. Until then you're just advocating theft and irresponsibility.
The article is actually wrong on the facts of the matter.
60% of country has gone to some college. 37% finished with bachelors degree. A smaller number got higher education, but a big chunk of student loan debt are people that started but didn't finish and stuck with the detractment of loans without the degree.
It's a fun way to lie with statistics.
60% of country has gone to some college. 37% finished with bachelors degree.
I verified that your 60% is a reasonable number, which means 23% could potentially have loans without a degree to help them pay it off.
Then there's the people with a BS in Psychology who work in call centers and the people with a Masters in English who wait tables.
I'm infuriated by the loan payment transfer plan. it's wrong on so many grounds I've lost count.
That being said, I find this problem arguably the least compelling. Taxes are predominantly collected from the rich so we're really taking money from the rich to give to the rich (or the soon-to-be rich). Either that or all our complaints about taxes being too progressive have been lies.
"Taxes are predominantly collected from the rich so we're really taking money from the rich to give to the rich (or the soon-to-be rich)."
This is incorrectly reasoned.
If you are in the middle quintile, roughly 15% of your income goes to federal income tax. So whether or not you are paying a large proportion of the total expense, the fact remains that you are subsidizing people that are probably going to make more than you in the long run (if they are not already doing so). Yeah, you only contributed $500 to their $20,000 gift...but they still took it from someone who probably could have used it more.
Further, let's be honest. Nobody- rich, poor, or middle- earning money today is paying for this gift, because our total tax revenue falls far short of the current budget, let alone the additional 300 Billion to one Trillion that this will cost. But whenever we are forced to get serious about our budget, the people who will have to chip in will be far more than the affluent kids that are getting this gift.
Finally, as a well off person, I am equally pissed off. I already pay more of the federal budget than 80% of the people in this country, and I do it because I worked my ass off without the benefit of a gift like this. So as a "rich" guy, fuck them too.
From the morning links:
The money is not being taken from the poor.
If you are in the middle quintile, roughly 15% of your income goes to federal income tax.
According to what I just posted, more like 7.5% for all taxes.
61% of Americans paid no federal income tax in 2020.
Furthermore, even if you make an income of $62000 and actually pay taxes, you pay about $7000 in federal taxes and $4800 in FICA (less if you have a family), or less than $12000. The federal budget was $6.8 trillion, or $20000/capita. That means that if you make a median income, you aren't even paying your share of the federal budget; you're being subsidized by people in higher income brackets.
Your numbers look pretty accurate based on my experience but in terms of real money (?) higher income brackets are not subsidizing my obligations. If that were the case the US Treasury wouldn't be 30 trillion in debt. People buying the labor of my grandchildren (T bills) are subsidizing my share of the budget and yours no matter the tax bracket.
Let's do this for 2019, since it's a little more normal. Federal revenues in 2019 were $3500 billion, overwhelmingly from payroll taxes and income taxes. Federal outlays were $4400 billion.
So, if your share of federal outlays was $20000, that amounts to $16000 financed from taxes and $4000 financed by debt. If you paid $12000 in taxes, you were still subsidized by $4000 by higher earners. And that's an optimistic analysis.
Now, you can probably do a lot of other analyses, but yes, generally, the poor and middle class are actually subsidized by high income earners in addition to being responsible for the rapidly increasing national debt.
The only way to bring this back into balance would be to raise taxes on the lower income quintiles to European levels, both by making the tax system less progressive and greatly increasing consumption taxes.
Let's not forget the all-purpose tax called inflation. Equity types would howl about how regressive a constant percent decrease in purchasing power hits the po-peeple extra hard. But the federal government gets to pay off (as if) debts with cheaper dollars.
If you had any doubts that those in power have dropped the pretense of fighting for the working class
The working (middle) class gets in the way of creating their aristocracy/servant class utopia.
Don't know why De Rugy needed to show up and mansplain this. OBL updates us every day.
Remember, these are the same people who thought everyone could just 'work from home' like it was no big deal, the past two years. At the same time as closing all the public schools they could.
I know a bunch of construction workers with school aged children who suddenly became Republican (or at least anti-Democrat) voters.
Easily the worst president of my Gen-X lifetime and it's not even close.
For screwing with the country, as a whole, you have to step back to FDR.
Woodrow Wilson FTW.
WW got the progressive boulder rolling, but FDR's the one who turned it onto landslide. Ford put an avalanche on top. Ugh. So many terrible presidents.
Worst list:
1. Wilson
2. FDR
3. Obama
4. Biden
5. LBJ
For Biden to crack the top 5 in only 2 years is amazing, yet terrible since were living through it.
Really? Obama and Biden above LBJ?
No Carter or Hoover?
And Lincoln was so bad that half the country tried to leave!
Lincoln is taboo. States' rights equals slavery. Shhh.
Worst of my boomer lifetime. With LBJ and GWB battling for 2nd place.
Same here. But asset-looting prohibitionist pussy-grabbers are even worse. Once the economy is wrecked, as in 1929 or 2008, you get to see just how much worse.
Not sure pussy grabbing is the biggest threat to civilization but cool story dude.
Sounds like somebody never got to grab any pussy (or have their pussy grabbed).
HOW COULD WE HAVE SEEN THIS COMING?!
BLINDSIDED (reason editors)
And don't say "math".
OF COURSE they are, Vero! This is exactly why a looter Kleptocracy has to have two (02) parties.
Joe is gearing up to read a teleprompter speech about his courageous battle for the soul of America. Expect a Deep dive screed by Sullum tomorrow.
I'm hoping he tries to tell us an endearing story from his past, like the "good basketball" one from a couple days ago. There's no way that was part of the prepared speech.
Gotta google that. Endearing stories are so much better than mean tweets.
Wow. He must have met Cornpop in the Bucket and then kicked his ass behind the bleachers. Or he's a lying dogfaced pony soldier. We may never know.
Trillions of dollars given to the rich, no problem for you, shifting the burden of government expenses to the non-rich. The hypocrisy of then complaining that the non-rich are paying a higher share of government spending than the rich is spectacular.
And yet when tax cuts happen, we get told only the rich pay federal income taxes. Therefore, the poor can't be paying this.
While it's funny to see those on the right suddenly play class warfare, the reality is it's mostly taking from the rich and upper middle class and giving to the poor and middle class.
That doesn't make it right, but at least criticize it for that and play play a class warfare card inconsistent with past statements/policies you've championed
It's amazing how many journalists and politicians just keep pretending wealth redistribution isn't an act of treason to the USA...
And where might I ask is the Constitutional authority for wealth redistribution? Did we the people pass an amendment giving them power for this?
Because that's what F'En Treasonous Nazi's (National Socialists) do is ARMED-ROBBERY while pretending it's just 'Government' as usual and far too many selfish/greedy idiots vote for Treasonous Nazi's so long as they get **UN-EARNED** breadcrumbs.
Once upon a time the USA was based on Individual Liberty and **JUSTICE** (as-in **EARNING** what one has) instead of the Nazi-Regime of compulsive ARMED-ROBBERY and dictation it is today..
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"
Don't see "to do wealth re-distribution"; do you?
It will last as long as people buy bonds.
The money is pulled directly from the FED's ass.
The thing is, the money has already been spent, when the loans were made.
People who can't pay back their loans weren't paying their loans. If they had their wages garnished, they were probably just paying off the interest, if that.
Will this cause the federal government to lose money? Yes, they won't get the interest, but a lot of it was just debt that was never going to be collected in the first place
As long as the soda cans are red, white, and blue ones?
You've confused bonds with cheap guitars that are ruthlessly smashed at the end of a show.
Now you got that song stuck in my head. Jerk.
It is odd that I absolutely hated Cake when I was a kid. Now when it comes on the radio I turn it up just to sing along with something I recognize.
I always liked them and other bands with that stripped down sound. Not a wall. Though Van Hagar was awesome in concert. Talking Heads were minimalists. Josh Homme likes to take things out.
Here's a stripped down song. See if you like it.
Eagles of Death Metal (not death metal, trust me) doing a Steve Miller cover.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAGji_LElfs
They weren't cheap. In the old days, The Who would have to glue back the guitars and other equipment back together so they could use them again.
That is nonsense. Most of those people are perfectly capable of paying back their loans, they just choose to spend their money on other things.