>>>>It's not enough but it's better than the repubs who cut taxes on the wealthy
>>
>>I know that's the meme, but when did they last cut taxes on the wealthy?
>
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
>
>But it's more insidious.
>Every time some one like you rants about deficits caused by the poor schlubs on Medicare, you condone the low rates on people who make billions.
>

no ranting needed: if 2/3 of budget go to redistribution (Social Sec, Medicare, Unemployment + Labour),
that is where leverage should be used to lower overall spending -
let us define that as % of GDP so it might be easier for us to agree ;-))

>>>>and forced a regressive increase in gasoline taxes in order to maintain state roads.
>>
>>A user pays tax, you mean?
>Right.
>It's competely just that those rotten aides who took care of my late wife, lovingly, who had to go to another job into order to earn enough money to pay their rent, should pay more for a gallon of gas because the state wouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy, as they should have, to maintain the roads that allow the Walmart and Johnson and Johnson heirs to collect billions as goods are moved from slave wages countries over US roads funded my aides to their minimum wage outlets.

I am totally with you on plugging loopholes in corporate taxes allowing Apple et al. to achieve ludicrous % due to tax shelters and special rules for instance for IP.

I think personally achieved wealth MUST be sheltered from the Scylla + Charybdis effects of inflation and taxes on substance. And let me ad that I doubted gov way of calculation last century in times of published double digit inflation and believe that central banks forcing low interest rates skewed that measure nowadays even worse - a lot of the *published* wealth increase is nothing but a central bank caused bubble in ***prices currently payed*** for investment goods from housing to stocks. I have no idea how to tax such a situation but expect to see at least 30 - 60% of those gains to evaporate in the next 12 years. But that special situation is good enough for me to argue for lower rates on dividends, as buying power loss of base sum thereby is considered.

On inheritance taxes: I think rates above 25% will endanger some estates and companies. Rates above 50% will make family busines over generations the exception, which will probably lead to more corporations only looking for short time ROI for the CEO. Anything more than 35% (stretched over a couple of years, not as lump sum) IMO will be bad overall.

Looking at percentages is the only sane way to compare time series of $ budgets and the long term trend of rising distribution% is the rotting corpse everybody tries not to mention, as it might cost voters. Turn of the century Germany was the sick country, due to the double whammy of continually rising redistribution and inclusion of 25% of population with wealth statistics well below previous distribution ranges, dependant on a large degree on gov handouts and infrastructure rebuilding concentrating on newly added states. Schröder with his Agenda 2010 recoupled quite a bit of gov spending with personal trying of those wanting handouts, so for me he can cash in on Putin resources more than currently is hinted at for Donald to have happened ;-)

IMO Medicare will not bankrupt the US, but the longer corrective measures are withheld more drastic streamlining will follow. Give those unemployed for long time some money, but only in exchange for effort (real or make-believe work like digging holes if you do not want to create (state owned ?) work-cost subsidized companies. Stop the money for nothing redistribution.