Trump administration considers tax cut for the wealthy

[Beaker]

If we have a progressive tax system, then isn't any tax cut going to "benefit the wealthy" because the more tax you pay, the more a cut will benefit you? This is referring to personal income taxes, not corporate taxes.

[Belsnickel]

(08-01-2018, 11:02 AM)Beaker Wrote: If we have a progressive tax system, then isn't any tax cut going to "benefit the wealthy" because the more tax you pay, the more a cut will benefit you? This is referring to personal income taxes, not corporate taxes.

The WaPo headline writer would have been better off to add in "disproportionately" or something like that, which would be accurate and woul dhelp clarify. But then they would be lambasted for being biased in the headline. So it's a lose-lose situation for them.

[*Nately120*]

(08-01-2018, 11:02 AM)Beaker Wrote: If we have a progressive tax system, then isn't any tax cut going to "benefit the wealthy" because the more tax you pay, the more a cut will benefit you? This is referring to personal income taxes, not corporate taxes.

Isn't it more about the concept of the tax cut solely benefiting the wealthy and/or not trickling down as promised, rather than people being against tax cuts in general?  When people boo tax cuts for the wealthy I can see the temptation in playing it off as jealousy or stupidity of hating the people who are going to give you money and a job, though.

[hollodero]

(08-01-2018, 11:02 AM)Beaker Wrote: If we have a progressive tax system, then isn't any tax cut going to "benefit the wealthy" because the more tax you pay, the more a cut will benefit you? This is referring to personal income taxes, not corporate taxes.

Sure. In that case, critizism wouldn't be quite as appropriate. If say a cut would be 5% less income tax for everyone or instances like that.
When tax cuts (plus added loopholes etc.) almost exclusively benefit the wealthy though, then that's different.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-31-2018, 02:26 PM)Benton Wrote: In this instance, it's 20%. About half of the top bracket for income tax.

Yeah, I don't know what it currently is when you factor in all income and all taxes paid out, but the fact is that many people are clamoring for them to pay "more". At some point, it was more than 50% of their income was going to pay taxes. I'm curoius as to how people would think if THEY had to pay more than 50% of their income in taxes.

(07-31-2018, 02:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: No, I would have to make some serious cutbacks if that were so. But then again, I am anything but super-wealthy.
The fact that the wealthy pay 80% of the taxes (I unequivocally believe you there) can also be interpreted as a sign how big their "paychecks" actually are. This argument can go both ways, as in it can also show how unequal society has become.

Fair enough.

hollodero Wrote:Besides, I do not really believe that half their income is taken away. The US has specifically large loopholes to avoid taxation for capital transfers and other sources of their income, the latest tax cuts providing some examples for that. Also, maybe that's my socialistic upbringing, I think it's perfectly ok that those lucky enough to live in big wealth make some more contributions to the society that created the conditions for them to do so. I'm not disputing inequality per se, I understand and believe in the concept, but at some point it's getting too extreme. I'd say you can't create a larger middle class by constantly relieving the very top of the income pyramid. I don't think saying all that makes me a mindless class warrior.

Yeah, I don't know what the average "rich person" pays in taxes in terms of percentage of their income, but at one point it was more than 50% and those who usually complain about the rich not paying their "fair share" would love to see it go back above 50%.

hollodero Wrote:Let me ask you though, do you think it's just to spend trillions for a tax cut that will almost exclusively (99%) benefit the top 5%. E.g. do you think the most pressing problem of the US was too high taxation for the super-rich? I wouldn't think so. Yet that's obviously where the most spending is done these days, to correct that injustice. Is what I see. I of course attribute it to blatantly fulfilling big donor's interests, but I'm a cynic in these regards.

IMO, the biggest issue with our economy right now is spending. Congress needs to curb their spending IMMEDIATELY. I'd be fine with no tax cuts if it meant a huge reduction in spending. 

As to tax cuts in general, I don't really care the reason behind them as long as they are across the board. That's the only "fair" way to do it, IMO.

(07-31-2018, 03:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Considering the wealthiest 8 people in this country have more than nearly half of our population, my response to that is: "that's it?"


If those funds were being used to promote the general welfare of the population, yes.

Appreciate the honesty, but I'd rather keep most of MY money. 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-01-2018, 12:41 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Isn't it more about the concept of the tax cut solely benefiting the wealthy and/or not trickling down as promised, rather than people being against tax cuts in general?  When people boo tax cuts for the wealthy I can see the temptation in playing it off as jealousy or stupidity of hating the people who are going to give you money and a job, though.

Every tax cut that a Republican president has proposed or enacted has been met with the criticism that it's a tax cut for the rich. Didn't matter if it was a tax cut for all Americans, it was ALWAYS a tax cut for the rich. So, no, I don't think it's because a tax cut won't trickle down or "only" benefitting the wealthy but rather it's a ploy to keep the class warfare raging on.

[*Nately120*]

(08-02-2018, 05:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: IMO, the biggest issue with our economy right now is spending. Congress needs to curb their spending IMMEDIATELY. I'd be fine with no tax cuts if it meant a huge reduction in spending. 

There is a political party that preaches cuts in spending and a reduced or eliminated income tax and they get 3% of the vote and are viewed as a waste of time/votes.  Meanwhile, the political parties that promise all manner of costly things are winning election after election.  Basically, I'm saying there is no evidence that government spending needs to be curbed based upon the way people use their votes.

This is what is fascinating about politics.  Nearly everyone seems to like the idea of more freedom and lower taxes, and yet the political parties that preach more spending and less freedom keep winning, and not only do they win, but supporting any other party is seen as an insane and inane action.

(08-02-2018, 05:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Every tax cut that a Republican president has proposed or enacted has been met with the criticism that it's a tax cut for the rich. Didn't matter if it was a tax cut for all Americans, it was ALWAYS a tax cut for the rich. So, no, I don't think it's because a tax cut won't trickle down or "only" benefitting the wealthy but rather it's a ploy to keep the class warfare raging on.

That seems like a bit of an overarching statement.  I was under the impression that the more legit argument against tax cuts during periods of massive spending is that we are accumulating debt, printing more money to cover it, and causing inflation which kicks the responsibility of covering said tax cuts to future generations.  That is technically taxation without representation.  Future generations pay for things we wanted but didn't want to actually pay for when they didn't have a chance to actually vote for such things.

Basically, I'm just saying there are arguments against these types of tax cuts that go beyond being super jelly of rich people.

[hollodero]

(08-02-2018, 05:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yeah, I don't know what it currently is when you factor in all income and all taxes paid out, but the fact is that many people are clamoring for them to pay "more". At some point, it was more than 50% of their income was going to pay taxes. I'm curoius as to how people would think if THEY had to pay more than 50% of their income in taxes.

Yeah, they probably wouldn't like it, who likes taxes. I think it's easier to stomach when you're still left with enough to have a decent life and grant yourself and your family some luxury.
But I don't know if the assessment that the rich pay 50% or more of their effective income in taxes is accurate. Sure it's tricky to evaluate. But from the link Yoyimbo posted here, I take that:

Quote:In fact, taxpayers with the highest 400 AGIs (who made on average $345 million in 2007, the majority of which came from capital gains which are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%) were taxed at an average federal income tax rate of 16.62 percent, with effective tax rates within this group ranging from 0% to 35%.

I figure that's more the reality of things.
Or as Trump said, I'm a billionaire alright, but paying no taxes makes me smart. Many smart wealthy people out there.
Loopholes seem to be the main issue, but I digress.

(08-02-2018, 05:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: IMO, the biggest issue with our economy right now is spending. Congress needs to curb their spending IMMEDIATELY. I'd be fine with no tax cuts if it meant a huge reduction in spending. 

Well, I'd say the biggest issue is the ballooning deficit. Which is something that puzzles me, since one of the major conservative talking points always seemed to be "we're the fiscally responsible ones". The current admin is anything but.
If the deficit is balanced by cutting or more taxation is a matter of philosophy, I myself usually am in favor of the latter, but I usuallly lose those arguments, so let's pretend iI didn't say that :)

(08-02-2018, 05:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: As to tax cuts in general, I don't really care the reason behind them as long as they are across the board. That's the only "fair" way to do it, IMO.

But the way I see it, the latest tax cuts aren't balanced throughout the board. The CBO score aside, they quite bluntly made the cuts for the wealthy and the corporations permanent and the cuts for the lesser fortunate non-permanent.
I'm cynical enough to believe that was done to give people a little bit now so they'd all be in favor and get screwed by the tax bill in later years, when probably democrats aer in power and have to face the anger. But mabe that's not true. The non-permanent cuts are true however, and hence I can not see the cuts as balanced overall.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-02-2018, 05:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: There is a political party that preaches cuts in spending and a reduced or eliminated income tax and they get 3% of the vote and are viewed as a waste of time/votes.  Meanwhile, the political parties that promise all manner of costly things are winning election after election.  Basically, I'm saying there is no evidence that government spending needs to be curbed based upon the way people use their votes.

This is what is fascinating about politics.  Nearly everyone seems to like the idea of more freedom and lower taxes, and yet the political parties that preach more spending and less freedom keep winning, and not only do they win, but supporting any other party is seen as an insane and inane action.

Fascinating, isn't it? People will claim they want something, but then vote and/or continue to vote for people who have demonstrated they will NOT do said thing. 

(08-02-2018, 05:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That seems like a bit of an overarching statement.  I was under the impression that the more legit argument against tax cuts during periods of massive spending is that we are accumulating debt, printing more money to cover it, and causing inflation which kicks the responsibility of covering said tax cuts to future generations.  That is technically taxation without representation.  Future generations pay for things we wanted but didn't want to actually pay for when they didn't have a chance to actually vote for such things.

Basically, I'm just saying there are arguments against these types of tax cuts that go beyond being super jelly of rich people.

I'll grant yout that not everytime a criticism towards a proposed tax cut was because of class warfare reasons. But, it IS interesting how there are ALWAYS those complaining that proposed tax cuts will only benefit the wealthy.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-02-2018, 05:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I'd say the biggest issue is the ballooning deficit. Which is something that puzzles me, since one of the major conservative talking points always seemed to be "we're the fiscally responsible ones". The current admin is anything but.
If the deficit is balanced by cutting or more taxation is a matter of philosophy, I myself usually am in favor of the latter, but I usuallly lose those arguments, so let's pretend iI didn't say that :)

Ever since George W. Bush (whom I liked as president), I've never believed a single politician who has claimed to be fiscally responsible or that they would be. 

And as much as I liked Trump's tax cuts, I would have rather seen a massive reduction in spending.

(08-02-2018, 05:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: But the way I see it, the latest tax cuts aren't balanced throughout the board. The CBO score aside, they quite bluntly made the cuts for the wealthy and the corporations permanent and the cuts for the lesser fortunate non-permanent.
I'm cynical enough to believe that was done to give people a little bit now so they'd all be in favor and get screwed by the tax bill in later years, when probably democrats aer in power and have to face the anger. But mabe that's not true. The non-permanent cuts are true however, and hence I can not see the cuts as balanced overall.

No tax cut or tax hike is ever permanent, but as long as it's across the board, it's fair in my eyes.

[hollodero]

(08-02-2018, 05:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Ever since George W. Bush (whom I liked as president), I've never believed a single politician who has claimed to be fiscally responsible or that they would be. 

OK. I let that Bush comment slide :) and sure, who believes a politician. I think I was just surprised how quickly, in an instant, republicans and followers managed to do a complete 180 on that one.

(08-02-2018, 05:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: And as much as I liked Trump's tax cuts, I would have rather seen a massive reduction in spending.

You sure will get that. I just fear the cuts will hit the poorest and least fortunate folks. Children, old people, veterans and those. That's how these things often go.

(08-02-2018, 05:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No tax cut or tax hike is ever permanent, but as long as it's across the board, it's fair in my eyes.

Sure thing. Seldom have I seen the non-permanent ones in writing from the get-go though. They literally made clear that the plan is not for the not-so-wealthy to benefit long term.

[Belsnickel]

(08-02-2018, 05:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Appreciate the honesty, but I'd rather keep most of MY money. 

Where I live right now, if my wife and I made a combined total of over $100k a year I would donate every additional penny. That number would adjust based on cost of living for the location and what have you, but that's all I would need.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-02-2018, 05:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK. I let that Bush comment slide :) and sure, who believes a politician. I think I was just surprised how quickly, in an instant, republicans and followers managed to do a complete 180 on that one.

Yep. It pisses me off to no end for a "fiscal conservative" or "fiscally respnosible" candidate to go ahead and increase spending and/or demonstrate they're anything but.

(08-02-2018, 05:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: You sure will get that. I just fear the cuts will hit the poorest and least fortunate folks. Children, old people, veterans and those. That's how these things often go.

NOt necessarily. Spending can be cut in areas where it's become too bloated (like defense) and won't hurt the less fortunate. But, if we want to get the economy under control, we're going to need to make drastic cuts in which some, if not most people will feel the effects.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2018, 05:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'll grant yout that not everytime a criticism towards a proposed tax cut was because of class warfare reasons. But, it IS interesting how there are ALWAYS those complaining that proposed tax cuts will only benefit the wealthy.

What is really interesting is the way all of the tax cuts do benefit the wealthy more than the poor and middle class.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-02-2018, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is really interesting is the way all of the tax cuts do benefit the wealthy more than the poor and middle class.

You find that interesting? I would think it obvious that if you're paying tons more in taxes that cutting said taxes will benefit you more than those who are paying very little to none.

[hollodero]

(08-02-2018, 06:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: NOt necessarily. Spending can be cut in areas where it's become too bloated (like defense) and won't hurt the less fortunate.

Yes. Of course. Defense seems like a logical place to start. The world would still fear your military if it were a little less mighty.
I just don't see that happen under Trump. Defense cuts don't seem to be a GOP thing. I say that more out of prejudice than knowledge.

(08-02-2018, 06:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But, if we want to get the economy under control, we're going to need to make drastic cuts in which some, if not most people will feel the effects.

...or roll back the tax cuts and close the gaping loopholes. Or both.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-02-2018, 06:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yes. Of course. Defense seems like a logical place to start. The world would still fear your military if it were a little less mighty.
I just don't see that happen under Trump. Defense cuts don't seem to be a GOP thing. I say that more out of prejudice than knowledge.

Yep. It's why I doubt we'll see ANY spending cuts from ANY president. They'll be too worried about what'll it look like if they need to make cuts to things like education or what have you. (Of course, heaven forbid, they decide to cut their own salary or go in that direction).

(08-02-2018, 06:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...or roll back the tax cuts and close the gaping loopholes. Or both.

Nope and a definite yes.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2018, 06:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You find that interesting? I would think it obvious that if you're paying tons more in taxes that cutting said taxes will benefit you more than those who are paying very little to none.

I am talking about percentages and the fact that the cuts that benefit the wealthiest are not set to expire in 2025.

Here are the numbers on the most current Trump tax cuts.

Among individuals, it would help higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95 to 99 percent range would receive a 2.2 percent increase in after-tax income.  Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1.7 percent increase.

The Tax Policy Center broke it down a little more. Those in the lowest-earning fifth of the population would see their income increase by 0.4 percent. Those in the next-highest fifth would receive a 1.2 percent boost. The next two quintiles would see their income increase 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. But the biggest increase, 2.9 percent, would go to those in the top-earning fifth.

[hollodero]

(08-02-2018, 06:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yep. It's why I doubt we'll see ANY spending cuts from ANY president. They'll be too worried about what'll it look like if they need to make cuts to things like education or what have you. (Of course, heaven forbid, they decide to cut their own salary or go in that direction).

Ha! I agree with your assertion, but at least disagree with the part in brackets. Sure, a bit less presidential golfing wouldn't be the worst thing probably. But I like my politicians to get a decent pay. Or else the capable people have no incentive to go politics. Which leaves us with the not so capable ones, and/or the easily bribable ones.
I have to admit that argument works better in theory than in reality, which doesn't work in my favor here.

(08-02-2018, 06:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Nope and a definite yes.

That's hard to read :)

[*PhilHos*]

(08-02-2018, 07:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ha! I agree with your assertion, but at least disagree with the part in brackets. Sure, a bit less presidential golfing wouldn't be the worst thing probably. But I like my politicians to get a decent pay. Or else the capable people have no incentive to go politics. Which leaves us with the not so capable ones, and/or the easily bribable ones.
I have to admit that argument works better in theory than in reality, which doesn't work in my favor here.

You have to remember that the vast majority that go into politics (at least, at the federal level anyway) were wealthy before they were elected.