Economy Trump tax cuts 6 months later: it was exactly what critics projected - everyone but the rich suffers

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Also, you don't understand the tax code. The wealthy don't pay more. Everyone pays the same amount of taxes on the same amount of income. The wealthy guy pays the same amount on his first $20k as the poor guy. He pays the same amount on his first $100k as the middle class guy. He never pays more than they do on the same amount of income.

Actually I do understand we have a tiered system thanks.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Yup. It's not that complicated what I want. A flat tax on every dollar earned for everybody



No it's not. Its directly proportionate



The rich person didn't take away the meals tho so what is the justification for coming after his money?

The rich person didn't, you took them away in this scenario since you're the one proposing that their day to day struggle is not important as long as the rich keeps more of his money. That's really the crux of it.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-here-are-10-of-them/?utm_term=.7c8ccef482bd

"
1. The mortgage interest deduction for big houses and second homes.

Thanks to this tax break, the 5 million households in America making more than $200,000 a year get a lot more housing aid than the 20 million households living on less than $20,000. Deductions for mortgage interest incentivize people already capable of buying big homes to buy even bigger ones. This tax break applies as well to second homes (you only get one second home though!). Note: In the eyes of the Congressional Budget Office — the official word on this in Washington — the mortgage interest deduction is equivalent to the government offering you money, not you keeping your own money.

2. The yacht tax deduction.

If you’ve got a boat and you’re paying interest on it, that interest is tax-deductible – provided your boat is really, really big. If it has sleeping quarters, a kitchen and a toilet – e.g., it is a yacht – then it can be considered a second home and any interest you pay on it is deductible. But if you just have a garden-variety fishing boat or canoe, sorry – no deduction for you.

Beyond that, if you have a yacht you can loan it out to a charter business for part of the year, and keep it for personal use the rest of the time. This allows you to deduct the purchase price, insurance, maintenance and slip fees too.

[This image perfectly sums up inequality in America, according to the Internet]

3. Rental property.

If you're a landlord, which you probably aren't if you're very low-income, you can deduct many of the expenses you incur renting a home, including repairs, advertising, HOA fees and — again — mortgage interest. If you happen to rent out either your first or second home for 14 days or less — because, for example, Augusta National Golf Club is hosting the Masters nearby — you get to just pocket all that income without paying taxes on it at all.

4. Fancy business meals.

Talking business over an expensive dinner? That's tax deductible, too, a fact that puts taxpayer spending on food stamps into relief. This is a good deal for, say, a CEO presiding over actual filet mignon at a five-star restaurant. Scott Klinger, now the director of revenue and spending policies at the Center for Effective Government, explains how this works here:

Imagine that the tab for dinner and drinks for 10 executives comes to $1,600. Current tax law allows companies to deduct half of the cost of business meals — in this case, $800. With a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, each dollar of deductions yields 35 cents of tax savings — so that $800 deduction saves $280 in taxes. This means one dinner for 10 people provides more public food assistance than the $279 an average household receives in food stamps for the whole month.

[Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood]

5. The capital gains tax rate.

This is the big one. Taxes on investment dividends and capital gains currently max out at about 24 percent when you add in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But the top income tax rate is 39.6 percent. So investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than regular income. The annual earnings of many of the ultra-rich come from investments, not from wages. This is why Warren Buffett famously has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

6. The estate tax.

“The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death,” according to the IRS. Without the estate tax, super-wealthy families would be able to hoard that wealth in perpetuity, becoming ever more powerful in the process. The tax, as it currently exists, only kicks in on estates worth $5.4 million or more, affecting about the top 0.2 percent of households. For everyone else in the top 1 percent, congratulations! You can pass on your riches to your heirs tax-free.

[The double-standard of making the poor prove they’re worthy of government benefits]

7. Gambling loss deductions.

Did you know that the government provides a generous tax deduction for literally throwing your money away? You can deduct your gambling losses up to the value of any winnings you earned. More gambling winnings mean more gambling deductions, incentivizing you to keep gambling more to at least break even. And if you’ve got more money to gamble, you’ll have more losses to deduct.

8. The Social Security earnings limit.

Social Security taxes only apply to income up to $118,500– anything after that is Social Security tax-free. So the more money you make, the less your effective Social Security tax rate is, making this tax about as regressive as they come. Technically, of course, Social Security is a savings plan, not a tax. But the rich tend to live longer than the poor and receive benefits longer than lower-wage earners, so an adjustment to the earnings limit would help offset this difference. Social Security’s own actuaries estimate that eliminating this cap would reduce the program’s long-term deficit by about 86 percent.

9. Retirement plans.

The federal government incentivizes retirement by allowing you to reduce your taxable income by saving money in 401(k) plans or IRAs. But employer-sponsored retirement plans only benefit those people with employers that offer them (so, largely not people who work in retail or the fast-food sector). And the benefit for IRAs doesn’t help people who have no money left over for retirement after they pay their living expenses. In total, about 66 percent of these retirement subsidies go to the top 20 percent of taxpayers. Less than 1 percent go to the bottom 20 percent.

10. Tax prep.

If you have hired an accountant to help you sort through all of these tax breaks to make sure you maximize them — which the wealthy are much more likely to do — you get to write off that expense, too."

I want every dollar earned taxed a flat rate. Get rid of all the deductions and explain how a progressive tax is necessary for fairness

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

The rich person didn't, you took them away in this scenario since you're the one proposing that their day to day struggle is not important as long as the rich keeps more of his money. That's really the crux of it.

Huh? Why do you support taking the rich guys money to make the poor guys life better? What is your justification?

 

[panamaican]

No of course not. You must have skipped over where I said the wealthy should be helping the less fortunate.

Its not immoral to ask. Its immoral to force

I haven't read the exchange because I suspect it's a rehash of the same old "taxes are theft" rhetoric. It's always a flawed position because the voluntary agreement to participate is always ignored.

 

[panamaican]

Actually I do understand we have a tiered system thanks.

Then you should understand that we don't tax anyone a higher % than anyone else.

And since everyone pays the same taxes on the same income, we're not forcing the rich to help the poor. The rich pay their fair share for the use of the infrastructure and the government chooses to spend that money however it wishes.

This argument is like the guy who rents a penthouse apartment complaining that the landlord spends the rent money upgrading the 2nd floor studios.

 

[ScottE]

I'll admit if it happens that way that would upset me, to say it nicely. It feels like it's something they "can" control as far as the effective rates of our taxation but once it gets political it may not work that way. I'm not confident that anyone would fight to keep our taxes lower over the long term so that's why I'm more of a "ride this wave" at the moment.



I don't know if that is solely due to the cuts though. For example, we constantly hear about the "low all time etc unemployment", but that doesn't take into account lower wages than there should be and people working two jobs to support families and accomplish goals. It's unrealistic imo to expect all the corps to just start handing out more money because they got nice tax cuts. On the flip side of it, I think the people themselves are the ones not doing what they are supposed to do with the money. For every person planning bigger there are multiple people buying garbage. My friend got a bonus due to the cut and what does he do? Buy upgrades for his car and then the money is gone. Lots of bad money management contributes to it, whereas a lot have more money to spend, but since it isn't a life changing amount they are more susceptible to blow it. It is helping my economic personal growth however because I am very responsible with my money.



I think it depends on how much more. If we are taking home more now to take home an "equivalent" ratio years later I'm ok with that. It would be like extra money for years and then a hard reset. If it ends up being some amount that is higher than it ever was then I think it's a problem.



That much I agree with. Not to be bias but I feel the middle class should receive the biggest cuts as they are the largest contribution group. I'm of the stance that the middle class always gets the shaft but is titled to carry the economy. Low class? Tons of benefits. Boatload of money? Tons of benefits? Middle class? Middle finger. I think overall there should have been a larger ratio for those who need it the most, in the order of middle, lower, upper.

So if you'd be upset if the personal tax cuts sunset in a manner that ends up increasing personal tax rates, why are you not upset about the GOP structuring the cuts in this fashion?

They did it because they wanted to pass the cuts through budget reconciliation instead of on it's own. They knew the bill couldn't stand up outside of reconciliation so they structured it the way they did to get it passed. That's reprehensible.

There is also the inherent issue that you can cut taxes on individuals and not touch the corporate tax rate. Hell you can cut middle classes taxes without cutting anything else, they just opted to not do so.

You're right it is completely unrealistic to expect corporations to use their no strings tax cuts on higher wages for their employees. But the problem there is that the GOP sold the bill to the public on that basis and that they could have added strings to force corporations to do exactly that. Again they just opted not to do so.

No amount of personal finacial management is going to make up for the fact that neccecities like food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, etc; now represent a larger proportion of peoples wages then they did in decades past.

And that's not even taking into consideration that because these cuts can't possible finance themselves like they were suppose to through economic growth, social programs that middle class persons rely on are on the GOP chopping block.

They passed a top heavy tax cut that will only get more tax heavy as time goes on, all on the basis of economic impact that isn't logical to expect, and has resulted in spiking the deficit which they now are looking to curb with cuts to SS and Medicare.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I haven't read the exchange because I suspect it's a rehash of the same old "taxes are theft" rhetoric. It's always a flawed position because the voluntary agreement to participate is always ignored.

I dont believe taxes are theft. I see no justification for progressive tax rates.

People claim the wealthy use the roads more. That's great but under a flat tax they'd also be paying more for the road maintenance etc.

Again I ask. What is the justification

 

[Ophydian]

That is literally happening to no one in America.

No one's going to take your arguments seriously if you fill them with Chicken Little "the sky is falling" scenarios.

Lol chicken little sky is falling coming from a Republican, you are too much

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Then you should understand that we don't tax anyone a higher % than anyone else.

And since everyone pays the same taxes on the same income, we're not forcing the rich to help the poor. The rich pay their fair share for the use of the infrastructure and the government chooses to spend that money however it wishes.

This argument is like the guy who rents a penthouse apartment complaining that the landlord spends the rent money upgrading the 2nd floor studios.

Other people made the argument about the poor and this redistribution of sorts being good or necessary.

I'm arguing it's unfair to tax somebody a higher %simply for making more money.

Example: I earn $100. You earn $1000
With a 10% flat tax I would pay $10 and you would pay $100.

The argument goes that you would be using the infrastructure more so you should pay more. That is the justification for you paying $90 more then me.

I've yet to see why the wealthy should pay a higher %. Prove the disproportionate nature of infrastructure?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Lol chicken little sky is falling coming from a Republican, you are too much

Not an argument.

 

[Ophydian]

Whether you feel he's misguided or not isn't it refreshing to have a politician do what they said they were going to do? Trump's base is growing whether you like it or not. Can't wait for the midterms.

I’m sorry can you provide a link where Trump said the tax cuts were for the rich and whatever extra they get in returns would trickle down to the middle class. I don’t remember that being one of his campaign promises.

If I remember it correctly he was going to completely overhaul the tax code; which he hasn’t and give the middle class a huge tax break; which he hasn’t.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

I wanted to bring this up earlier, but I was on vacation last month.

You were on dbl yellows last month and you were still posting constantly on your alt account.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not an argument.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's a line that Molyneux disciples use all the time when they don't have an intelligent response to a point.

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1175928-stefan-molyneux

 

[panamaican]

I dont believe taxes are theft. I see no justification for progressive tax rates.

People claim the wealthy use the roads more. That's great but under a flat tax they'd also be paying more for the road maintenance etc.

Again I ask. What is the justification

See, this is where you don't understand the tax code because you keep conflating the progressive tax rate on income brackets with a progressive tax rate on people.

We apply a flat tax to the individual income brackets, not to the total income. If you like flat taxes then our current system should make you happy. Everyone pays the same flat rate for income within a range.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Maybe? So many replies. When I read it back it didnt make sense to me either. Disregard broseph

Ok, so does my point make sense then?

There is nothing inherently unfair about a progressive tax because
a) Cost of living is unavoidable and disproportionate. The lower the income, the greater the burden.
b) Tax brackets are universally applied to everyone. No one is forced to accept a higher income if the burden of the tax rate outweighs the benefit of taking the job with higher pay.

That's why tax rates should be designed to maximize utility.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

It's not an argument.

Neither is this .gif.

Far too few people know how to make arguments properly.

Glad I could help!

 

[panamaican]

Other people made the argument about the poor and this redistribution of sorts being good or necessary.

I'm arguing it's unfair to tax somebody a higher %simply for making more money.

Example: I earn $100. You earn $1000
With a 10% flat tax I would pay $10 and you would pay $100.

The argument goes that you would be using the infrastructure more so you should pay more. That is the justification for you paying $90 more then me.

I've yet to see why the wealthy should pay a higher %. Prove the disproportionate nature of infrastructure?

And you're ignoring that we already do that.

Right now, we both pay 12% on every dollar under $9,000. I don't pay a higher percentage than you just because I earn $1000 and you earn $100. We both pay 12%.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's a line that Molyneux disciples use all the time when they don't have an intelligent response to a point.

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1175928-stefan-molyneux

Yeah I know which is why I face palmed at it, especially since he was nitpicking an inconsequential aspect of the OP just before chastising someone else with "N-Not an argument!"

It's not an argument.

Neither is nitpicking a facetious comment like you did, or at least its not a very good one at any rate.

Glad I could help!