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

[bushman505]

This.

I'll be honest, I am not reading all of that of the OP on Sunday night. However, I do know that ever since the tax cuts I get around $110 more each paycheck (15th and end of month). Receiving more money isn't a complaint from me.

Same here.

 

[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?

 

[Jack V Savage]

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!"

Sorry. The existence of cultish followers of the guy is something I kind of recently discovered (Farmer and Greoric here in the WR, but I guess it's a bigger thing around the Internet). It's kind of fascinating, and I think they're not supposed to mention it (I recall when Greoric bizarrely claimed not to know who he was and kept pretending to think he was a woman as a way to get fake credibility to that denial). But I tend to be late on that kind of thing.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I got $1000 bonus and and an increase of $50 per paycheck (bi-weekly).

They taxed the shit out of the $1000 though. I got like $320 in my bank from that

Anecdotes are kinda irrelevant but FWIW I got the same size raise (3%) I got the previous couple years.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

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.

If somebody works twice as hard and pulls in more money. Why should they be taxed more? They've EARNED that money just as legit as the first half. I understand what we are taking about just fine.

 

[Falsedawn]

If somebody works twice as hard and pulls in more money. Why should they be taxed more? They've EARNED that money just as legit as the first half. I understand what we are taking about just fine.

Why should a person be paid 10x more than their workers when they only work twice as hard?

Sounds like CEO salary caps are on the agenda.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

a) Cost of living is unavoidable and disproportionate. The lower the income, the greater the burden.

Burden is not justification to take money from somebody else instead of paying your fair share

 

[ScottE]

Anecdotes are kinda irrelevant but FWIW I got the same size raise (3%) I got the previous couple years.

And with rising inflation that raise will likely represent a paycut in actual spending power.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

If somebody works twice as hard and pulls in more money. Why should they be taxed more? They've EARNED that money just as legit as the first half. I understand what we are taking about just fine.

This is a ridiculously simplistic framework for thinking about the economy. You're using income as a proxy for how hard people work. It's absurd.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

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%.

Ah that was a bad example I admit because they were both in the same bracket.

So if you had earned a mil in the example. Why should you have to pay say 400k (40%) as opposed to your fair share of 100k (10%)

The justification for that extra 300k of tax is what?

 

[Streeter]

Will judge when I get tax returns. If I get less back and the extra few bucks on my check were just coming out of my return anyway then fuck trump. If my returns come back with more money send me a MAGA hat.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Why should a person be paid 10x more than their workers when they only work twice as hard?

Sounds like CEO salary caps are on the agenda.

The workers don't have to accept that situation if they don't think it's fair. The wealthy cant exactly walk away from taxes.

Try to stay on topic. We are discussing the necessity of a progressive tax

 

[BangersAndSmash]

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

What is your definition of fairness?

It may sound fair to charge everyone 15% and call it a day, but think about this:

If Richie Rich makes 5 million a year but his lifestyle expenses only total 1 million a year, his after tax income is 3 m 250 th, more than three times his living expenses.

If peter poor makes 20,000$ a year (the higher end of the single person lower income tax bracket), his post tax income is 17,000$. Now his cost of living varies a lot. For a single person in Brownsville, Texas (a cheaper cost of living), it cost about 29,118$, For a single person in San Francisco it's 69,072$. Even for somewhere quite cheap, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, it's 35,779$.

So basically, Peter Poor is in the negative no matter where he lives. So if you're questioning fairness, who do you think is hurt more by the their tax bill, Peter or Richie?

 

[panamaican]

If somebody works twice as hard and pulls in more money. Why should they be taxed more? They've EARNED that money just as legit as the first half. I understand what we are taking about just fine.

No you really don't understand it because your statement continues to misapply how the tax code works. The person who works 2x as hard and pulls in more money isn't taxed more. They are taxed exactly like everyone else.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

This is a ridiculously simplistic framework for thinking about the economy. You're using income as a proxy for how hard people work. It's absurd.

No I used it in one specific example. Many people work very hard and receive little in compensation. That is not a tax issue.

I'm suggesting we tax every dollar of income the same and get rid of all the tax loopholes.

 

[Falsedawn]

The workers don't have to accept that situation if they don't think it's fair. The wealthy cant exactly walk away from taxes.

Try to stay on topic. We are discussing the necessity of a progressive tax

Oh I am on topic.

We're discussing "fairness" as it relates to taxation. As taxation is directly based on wages, it's important to address wage fairness as well. You could keep tax revenue the same with lower rates by mandating reinvestment of all unfair profits into the workers after all (more wages = larger tax base = less individual load).

So how can you say that taxation of higher earners is unfair when the state of higher earning is inherently unfair in itself? If the rich people don't like being taxed, they can move, isn't that how it works?

Stay on topic now.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

What is your definition of fairness?

It may sound fair to charge everyone 15% and call it a day, but think about this:

If Richie Rich makes 5 million a year but his lifestyle expenses only total 1 million a year, his after tax income is 3 m 250 th, more than three times his living expenses.

If peter poor makes 20,000$ a year (the higher end of the single person lower income tax bracket), his post tax income is 17,000$. Now his cost of living varies a lot. For a single person in Brownsville, Texas (a cheaper cost of living), it cost about 29,118$, For a single person in San Francisco it's 69,072$. Even for somewhere quite cheap, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, it's 35,779$.

So basically, Peter Poor is in the negative no matter where he lives. So if you're questioning fairness, who do you think is hurt more by the their tax bill, Peter or Richie?

I dont suggest we fix cost of living issues and greed by adjusting what the government takes from them.

Again, poverty isnt inherently immoral. Taking peoples hard earned money because they can handle the burden is

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Again, poverty isnt inherently immoral. Taking peoples hard earned money because they can handle the burden is

How does one earn an inheritance that was built on their great grandfather's land deal in 1850?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

No you really don't understand it because your statement continues to misapply how the tax code works. The person who works 2x as hard and pulls in more money isn't taxed more. They are taxed exactly like everyone else.

You're not understanding me then and that is fine.

The person who works 2x as hard IS taxed more in relation to their normal work load. You're basically saying the 2nd half of their labor isnt worth as much as the first half.

Why should 100k be taxed different depending if I've already earned 100k?

I guess defend progressive tax rates being necessary or what's the point of this back n forth?

 

[Falsedawn]

How does one earn an inheritance that was built on their great grandfather's land deal in 1850?

Obviously they just need to let it go. They didn't live through that land deal, why are they acting like they own it? We need to come together on this.