I don't agree. Everyone pays the full tax rate on taxable income. (except for credits as I pointed out.) The problem is comparing how taxable income is determined with us and others. The Google search yields nothing useful.
Trump Tax Overhaul will give the wealthy $21B gift
- Thread starter meridian
- Start date
I don't agree. Everyone pays the full tax rate on taxable income. (except for credits as I pointed out.) The problem is comparing how taxable income is determined with us and others. The Google search yields nothing useful.
On some points I suspect we agree. For example, I'd rather see more work resources on education and training than on straight assistance. We've been through the discussions, the middle class and below aren't making what they used to make. What did factory workers make in 1965? What do they make today? It's been a downhill run.
I know in rural Kentucky, as an example, things are different. Anyone trying to live in an urban environment making $15/hour and below is going to struggle mightily if they have any sort of family. Even in rural America, keeping a car running and driving very far at all to a job is going to eat mightily into that $15/hour. And childcare, well, if one hasn't priced childcare there is no way they know.
I see at least one post below yours suggesting people want to live on welfare and sit at home all day watching Maury. I don't think that's accurate. Sure, those people exist. Most people just need a way to make things a bit easier. And that leads back to health insurance, or childcare, or whatever. If the current "average" 40 hour per week job isn't enough to survive on, then we need a system. That's why some of us are big on mass transit, it is FAR cheaper than owning a car. But mass transit is always on the chopping block. If people live in a city and cannot afford a car, how are they getting to work and everything else? That's just one example.
One might be the greatest ditch digger in the world, and we might still need ditch diggers, but no one is paying him more than $12-15/hour. It is like Georgia having their food rot in the fields after cracking down on illegals. Farmers couldn't pay the amount it would take to get people into the fields, their prices would have been too high to compete. So if we want Americans out working in fields, we either need a safety net that lets them do it for the wages we are willing to pay or we are going to pay double for food and watch American farms go under while international farming takes over. I don't see another option, do you?
We seem to have had this strange desire to cut wages for people who work so we can raise profits for those who invest. That desire has created problems. We see it in wage growth among the bottom 85% or so. And I know CO usually points out skill issues, people at that 80% mark aren't keeping up and they should be skilled. If we can't tackle this problem at that end, than we have to tackle it on the social service end. Or just give up and watch Slumdog Millionaire thinking what a great world that is. I don't care which of the first two issues we want to take a crack at. Do we want to figure out how to get the tide to lift ALL boats (and not stop it at the top 1%), fine, I'm with that idea. Or do we want a way to patch up the small craft? Fine. But one of the two must be done. If America keeps this dam that exists at the 1% mark in place I don't think we are going to like where we end up at. Mr Trump, tear down that dam.
Two things, regardless of how well off the folks are has this accumulated wealth not already been addressed during the accumulation phase within system of taxation?
Is it not the least bit disturbing that the government presumes some right to take a second bite of the apple?
This from the article: The Obama administration tried for years to curtail the benefit through legislation without success and instead in August proposed rules through the Internal Revenue Service set to do just that.
Is it not troubling that in our system of checks and balances the executive branch could exratct additional private funds from individuals without gaining legislative approval?
In any case I don't have and never will have the assets to make this personally, but I find it impossible to use the term "gift" in this context.
Is it not the least bit disturbing that the government presumes some right to take a second bite of the apple?
This from the article: The Obama administration tried for years to curtail the benefit through legislation without success and instead in August proposed rules through the Internal Revenue Service set to do just that.
Is it not troubling that in our system of checks and balances the executive branch could exratct additional private funds from individuals without gaining legislative approval?
In any case I don't have and never will have the assets to make this personally, but I find it impossible to use the term "gift" in this context.
It also depends on the loopholes. For example, invest in ethanol and the government gives you a break. Invest in R&D, and the government gives you a break (never mind you probably have to invest in R&D to survive anyway). Large ticket items can have a one-year depreciation. Pretty much amounts to a no-interest government loan to buy an airplane. Here is a list of loopholes. Any time we give a credit, not just a reduction to the bottom line for spending on R&D but a credit, we are lowering that 35%.
Undersstood. Loopholes apply to determine taxable income. I generally agree with you about loopholes. That said, I don't consider loopholes to be loopholes. Loopholes are unintended ways around statutory or contractual requirements. End runs around requirements or taxes that are designed and intended are not loopholes. I know, people paid me big bucks to find loopholes in written documents or statutes.
Do you think wages have been declining because of welfare? Or are they declining for other reasons?
They aren't declining. That's the first flaw in your statement. Stagnant, perhaps.
So what's all of this "anger" we heard people talking about, including you, since Brexit through Trump?
Source
So says Simone Foxman of Bloomberg News, the radical Commie publication(
I bet the children of Trump will love it. Guess who will pay for that $21B?
Link
Generally I don't think the 1% should get income tax breaks but the estate tax is wrong IMO. Point: bill gates has made $billions but along the way he has paid billions on payroll, taxes, healthcare, and on and on. I would rather see his wealth end up in a foundation where it is used for good things rather than give it to our Fed Gov who will squander it on things that don't work well.
It's not your fault, because you are using the term as commonly used, but I hate how the term loophole has been overused to describe anything someone doesn't like about the tax code.
A loophole is an ambiguity in the law that allows the intent of the law to be evaded. The examples in the linked article are not loopholes. A good example of a loophole in the IRS code is the ability for a high income earner to do a "backdoor" Roth IRA conversion. Congress and the IRS did not intend to allow higher earners to take advantage of Roth accounts, but the law was written sloppily and thus people have taken advantage of the loophole. An R&D credit was not a mistake.
The reason I do not like the term loophole is that it typically shifts the blame to corporations or rich individuals who are "gaming" the system. The conversation should instead shift to the enactment of such provisions and why Congress continues to tinker with the tax code to help certain activities but hinder others.
So what's all of this "anger" we heard people talking about, including you, since Brexit through Trump?
Source
Aside from the fact that you are using household income instead of real wages, which is what you brought up, perhaps this more appropriately conveys my thoughts about the dot.com bubble and technlogy more than anything.
That being said, if you look at real wages for unskilled labor, it confirms my statement.
Even using your chart, doesn't 2014 look lower than 1974? And in purchasing power, we have to discuss substitution calculated into the inflation number. That 20.67 today may involve eating beans/ hamburger as opposed to sirloin.Aside from the fact that you are using household income instead of real wages, which is what you brought up, perhaps this more appropriately conveys my thoughts about the dot.com bubble and technlogy more than anything.
That being said, if you look at real wages for unskilled labor, it confirms my statement.
Yes, but higher than the mid-90s, so again, it depends on the period of time..
Perhaps you have uncovered the bigger problem: Eat more white meat.
Well, in Gates' case, that's precisely where his money is headed. In fact, both he and pal Warren Buffett are leaving the bulk of their fortunes to the Gates Foundation. The federal treasury isn't going to see much (relatively speaking) from their estates.
I agree with you, BTW. After somebody's income (or capital appreciation) has been duly taxed, they should be able to give it to whomever or whatever they want.
And somebody else investing that money is just as much a "good thing" as what a charity would do with it.
Similar threads
