Author Topic: Tax Policy  (Read 295989 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Biden seriously getting on wrong side of the tax curve
« Reply #1000 on: April 22, 2021, 07:26:26 PM »
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/stocks-plummet-report-biden-wants-hike-capital-gai/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=Eg1gplOhwPiPUvK7jWENOkeShFRdyAkL%2BpdBEyUoCYjE5wf1zctvo1XQHNr0UPp8&bt_ts=1619114798181

===================================

The one consistent theme of the Biden Presidency so far is that he nearly always chooses to side with the Democratic left. So it was again on Thursday as Biden officials leaked that they will soon propose raising the federal tax on capital gains to 43.4% from a top rate of 23.8% today.


The midday leak to the Biden-sympathetic Bloomberg News managed to tank stocks, with the S&P 500 falling the most in more than a month. Treasury yields also fell on the news, as investors discounted the prospects for growth. Nothing like higher taxes to take some of the bloom off the “Biden boom,” as Democrats are now calling the post-Covid economic recovery.

The leakers told Bloomberg that Mr. Biden will tax capital gains for taxpayers who earn more than $1 million at the personal income tax rate, which he also wants to raise to 39.6% from 37%. Add the 3.8% ObamaCare tax on investment, and you get to 43.4%. And that’s merely the federal rate. Add 13.3% in California and 11.85% in New York (plus 3.88% in New York City), which also tax capital gains as regular income, and you are heading toward the 60% rate range.


Keep in mind this is on the sale of gains that are often inflated as assets are held for years without adjustment for inflation. Oh, and Mr. Biden also wants to eliminate the step-up in basis on capital gains that accrues at death. All of this would add up to the highest rate on capital income since before the Steiger capital-gains tax cut of 1978.


We’ll have more to say on the Biden tax proposals in the days ahead, and stocks may bounce back as corporate earnings soar. But the lesson that investors should have learned by now is that Bernie Sanders was right when he predicted that Joe Biden would be the most left-wing President since FDR. Moderate Joe was always a mirage.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 08:42:02 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Hawley
« Reply #1001 on: April 26, 2021, 08:10:39 AM »
while I am for the most part always for tax cuts
it should be for everyone
I don't like this social engineering stuff
I don't know what is happening to Josh who seems to have gone off the rails:

https://www.conservativereview.com/hawley-plan-gives-marriage-bonus-to-married-parents-with-young-children-2652781265.html

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1002 on: April 26, 2021, 01:56:58 PM »
ccp, I agree.

Didn't we just do that?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/15/16780714/republican-tax-bill-marco-rubio-child-tax-credit-cbpp
Doubled the Child Tax Credit from 1000 to 2000 per child.  I see it as more about marketing and positioning than about economics.  The overall tax burden is too high and this does nothing to reduce it or constrain it.

Hawley's bill makes that 6000 per parent, 12,000 for two parents, as I read it.  Interesting that the focus is on the parent rather than the child.  I think he is trying to position against more child care credits, no doubt coming.

Hawley, from the article: “American families should be supported, no matter how they choose to care for their kids,” Hawley said.

What I understand from that, current child care credits require child care costs be incurred.  Should we really be giving more to people who send their pre-schoolers out to strangers than we give to families who take care of the kids themselves or with unpaid family members.  They have costs too, including the opportunity cost of not working or working shorter hours.

What it looks to me like is a social spending program bidding war; Republicans are tired of being outspend by Biden's trillion after trillion, another trillion every week it seems.  A real solution would be to reduce the size, scope and burden of government - on everybody.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2021, 03:43:53 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
NYT: Democrats Pushing Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, SALT
« Reply #1003 on: April 26, 2021, 02:07:13 PM »
ccp and I may be affected by this.  The editorial writers admit at the bottom, it affects them personally.
NY Times calls NY Democrats out on it, letting a big opportunity for hypocrisy go by.  May wonders never cease.

Again, the rates should be lower, federal and state, not the deductions higher.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/25/opinion/salt-deduction-democrats.html

Why Are Democrats Pushing a Tax Cut for the Wealthy?
April 25, 2021

Democrats struck a chord with voters in the 2020 elections by campaigning on the need for the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes. Now the party is flirting with a major change in tax policy that would allow the wealthiest Americans to pay lower taxes.

A bloc of House Democrats, mostly from the New York area, are loudly withholding support for a broad package of tax increases to fund President Biden’s infrastructure plan unless it also includes a tax cut: an unlimited deduction for state and local tax payments, or SALT.

In the narrowly divided House, it takes only a handful of Democrats to derail the president’s agenda by making common cause with do-nothing Republicans. In an open letter last week addressed to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, 17 of the 19 Democrats who represent New York threatened to do exactly that, writing that they “reserve the right” to vote against any tax increase that does not include a “full repeal” of the $10,000 limit on the SALT deduction, enacted in 2017.

A number of Democrats from other states, including New Jersey and California, have taken a similar stand. Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey held a news conference last week behind a lectern emblazoned with the logo “No SALT, no dice.”

Proponents of an unlimited SALT deduction say they are seeking to help middle-class taxpayers. If so, they should go back to the drawing board. The top 20 percent of American households, ranked by income, would receive 96 percent of the benefits of the change, according to a detailed analysis by the widely respected Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

The primary beneficiaries would be an even smaller group of the very wealthiest Americans. The 1 percent of households with the highest incomes would receive 54 percent of the benefit, on average paying about $36,000 less per year in federal income taxes.

A tax cut with such a skewed distribution of benefits ought to be unacceptable to any politician genuinely concerned about the rise of economic inequality.

The federal government lets Americans reduce their taxable income either by a standard amount or by the amount spent on such categories as SALT, interest on mortgage loans and charitable contributions. The 2017 law imposed a $10,000 limit on the deductibility of SALT and a separate limit on mortgage interest deductions.

The SALT deduction cap is unfair. The deduction is often described as a federal subsidy for state and local governments because the federal government effectively is paying for a portion of each dollar in state and local taxes. Capping the deduction has the effect of providing a smaller subsidy, per dollar, to jurisdictions that collect more money in taxes.

New Yorkers, who pay higher taxes than most Americans, get more extensive and higher quality public services. Residents of other states choose lower taxes and less government. Federal tax policy should provide consistent support for either choice.

This board historically has opposed the elimination of the federal subsidy. But the rise of economic inequality has increased our focus on the distribution of taxation and led us to a different conclusion: Instead of eliminating the SALT deduction cap, Congress should eliminate the deduction.

The SALT deduction is an inefficient subsidy. The primary beneficiaries are the wealthy people who get a tax break. It would make more sense to collect those dollars from the wealthy and then to provide direct federal financial support to state and local governments.

Proponents of an unlimited SALT deduction have worked hard to portray the cap as a burden on a broad portion of the population. This is wrong in two important respects. First, the existence of the SALT deduction is the primary inequity. It shifts the distribution of taxation off the shoulders of the wealthy and onto the shoulders of the majority who do not make enough money to itemize tax deductions. The bigger the deduction, the greater the inequity.

Second, lifting the cap would primarily benefit the very wealthy. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 16 percent of households making between $100,000 and $200,000 annually would benefit from an unlimited SALT deduction, but that the average benefit would be just $130. Almost everyone making more than a million dollars a year would benefit — on average by more than $44,000.

The Biden administration has avoided taking a stand on the issue beyond indicating that proponents of a SALT deduction restoration would need to find a way to offset the lost revenue, estimated at almost $90 billion in 2021 alone. But it makes little sense to find another way of raising taxes on the rich so that the money can be returned to the same people.

Mr. Gottheimer, for example, proposed last week that the cost of the SALT plan could be offset by increased Internal Revenue Service enforcement to “collect what people owe already.” Is he seriously suggesting that his support for enforcement of the nation’s tax laws is contingent on a tax cut? The necessity of stronger tax enforcement is clear, but it ought to be pursued on the merits, and the government surely can find better uses for the money it collects.

Most members of this editorial board are paying more in federal taxes because of the SALT deduction cap. In a narrow financial sense, we would benefit from its repeal. But we believe in the broader benefits of progressive taxation, and in the necessity of concrete steps toward creating a more equal society. Members of Congress who have espoused those principles repeatedly now have an important opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Tax Policy Flashback, Herman Cain 9-9-9, Capping tax rates
« Reply #1004 on: April 26, 2021, 02:19:42 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%E2%80%939%E2%80%939_Plan

The plan called for the replacement of all current taxes, such as the payroll tax, capital gains tax, and the estate tax, with a 9% personal income tax, 9% federal sales tax, and a 9% corporate tax.

I opposed this and creating any new federal sales tax because the income tax cannot be rescinded, nor could the politicians ever be trusted to keep it at 9%.  But still what a great thought experiment.  Tax rates should be capped at some percentage, maybe 19% and no new federal VAT sales tax.  For a tax to work, there needs to be a significant take-home component.  Also the Feds need to leave room for (most) states to also tax income, and still have the combined rate be competitive with OECD / other countries in the world.

Nothing raises revenues to the Treasury like economic growth.  But we are on a downward slide right now where we don't even pretend to pay for our spending anymore.  Keynes would roll in his grave over the mis-use of his already disproven theories.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1005 on: April 26, 2021, 02:53:06 PM »
There is no way out but collapse. They know that.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Latest Biden Tax Hike Would Have One Huge Consequence for Small Businesses
« Reply #1006 on: April 26, 2021, 03:08:35 PM »
https://fee.org/articles/top-economists-warn-biden-capital-gains-tax-hike-would-have-one-huge-consequence-for-small-businesses/

Top Economists Just Warned Latest Biden Tax
Hike Would Have One Huge Consequence for Small Businesses
Top free-market economists warn that the entire economy, not just the wealthy, would suffer in one key way from such a significant capital gains tax increase.
Monday, April 26, 2021

President Biden has already proposed trillions in new spending alongside massive tax hikes. But the White House is reportedly considering another large tax increase.

“The White House is considering raising the capital gains tax rate to 39.6 percent on people earning $1 million and over,” Fox Business reports. For context, the capital gains tax is “a tax on the growth in value of investments incurred when individuals and corporations sell those investments,” according to Investopedia.

The current top capital gains rate is 20 percent, so this hike would amount to roughly a doubling of the tax. And in 13 states, such as New York and California, with their own levies on capital gains, Biden’s proposal would result in some residents facing rates of more than 50 percent.

How does the president justify such a massive increase?

“[The president’s] view is that [paying for the proposals] should be on the backs...of the wealthiest Americans who can afford it," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said. "And corporations and businesses who can afford it.”

But top free-market economists interviewed exclusively by FEE warn that the entire economy, not just the wealthy, would suffer from such a significant capital gains tax increase. In particular, they warn that heightened taxes on capital gains would hamper investment in small businesses.

“Doubling the top capital gains tax rate from 20% to 40% may make for a good progressive talking point but its economic effect would make it hard for small businesses and hardworking Americans, as it would create a significant reduction of financing for small businesses,” Mercatus Center senior fellow and economist Veronique de Rugy said.

Why would it reduce available financing for small businesses?

“Capital gains are the reward for risky investments,” she explained. “Cut the return on these investments and you will get fewer of them. New and innovative companies may never see the light of day for lack of capital.”

“The higher the capital gains tax rate, the lower the incentive to invest in more risky investments, and the higher the incentive to invest in safer investments like government bonds,” de Rugy concluded. “This sharp hike will reduce the availability of capital for small business owners, for new tech companies and others.”

Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards agreed that hiking capital gains taxes would hamper investment.

“The reward that angel investors receive for putting their time and money into startups is a capital gain five or more years down the road,” Edwards explained. “Raising capital gains taxes would prompt angels to shift their money to safer investments, starving the economy of fuel for dynamic industries such as technology.”

And it’s not just “Big Business” or “the 1%” who would take a hit, the economists argued. American workers and consumers would suffer.

“Tax increases would reduce entrepreneurship,” Edwards offered. “People considering launching startups would instead take safer wage jobs because the chance to earn a capital gain from a high-growth startup would not be worth all the extra stress, risk, and hard work.”

President Biden would seemingly have us believe that we can have it all: Massive new amounts of government spending without most Americans bearing any cost. But subjecting this narrative to even minimal economic scrutiny exposes it for the political wish-casting it truly is.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
To the editorial Board of the NYTimes
« Reply #1007 on: April 26, 2021, 03:40:39 PM »
From above NYSlimes:

"Most members of this editorial board are paying more in federal taxes because of the SALT deduction cap. In a narrow financial sense, we would benefit from its repeal. But we believe in the broader benefits of progressive taxation, and in the necessity of concrete steps toward creating a more equal society. Members of Congress who have espoused those principles repeatedly now have an important opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity."

FU
YOU don't speak for ME!
You want to pay more go right ahead
you know the Treasury's address

more "equitable" society my ass.
oh the virtuosity ........

oh the narcissism .........

you and Krugman - go write your checks out now


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, Capital Gains
« Reply #1008 on: May 08, 2021, 07:45:24 PM »
"In 1968, the last year of the lower capital gains rate, the tax pulled in $7.2 billion in revenues. In 1969, at the higher rate, the tax took in $4.8 billion." - Jude Wanniski  WSJ Editorial, April 26, 1978. https://facebook.com/alan.reynolds.332/posts/10223077296594065

https://twitter.com/AlanReynoldsEcn/status/1390442071081857027
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Investors are extremely sensitive to capital gains tax rates, making kind of a Laffer curve on steroids.  The promised Biden rate increase promise no new revenue at all, potentially a turn backwards.

Biden's Democrat predecessor Obama was not apologetic about this with Charlie Gibson in his debate with Hillary.  Acknowledging his rate increases would bring no additional revenues, he said he would do it out of "fairness":

https://taxfoundation.org/obama-and-gibson-capital-gains-tax-exchange

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
...
GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 28% tax on long-term capital gains brought in only $36.9 billion a year from 1987 to 1997, according to the Treasury Department, while the 15% tax brought in $96.8 billion a year from 2004 to 2007. 

https://facebook.com/alan.reynolds.332/posts/10223041259493160
https://twitter.com/AlanReynoldsEcn/status/1388841310677831681
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The post-JFK Democratic Party of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter reversed the Party's 1938 reform - which cut the capital gains tax to 15% and never let it go above 25%.  By the late 1970s we tried imposing 40% tax on inflated gains. Until Steiger 1978.

How We Beat the '70s
A cap-gains cut was part of the answer.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120536977668532201
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden is dropping new taxes in increments we don't see the BIG picture. First, higher corporate tax rates, especially on foreign profit.  Second, capital gains tax (CGT) rises to 43.4%.  Next, 45-65% tax on small estates PLUS 43.4% tax on inherited gains.
What’s in Biden’s $1.8 Trillion, Tax-Funded Spending Plan
President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday unveiled a $1.8 trillion, 10-year plan to ramp up federal support for American families, with a major expansion in spending on child care, paid leave...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-28/what-s-in-biden-s-1-8-trillion-spending-plan-funded-by-taxes

Good luck America.  Elections have consequences.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2021, 08:03:10 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Property tax rates by state
« Reply #1009 on: May 08, 2021, 08:27:52 PM »
As GM said, go to the reddest county of the reddest state you can find.  This is quite disappointing.  Some of those places, even red states,  have property tax rates that are WAY too high.

These need to be read with some context.  Values vary widely and taxes are (obviously) paid in dollars, not rate, so must make that adjustment.  Also, some states are making u for no income tax by taxing other things higher.

http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state

Median Property Tax Rates By State
Ranked highest to lowest by median property tax as percentage of home value [1]
1.) New Jersey  1.89%
2.) New Hampshire 1.86%
3.) Texas 1.81%
4.) Nebraska 1.76%
5.) Wisconsin 1.76%
6.) Illinois 1.73%
7.) Connecticut 1.63%
8.) Michigan 1.62%
9.) Vermont 1.59%
10.) North Dakota 1.42%
11.) Ohio 1.36%
12.) Rhode Island 1.35%
13.) Pennsylvania 1.35%
14.) Iowa 1.29%
15.) Kansas 1.29%
16.) South Dakota 1.28%
17.) New York 1.23%
18.) Maine 1.09%
19.) Minnesota 1.05%
20.) Massachusetts 1.04%
21.) Alaska 1.04%
22.) Florida 0.97%
23.) Washington 0.92%
24.) Missouri 0.91%
25.) Maryland 0.87%
26.) Oregon 0.87%
27.) Indiana 0.85%
28.) Nevada 0.84%
29.) Georgia 0.83%
30.) Montana 0.83%
31.) North Carolina 0.78%
32.) California 0.74%
33.) Oklahoma 0.74%
34.) Virginia 0.74%
35.) Arizona 0.72%
36.) Kentucky 0.72%
37.) Idaho 0.69%
38.) Tennessee 0.68%
39.) Colorado 0.6%
40.) Utah 0.6%
41.) Wyoming 0.58%
42.) New Mexico 0.55%
43.) Mississippi 0.52%
44.) Arkansas 0.52%
45.) South Carolina 0.5%
46.) West Virginia 0.49%
47.) District of Columbia 0.46%
48.) Delaware 0.43%
49.) Alabama 0.33%
50.)  Hawaii  0.26%
51.)  Louisiana  0.18%
 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy, Capital Gains Tax Rate by state, current and proposed
« Reply #1010 on: May 10, 2021, 10:52:11 AM »
https://twitter.com/howmuch_net/status/1391030309588807681

57% tax on an INFLATIONARY gain?  It is already more than a 100% tax.  Are you people [who support this] fucking nuts?

Karl Marx couldn't find a way to take more money from you.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
WSJ: Phil Gramm & Mike Solon
« Reply #1011 on: May 12, 2021, 11:09:38 AM »

The Biden Tax Mirage
Marginal rates have been a lot higher, but the actual share the top 1% pay stays remarkably constant.
By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon
May 12, 2021 12:39 pm ET




With deficits at levels not seen since World War II, the March $1.9 trillion stimulus only beginning to spend out, and President Biden calling for significantly higher marginal tax rates to help fund another $4 trillion of spending, maybe it’s time for a reality check on how high marginal tax rates, and the actual tax rates paid by Americans, can be raised without crushing economic growth. Proponents of massive tax increases will argue that economic growth and prosperity are compatible with high tax rates by pointing to the 35 years of postwar prosperity in America, when the top federal tax rate was 70% or higher.

But before accepting this as proof by example, it’s worth examining how many taxpayers actually paid those top rates and what percentage of their income high earners actually paid in taxes. Economists Gerald Auten of the Treasury Department and David Splinter of the Joint Committee on Taxation have compiled an extraordinary new database using Internal Revenue Service data on taxes actually collected since 1962. The top marginal income-tax rates and the taxes actually paid, including payroll taxes, as a percentage of income for the top 1%, top 10% and bottom 50% of income earners are shown in the nearby chart. The figures for 2016-20 are comparable estimates by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

The top tax rate of 91% in 1962 applied to families with joint incomes, in today’s dollars, of $3.38 million. After deductions and credits, only 447 tax filers out of 71 million paid any taxes at the top rate. The top 1% of income earners paid only 16.1% of their income in federal income and payroll taxes, while the top 10% paid 14.4% and the bottom 50% paid 7%. This followed the pattern set by the top Depression-era and wartime tax rates. Only three filers out of six million paid any taxes at the top Depression rate and only 13 out of 50 million paid any taxes at the top wartime rate. The top 1% of earners paid 12.6% and 23.5% of their income in federal income and payroll taxes in 1938 and 1945, respectively.

President Kennedy recognized that while confiscatory tax rates collected little revenue, they stifled growth as resources were squandered in the “avoidance of taxes” rather than the “production of goods.” When the top tax rate was reduced to 70%, individual income-tax collections continued to grow and the actual percentage of income paid in taxes by high-income earners barely changed. Only 3,626 out of 75 million filers paid any taxes at the new 70% rate. When the Reagan tax cut reduced the top rate to 50%, gross domestic product grew. Taxes collected from high-income earners as a percentage of their incomes were largely unchanged, as the chart shows. Only 341,000 of 109 million filers paid any taxes at the new 50% top rate.


The 1986 tax reform reduced the top rate to the postwar low of 28%. The reform also closed loopholes, offsetting the rate reductions and other changes in the tax code. Revenues grew as the economy expanded and asset sales surged at the lower marginal tax rate. Twenty-six million out of 115 million filers paid taxes at the 28% rate. The top rate was raised to 39.6% in 1993 and has fluctuated between 39.6% and 35% since. Only 453,000 out of 123 million filers paid any taxes at the 39.6% rate in 1993.


Remarkably, while the top marginal rate fell from 91% in 1962 to 28% in 1988, the percentage of income actually paid in income and payroll taxes by the top 1% and 10% of filers rose to 21.5% and 19.6% from 16.1% and 14.4%, respectively. As the top tax rate fell by two-thirds, the percentage of income paid in federal income and payroll taxes by the top 1% and 10% of earners rose by a third.

The percentage of income actually paid by the top 1% of earners, which the Tax Policy Center estimates to be 25.7% in 2020, is close to the average rate paid during the last quarter-century. Whether the federal government could actually impose a top rate of 50% on a significant number of taxpayers, or actually collect much more than 30% of the income of the top 1% of earners in income and payroll taxes, without crippling economic growth is a question our postwar experience certainly doesn’t answer.

It is also worth noting that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has found that high-income Americans already bear a higher relative share of the income-tax burden than the rich do in other developed nations. The top 10% of American households earn about 33.5% of all earned income but pay 45.1% of all income taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. That progressivity ratio of 1.35 is far higher than the German ratio of 1.07, French ratio of 1.1 and Swedish ratio of 1. As a percentage of their incomes, the top 10% of earners in Germany, France and Sweden paid 21%, 19% and 26% less than the top 10% in America. And the bottom 90% of earners paid 17%, 34% and 21% more as a percentage of their incomes respectively than the bottom 90% in America paid. While the OECD study predates the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Congressional Budget Office found the act made the U.S. tax code even more progressive.

Before Congress bets the future of America on the federal government’s ability to soak the rich without crippling the economy, lawmakers need to recognize that the marginal rates being proposed have never been collected from any significant number of taxpayers except under the direst circumstances such as a war for survival. Voters might also note that in the rest of the developed world, where government takes a larger share of GDP in taxes, high earners pay about the same share of GDP in income taxes that high-income Americans pay today, but everybody else pays a lot more.

Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and is a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of U.S. Policy Metrics.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy, 2018 tax rate cuts, for the rich?
« Reply #1013 on: May 21, 2021, 07:51:04 AM »
When they tell you the Trump Republican tax cuts were for the rich, their lips are moving and they are lying.



What is most amazing is that through all of this, revenues to the Treasury increased.  How can that be?  Greatest year over year wage growth in a generation.

Could someone explain to me how a rational person could oppose this.

https://www.cato.org/blog/tax-rates-income-level-0

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, 87,000 new agents with vast new powers
« Reply #1014 on: May 24, 2021, 05:46:15 AM »
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/05/joe_biden_wants_to_spy_on_your_bank_account.html

When did Leftist Utopia and Totalitarian Regime merge and become one reality?

Defund the Police, Arm the IRS, is that what true liberals and moderate Dems really want?

Nothing says "we're from the government and we're here to help you" like hiring 87,000 new IRS agents.

I can't even remember seeing the final report and resulting prosecutions of the IRS Targeting Scandal Commission, yet we are already expanding their powers and numbers and ability to work outside of the laws passed by our elected representatives.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2021, 07:26:34 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Return of the IRS Scandal
« Reply #1016 on: June 08, 2021, 09:38:03 PM »
The paragraph on capital gains theory is a thing of beauty.

=========
Return of the IRS Scandal
Someone leaked the tax information of individuals to serve the left’s agenda.
By The Editorial Board
June 8, 2021 6:39 pm ET

That didn’t take long. Less than half a year into the Biden Presidency, the Internal Revenue Service is already at the center of an abuse-of-power scandal. That news broke Tuesday when ProPublica, a website whose journalism promotes progressive causes, published information from what it said are 15 years of the tax returns of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and other rich Americans.

Leaking such information is a crime, since under federal law tax returns are confidential. ProPublica says it received the files from “an anonymous source” and doesn’t know who provided them, how they were obtained, or what the source’s motives are.

Allow us to fill in that last blank. The story arrives amid the Biden Administration’s effort to pass the largest tax increase as a share of the economy since 1968. The main Democratic argument for a tax hike is that the rich should pay their “fair share.” The ProPublica story is a long argument that somehow the rich don’t pay enough. The timing here is no coincidence, comrade.

Someone at the IRS—or someone who hacked the IRS—leaked the documents to influence the debate in Congress. And right on time, Ron Wyden, the Senate’s chief tax writer, opened a Finance Committee hearing Tuesday by mentioning the ProPublica data dump.


“What this data reveals is that the country’s wealthiest—who profited immensely during the pandemic—have not been paying their fair share,” Mr. Wyden said. “I’ll have a proposal to change that.” You can bet he will.

***
Yet the striking fact of the initial ProPublica story—it says the disclosures will continue for months—is how undramatic the findings are. It turns out that billionaires are very good at reducing their taxable income. Who knew?

Investors and entrepreneurs like Messrs. Buffett and Bezos make most of their money from the appreciation in the value of their assets. Most of Mr. Bezos’s wealth comes from the rising value of his stock in Amazon, which he founded. Mr. Buffett has long admitted he pays a relatively low income-tax rate because his wealth is based in the value of his company, Berkshire Hathaway.


There is no evidence of illegality in the ProPublica story. As these columns keep pointing out, the rich can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to exploit every part of the tax code to pay the minimum amount of income tax the law allows.

ProPublica knows this, so its story tries to invent a scandal by calculating what it calls the “true tax rate” these fellows are paying. This is a phony construct that exists nowhere in the law and compares how much the “wealth” of these individuals increased from 2014 to 2018 compared to how much income tax they paid. ProPublica says that Mr. Buffett’s “true tax rate” over that period was only 0.10%.

But wealth and income are different, and what Americans pay is a tax on income, not wealth. ProPublica makes much of the fact that these billionaires pay a lower rate on capital gains and dividends than they do on income. The story suggests this is unfair, but it isn’t.

The preferential rate for capital gains and dividends has been a central part of the tax code for decades, and for good reasons. Congress has wanted to encourage capital investment; assets are often held for decades and gains are only realized upon their sale; gains can’t be adjusted for inflation over the years they are held; and investors can’t deduct net capital losses from income beyond $3,000 a year. Bipartisan majorities have long supported this part of the tax code.

But this has changed as the political left has risen in the Democratic Party, and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ran for President calling for a new tax on wealth. The ProPublica story essentially argues for the Warren-Sanders agenda. We’ll leave the case against such a tax for another day, but the political point is that Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders lost. Mr. Biden didn’t run on a wealth tax.

***
This still leaves the real scandal, which is that someone leaked confidential IRS information about individuals to serve a political agenda. This is the same tax agency that pursued a vendetta against conservative nonprofit groups during the Obama Administration. Remember Lois Lerner ?


This is also the same IRS that Democrats now want to infuse with $80 billion more to chase a fanciful amount of uncollected taxes. As part of this effort, Mr. Biden wants the IRS to collect “gross inflows and outflows on all business and personal accounts from financial institutions.” Why? So the information can be leaked to ProPublica?

The IRS says it has begun an investigation into the tax-return disclosure, and by all means send the guilty to prison. But Congress should also not trust the IRS with any more power and money than it already has.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Fed agencies investigating tax returns leak
« Reply #1017 on: June 09, 2021, 06:45:49 AM »
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/6/8/us-agencies-probe-media-leak-of-wealthiest-americans-tax-records

funny when it was Trump
    tax returns leaked to the NYT

now when big shot leftists tax's get leaked the Feds are all over it.
(as they should be but the double standard is corrupt)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Biden to close tax loopholes.  We've been there before, been there before.

Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes," asserted NBC News in May 2009.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna30557517

Echoed NPR, "Obama: Tax Haven Curbs To Generate $210 Billion."
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103772912?storyId=103772912

How'd that work out?

"The actual amount of tax collected by FATCA {Foreign Account Tax Compliant Act} is statistically insignificant," concluded Texas A&M University School of Law's William Byrnes and Robert Munro in an extensive March 2017 paper.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2926119
---------------------------------------------------------

Liberals and Lreftists spout off with bullsh*t pulled out of thin air with nothing to back it up.  We post real data sourced and linked.  The media runs with the BS that fits their narrative.  The attack on wealth and prosperity only prevents new people and more people from achieving wealth and prosperity.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2021, 02:41:43 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
More poor=More power and graft for the left.


Biden to close tax loopholes.  We've been there before, been there before.

Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes," asserted NBC News in May 2009.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna30557517

Echoed NPR, "Obama: Tax Haven Curbs To Generate $210 Billion."
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103772912?storyId=103772912

How'd that work out?

"The actual amount of tax collected by FATCA {Foreign Account Tax Compliant Act} is statistically insignificant," concluded Texas A&M University School of Law's William Byrnes and Robert Munro in an extensive March 2017 paper.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2926119
---------------------------------------------------------

Liberals and Lreftists spout off with bullsh*t pulled out of thin air with nothing to back it up.  We post real data sourced and linked.  The media runs with the BS that fits their narrative.  The attack on wealth and prosperity only prevents new people and more people from achieving wealth and prosperity.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Biden's New Death Tax
« Reply #1020 on: June 16, 2021, 12:46:22 PM »
Biden’s New Death Tax and a New York Widow
His proposed levy on unrealized capital gains would hit some modest estates especially hard.
By Hank Adler and Madison Spach
June 13, 2021 4:27 pm ET




President Biden proposes to “eliminate the loophole that allows the wealthiest Americans to entirely escape tax on their wealth by passing it down to heirs.” A White House “fact sheet” claims that “our tax laws allow these accumulated gains to be passed down across generations untaxed, exacerbating inequality.”

In fact, while most Americans can pass wealth to their heirs without incurring federal taxes, “the wealthiest” can’t. The federal estate tax applies when the person who has died has a net worth of $11.7 million or more (or twice that for married couples), and it rises to 40% after the first $1 million in taxable assets. Mr. Biden’s American Families Plan would subject many estates worth far less than $11.7 million to a punishing new death tax.

The plan would raise the total top rate on capital gains, currently 23.8% for most assets, to 40.8%—higher than the 40% maximum estate tax. It would apply the same tax to unrealized capital gains at death, exempting only the first $1 million ($2 million for a married couple) plus $250,000 for a personal residence.

To understand how uneven the burden of this tax is, consider a hypothetical taxpayer for whom it would be especially heavy: a woman who, as a young widow decades ago, bought a home in New York City for $250,000, reared her children there, and never remarried. The property is now worth $2.5 million and is her only asset. If she dies after the Biden plan becomes law, the estate itself wouldn’t be taxable, but it would be subject to the new death tax on $1 million of the unrealized gain from the home (the $2.25 million appreciation less the $1.25 million in exemptions). Her grown children would inherit $408,000 less than under current law. The Biden tax would be based on the value of the asset, not the equity, so the estate would be liable for the full amount regardless of any mortgage outstanding.

Now consider an actual couple who would likely escape the new tax entirely. Joe and Jill Biden have an estimated net worth of $8 million, according to Forbes. Mr. Biden’s disclosures indicate that their assets consist of two personal residences along with several annuities and life insurance policies. The only assets that would be subject to a capital-gains tax at death would be their two homes, the appreciation on which likely amounts to less than the $2.5 million in exemptions for a married couple.


A married entrepreneur in New York with identical wealth to the Bidens ($8 million) could face a new death tax of up to $2.4 million if his net worth consisted solely of his interest in a company that he started 30 years ago that subsequently went public.

The American Families Plan would result in negative value at death for many long-held leveraged real-estate assets. Ignoring the exemptions, if a $12 million estate included a long-held building with a fair market value of $5 million, debt of $4 million and a tax basis of $900,000, the capital gains tax at death would be nearly $1.7 million. The $672,800 in excess of the fair-market value after debt would be a liability against the remaining estate.

Scenarios in which the new death tax would significantly reduce, nearly eliminate or even totally eliminate the net worth of decedents who invested and held real estate for decades wouldn’t be uncommon.

The Internal Revenue Code has never taxed unrealized gains at death. The estate tax has always been a tax on the net assets of the taxpayer. Suddenly taxing unrealized appreciation as a separate and new tax—subjecting what could be millions of estates whose owners yesterday had nowhere near the assets to be subject to any death taxes—is a breach of faith.

The immediate effect of the American Families Plan’s passage would be dramatic. Every estate plan would be reviewed to offset the new death tax by reducing charitable donation. Plans in place to pay for college for future generations—our New York widow’s grandchildren, for instance—would be curtailed.

The American Families Plan would discourage long-term investment. That would be particularly true for those with existing wealth who would begin focusing on cash flow rather than long-term investment. The combination of the new death tax plus existing estate tax rates would change risk-reward ratios.

The American Families Plan creates a new and significant death tax that would tax estates of individuals who should not be taxed at death. If lawmakers want more revenue from decedents, they should raise the tax rate or lower the exemption, not add a new tax on unrealized gains. At least those changes wouldn’t be a total abandonment of the rules that have been in place for the lifetimes of most Americans.

Mr. Adler is an associate professor at Chapman University. Mr. Spach is an attorney in Newport Beach, Calif.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Biden's New Death Tax
« Reply #1021 on: June 16, 2021, 09:44:49 PM »
Good article.  Terrible policy.  I don't see why we can't all agree on the basics of economics.  Wealth is good (who knew?).  We need more of it, more widespread . Tax revenues are necessary and we don't get more of them by destroying the engine of income, growth and wealth creation.

What's the matter with these people who want to pull people out of poverty by killing off the only thing that can pull people out of poverty?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2021, 09:52:11 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, 3.5 TRILLION spending bill passes in Senate 50-49
« Reply #1024 on: August 11, 2021, 07:00:04 AM »
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/senate-approves-3-5-budget-resolution/2021/08/11/id/1031883/

Disguised as a spending bill, it's the end of capitalism.

End of "stepped up basis".  It's in the bill.  It means that when you die, what you saved and invested is destroyed.  It's the end of capitalism.  It's the end of wealth creation.  People don't create wealth just to have it passed back to the government, cf. Soviet Union, Cuba, Chavez Maduro with 100,000% inflation in Venezuela and no income or wealth.  It was the wealthiest country in Latin America.  "it can't happen here", they said, and we said, and it did.  Jack asses like the "moderate" Marxists in the House and Senate including my Congressman, the lying moderate, "no labels" fraudster Dean Phillips of Big Vodka fortune, they vote with Bernie Burn the house down Sanders and Ilhan burn the world down Omar and Nancy get your hair done while the rest of us are locked down Pelosi at every important turn, and call themselves "moderate", with "no label", meaning no party, all bull sh*t, same with Sinema, Manchin, all liars aiming to destroy the country, or are they are just too economically illiterate to know this is a big, destructive deal?  This isn't going to "pay for the spending".  They collect NOTHING in capital gains taxes by destroying investment, production and wealth, like that hasn't been tried, and failed.  They are dangerously incapable of second level thinking - unless destruction IS the plan.  God save us.

And they try to kill bitcoin and crypto through 'taxation' and instead kill the US$ with $6 trillion more deficit.  Talk about taking us past the point of no return, they do all this to save the planet.  A nation that is BROKE is not going to save the planet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/11/senate-passes-3point5-trillion-budget-resolution-after-infrastructure-bill.html
F*cking liars.  You don't "strengthen" the parasite, social spending, by killing the host, the private economy.

Every dollar of mine they think will go to them will go to conservative libertarian anti-Leftist causes until the day I die.  Sorry but my AFTER-TAX money does not belong to you.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2021, 07:10:37 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Democrat Tax Policy
« Reply #1025 on: August 11, 2021, 07:25:46 AM »
1).  dream up every conceivable excuse to tax everything they can
2).  come up with nonsensical reasons why we need it
3).  sell it as helping the masses
4)   claim it only affects the rich
5).  have multibillionaires who have so much money they could spend in 1,000 lifetimes.
      state for the MSM they think it a great idea whose time has come
6).  ignore taxpayers who pay for it all
7)   chase after Romney Murkowski and Collins to get on board so they can claim
      it is "bipartisan
8)  be sure to shove up our asses every consceivable Leftist agenda into the bill that is
      so long that no one has a clue
9).  have minions in the MSM go out in force and call this a "landmark", "achievement "
      "for the people "  good for the USA etc

« Last Edit: August 11, 2021, 07:58:41 AM by ccp »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1026 on: August 11, 2021, 07:59:50 AM »
I notice the emogi under # 8

what is weird is I did not put this in there
it was supposed to be #8

and site will NOT let me modify it

is there something going on with hacking?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1027 on: August 11, 2021, 09:11:56 AM »
Don't think so.  This is something I have pop up for me from time to time in numerical lists like this.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1028 on: August 11, 2021, 12:24:08 PM »
ok, thanks

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1029 on: August 11, 2021, 04:03:23 PM »
Don't think so.  This is something I have pop up for me from time to time in numerical lists like this.

8 followed by ) turns into an emoji 8).  just add a space or a dot in between, 8 ) or 8.)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Tax payers have zero rights in NJ
« Reply #1030 on: August 24, 2021, 10:45:11 AM »
tough we support half the state on the dole:

https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/08/murphys-gop-rival-slams-him-on-high-nj-taxes-in-first-tv-ad-of-gov-campaign.html

how outrageous

from out second goldman governor

who is now ordering everyone around during the corona problem
now mandating vaccines



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Tax Policy for Rocket Scientists
« Reply #1033 on: September 20, 2021, 10:51:46 AM »
Very wealthy tax avoiders:
https://dnyuz.com/2021/09/19/how-accounting-giants-craft-favorable-tax-rules-from-inside-government/


What if we taxed every dollar the same no matter who earned it or how, and did all the redistribution and social engineering on the spending side of the ledger?  What if spending was limited by how much money taxes were collected, meaning limited by how much tax you want to pay yourself?  Is that nano-macro-particle-physics level thinking, the postcard tax system, or it the other way around?

It's the current method that is rocket science to figure out, like a Bernie Made-off Ponzi scheme.  Spending is limited by nothing [until the wheels fall off].  We don't even have to borrow the money to spend it.  There is no deficit spending because all spending is in a deficit no one is tracking or caring about deficits.  Taxation is so complex even the people who write it and pass it don't know what's in it.  Taxpayers don't know their tax rate or their total tax for last year, this year or next year, and half the people think they're getting a free ride when they really pay a rate in everything they buy that is higher than what billionaires pay.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2021, 11:01:44 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy for Rocket Scientists
« Reply #1034 on: September 20, 2021, 11:09:16 AM »
It’s designed to be opaque and frightening. Again, it’s about graft, power and control.


Very wealthy tax avoiders:
https://dnyuz.com/2021/09/19/how-accounting-giants-craft-favorable-tax-rules-from-inside-government/


What if we taxed every dollar the same no matter who earned it or how, and did all the redistribution and social engineering on the spending side of the ledger?  What if spending was limited by how much money taxes were collected, meaning limited by how much tax you want to pay yourself?  Is that nano-macro-particle-physics level thinking, the postcard tax system, or it the other way around?

It's the current method that is rocket science to figure out, like a Bernie Made-off Ponzi scheme.  Spending is limited by nothing [until the wheels fall off].  We don't even have to borrow the money to spend it.  There is no deficit spending because all spending is in a deficit no one is tracking or caring about deficits.  Taxation is so complex even the people who write it and pass it don't know what's in it.  Taxpayers don't know their tax rate or their total tax for last year, this year or next year, and half the people think they're getting a free ride when they really pay a rate in everything they buy that is higher than what billionaires pay.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1035 on: September 20, 2021, 11:11:41 AM »
"Don't tax you.  Don't tax me.  Tax that fellow behind the tree."

Congressman Wilbur Mills?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
WORLD TAX
« Reply #1037 on: October 08, 2021, 01:06:03 PM »
do we have a thread on globalization
one losing sovereignty?

if not we need one

this is the first step :

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/08/oecd-reaches-deal-on-corporate-tax-after-ireland-agrees.html

when a elites can decide what the world should pay them around the world
not just within borders

 :-( :x

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Global tax rate deal
« Reply #1039 on: October 09, 2021, 02:56:37 PM »
This sort of collusion would be a clear violation of the Sherman Act (antitrust) were it done by private actors.

Now poor countries with lower infrastructure and other less desirable features (a.k.a. "shit hole countries") may not compete for investment with lower tax rates.

https://www.reuters.com/business/reactions-landmark-global-corporate-tax-deal-2021-10-08/?fbclid=IwAR0DbSGZFiboYgCS2HMpnDhI4pUdkt7QAELGFy6tM7p1KW7MasP4neEKiBA

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, Stepped up is proven recipe for failure
« Reply #1040 on: October 11, 2021, 05:52:07 AM »
https://t.co/1x2YrlrjmB?amp=1

https://taxfoundation.org/biden-estate-tax-unrealized-capital-gains-at-death/

Tax Foundation

History of Attempted Changes to Step-Up in Basis Shows Perilous Road Ahead
September 28, 2021
—--------------
Unfortunately, failure is the goal.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2021, 05:54:46 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
WSJ: Record federal tax revenues
« Reply #1041 on: October 12, 2021, 07:19:35 PM »
Washington has had an excellent pandemic. If you doubt it, look no further than the Congressional Budget Office’s summary for revenues and outlays for fiscal 2021, which ended on Sept. 30. The federal government has never had it so good—literally.

The budget gnomes estimate that federal receipts rolled in at a record $4.05 trillion for the year, the first time annual revenues have exceeded $4 trillion. This is not a record to be proud of—like breaking the four-minute mile. Receipts rose 18%, or a remarkable $627 billion, in one year.


Nearly every revenue stream chipped in more, except for payroll taxes, which were flat. Individual income taxes rose $443 billion, or 27.5%, to reach $2.05 trillion. That’s about 9% of the entire U.S. economy. As CBO’s monthly budget summary dryly observes, “that increase most likely reflects higher total wages and salaries, particularly among the relatively high-income workers who are subject to higher tax rates on earnings.”

Translation: The rich had a good year, but they also paid a huge fiscal dividend in taxes. Question for President Biden : Does $2 trillion qualify as a “fair share”?


Corporate income taxes also rolled in at an astonishing rate, rising by 75% for the year, or $158 billion to $370 billion. That reflects robust corporate profits, but keep in mind this revenue boom came with the current 21% top corporate tax rate that passed with the GOP tax reform in 2017. Mr. Biden and Democrats keep telling Americans that corporations aren’t paying enough, even as the corporate tax boom gives them more money to spend.

Even the Federal Reserve contributed to the Beltway boom, increasing its remittances to the Treasury by 22%, or $18 billion, to $82 billion. That’s the money the Fed earns from its vast bond holdings, which have soared during the pandemic and continue to increase despite the economy’s rapid growth of the last year. This is another reason the political class doesn’t want the Fed’s “emergency” policies to end.

For readers who still care about budget deficits—and we don’t mean anyone in Congress—the revenue boom was swamped by another record spending increase. Outlays rose 4% in the fiscal year, or $265 billion, to $6.82 trillion. That’s 30% of GDP in federal spending alone. Some of that will ebb as pandemic emergency payments expire—that is, unless Democrats succeed in making them permanent or adding new benefits as part of Mr. Biden’s $5 trillion entitlement plan.

All of this raises the question: With tax revenues coming in like a gusher, and the economy slowing from supply-side shortages, why raise taxes at all? In particular, why raise tax rates when the current rates seem to be capturing the profits of companies and the income of individuals well enough?

There’s no fiscal or economic logic to it, so the likely answer is simply to punish Americans who make more than what Mr. Biden thinks is “fair.”