Author Topic: Tax Policy & the IRS  (Read 423850 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Re: Harris wants to tax UNREALIZED GAINS
« Reply #1200 on: August 22, 2024, 08:44:49 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/kamala-harris-backs-biden-s-tax-proposals-including-a-tax-on-unrealized-capital-gains/ar-AA1pchxc?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=3837aab171c84d1ea52a2781d71d23c9&ei=19

and while they are at it increase gains tax
 :x

An unrealized gain on a property (or business) doesn't have cash associated with it.  Can you just give them 40% ownership in lieu of money (each year)?

It's all meaningless.  They already own it and own you.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20334
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1201 on: August 22, 2024, 08:58:29 AM »
yet they scream and yell they are the party of freedom

the freedom to kill embryos fetuses and babies.

the freedom to vote which is already guaranteed .

etc.

the freedom to discriminate against Jews

the freedom to shut down the Right . 

the freedom for their leaders to BS us all day long

the freedom to steal our hard earned dollars while driving up the deficit beyond the catastrophic levels it already is etc.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20334
    • View Profile
Harris tax plan
« Reply #1202 on: August 24, 2024, 07:43:31 AM »
As always

the fix is to tax THE RICH!   

make them pay their "fair share"


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/harris-endorses-biden-s-tax-proposal-including-new-taxes-on-home-sales/ss-AA1pmusG?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=c96bf59b4033449a9d24cf6962402dae&ei=15#image=2

O'Reilly was very good at disposing of this proposal into the garbage can - much better than Trump can do
Trump is good a labelling and name calling.  He is not the intellectual who can explain the facts.

Simply stating how everything was the greatest in history under his Presidency and calling Harris Maduro or an idiot (while true) will not attract independents.

And Levin could easily dispose of Harris in a debate that is not rigged by MSM.
Trump - well - maybe.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74281
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1203 on: August 24, 2024, 08:02:49 AM »
Vance is good at articulation and reasoned debate.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20334
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1204 on: August 24, 2024, 08:16:15 AM »
speaking of Vance and O'Reilly

Bill interviewed JD I think it was released 2 or 3 days ago.
I was only able to hear the first part and yes Vance is good at articulation.
O'Reilly who thought Haley would be better for Trump in the sense she could bring in more votes to his side (I once would have thought that but at the end preferred Bergum though not clear he would help any more than Vance)

stated he could see why, after interviewing Vance that the choice was more or less reasonable
though he intimated not the best political choice.

oh here it is . I did not realize it is up yet:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=oreilly+vance+interview&mid=47224806CEAC6523DFB047224806CEAC6523DFB0&FORM=VIRE


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20334
    • View Profile
previous oreilly vance interview
« Reply #1205 on: August 24, 2024, 08:35:34 AM »
I just listened to it and it was indeed VERY short
and the rest of the post was Bill's usual self promotion :-o

and the JD interview was too short and frankly disappointing.

sorry , I thought it would be better.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Daily Signal, Taxing Inflation, Rates over 100%
« Reply #1207 on: September 01, 2024, 07:24:41 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20334
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1208 on: September 01, 2024, 07:53:25 AM »
let's see tax corporations and the job producers income =>

consumer prices will fall ====>  go up

So no matter what they claim such as will tax only the rich we will all pay in one way or form
Think of higher prices = higher sales taxes = everyone's taxes will go up.

Even an economic novice like me can understand that.

As a retired Rep. teacher used to tell me the Democrat teachers, the majority, always said the "rich should pay" for everything.   And to think these are "teachers".    :-o


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Kamala capital gains tax plan will kill the markets
« Reply #1209 on: September 08, 2024, 08:46:17 PM »
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/09/05/cuban-kamalas-capital-gains-tax-plan-would-kill-the-stock-market/

(Democrat) Mark Cuban: Kamala’s Capital Gains Tax Plan Would ‘Kill the Stock Market’

When does she flip on this one?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2024, 08:47:51 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Kamala Tax Policy Details, Largest increase in world history, Scott Grannis
« Reply #1210 on: September 09, 2024, 10:40:01 AM »
https://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2024/08/kamalas-tax-proposals-frightening.html

Scott Grannis writes:  Kamala's tax proposals: frightening!

"If you subscribe to my good friend Steve Moore's daily Hotline (CTUP) (subscribe for free here), you have already seen this. I reprint it so as to maximize its distribution. These proposals are so astoundingly anti-business and anti-prosperity that I can't imagine they will ever see the light of day. But at the very least you have here a liberal wish-list that, if even partially enacted, would very likely eviscerate the economy. Click here for more background info."

Kamala Proposes $5 Trillion in New Taxes – the Biggest Tax Hike in the History of the World

We've argued that Harris-Walz is the most anti-business ticket by a major presidential party in our lifetimes and perhaps in American history. And we said this BEFORE we saw the new tax plan.


Instead of lowering tax rates to make America more competitive, it raises nearly everyone.

The Harris tax plan would:

Raise the corporate tax from 21% to 28%
Quadruple the tax on stock buybacks from 1% to 4%
Double the global minimum tax from 10% to 20%
Raise the top Income tax rate from 37% to 39.6%
Raise the corporate alternative minimum tax from 15% to 21%
Raise the capital gains tax from 24% to 43.5%
Impose the first-ever tax on unrealized capital gains at 25%
Double the number of Americans subject to the death tax


Scroll right >

The compounding effect of these multiple tiers of taxation would mean that a $100 investment in a new company could be subject to an 80% tax rate. 
-----------------------------------------------------
[Doug]  It's been asked of me, how do you define Marxism, Marxist?  See above.

Actually a new business won't be subjected to an 80% tax rate because no one would open a new business under these rules.

The dearth of new businesses, new employers, IS the problem - already.

New Way Forward translated to English, 'I will make everything worse'.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2024, 11:27:44 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, Wealth Creation versus Death Taxes
« Reply #1211 on: September 09, 2024, 11:59:18 AM »
[Kamala Plan] "Double the number of Americans subject to the death tax"

From the CTUP Scott Grannis post (from the Harris campaign):

"Double the number of Americans subject to the death tax"

Why wouldn't you raise the tax on dead people, who cares, right?  Dead people (mostly) don't vote.

First, must understand a thing or two about wealth creation.  So here goes...

1.  Wealth creation is good.  Half the country seems to think wealth creation is bad, so don't think this is an obvious point. 

Without wealth creation, we don't have jobs, capital equipment, capital investment, prosperity, tax revenues, health care, defense, security, none of it.  Look at the places that don't have or allow wealth creation and look at their per capita income for the masses.

2.  Income inequality is a fact, not an issue.  We chip away at it with high marginal tax rates and with programs for poverty, but get over it.  People are going to have different levels of income and of wealth.  Even the same people do at different times in their life.  It's called the ladder, and you are way worse off without it.  Sameness equals poverty.

3. What do people with wealth do in their later years and in their planning years?  They plan how to pass it on.

4.  If you see a business (or family farm) that says 3rd generation or greater, is that a bad thing?  Is that unfair to someone else, does it hurt someone else, or does it serve as a model for others?

5.  The economy is not a fixed pie that you can cut and divide any way you want.  Good policies (growth policies) grow it, bad policies shrink it.

6.  Incentives and disincentives to produce matter.

7.  There is a mechanism to just gift your money to the government above and beyond the taxes owing, and no one has ever given a cent.

8.  If you know that all you produce and build and leave behind goes to the government, at what point will you stop producing.

9.  It is an extremely interconnected economy.  Not "trickle down".  The wealth of others in the economy, and lack of wealth,  affects all the others.  Again, see countries without wealth.

10.  Taxing the life out of people at death doesn't demotivate dead people, it demotivates people before death, which is all of us.  Less production means a poorer economy with poorer people living in it.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2024, 12:27:49 PM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74281
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1213 on: September 12, 2024, 06:41:02 AM »
I remember Jude Wanniski's terms of "partial equilibrium" and "general (IIRC) equilibrium" with PE being exemplified by changes in tax RATES assuming no changes in behavior and GE assuming that people would respond to changes in tax rates.

I sense here the analysis of Trump's import tariffs on China, is PE, assuming no movement to China's competitors (India, Philippines, Vietnam, etc)




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Winston Churchill wrote a note to Kamala Harris
« Reply #1214 on: September 17, 2024, 06:04:18 AM »
"for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
   - Winston S. Churchill


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, Taxing Unrealized Capital gains
« Reply #1216 on: September 17, 2024, 06:17:23 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTKVv5Mm9_M

10 minute video.
Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains is point one.

(Doug). Democrats think they can 'tax the rich' without Taxing or hurting the rest. False.

Forced sales of stocks will hurt everyone who holds the stocks, including if course small investors, union or dion funds, everyone.  It is an interconnected economy.

Not mentioned with capital gains including Unrealized Capital Gains is that you are Taxing Inflation.

A nominal gain is not a real gain.  In economics, real means after inflation, as in real GDP growth, real wage growth etc.

Who proposes to fix that?  I don't know but Harris, Walz, Schumer, Hakim Jeffries all propose to make things worse.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Index Long Term Capital Gains to Inflation
« Reply #1217 on: December 19, 2024, 07:25:39 AM »
"Make Trump tax cuts permanent and index long-term capital gains to inflation."
   - Doug MacG, FHOF, 12/19/24 ( and 100 other times on the forum)

Part 1: Make Trump tax cuts permanent.
Why:
a. Anything short of that is a tax increase right while we are on the brink of a recession.
b. Tax rate cuts brought the fastest growth in real wages for Blacks and Hispanics in our lifetimes. To end them is to try to reverse that. Is that what we want?
c. The cost of the tax rate cuts was zero. Revenues did not go down, not one thin dime. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.

Part 2:  Index long-term capital gains to inflation.
Why:
a. Why wouldn't you? Anything short of that is theft on top of theft.
b. The cost of doing so is zero. Tax policy Center estimates the cost to be a loss of Revenue of $20 billion dollars over 10 years, rounds to 0, but that is false. Revenues would most certainly increase because of new transactions that would not have happened without the rule.
change.
c. A tax on inflation is not a tax on income, so it has no basis in logic, fairness or law.
d. A dynamic, flourishing, prosperous economy involves assets flowing to their most productive use with minimum hindrance. A tax on the inflation of a gain is the definition of hindrance. It is stopping people from selling long- held assets that would otherwise be sold and put to better use.
e. The current revenue from these asset sales that are not happening is zero. The difference is the gain to the US Treasury, at a time where debt and deficits are crucial.
f. In economics, the term real means after inflation. An inflationary gain is not a real game, it is not income, and therefore it should not be taxed.
g. The United States Congress has never passed a law that says the inflation component of a capital gain should be taxed. This is a policy set by the bureaucracy, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS.
h. Because it is not a law passed by congress, and because the IRS is part of the executive branch, the president of the United States could change this policy by executive order.
i. Better if Congress changes it and then it cannot be reversed by executive order of a future President.
j. As this applies to housing, it will make more houses available for purchase for more people, alleviating the housing affordability crisis.
k. As this applies to small businesses, it would similarly improve the availability of small businesses for purchase by a new generation.
l. Disclosure, this will change would change my life, set me free. And everyone would benefit.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2025, 03:02:58 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20334
    • View Profile
NVDA avoiding billions in personal taxes
« Reply #1218 on: December 28, 2024, 11:01:56 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/news/finance/news/nyt-report-says-jensen-huang-183016464.html

I am not ok with this unless the rest of us can do the same or similar avoidances plans.  If yes then by all means.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Corporate Tax Revenue SURGED After Rate Reduction
« Reply #1219 on: January 17, 2025, 11:45:51 AM »
"Corp tax revenue has boomed from $205 billion in FY2018 to $530 billion in FY2024 since Trump lowered the tax rate…That’s a 158% INCREASE! "   - CBO numbers.

Who knew?


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3750
    • View Profile
Income Tax Fare Thee Well?
« Reply #1220 on: February 16, 2025, 08:14:36 PM »
If Trump could pull this off, it would put “Progressives” back on their heels for a generation:

Glenn’s Substack

Abolishing the Income Tax
Something that might actually happen? And the implications go beyond lower taxes.
GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
FEB 16, 2025
Could we look for an end to the individual income tax? Maybe.

President Trump has talked about ending the income tax and replacing it with tariffs and spending cuts. Most people pooh-poohed that as unrealistic. But lots of Trump talk that was dismissed as unrealistic is coming true in the era of DOGE.


Blogger Brian Wang thinks it’s a realistic possibility that a the income tax could go. He writes:

Getting to $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is very doable. This could then boost GDP growth to 4-5% per year and reduce interest rates to 2-3% which would cut another $300-400 billion of interest payments.

I know people have trouble believing these things will happen but a lot of it is clearly being executed. . . .

The bills are coming from congress to officially reorganize or virtually eliminate agencies.

The federal government brought in $2.18 trillion in individual income tax revenues. Elon Musk has predicted $2 trillion in savings through DOGE-inspired cuts. Reduced interest rates on the federal debt brought about by reduced spending would cut outlays further.

Estimates are that a 10% universal tariff would bring in about $2 trillion in revenues. Under these circumstances, it’s realistic to talk about abolishing the income tax and still paying down the national debt.

But I’d like to talk about something else: The savings, in money, time, aggravation and psychological stress, and the increase in freedom and privacy that would go with abolishing the individual income tax.

I asked GrokAI about some of these issues (I’m increasingly experimenting with AI platforms for research) and it gave me this:

One of the most immediate benefits for individual taxpayers would be the elimination of time spent on tax-related activities. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates that the average individual taxpayer spends approximately 13 hours per year preparing and filing their federal income tax return, according to the IRS Paperwork Reduction Act compliance estimates for Form 1040 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf). This figure includes gathering records, completing forms, and ensuring compliance with tax laws. For the roughly 150 million individual tax returns filed annually, this translates to nearly 2 billion hours collectively spent on tax preparation.

If personal income tax were eliminated, this time could be redirected to more productive or personally fulfilling activities. For example, a taxpayer earning the median U.S. hourly wage of approximately $30 (as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm) could effectively "save" $390 worth of time annually (13 hours × $30/hour). For higher earners or those with more complex tax situations—such as self-employed individuals or those with investment income—the time savings could be even greater, often exceeding 20–30 hours per year due to additional forms and schedules.

Moreover, the time spent on tax preparation does not account for ongoing record-keeping throughout the year. Taxpayers must track income, deductions, charitable contributions, and other financial activities, often requiring hours of organization and documentation. A study by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) suggests that small business owners and self-employed individuals may spend up to 80 hours annually on tax compliance (https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/the-hidden-cost-of-tax-compliance). Eliminating personal income tax would free up this time, allowing individuals to focus on work, family, or leisure.

Effort Savings

Beyond the quantifiable hours, the mental and emotional effort required to comply with the U.S. tax code is substantial. The federal tax code is notoriously complex, spanning over 70,000 pages when including regulations and guidance (https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/how-long-tax-code). This complexity forces many taxpayers to expend significant cognitive effort to understand their obligations, identify deductions, and avoid errors that could trigger audits or penalties.

For individuals, this effort often manifests as stress and anxiety, particularly during tax season. A 2019 survey by the American Psychological Association found that 60% of Americans reported feeling stressed about money, with tax-related concerns ranking high among financial stressors (https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2019/stress-america-2019.pdf). Eliminating personal income tax would alleviate this burden, reducing the need to decipher tax laws or worry about compliance mistakes.

The effort savings would be even more pronounced for specific groups, such as freelancers, gig workers, and small business owners, who must navigate additional complexities like quarterly estimated tax payments and self-employment taxes. For these individuals, the elimination of income tax would remove the need to calculate and submit multiple payments throughout the year, streamlining their financial management and reducing administrative effort.

Expense Savings

The financial costs of tax compliance represent another significant burden for individual taxpayers. These expenses include payments to tax professionals, software purchases, and other out-of-pocket costs associated with filing returns. According to the IRS, approximately 60% of taxpayers hire a professional to prepare their returns, while 30% use tax preparation software (https://www.irs.gov/statistics/filing-season-statistics). The average cost of professional tax preparation ranges from $150 to $300, depending on the complexity of the return, as reported by the National Society of Accountants (https://www.nsacct.org/tax-prep-fees). For those using software, costs typically range from $30 to $100 per year.

For the 150 million tax returns filed annually, these costs add up quickly. Assuming an average professional fee of $200 for 90 million returns (60% of filers) and an average software cost of $50 for 45 million returns (30% of filers), the total direct cost of tax preparation exceeds $20 billion annually ($18 billion for professionals + $2.25 billion for software). Eliminating personal income tax would erase these expenses entirely, putting billions of dollars back into taxpayers' pockets.

Additionally, taxpayers incur indirect costs related to tax planning and compliance. For example, individuals with investment income or rental properties often hire accountants or financial advisors to optimize their tax strategies, costing hundreds or thousands of dollars annually. The Tax Foundation estimates that the total compliance cost of the U.S. tax system, including both individual and business taxes, exceeds $400 billion per year (https://taxfoundation.org/compliance-costs-irs-regulations/). While not all of this pertains to personal income tax, a significant portion—likely over $100 billion—reflects costs borne by individual taxpayers. Eliminating personal income tax would eliminate these expenses, providing substantial savings.

Broader Economic and Social Implications

The savings in time, effort, and expense would have ripple effects beyond individual taxpayers. For instance, the reduction in administrative burden could boost productivity, as individuals redirect their time and energy toward work or entrepreneurial pursuits. A study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University suggests that simplifying tax compliance could increase GDP by up to 1% annually by reducing deadweight losses associated with tax administration (https://www.mercatus.org/publications/economic-growth/cost-tax-compliance).

Socially, the elimination of personal income tax could reduce inequality in tax compliance burdens. Lower-income taxpayers, who often lack access to professional tax assistance, disproportionately spend time and effort navigating the tax system or risk errors that lead to penalties. Wealthier taxpayers, by contrast, can afford advisors to minimize their tax liability. Eliminating the income tax would level the playing field, ensuring that all taxpayers benefit from reduced complexity and cost.

From Claude AI I got this:

Beyond direct expenses, tax compliance diverts resources from more productive uses:

Business expansion opportunities missed due to time spent on taxes
Investment opportunities foregone due to record-keeping burden
Family time sacrificed during tax season
Creative and entrepreneurial projects delayed
If personal income tax were eliminated, these resources could be redirected to more productive activities. Businesses could focus more on growth and innovation rather than compliance. Individuals could pursue additional education, spend more time with family, or engage in community activities.

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation estimated that Americans spend around 6.5 billion hours annually on tax compliance activities. Using more conservative estimates, and accounting only for documented costs, the total compliance burden for individual taxpayers likely exceeds $200 billion annually.

Eliminating personal income tax would thus generate substantial savings beyond the actual tax burden:

Economic Benefits:

Increased productivity from time savings
Reduced compliance costs for individuals and businesses
More efficient allocation of professional services
Reduced need for tax-related software and services
Social Benefits:

Reduced stress and anxiety
More time for family and community
Simplified financial planning
Increased transparency in financial decisions
Educational Benefits:

Time and resources redirected to valuable skills
Reduced need for tax-specific education
Simplified financial literacy education
The elimination of personal income tax would represent a significant simplification of life for most Americans. While some record-keeping would still be necessary for business and personal purposes, the extensive requirements for tax compliance would be eliminated. This would particularly benefit small business owners and self-employed individuals who currently face the highest compliance burdens.

I think that these are both correct. (Note that Grok has current access to the Internet, while Claude has to rely on its training data, which are updated periodically, but not super often; but I think Claude is a bit better as a writer).

In addition to these factors, all of which are huge, there is also the matter of privacy. Elizabeth Warren et al. are pretending to worry about DOGE crews being a threat to people’s privacy. But having to give the government all your financial information, including how you earn your money, how much money you have in interest-bearing accounts, what you spend on in terms of deductions, and who you’re supporting is a much, much bigger privacy invasion than names and social security numbers. And the IRS, as we’ve seen, is entirely capable of leaking this information for the most partisan of reasons.

Getting rid of the individual income tax would fix all this, remove a lot of economic distortions, and also eliminate the sense that we’re all just working at the government’s beck and call. It’s something that looked like it could never happen, but now, a lot of things that looked like they could never happen are happening.

https://instapundit.substack.com/p/abolishing-the-income-tax?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20334
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1221 on: February 16, 2025, 08:29:55 PM »
How could we totally eliminate income tax?

cutting spending ok but then how do we pay for a Federal government - by sending the bill to the world with tarriffs ?

this seems impossible.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Re: Tax Policy
« Reply #1222 on: February 16, 2025, 09:10:35 PM »
How could we totally eliminate income tax?

cutting spending ok but then how do we pay for a Federal government - by sending the bill to the world with tarriffs ?

this seems impossible.


I am also skeptical. This might be a case of trump playing 3D chess. Imagine no tax and then settle for a low tax rate.

Like all new amendments, repeal the 16th Amendment would require support of 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Not going to happen.

Introducing new taxes without repealing the income tax would be a big mistake in my view.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74281
    • View Profile
FO: Sec Commerce Lutnick: Goal is to abolish the IRS
« Reply #1223 on: February 21, 2025, 03:59:29 AM »
I saw Lutnick on FOX (Ingraham).   High Energy, direct answers to direct questions, very MAGA. I liked him.

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

(4) LUTNICK: TRUMP’S GOAL TO ABOLISH IRS: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said President Donald Trump’s goal is to abolish the IRS. According to people familiar with the plans, the IRS has been ordered to layoff almost 6,000 employees beginning today.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Tax Policy, WSJ index capital gains to inflation
« Reply #1224 on: February 27, 2025, 04:54:28 AM »
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/congress-can-repeal-the-inflation-tax-capital-gains-inflation-income-90672e76

( where have we heard this proposal before?)

From the article :
Given the recent inflation surge, it is time to consider indexing capital gains for inflation. This would do more than any provision in the 2017 tax cut to create an incentive for investing in America.

(Doug). I hope lawmakers are reading this!
« Last Edit: February 27, 2025, 05:00:20 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74281
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Upside down tax policy reporting
« Reply #1227 on: March 13, 2025, 08:11:13 AM »
Opposition reasoning on extending the Trump tax rate cuts.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/house-republican-budgets-45-trillion-tax-cut-doubles-down-on-costly
----------------
Once again the opposition calls it 4.5 trillion in tax cuts when the actual amount that revenues go down is zero. Cf. 2017, 2018, 2019.

And then they call it tax cuts for the rich when the real benefits clearly went to the middle and lower classes.

I try to imagine a political world where we debate issues honestly.

Higher and higher tax rates have a diminishing return. Everybody knows that. Why do we have to lie about it?

Failure to renew the tax rate cuts is already pushing the economy into a tailspin and will most certainly push it into a recession if not extended. What does that do for tax revenues, for employment, for GDP growth?

As usual, one side wants us screwed.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20334
    • View Profile
Tax cuts increase revenue
« Reply #1229 on: March 25, 2025, 06:28:45 PM »
How do we respond to the never ending Dem party play on this?:

tax cuts for the "RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!"   they yell bemoan and play to the free stuff crowd and the rest of their motley crue of unions, socialists, communists, and outcasts and hypocrite virtue signaling elites and others who make a fortune off of big government spending.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20060
    • View Profile
Re: Tax cuts increase revenue
« Reply #1230 on: Today at 02:46:19 AM »
How do we respond to the never ending Dem party play on this?:

tax cuts for the "RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!!"   they yell bemoan and play to the free stuff crowd and the rest of their motley crue of unions, socialists, communists, and outcasts and hypocrite virtue signaling elites and others who make a fortune off of big government spending.

 Great question!

I'll see if I can come up with a hundred answers to that and you can pick one.

1. First level thinking! (Their theory/policy fails when you go past that.)
2. Deniers of math, science, history and reality.
3. Yes, but what about these six examples, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Trump? And two of those were Democrats so it's not a partisan issue.
4. What about the opposite? We raised taxes "on the rich" and the economy stagnated or tanked, hurting the poor middle class, working class, minorities and most vulnerable worst? cf. Carter, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Obama.
5. "High-Income Taxpayers Paid the Majority of Federal Income Taxes. In 2022, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 11.5 percent of total AGI and paid 3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.4 percent of total AGI and paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes."
https://taxfoundation.org
Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2025 Update

6. When was the last time we balanced the budget? What was the policy? Clinton, Gingrich. Major capital gains rate cut, end welfare as we know it. Economy sang and the deficit evaporated.

Or they can stay with first level thinking, mindless mamtras and deny math and history.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:29:44 AM by DougMacG »