Democrats Want To Lower Taxes On The Rich

Neomalthusian · Nov 16, 2019

iguanaman said:
LOL You make a bid for more progressive taxation and at the same time defend and support the Red States lack of taxation of their wealthy residents. The fact is even Red States have wealthy residents who are benefiting from low taxation and the resulting increased Federal subsidies paid for by high tax States.

Looks like you're trying to ignore stark demographic and economic differences between these red and blue places. If the Federal Government just simply made up the difference between what states were willing to tax versus what they *should tax, then all states would race to the bottom in this regard. The reality is the federal government does not just make up the difference between what states need and what they actually collect, which is why states don't and can't race to the bottom with their taxes. And Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut wouldn't be in such abysmal fiscal condition as they are, if what you were insinuating were really the case.

Rank states by millionaire households per capita, the top half are 90% "blue," the bottom half 90% "red." Rank them by number of millionaire households, the top half of states have 85% of the nation's millionaires and only 6 of these states are red, with Texas being the only real "red" outlier. Resort the data and look at it any way you want, it basically always confirms what we already know, which is this:

A lot of "red" states have larger populations of poor people, smaller populations of wealthy people, and less going on economically. This results in less tax revenue coming in, as well as less ability to significantly raise taxes. Being so poor as they are, the tax bases in these places have less tolerance for significant tax increases. They're more sensitive to it. We can see the opposite of this in super blue places with roaring economies. New York City or Seattle or the Bay Area of California raise their taxes, a few people chirp or roll their eyes but there's almost no noticeable effect on demand and the economic juggernauts that headquarter there don't instantly pack up and flee. These places have much greater tolerance and flexibility in spite of high taxes. Poorer rural places for example aren't like this. They don't have a huge tolerant tax base with significant money available to be taxed. They're poor as dirt, a lot of them.

You've provided no evidence quantifying how much less red states tax their rich than blue states do that shows red states could simply obviate their residents' need for federal dollars by deciding to tax their rich.

Moderate Right · Nov 16, 2019

SouthernDemocrat said:
You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't have to be rich to pay over 10k in state and local taxes. You think a household earning 150k a year is rich?

What a stupid, uninformed argument. Moreover, the residents of states like California and NY have for decades paid more in federal taxes than they got back in federal spending. Meanwhile, practically every red state in the country other than Texas pays less in taxes than it gets back in spending. When you put a cap in the SALT deduction, you only exacerbate those wealth transfers. What is it with you freeloaders on the right? It's never enough. You just want more and more and more of the producers in this country's tax dollars. Do you realize that Democratic voting areas account for better than 80% of this country's GDP in most elections. Most wealth transfers in this country are from young to old and from urban to rural areas. Limiting the SALT deduction only makes that worse.

Joe gets 2 dollars back in spending for every dollar he pays in taxes.

Bill gets 60 cents back in spending for every dollar he pays in taxes.

Joe says "Bill its unfair you get to deduct your state and local taxes. You should not be able to do that anymore."

Joe then gets 2.25 back for every dollar he pays in taxes.

Bill now just gets 50 cents back in spending for every dollar he pays in taxes.

Bill says "Joe, not allowing me to deduct my state and local taxes is unfair."

Joe is a Trump Republican though, he doesn't give a ****.

I do pretty well for myself and I don't have 10K of SALT. So, yes, you do have to be quite well off to have 10K in SALT deductions.

charliebrown · Nov 17, 2019

After reading the entire thread, I can honestly say the tax system is too complicated and with this complication draws debate and arguments.

People, most of us are paying the SSI and Medicare taxes on our entire income up to 132K a year. Why that basic, standard, simple tax is not expanded above that for RICH people is beyond my comprehension. PS, most people will get more Medicare benefits than SSI benefits in their life, Why in gods names is the Medicare tax stil at 2.9%

I think our entire civilization would be more civilized if we started itemizing our taxes. There is no reason for a general fund with a giant pile of people eating at the troth and finding ways to get to this money without open, clean and logic debate. That is where our governments and the rich have their ultimate control and that is where we need to stop letting them fight over the power for basic services we all have come to cherish and enjoy.

the problem with our GOVERNMENTS yes, we have multiple governments, is that there is a overlap in services so we cannot get a good understanding of the services rendered from one verses the other.

SMTA · Nov 17, 2019

joko104 said:
All the Democratic candidates plans are welfare for the rich. They insist that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are SO poor they can't afford to pay for their employees healthcare, can't afford to pay their employees enough to save for college, can't even afford their own healthcare or to pay for their kids educations.

Democratic Party = Welfare for the richest people on earth.

What a painfully stupid and ignorant post.

bave · Nov 17, 2019

charliebrown said:
After reading the entire thread, I can honestly say the tax system is too complicated and with this complication draws debate and arguments.

Individual tax code is actually relatively simple, especially as itemizing is going away more or less, which should be the goal. The idea that there is some massive series of loopholes that rich people abuse is laughable.

charliebrown said:
People, most of us are paying the SSI and Medicare taxes on our entire income up to 132K a year. Why that basic, standard, simple tax is not expanded above that for RICH people is beyond my comprehension. PS, most people will get more Medicare benefits than SSI benefits in their life, Why in gods names is the Medicare tax stil at 2.9%

See above. First of all, Medicare taxes apply to every dollar you make, and if you have a high income you get hit with an additional .90% surcharge and it is also dinged on your investment income. As for SS. Why would a richer person ever be ok with raising the FICA earnings cap? If you are wealthy SS is already a terrific screwing. Both in terms of the proportional return on investment as well as the taxation of benefits on the back end. Here's the real issue, both of these programs are effectively insurance programs, hence the name "FICA". Why should I, have to pay a disproportionate amount into an insurance program where I get a disproportionately negative benefit from the program? This applies to both Medicare and SS.

Go.

charliebrown said:
I think our entire civilization would be more civilized if we started itemizing our taxes. There is no reason for a general fund with a giant pile of people eating at the troth and finding ways to get to this money without open, clean and logic debate. That is where our governments and the rich have their ultimate control and that is where we need to stop letting them fight over the power for basic services we all have come to cherish and enjoy.

You're nuts. First off, 80% of the nation doesn't understand how taxes work, as you just above exemplified. The reality is that a bit less than half the nation doesn't pay federal income tax and about 40% of the nation gets a negative federal income tax liability each year. Yet, this is often the same crowd that screams the tax code is unfair.

charliebrown said:
the problem with our GOVERNMENTS yes, we have multiple governments, is that there is a overlap in services so we cannot get a good understanding of the services rendered from one verses the other.

What is confusing you? You have a federal, state, and local government, just like pretty much the rest of the world. Each of them have pretty unique revenue sources and expenditures and they all have their budgets publicly available.

Waddy · Nov 18, 2019

MTAtech said:
So, you are for policies that raise taxes on the rich? That's new for you.

You are employing a disingenuous argument. Property taxes on the middle class in NY, CA and other states that want to provide good schools and services are often over $10,000 a year. It isn't only the rich.

Taxes should be deductible on federal returns. Not doing so is double taxation -- taxing on money that money that you paid as taxes.

If you are genuinely interested in raising taxes on the rich, we can easily do so by undoing the 2017 tax cuts.

The reason those rich people got most of the tax cut is they pay most of the taxes. Lower their taxes and they won't benefit so much from tax cuts. Problem solved.

MTAtech · Nov 18, 2019

Waddy said:
The reason those rich people got most of the tax cut is they pay most of the taxes. Lower their taxes and they won't benefit so much from tax cuts. Problem solved.

I'm aware of that lazy talking point, which is delivered without actually looking at the numbers. It implies that all income groups got the same proportion of tax-reductions but because the rich have more income, they got more dollar savings. The talking point is false. The rich got not only more dollars but a higher proportion of the tax-cuts. As Bloomberg reports:

Most rich taxpayers, however, are doing much better this year. The alternative-minimum tax, or AMT, dreaded by affluent Americans, lost much of its bite in the legislation. The estate tax, previously paid by just two out of every 1,000 taxpayers who die, is now even easier to avoid. The law doubles the amount of wealth exempt from the levy, to $11 million for singles and $22 million for couples. The rich are already using the new limits to create dynasty trusts for generations of their descendants.

The wealthy also won a drop in the top tax rate, from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, which they can slash further if they’re business owners who qualify for the new 20 percent pass-through break. If they’re corporate stockholders—and the vast majority of rich Americans are in some way—they’re also winning a big benefit from the law’s most expensive perk, the slashing of the corporate rate to 21 percent from 35 percent.

Overall, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the law delivers taxpayers who earn $1 million or more a tax cut of $37 billion in the next year alone.

bave · Nov 18, 2019

MTAtech said:
I'm aware of that lazy talking point, which is delivered without actually looking at the numbers. It implies that all income groups got the same proportion of tax-reductions but because the rich have more income, they got more dollar savings. The talking point is false. The rich got not only more dollars but a higher proportion of the tax-cuts. As Bloomberg reports:

How does that comment show anything different? The people who pay the most in taxes are always going to see the largest benefit from tax cuts. Almost half this country doesn't pay FIT, how do you cut their taxes?

Do you feel it is fair to tax an estate? Money that has already been taxed several times before?

Moderate Right · Nov 18, 2019

Waddy said:
The reason those rich people got most of the tax cut is they pay most of the taxes. Lower their taxes and they won't benefit so much from tax cuts. Problem solved.

Not to mention, about 50% of Americans pay absolutely zero in federal income tax so it is pretty much impossible for someone paying zero now to get a tax cut.

Moderate Right · Nov 18, 2019

bave said:
How does that comment show anything different? The people who pay the most in taxes are always going to see the largest benefit from tax cuts. Almost half this country doesn't pay FIT, how do you cut their taxes?

Do you feel it is fair to tax an estate? Money that has already been taxed several times before?

The only thing these people know is "rich people bad".

Waddy · Nov 18, 2019

Moderate Right said:
Not to mention, about 50% of Americans pay absolutely zero in federal income tax so it is pretty much impossible for someone paying zero now to get a tax cut.

Whoa, hoss... there's something better than paying zero taxes....many people in that bottom 50% actually get a big check back from the IRS AFTER paying ZERO in federal taxes. I think they call it the earned income tax credit.

I sure get tired of the hating on the top 20%. They pay most of the taxes, of ALL kinds in this country. I'm tired of the hating on businesses. They create the wealth, meet the payrolls, and pay for the infrastructure. When those groups didn't do well we called it the Great Depression. Today, in relatively good economic times, it's easy to bite the hand that feeds you..

Moderate Right · Nov 18, 2019

Waddy said:
Whoa, hoss... there's something better than paying zero taxes....many people in that bottom 50% actually get a big check back from the IRS AFTER paying ZERO in federal taxes. I think they call it the earned income tax credit.

I sure get tired of the hating on the top 20%. They pay most of the taxes, of ALL kinds in this country. I'm tired of the hating on businesses. They create the wealth, meet the payrolls, and pay for the infrastructure. When those groups didn't do well we called it the Great Depression. Today, in relatively good economic times, it's easy to bite the hand that feeds you..

Yep. I worked at a place where a few of my employees received huge tax refunds due to the EIC and they burned all the money up in days, if not hours, on stupid stuff, like it was against the law to have a thousand dollars in the bank. The EIC is not used as intended by 99% of it's recipients. It is supposed to be money added onto your regular paycheck to help you with monthly living expenses and yet these people learn to live on what they have and then burn up the big tax refund when it comes. I would be in favor of passing legislation where the only way you can get the EIC is to have it added onto your check and not some huge lump sum at tax time.

jaeger19 · Nov 18, 2019

Neomalthusian said:
Looks like you're trying to ignore stark demographic and economic differences between these red and blue places. If the Federal Government just simply made up the difference between what states were willing to tax versus what they *should tax, then all states would race to the bottom in this regard. The reality is the federal government does not just make up the difference between what states need and what they actually collect, which is why states don't and can't race to the bottom with their taxes. And Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut wouldn't be in such abysmal fiscal condition as they are, if what you were insinuating were really the case.

Rank states by millionaire households per capita, the top half are 90% "blue," the bottom half 90% "red." Rank them by number of millionaire households, the top half of states have 85% of the nation's millionaires and only 6 of these states are red, with Texas being the only real "red" outlier. Resort the data and look at it any way you want, it basically always confirms what we already know, which is this:

A lot of "red" states have larger populations of poor people, smaller populations of wealthy people, and less going on economically. This results in less tax revenue coming in, as well as less ability to significantly raise taxes. Being so poor as they are, the tax bases in these places have less tolerance for significant tax increases. They're more sensitive to it. We can see the opposite of this in super blue places with roaring economies. New York City or Seattle or the Bay Area of California raise their taxes, a few people chirp or roll their eyes but there's almost no noticeable effect on demand and the economic juggernauts that headquarter there don't instantly pack up and flee. These places have much greater tolerance and flexibility in spite of high taxes. Poorer rural places for example aren't like this. They don't have a huge tolerant tax base with significant money available to be taxed. They're poor as dirt, a lot of them.

You've provided no evidence quantifying how much less red states tax their rich than blue states do that shows red states could simply obviate their residents' need for federal dollars by deciding to tax their rich.

Just to point out. that some of the stark economic differences are due to the red states hamstringing themselves with lower taxes. Especially when it comes to education and infrastructure. It makes it difficult to recruit good companies with good jobs to the red states because 1. The states lacks educated workers. 2. The education is seen as poor and this means that educated workers that the company has in other states.. don't want to relocate to the red states if they have children.. 3. The poor infrastructure also does not support good companies with good jobs.

Often then there is a doubling down.. the companies they can attract.. are looking for cheap, low skilled workers.. and the state doubles down by enacting right to work laws that keep wages and benefits down.

Which then leads to a lower tax base.. and also less money to be made by many local businesses because of the lower wages.

bave · Nov 18, 2019

jaeger19 said:
Just to point out. that some of the stark economic differences are due to the red states hamstringing themselves with lower taxes. Especially when it comes to education and infrastructure. It makes it difficult to recruit good companies with good jobs to the red states because 1. The states lacks educated workers. 2. The education is seen as poor and this means that educated workers that the company has in other states.. don't want to relocate to the red states if they have children.. 3. The poor infrastructure also does not support good companies with good jobs.

Often then there is a doubling down.. the companies they can attract.. are looking for cheap, low skilled workers.. and the state doubles down by enacting right to work laws that keep wages and benefits down.

Which then leads to a lower tax base.. and also less money to be made by many local businesses because of the lower wages.

Look, more BS from the king of manure dispensing.

Red states have inferior education and infrastructure? Look again. Most of the blue states have terrible infrastructure and often bad education with a high price tag. Every state and region has areas with great schools and areas with bad schools. It has less to do with spending and more to do with the community the school is in, and affluence. If you are in a wealthy community in Texas your schools are going to be dramatically better than schools in Chicago. If you are in West Chester, NY or Greenwich, CT your schools are going to be better than Midland, TX. It's basically rich education and smart parents have kids that do well in school. Throwing piles of money at education really doesn't have a material impact. Look at the areas with the highest per student spending, they tend to have the worst results.

Further, if your argument about high taxes resulting in economic growth and influx, then explain the demographic swings in the US. Do you see new businesses forming in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, or Illinois? No. In fact you see people fleeing those states, particularly people with money. Where are they going? North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Virginia, etc.

The best examples I can think of would be places like Charlotte, Nashville, and Austin/San Antonio. All those places are very low taxes, low regulation, and low state intervention. They are all also booming. Meanwhile you have cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York that are struggling. Where would New York be without the dreaded financial sector? What happens if Silicon Valley decides to move to Boston or Austin? Why did Seattle become Seattle? You act like there is some sort of mystery, but there isn't.

People, like capital, go to where they are best treated. That leads to growth and expansion.

Go back to pretending to be a physician.

jaeger19 · Nov 18, 2019

bave said:
Look, more BS from the king of manure dispensing.

Red states have inferior education and infrastructure? Look again. Most of the blue states have terrible infrastructure and often bad education with a high price tag. n.

Yes. Most blue states have better education and better infrastructure. Having businesses in both blue states and red states.. I certainly know its a LOT easier to get qualified people in most blue states versus red states. And their infrastructure is generally better. OF course.. you know better I am sure.. Heck.. with all that better education and better infrastructure... why red states are probably among the most economically powerful states their are.. I mean.. that's why they send so much to the federal government.

I mean.. its not like red states on average have lower wages, higher rates of poverty, and lower levels of education.... Oh wait.

Throwing piles of money at education really doesn't have a material impact.

Sure.. why that makes sense. That's why my sons who started school in a blue state.. actually were issued a book per child. Had access to laptop computers and learning pads in school... and had a teacher in their room that had a degree in what they were teaching.

Now in a school in a red state.. .they have one book.. PER CLASS.. rarely have any access to a computer.... and their teachers.. the good ones.. as soon as they can.. flee across the border to the blue state that pays better.. time and time again.

But of course.. school funding has nothing to do with education. Everyone knows that right? I mean.. its not like having your choice of teachers because you pay better than your competitors... having funds to pay for those little things... like BOOKS.. and other learning tools. Its not like having funds to pay for computers labs and resources... matter... right?

Wow.. you have no clue now do you?

bave · Nov 18, 2019

jaeger19 said:
Yes. Most blue states have better education and better infrastructure. Having businesses in both blue states and red states.. I certainly know its a LOT easier to get qualified people in most blue states versus red states.

Access Denied

Of the top 15, a few are blue, a few are purple, and the most are red. The two top blue states are there because of DoE hydro facilities built ~70 years ago.

Easier to get qualified people in blue states because blue states tend to have higher density. Education, as noted previously, is driven by local community and not by state. The best schools tend to be in places that have the best social/family structure, values, and economic base. Really rather independent from blue/red.

jaeger19 said:
And their infrastructure is generally better. OF course.. you know better I am sure.. Heck.. with all that better education and better infrastructure... why red states are probably among the most economically powerful states their are.. I mean.. that's why they send so much to the federal government.

I mean.. its not like red states on average have lower wages, higher rates of poverty, and lower levels of education.... Oh wait.

As above, false. Have you been to California, New York, New Jersey or Illinois lately? Their roads and bridges are garbage. Their power networks are collapsing. Their water and waste management systems are rotted out.

jaeger19 said:
Sure.. why that makes sense. That's why my sons who started school in a blue state.. actually were issued a book per child. Had access to laptop computers and learning pads in school... and had a teacher in their room that had a degree in what they were teaching.

Now in a school in a red state.. .they have one book.. PER CLASS.. rarely have any access to a computer.... and their teachers.. the good ones.. as soon as they can.. flee across the border to the blue state that pays better.. time and time again.

But of course.. school funding has nothing to do with education. Everyone knows that right? I mean.. its not like having your choice of teachers because you pay better than your competitors... having funds to pay for those little things... like BOOKS.. and other learning tools. Its not like having funds to pay for computers labs and resources... matter... right?

Wow.. you have no clue now do you?

Highest paid teachers in the US are in Chicago, enough said.

Do you have a citation that schools in red states have one book per classroom and no computers, or are you just making that up like the rest of your "credentials".

You're a fraud dude, give it up.

chuckiechan · Nov 19, 2019

aociswundumho said:
You're exactly right.

I thought liberals enjoyed paying high taxes for their beloved government services? Turns out even liberals don't like the taste of liberalism.

Yes Chuck, these rich people are being "penalized" for not being able to transfer part of their tax burden to the rest of us.

And for a party neck deep in identity politics with an inbred hatred of rich people, why give the rich class a break by asking Mary the Barrista to subsidize their taxes?

jaeger19 · Nov 20, 2019

bave said:
Access Denied

p.

yeah no.. you have cherry picked just 15 states.. and only three types of infrastructure.

Easier to get qualified people in blue states because blue states tend to have higher density. Education, as noted previously, is driven by local community and not by state.

Education is highly influenced by the state.. as is economic prosperity.. which is what also drives education.

Blue states have better wages, better benefits.. and a lower percentage of poor people in general. THAT certainly drives education.

s above, false. Have you been to California, New York, New Jersey or Illinois lately? Their roads and bridges are garbage. Their power networks are collapsing. Their water and waste management systems are rotted out.

Sure.. have you been to Mississippi lately? Kentucky?

And you are just looking at the need for repairs for EXISTING infrastructure. AS compared to some red states that don't even have it.

Do you have a citation that schools in red states have one book per classroom and no computers, or are you just making that up like the rest of your "credentials".

sure… In Mississippi schools, access to technology lacking, uneven

But Clinton’s success has yet to be replicated to a large degree in the poorest and most rural parts of Mississippi — the “least-wired” state in the country according to a 2011 Census survey. More than half of Mississippians have no Internet at home, and 41 percent have no access to the Internet at all.
Mississippi is so far behind on technology use in schools, it earned an “F” on a“digital report card” published this year by Digital Learning Now, a group that advocates for more online learning. The rankings examined whether schools have high-speed broadband, whether teachers and students have Internet-capable devices, and whether the states have met certain benchmarks to ensure effective use of technology.
In Mississippi, this technology access gap only compounds the state’s most persistent educational problems. In the 2011-12 school year, only 75 percent of students graduated in four years, compared to the national average of 80 percent. After students graduate, they often struggle to find jobs. Nearly 20 percent of youth ages 16 to 24 are out of school and not working, the highest rate in the nation.

Schools in Mississippi have been underfunded by the state by more than $1 billion over the past six years, which means many have struggled to buy basic supplies like pencils and paper while also upgrading bandwidth and computer labs.

More here:

ttps://hechingerreport.org/back-to-school-but-without-books-and-basics-in-mississippi/

American · Nov 22, 2019

Taylor said:
Indeed. It's really too bad that rich people in California and New York don't want to pay their fair share.

Democrats are hypocrites.

American · Nov 22, 2019

joko104 said:
All the Democratic candidates plans are welfare for the rich. They insist that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are SO poor they can't afford to pay for their employees healthcare, can't afford to pay their employees enough to save for college, can't even afford their own healthcare or to pay for their kids educations.

Democratic Party = Welfare for the richest people on earth.

Rich kids are getting their Twinkies removed from their lunchboxes these days.

MTAtech · Nov 26, 2019

joko104 said:
All the Democratic candidates plans are welfare for the rich. They insist that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are SO poor they can't afford to pay for their employees healthcare, can't afford to pay their employees enough to save for college, can't even afford their own healthcare or to pay for their kids educations.

Democratic Party = Welfare for the richest people on earth.

The idea that Democrats want to lower taxes on the rich, when it was the Republicans that gave the rich a massive tax-cut in 2017, is pure GOP propaganda.

Democrats wanting to raise taxes on the rich is a historical fact. Contrary to the quote above, proposals by the Democratic candidates for president raise taxes on the rich. That's why the rich are contributing to Republicans.

The SALT hits many middle class working families -- and that's the purpose of having it deductible.

The fact is, the rich paid higher taxes before the 2017 tax law change than they did after. That mean that Republicans, who passed that tax change, are the ones that wanted to lower taxes on the rich. All the Democrats in Congress voted against it. The law that allows "Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates" to pay low taxes and also allows them to pass millions more in wealth onto heirs, was passed by Republicans.

bave · Nov 26, 2019

MTAtech said:
The SALT hits many middle class working families -- and that's the purpose of having it deductible.

The fact is, the rich paid higher taxes before the 2017 tax law change than they did after. That mean that Republicans, who passed that tax change, are the ones that wanted to lower taxes on the rich. All the Democrats in Congress voted against it. The law that allows "Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates" to pay low taxes and also allows them to pass millions more in wealth onto heirs, was passed by Republicans.

That's not really true.

The SALT cap also came with an increase in the standard deduction. Prior to the Trump tax reform 72% of tax filers didn't itemize. So even then only 28% people *could* have had an advantage from SALT. That number dropped roughly in half after the reforms. The reality is that if you have ~20k in annual property and state/local income tax you are highly unlikely to be "middle class". You could be upper middle class, but someone making under $100k/yr is going to struggle to hit that cap.

The people who really got hurt by this cap are the rich in high tax states.

MTAtech · Nov 26, 2019

bave said:
That's not really true.

The SALT cap also came with an increase in the standard deduction. Prior to the Trump tax reform 72% of tax filers didn't itemize. So even then only 28% people *could* have had an advantage from SALT. That number dropped roughly in half after the reforms. The reality is that if you have ~20k in annual property and state/local income tax you are highly unlikely to be "middle class". You could be upper middle class, but someone making under $100k/yr is going to struggle to hit that cap.

The people who really got hurt by this cap are the rich in high tax states.

Except that it is true. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

In 2025, when it will be fully phased in (and before many provisions are slated to expire), it will boost the after-tax incomes of households in the top 1 percent by 2.9 percent, or roughly triple the 1.0 percent gain for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC). The average tax cut that year for the top 1 percent — those with incomes above $837,800 — will be $61,100 (see first graph). In stark contrast, the bottom 60 percent of households — those making under $91,700 — will receive about $400, on average.

While some wealthy Americans will only be able to deduct $10,000 of their state and local taxes, they more than make it up on other benefits that the middle class don't get.

Federal Estate and Gift Tax Limit, went from $5.49 million to $11.18 million.

Bloomberg - A Year After the Middle Class Tax Cut, the Rich Are Winning

Most rich taxpayers, however, are doing much better this year. The alternative-minimum tax, or AMT, dreaded by affluent Americans, lost much of its bite in the legislation. The estate tax, previously paid by just two out of every 1,000 taxpayers who die, is now even easier to avoid. The law doubles the amount of wealth exempt from the levy, to $11 million for singles and $22 million for couples. The rich are already using the new limits to create dynasty trusts for generations of their descendants.

Distribution of Trump Tax Cuts Favors Wealthiest
On average, in 2018, taxes declined for everyone, but top groups got the biggest benefit

Lowest quintile....($14,170)... 0.4%

Second quintile...($36,450)... 1.2%

Middle quintile... ($65,640)... 1.6%

Fourth quintile...($114,370)... 1.9%

Top quintile.......($347,940)... 2.9%

The wealthy also won a drop in the top tax rate, from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, which they can slash further if they’re business owners who qualify for the new 20 percent pass-through break. If they’re corporate stockholders—and the vast majority of rich Americans are in some way—they’re also winning a big benefit from the law’s most expensive perk, the slashing of the corporate rate to 21 percent from 35 percent.

Overall, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the law delivers taxpayers who earn $1 million or more a tax cut of $37 billion in the next year alone.

bave · Nov 26, 2019

MTAtech said:
Except that it is true. According to the

While some wealthy Americans will only be able to deduct $10,000 of their state and local taxes, they more than make it up on other benefits that the middle class don't get.

Federal Estate and Gift Tax Limit, went from $5.49 million to $11.18 million.

Something doesn't smell right with those figures, or the source.

More importantly, you are never going to be able to make a tax cut that provides an advantage to the bottom quintiles that pay nothing compared to people who do pay something. Exactly how do you craft a tax cut to provide a benefit to people who don't pay taxes?

Finally, my point was that SALT didn't hurt middle class folks. It hurt people making over $100k a year, in high tax states, who itemize. A pretty narrow window.

Moderate Right · Nov 26, 2019

MTAtech said:
The idea that Democrats want to lower taxes on the rich, when it was the Republicans that gave the rich a massive tax-cut in 2017, is pure GOP propaganda.

Democrats wanting to raise taxes on the rich is a historical fact. Contrary to the quote above, proposals by the Democratic candidates for president raise taxes on the rich. That's why the rich are contributing to Republicans.

The SALT hits many middle class working families -- and that's the purpose of having it deductible.

The fact is, the rich paid higher taxes before the 2017 tax law change than they did after. That mean that Republicans, who passed that tax change, are the ones that wanted to lower taxes on the rich. All the Democrats in Congress voted against it. The law that allows "Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates" to pay low taxes and also allows them to pass millions more in wealth onto heirs, was passed by Republicans.

Then why do Democrats fight to get the 10K SALT cap eliminated from the new tax plan, benefiting only the rich?

Democrats Want To Lower Taxes On The Rich

Neomalthusian

Moderate Right

charliebrown

SMTA

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna

bave

Waddy

MTAtech

bave

Moderate Right

Moderate Right

Waddy

Moderate Right

jaeger19

bave

jaeger19

bave

chuckiechan

jaeger19

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

MTAtech

bave

MTAtech

bave

Moderate Right