Liberal Media Goes Completely Silent After New Report Proves Trump’s Tax Cuts Were Massive Success

So why do you blame it on Trump when Democrats signed off on it?

 

The entire issue is is how income is derived — what we are seeing now is people making money from wealth but not being taxed on it due to our tax system.

Dividends are only one way the wealthy skirt taxes, the most popular way for the very wealthy is to have virtually zero income and live off of loans based on their assets or stocks.

So again, it wasn’t a stawman because I am speaking of all income and wealth is now a source of income for many which is why we see billionaires paying virtually zero taxes for years at a time.

 

I can absolutely answer like that or any way I do choose.

I am sorry if you didn’t phrase your gotcha question correctly. You are phrasing it as whose taxes I would like to pay but are not indicating what you are speaking of — if it is the amount only then the answer secretary’s as I could afford a 50k tax bill but couldn’t afford a 340k tax bill. If it’s the percentage only then it’s Buffet’s.

If you are asking who’s net income I would prefer to receive it would be Buffett’s and that answer wouldn’t change even if he was taxed at 95% as he would still be making more than his secretary. This doesn’t even include the money he receives that isn’t classified as income.

You are still not even attempting to answer mine.

 

I was asking whose taxes you would rather pay. All you need is a one word answer:

Buffet's

secretary's

One word is all it takes.Can you do that or not? My money is on not.

 

A given statement that is a strawman is not a strawman in all contexts, only in one's in which it is arguing against points that are irrelevant to the given conversation and had not been raised in any way. Yours was most certainly a strawman to the post of mine to which you replied. If you want to change the subject to a debate about a wealth tax, that is perfectly fine, but when you presented it as a retort to my point about the top 10% paying 71% of all taxes, it was without a doubt a strawman.

Anyway, many countries have tried a wealth tax, and almost all of them have dropped it. Why?... because it caused an exodus of wealthy people, who easily have the means to switch their primary residence while still living their same globe-hopping lifestyle. This exodus resulted in less revenue not more.They are not stupid, and why should they be double taxed? Additionally, trying to calculate everyone's accumulated wealth is an accounting nightmare with an inordinate amount of subjectivity as to the value of various assets.

"Worse, wealth taxes can have very bad effects. Take France. There, "A wealth tax imposed on assets over 1.3 million euros led to an exodus of taxpayers from the country. In 2016 alone, 12,000 millionaires left France, the highest outflow in the world."
Wealth Tax Fails The Test Around The World | Investor's Business Daily (investors.com)

In truth, this is simply a radical concept that has zero percent chance of being a reality at any time in the remotely foreseeable future in this country. It is little more than a far-left dream. As such, discussing it to any great length is a colossal waste of time. A country that has as many billionaires as this one would be colossally stupid to incentivize them to leave.

The top 10% paying 71% of all taxes in my opinion is way more than a fair share. I don't share your desire for taxation as punishment for success. 71% is more than enough. If anything, the lower classes should be paying a higher percentage than they currently do.

 

Yes, the Laffer Curve just tells the obvious truth -- at some point on the curve revenue will decline, and a tax rate of zero will raise zero revenue.

OTOH, it is hard to justify ever raising taxes to fund Big Bad Government.
Tax hikes for good government are easier to justify.

 

I would rather pay his secretary’s taxes

Are you really asking if I would rather pay ~50k or ~3.5M?

And you are still dodging every question anyone has asked you. Must be embarrassing to not even be able to attempt a response

 

If the top 10% are brining in more than 71% from all sources is that still “fair”?

 

That is correct. Also, it should be hard to justify ever lowering taxes.



It seems to me there is currently (in the last 2 decades) a tug of war between slight lowering the tax rates under Republican rule and then raising them again under Dems. However, tax rates are still at lows not seen since the 1930s.

If I had my say, I would appreciate if, for once, a presidential candidate would run on leaving the tax rates alone. Only once we have tax rate stability, could spending be attacked with good faith. You can't expect Dems to give in to huge spending cuts, when the next GOP admin just blows the deficit through the roof through big tax cuts. Similarly, you can't expect the GOP to give in to huge spending increases when they know the next Dem admin will try to pay for it through tax hikes.

 

Since under a normal analysis, this hypothetical is so far from reality, why are you asking?

Are you trying to throw in unrealized capital gains? As an investor, I very much want capital gains to be taxed at a lower rate than regular income and I most certainly do not want unrealized capital gains to be taxed.

I guess I need more detail as to what it is that you are saying.

 

Yes, I was asking if you would rather pay her 10K in taxes or the millions dollars that Buffet pays. I guess it looks like you finally answered that. I must confess I've been so busy I don't remember your question anymore. So, please state it again as I'm too lazy to go back through the thread.

 

Personally, Id be in favor of an across the board 5% reduction in all government spending across all areas for the next few years. Business has successfully tightened their belts and gotten more productivity for decades. It is time that the government follows suit. Do more with less. There is plenty of bloat in government to accomplish this goal.

IMHO, We don't have a revenue problem. Our problem is spending.

 

Whats the relevance of your question?

Would you rather pay a hobos taxes or Buffets secretary?

 

This is another one of these Red false economic narratives .. where the fellow writing the article knows what he is writing is false.. but disingenuously continues .. Reminds me of the Obama - Romney battle .. Romney was going around claiming Obama was responsible for the 1.4 Trillion dollar 2009 deficit and the rise in unemployment. I remember thinking what a disingenuous moron .. the supposed "Business Candidate" having no clue that a massive market crash and financial system meltdown .. Revenues dropping from 2.7 Trillion down to 2.1 Trillion .. is going to cause some unemployment. .. Mitt the Mormon was a Moron.

This is the same BS -- The Trump Tax Cuts were accompanied by massive credit card spending - increasing the deficit from ~ 500 Billion to over a Trillion .. .... all that money falling from the tree added to revenue big time.

Trumps experiment was a disaster to be sure .. The nitrous oxide injection raised GDP by a point for about 1.5 years then went right back down to 2%. Near the end of the Trump term the Manufacturing index had been negative for 5 straight months ... none of them jobs we were told about came back.

Then there are other reasons adding to revenue.. in addition to the credit card spending. To claim that the increase was from Trump Tax cuts is patent nonsense. From what I understand .. what might have contributed to revenue ... these companies re-investing the capital .. went mostly into share buy-backs .. those cuts then doing frick all for the revenue side. No new factories built .. new jobs created by share buy-backs.

 

I am saying the tax code needs to be rewritten to account for the new ways people are bypassing regular tax systems.

They are doing so by taking loans on stocks, moving all income to dividends and other accounting methods.

Lower spending, implement a speculative tax on stocks, implement a minimum tax rate, inheritance and estate taxes should be completely abolished and moved to capital gains for the non-spousal recipient, dividends should be taxed at 0% up to a specific lifetime amount at which point they are taxed as regular income.

 

How is it jealousy to point out fact?
How pathetic

What should alarm a person is why the poor are unable to pay anything and why the rich are accumulating a great and greater percentage of the total wealth

 

I don't have much to say regarding your desires other than I disagree with your prescription wholeheartedly.

As far as dividends, that would typically just be the normal tax rate and in some cases the capital gains rate whenever that gain is realized. Why do you see that as a problem?

Whatever the deductions used, the top 1% still pays 40% of all taxes collected.

 

Whats the relevance of your question?

 

I see an issue with the way CG are handled.

 

Well, it is a fact that you are jealous of others having more money than you do. So am I, actually. But I understand that I am not entitled to any of their money. It's theirs. You don't seem to understand that.

 

Ok, I’m tired of this boring deflection
You are going where the rest of the <removed> go

 

Why? Investing is good for an economy. We want more, not less of it.

 

Because it is an abused system.
Place lifetime limits on it not being counted as regular income and then all amounts after that should be treated as regular income.

Canada has a similar system that works quite well

 

We want more investment, not less. Increasing taxes on investing yields less of it. Decreasing taxers on investing gets more of it. This is not an example of abuse. It is an example of targeted tax policy to get the desired outcome, which is to incentivize investing.

Do you not invest? I am very happy that investing is not taxed at the same rate as normal income. If you are young, you may not understand this significance. You will as you get older and acquire more.

 

I’ll admit I don’t have much investment in the market, mine is mostly in business and in various pieces of real estate. I have beat the market in most years off of those investments in exchange for a little more of my labor.

I also receive dividends from those businesses — it’s always interesting talking tax policy with people, if you dare speak out against the system you are “poor” or “jealous”. Or not old enough for the system to benefit you even though it is poor policy.

I support a Canadian style system — it is simplified, collects more money and is less prone to manipulation.