Incredibly, GOP senators are demanding billions more in tax cuts for the rich

The GOP complains that the capital gains tax isn’t indexed to inflation. As a result, the argument goes, taxpayers including “everyday Americans” are charged taxes on gains that are due purely to inflation, not to the real appreciation of their stocks or bonds.

Lastly, even more than the 2017 tax cut, this one would be almost exclusively a rich person’s gimme. The top 1% would collect more than 86% of the benefits, according to a 2018 analysis by the Wharton School; the bottom 90% would get 2.5% of the benefits. The change would cost the Treasury $100 billion to $200 billion over 10 years, according to expert estimates.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-07-30/gop-demands-another-tax-cut

This tax cut wouldn't go through Congress at all if they used the proposed mechanism for passage. I look forward to passage by the administration followed by bellows about too high deficits and taxes.

the 1.5 trillion tax cut from last year wasn't enough?

@horgen: It never is.The answer is always, "Just a little bit more."

That Laffer curve must go high since we are always climbing it.

long term capital gains tax is like 10%... already pretty damn low already.

Clearly you feel it is wrong for individuals to keep more of THEIR money yet when the government takes and takes and takes it's fine, right?

Hmm. My property tax isn't indexed to inflation, either.

When you care about the rich and no one else you will always advocate that they have lower and lower tax rates. What do you care if the social safety net gets destroyed in the process? The rich don't need a social safety net after all.

Existing in a governed society it should be expected that you will pay a fair share of taxes on your income. If you benefit exceptionally off of other citizens, then it should be expected that you will pay exceptional taxes in return.

And not to mention that yes, hoarding more money than you could even comprehend how to spend, while full-blooded American citizens live below the poverty line and starve, is essentially immoral.

lower the tax rates on productive labor.

raise the rates on things like capital gains.

productive labor is the reason gains exist in the first place. productive labor produces value for our economy. a capital gain is mostly piggybacking on the labor of others, particularly once the initial risk of the investment is removed.

it's mind boggling that a person can invest in a corporation ( buying a stock ) and sit back for 10 years while reaping benefits of the workers of that cooperation did in increasing the value of the company, and then complain that the tax they pay on that gain ( for which they contributed NOTHING to ) is too high. mind boggling.

That's code for "we don't have a spending problem but we do have an issue with not taxing enough," Everyone needs to pay but that surely isn't the case. Paying ridiculous amounts of taxes to a fiscally irresponsible entity like the government is an issue. You don't want to keep more of your money?

Now you have the balls to tell others what they should do with THEIR money because other people aren't as well off?

wtf are you talking about with that second comment? Yes I do have the "balls," what a ridiculous way to phrase it. We have people in the country with so much money and power that it would be essentially impossible for them to spend it all. Money that's truly incomprehensible by the standards of people living paycheck to paycheck. Yet they sit on it and work tirelessly to get breaks on the ever increasing amount that's coming in, while our infrastructure and education crumble, and citizens are disenfranchised and destitute. Yes, that is immoral, and unChristian, frankly. It takes none of my balls to say as much.

As for the first point, we have both problems. Yes too much spending and inefficiency is an issue. Yes, inordinate levels of poor tax income are a problem. The difference between parties is that only one of them is working tirelessly towards the latter. Republicans are all too happy to spike the military fund every single spending bill and offer government grants and bailouts, while also cutting taxes. Doesn't make any financial sense.

Should I phrase it a bit more delicately so you don't get upset? My money is mine just like your money is yours and I bet you wouldn't respond positively if I tried telling you how to spend your money or how much is enough for you to live and such. You're right that your approach doesn't take balls. It's more like stupidity. Much of your lament blaming the rich actually falls on the shoulders of the government. Neither of the parties are fiscally responsible. The spending each party does is looked upon by the members as essential and important while the spending of the other party is wasteful. It goes both ways. Cut the Christian b.s. unless you plan on applying it objectively through out society rather than only on issues suiting you.

What is too much money? Pick a number.

You seem to think that society is one dimensional....so let's talk about that dimension. Approx. 70% of US GDP is driven by consumer spending. Who makes up the majority of that spending? Who (net) benefits the most from that spending? Once you clue into the answers to those two basic questions you might find yourself on a journey of discovery.

So of course he should have the balls to tell others what to do with their money. It is called governance and it is essential to our societies. The primary lever is spending and the source of funds for that is taxation.

The choices one makes in governance are a great reflection of one's underlying values. Sadly, the values that the US was built upon have seen a massive erosion and it will be your ruin as society cannot succeed based upon greed alone.

First off, who are the two of you to tell others how to spend their money? it's highly doubtful you'd appreciate others doing the same. You don't have control over me nor do you have it over others but it is obvious you want to have the power. The power and position you complain about is exactly what you want.

Who benefits? Being fair and objective, both the consumer and the provider benefit to a point because quite frankly benefiting goes beyond just dollars and cents.

As I asked him and now I'll ask you: How much is too much? Where do you draw the line?

Yes, perhaps you could phrase it so you don't sound like a total dick.

Taxed money is not "your" money in the strictest sense. But to be more relevant to the point, I make just enough to live in a one bedroom with a pet and functional hobby and break even. If you want to tell me how to spend my money I could not give less of a damn either way because I barely have any as it is. But less anecdotally speaking, it really doesn't matter if it's "your money" or "societies money" as far as ethics are concerned. If you have the means to very comfortably offer massive amounts of aid while still living a wealthy lifestyle, and instead choose not just to do nothing, but to actively undermine efforts to improve said aid because you want even more, that is immoral behavior. There is no argument that unenlightened selfish interest combined with extreme wealth is actually a good thing.

Almost as stupid as saying we shouldn't tax people their fair share? Without taxation and governance the infrastructure you enjoy to have this conversation would not even exist.

If you live in a society where you expect, for example, a selection of just laws to apply to you and for the government paid workers to enforce said laws, it should only be logical that you are willing to contribute what is needed to make that happen. What's stupid is saying we should minimally tax or tax no one and hope that each individual just helps pave the roads, educate the children, or enforce the laws. Borderline cavemen shit that is.

If you don't like this system that has been the case for thousands of years across all nations and societies, I might recommend a house boat on international waters.

As mentioned, too much spending is indeed an issue for both. But only one party thinks we shouldn't tax what is needed to make spending happen. That's the difference. Not to mention my "lamenting" about the rich is only because they benefit from the government but won't return the favor. The onus of responsibility is on both them and the government but given that this is a topic about improving tax cuts for the rich, it stands to reason that I would be more focused on their efforts to pay no taxes as it is most relevant.

Do you need a personal assistant to buy items for you because you don't even have a concept of how much things like groceries or home repairs cost? If so, you probably have too much money.

But if you want a more literal figure, I feel safe saying that anyone making more than five million a year can somehow figure out how to survive on a much higher than average marginal tax rate. Also when a non-human company makes billions and pays zero or in some cases negative taxes, that is too much.

@Vaasman: One thing GOP fear is a working government. Starving the beast through tax cuts to show that it doesn't work is their best bet.

what makes you think you deserve more than what you have now?.. solaryellow was right, you just want more for yourself.. you project greed and selfishness onto business owners out of your own greed and selfishness in wanting what others have earned so you dont have to do anything for it

I didn't even once say or imply that I myself deserve more than I have, what plants are you smoking to shitpost this hard?

you know damn well this is about you, you see people with more than you, who have been successful, and you want them taxed at a higher rate than everyone else so people with less money can receive more benefits.. you want them to pay for crap so you dont have to.. free healthcare, free college, UBI, im sure you support it all

Let's be honest first. The money they make from the labor of others.....and yes......they should be taxes to help that labor out.

First off, we're talking individuals rather than companies. A personal assistant means you have too much money? Riiiiight.

Saying the rich should pay taxes doesn't sound bad but you went further by saying they shouldn't have that money. Whether you like it or not, you are always better off than someone no matter how bad you think you have it.

False narrative. A decent human can actually care about the less fortunate. Granted that isn't the GOP though so I see why that is a foreign ideology to you.

Can't they just say that if you are rich then you won't have to pay taxes and just get it over with?

Well history did show us the French Revolution...……...wasn't a happy outcome for the wealthy.

Ummmm..... If you bought stock you contributed to the company, so it is disingenuous to say they did nothing.

True, But there was apparently plenty of cake afterwards for the common man.

aside from purchasing ipo shares or subsequent offering shares, the average investor does not contribute funds to the company when buying a stock as they're likely buying from another investor / institution, and not the company itself.

that's like asking if belgium and norway were enough for hitler lol

Huh. Is it Wednesday already?

Just because you think some people have enough money that "they don't know what to do with it" that doesn't mean you get to take said money.

Does this mean I can prorate my monthly/yearly earning with inflation as well? Or is this another f*ck you to labor and boost to capital (which is coincidentally mostly owned by the upper 1%)?

But it's a spending issue!

Sounds more like an argument against ANY taxation then. It could be applied to any magnitude of scale of tax brackets.

Indeed. There is an inherent tension in taxation.

Of course tension exists, but it's a conversation that needs to be had. If we take these arguments down to their base parts we'd end up back in feudalism. Should be start stringing people up for poaching deer on the King's land? No taxation, especially not inheritance! Who are we to say that someone can't hoard money and pass it on to sole heirs, generation after generation. It may sound absurd but the same logic would apply. The conversation needs to revolve around the efficacy of tax rates/methods and not the moral premise of them existing.

Modern societies can't exist without taxation, especially not representative democracies. If we stick to bumper sticker slogans we'll simply revert.

There is a cost to living in society.

Right, the inherent tension is dealt via the political process. Not sure what you are arguing here.

The sentiment that "you have too much ergo I get to take it" is dangerous.

My position is one gets to keep everything one makes/earns. Exception made for extraordinary essential services/circumstances. Problem is this list of essential services/circumstances deemed necessary is ever expanding. But again, that's what the political process is there for.

how about all citizens pay the same percentage of their income in taxes per year?

Always amazes how some people who probably make less than $40,000 a year always defend the obscenely wealthy and that it's a fair trade for them to get more tax breaks while the rest of us struggle.

The problem isn't necessarily that someone has a lot (although in a democracy that is a problem if it gets too extreme), but that so many of their fellow hard working countrymen are in financial trouble.

Yeah I can never wrap my head around that.

because it doesn't account for a fixed base cost of living.

a loaf of bread costs the same amount of money if you make $5,000 a year or $500,000

Once the debt is paid off, and we have the funds for all necessary govt programs, feel free to give tax cuts.

Shhhh... That's not how this works, Sonic. First you gut the revenue. Then you build the debt. Then you gut the programs.

Then you repeat.

I guess maybe I'm misread your stance...or wasn't sure what you really meant.

In any case, 'My position is one gets to keep everything one makes/earns', followed by listing exceptions doesn't seem to make much sense to me. I think it's very clear that everyone, yourself included, believes that some things requires all people pay into. However, saying 'you keep everything you make/earn', is a more sweeping generalization. It's an absolute.

Perhaps I'm getting bogged down in semantics but 'everything you make' seems like a statement that would exclude exceptions. In any case our conversation would boil down into defining what each of these exceptions be based on our experiences, opinion, and studies. A position that 'one gets to keep everything one makes/earns', is a fine one to have but it doesn't follow that this stance is subject to exclusions. That's my stance at least.

We could certainly try it out and what our country fall into greater financial ruin.

@HoolaHoopMan: The more important question is, "what defines what one makes?"

That's not a small question, mind you. Are wages earned via the minimum wage part of what someone 'makes'? Or are those unearned dollars? How about profits earned from monopolies? Are wages suppressed via monopsony earned and not captured, or not earned? What about profits captured from government granted patents? Or rents captured from asymmetric information or outright fraud? Are SNAP benefits granted to full time employees (which prop up substandard wages as livable) earned by employees or employers? Perhaps they're not earned at all? When global trade suppressed wages of those in easily outsourced sectors like manufacturing, are they earning less? They're certainly taking home less. How about outsized earnings growth from artificially stunted supply (like the supply of doctors)?

We govern how earnings are distributed throughout our economy by policy choices. We shouldn't pretend otherwise.

A dollar in the hand is a dollar earned. At least that's how I hear them saying it. A drug dealer? Earned. Armed robbery? Earned. Extortion? Earned. They will most likely see no distinction about 'how' they received the money. Once it's in their pocket it doesn't matter much I gather.

If they received it, it's earned. If someone else gets a portion, it's stealing.

Jeff Epstein made a fortune selling children for sex and blackmailing many who were involved.

What a great guy! He earned that billionaire status dammit!