Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

[TarSpiel]

No. A taxpayer making $650K pays the same rate as someone making $100 million. Our tax rates are woefully inadequately progressive.

Is that true?

Jesus...I never really thought of it in those terms before. That's effing criminal.

 

[farce©]

In 1980, the top marginal income tax rate was 70%, and the wealthiest 1% of earners paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Over the decades, their share of the income tax burden has consistently grown, even as top marginal tax rates were reduced significantly. At the same time, the tax share of the bottom half of earners has sharply declined—from 7% in 1980 to just 2.96% in 2022.

The newest data reveals that the top 1% of earners, defined as those with incomes over $663,164, paid nearly 40.43% of all income taxes—marking a significant drop from the previous tax year, as the economy improved in the wake of the pandemic and economic shutdown. This was a drop of 5 points (12% lower) than in 2021 when the top 1% paid nearly 46% of all income taxes. Similar to prior years of data, the amount of taxes paid by this percentile is nearly twice as much as its share of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), underscoring the progressive nature of the tax system.
The top 10% of earners bore responsibility for 76% of all income taxes paid, and the top 25% paid 89% of all income taxes. Altogether, the top 50% of filers earned 90% of all income and were responsible for 98% of all income taxes paid in 2021.

The other half of earners, those with incomes below $46,637, collectively paid 2.3% of all income taxes in 2021.

That’s because income was much more fairly distributed back then.

 

[Silence Dogood]

No. A taxpayer making $650K pays the same rate as someone making $100 million. Our tax rates are woefully inadequately progressive.

Miss the point, shocker

 

[farce©]

Miss the point, shocker

Do tell

 

[korgguy1971]

 

[ZenMode]

A wake-up call for Congress? Surely you're not serious. Congress does not have any institutional will of its own; it has the individual wills of the people serving in it which are widely diverging and often diametrically opposed. Slightly more than half of the members of Congress are more than happy for the President to take the heat for making cuts so they don't have to risk their own reputations and electoral prospects to do it. (And some of them are conservative enough that they're perfectly happy for Trump to act like a king anyway - as long as they agree with the things he's doing.) As I've argued in another thread, if you want to change the incentives for Congress, you have to get rid of the current version of the filibuster, which requires you to have a super-majority to pass any legislation and has encouraged the growth of inertia and inaction in Congress. It is simply politically easier for Congress to do nothing than to do anything thanks to the perverse incentives that the current filibuster provides.

I do think, and have said for months, that our best hope for the near-term is for Trump to break things so badly and so quickly that his administration becomes super unpopular before it's really had time to complete the radical Project 2025 overhaul of government it contemplates. But in the long term nothing is going to be fixed unless and until we can get Congress back to a place where it actually has incentive to pass legislation. That incentive does not exist right now, because the silent, pro forma filibuster insulates any individual congresspeople from the electoral consequences of blocking legislation.

I like the filibuster. It forces the two sides to have to agree and cooperate before passing legislation. The last thing I want is for one party to have unilateral control.

 

[Silence Dogood]

Do tell

Individuals on the higher end of income are paying more than those on the lower end by a wide margin.

 

[rodoheel]

I like the filibuster. It forces the two sides to have to agree and cooperate before passing legislation. The last thing I want is for one party to have unilateral control.

That is not remotely what the filibuster does in practice and I find it hard to believe that anyone could look at how its use has progressed over the last 50 years and come to that conclusion. All the filibuster does is make it extremely difficult to get anything productive done, and create a lack of accountability for the people who exercise it given that it can be exercised silently and in a pro forma manner. It doesn't encourage bipartisan cooperation; it discourages it by giving any minority with at least 40 votes the ability to completely block legislation by the majority.

If you think 60 votes should be required to pass legislation, propose an amendment to the constitution to change it. But having a situation where the constitutional provision that a simple majority can pass legislation in the Senate is overriden by a Senate procedural rule that has no Constitutional basis is absurd. It has played a large role in making Congress into the virtually non-functioning body it is today, and in creating the conditions we see today where people will turn to an authoritarian president to effectively legislate without Congress because Congress has no real incentive or ability to pass legislation.

 

[1moretimeagain]

 

[rodoheel]

Individuals on the higher end of income are paying more than those on the lower end by a wide margin.

No shit Sherlock. This would be true even if we had a completely flat tax system, as opposed to a purportedly progressive system. No one can tell what point you're trying to make with this elementary school-level observation.

 

[CFordUNC]

I tell you what, man. May all of us have the unbridled confidence of a tater tot who wants to come to the ZZLP and try to pretend to be more knowledgeable on law and economics than a whole bunch of people who literally study, practice, and teach…law and economics. Every time I start to feel like I’m the dullest intellectual crayon in the box in this community, somebody like this dude comes along and makes me look like I belong in Mensa.

 

[Silence Dogood]

No shit Sherlock. This would be true even if we had a completely flat tax system, as opposed to a purportedly progressive system. No one can tell what point you're trying to make with this elementary school-level observation.

How are Republican tax cuts benefitting the rich based on the numbers I gave? Why is this so hard for you guys? Trump also cut taxes on individuals on the lower end, something that keeps getting ignored.

 

[Duke Mu]

Ok, that's a reasonable take, the problem is if our govt was serious about anything we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. I gave a Social Security improper payment example earlier in the billions. That should be eye opening. Elon doesn't have total power, thats fabricated. In the private sector and in sports firing individuals happens and no one bats an eye. In govt the sky is falling and govt won't function correctly. Why do you guys clamor to love big brother so much? Its odd.

Pretty much anything Musk or Trump claims is fabrication.

I have some hurricane inundated swampland on Florida to sell!


Elon is unelected, unappointed, unconfirmed, undemocratic, and unethical. Regardless of what Pres. Musk is called, we all know the facts on the ground. He's driving the DOGE train... straight to neo-nazi HQR in Germany and Moscow.

 

[CFordUNC]

As this debate unfolds, policymakers and the public should understand that the 2017 Trump tax law:

• Was skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC).[1] As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top — for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent — are more than triple the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent.[2]
• Was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2018 that the 2017 law would cost $1.9 trillion over ten years,[3] and recent estimates show that making the law’s temporary individual income and estate tax cuts permanent would cost another roughly $400 billion a year beginning in 2027.[4] Together with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President Bush (most of which were made permanent in 2012), the law has severely eroded our country’s revenue base. Revenue as a share of GDP has fallen from about 19.5 percent in the years immediately preceding the Bush tax cuts to just 16.3 percent in the years immediately following the Trump tax cuts, with revenues expected to rise to an annual average of 16.9 percent of GDP in 2018-2026 (excluding pandemic years), according to CBO. This is simply not enough revenue given the nation’s investment needs and our commitments to Social Security and health coverage.
• Failed to deliver promised economic benefits.Trump Administration officials claimed their centerpiece corporate tax rate cut would “very conservatively” lead to a $4,000 boost in household income.[5] New research shows that workers who earned less than about $114,000 on average in 2016 saw “no change in earnings” from the corporate tax rate cut, while top executive salaries increased sharply.[6] Similarly, rigorous research concluded that the tax law’s 20 percent pass-through deduction, which was skewed in favor of wealthy business owners, has largely failed to trickle down to workers in those companies who aren’t owners.[7] Like the Bush tax cuts before it,[8] the 2017 Trump tax cut was a trickle-down failure.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver

 

[CFordUNC]

At a recent rally in Montana, President Trump claimed that “Republicans passed the biggest tax cuts in American history, the biggest in American history. Everybody in this room is better for them. Everybody is better for them.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t true. Everybody is not better off from the recent tax cuts, which have only served to increase the federal budget deficit—now $779 billion for FY 2018 according to new data released by the Treasury Department. To be sure, the middle class gets help temporarily, but over the longer run, the middle class will be worse off.

The middle class is seeing slower income growth than both the rich and the poor​

This fact is made all the more egregious in light of evidence that the middle class isn’t doing well and needs help. Stagnating incomes, opportunity gaps, and fragile families are all reasons to worry about the middle class. Public policy has done little to ameliorate these concerns. After accounting for taxes and transfers, growth in average middle-class household incomes has lagged significantly behind the lowest and, especially, the highest income quintiles. Incomes of the top 20 percent rose by 97 percent from 1979-2014—over twice as much as middle-class incomes. Even the lowest quintile has seen faster income growth, 69 percent, or two thirds higher than income growth for the middle class. In short, both public policy and the economy are leaving the middle class behind.

The 2017 tax law doesn’t help the middle class​

The new tax law—known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—will exacerbate this trend. The benefits of the law tilt toward the well-off both now and in the future, according to the distributional analysis of the Tax Policy Center. By 2027, benefits of the tax law flow entirely to the rich. (The Joint Committee on Taxation finds similar results using a different measure.)


To be fair, Republicans hope to extend the tax law beyond 2027, but that’s highly unlikely. There is also an argument that increased investment will lead to higher wages in the long run. The theory is that the lower corporate rate and temporarily expanded business expensing will spur investment in the United States, leading to more capital, and more productive workers. As worker productivity rises, firms will boost wages. All of this would happen gradually over the long term.
However, the evidence for this story about long-term growth is weak at best. According to two leading economists, one liberal and one conservative, annual GDP growth might rise by 0.02 percentage points over the next decade. So far, corporations are using their added profits primarily to buy back shares and boost dividends, not to invest. In addition, rising productivity in recent decades has not been fully shared with workers, suggesting a less competitive economy than many assume. Finally, deficit-financing means that middle-class households will likely be hit with big tax increases or spending cuts later and interest rates will rise in the interim as government borrowing explodes. While revenue-neutral, pro-growth tax reform (rather than costly tax cuts) is possible and desirable, the TCJA falls far short of this standard.

The middle class needs a tax cut: Trump didn't give it to them

Isabel Sawhill and Christopher Pulliam look at how President Trump's recent tax cuts will hurt the American middle class in the long run.

www.brookings.edu

 

[Paine]

How are Republican tax cuts benefitting the rich based on the numbers I gave? Why is this so hard for you guys? Trump also cut taxes on individuals on the lower end, something that keeps getting ignored.

Because we don’t care about cutting taxes as an end in and of itself. The implications of the tax cuts matter. If across the board tax cuts were demonstrated to create a more equal society, I would be for it. The opposite has been borne out time and time again.

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

As this thread gets longer, it's worth remembering DOGE is, in many ways, one of Trump's biggest feints. It's not that we should ignore it, as the very concept of DOGE is creating a horrific precedent, and it's adding tremendously to the disinformation storm that Trump is using to cover his consolidation of power. But the money DOGE will "save" is insignificant in the big scheme of things. The REAL damage Trump's team is doing right now is in (a) foreign policy, where he's actively destroying our most important alliances and handing enormous power to our autocratic enemies, and (b) his dismantling of vital federal agencies and departments, which as I understand it is largely being done through Trump's appointees and his legal team, and not through DOGE. He will also wreak havoc on the economy, but he's not able to do that as quickly as the harm he's causing to our foreign relations and the infrastructure that keeps the government functional.

So, all good to point out DOGE's absurdities. But the hyperfocus on Musk's irrelevant vanity project is distracting a lot of attention from the things Trump is doing that really matter.

I think you greatly underestimate the impact DOGE can have. What do you think will happen if they’re successful in getting rid of the department of education? And all of the research grants?

I can’t even imagine the impact on our schools? Chapel Hill would immediately be in a world of hurt.

You may say they won’t be successful and the courts will stop it. Well, maybe, but only because people are fighting against it.

 

[Duke Mu]

How are Republican tax cuts benefitting the rich based on the numbers I gave? Why is this so hard for you guys? Trump also cut taxes on individuals on the lower end, something that keeps getting ignored.

Wrong-o. The 2017 #taxfraudbill decreased deductibles of truck drivers by 1/3. Many quit placing additional burden on the supply chain. Re: the Working and Middle class with a moderate mortgage and children, removing the personal exemptions was a disaster. For a family of four, that was $18,500 on the way to $20,000. In addition, deductions for state taxes and work at home were reduced. This placed many middle-class families like mine in a higher tax bracket. Given that our itemized deduction already added up $24,000 (today $27,500), raising the standard deduction from $12K to $24K provided no relief. We were screwed.

Many math averse people thought they were being paid more because the $ taken out of the paycheck was less, but it did not mean they owed Uncle Sam less.

Also, keep in mind that Trump's massive deficit spending funneling $$$ from ME and other working/middle class families to Billionaires and COVID giveaways to banks helped to ignite inflation...oh, wait it's happening again.


The Trump tax bill has cost me and my family well over $30,000.

The Trump 2017 tax bill was written to benefit Mango Duce

- Moving from a blue state to a red state

- Moving to a state with no income tax

- Massive reduction in tax rate for the top 1%

- Tax benefits for real estate owners

- 1 or no kids at home

 

[Duke Mu]

I think you greatly underestimate the impact DOGE can have. What fo you think will happen if they’re successful in getting rid of the department of education? And all of the research grants?

I can’t even imagine the consequences on our schools? Chapel Hill would immediately be in a world of hurt.

You may say they won’t be successful and the courts will stop it. Well, maybe, but only because people are fighting against it.

- Education
- National Security
- Health Care (rural hospitals will close, more pandemics)
- Climate change
- Inflation
- Soft job market
- Fewer benefits
- Higher interest rates
- The Rent is Too Damn high!

 

[Duke Mu]

At a recent rally in Montana, President Trump claimed that “Republicans passed the biggest tax cuts in American history, the biggest in American history. Everybody in this room is better for them. Everybody is better for them.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t true. Everybody is not better off from the recent tax cuts, which have only served to increase the federal budget deficit—now $779 billion for FY 2018 according to new data released by the Treasury Department. To be sure, the middle class gets help temporarily, but over the longer run, the middle class will be worse off.

The middle class is seeing slower income growth than both the rich and the poor​

This fact is made all the more egregious in light of evidence that the middle class isn’t doing well and needs help. Stagnating incomes, opportunity gaps, and fragile families are all reasons to worry about the middle class. Public policy has done little to ameliorate these concerns. After accounting for taxes and transfers, growth in average middle-class household incomes has lagged significantly behind the lowest and, especially, the highest income quintiles. Incomes of the top 20 percent rose by 97 percent from 1979-2014—over twice as much as middle-class incomes. Even the lowest quintile has seen faster income growth, 69 percent, or two thirds higher than income growth for the middle class. In short, both public policy and the economy are leaving the middle class behind.

The 2017 tax law doesn’t help the middle class​

The new tax law—known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—will exacerbate this trend. The benefits of the law tilt toward the well-off both now and in the future, according to the distributional analysis of the Tax Policy Center. By 2027, benefits of the tax law flow entirely to the rich. (The Joint Committee on Taxation finds similar results using a different measure.)


To be fair, Republicans hope to extend the tax law beyond 2027, but that’s highly unlikely. There is also an argument that increased investment will lead to higher wages in the long run. The theory is that the lower corporate rate and temporarily expanded business expensing will spur investment in the United States, leading to more capital, and more productive workers. As worker productivity rises, firms will boost wages. All of this would happen gradually over the long term.
However, the evidence for this story about long-term growth is weak at best. According to two leading economists, one liberal and one conservative, annual GDP growth might rise by 0.02 percentage points over the next decade. So far, corporations are using their added profits primarily to buy back shares and boost dividends, not to invest. In addition, rising productivity in recent decades has not been fully shared with workers, suggesting a less competitive economy than many assume. Finally, deficit-financing means that middle-class households will likely be hit with big tax increases or spending cuts later and interest rates will rise in the interim as government borrowing explodes. While revenue-neutral, pro-growth tax reform (rather than costly tax cuts) is possible and desirable, the TCJA falls far short of this standard.

The middle class needs a tax cut: Trump didn't give it to them

Isabel Sawhill and Christopher Pulliam look at how President Trump's recent tax cuts will hurt the American middle class in the long run.

www.brookings.edu

Correct. And even worse - see my math.