Why cut taxes?

[Bo Diddley]

WSJ graphic:

I think that graphic would be more meaningful if it used percentages.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

WSJ graphic:

[Jeff Lebowski]

Moliere's got it right. 2027? To allow the senate to just need a simple majority to pass, the plan can't keep most of the cuts (deficit neutral after 10 I believe). Essentially republicans are planning on only trying to keep the corporate and business pass through stuff after 2027. The provisions on the individuals levels (e.g., the expanded child tax credit) will revert to 2017 law. Additionally, the parts that raise taxes (e.g., loss of state and local taxes as deductions) won't revert after ten years. Consequently, most of the distribution of tax payers after ten years will see a tax increase.

Aha... Thanks.

[pelagius]

That's what I thought at first and then I read the accompanying text and I am not so sure. The numbers are based on "percentage of their income" so it seems to be comparing apples and oranges.

And 2027? How is that projected?

Moliere's got it right. 2027? To allow the senate to just need a simple majority to pass, the plan can't keep most of the cuts (deficit neutral after 10 I believe). Essentially republicans are planning on only trying to keep the corporate and business pass through stuff after 2027. The provisions on the individuals levels (e.g., the expanded child tax credit) will revert to 2017 law. Additionally, the parts that raise taxes (e.g., loss of state and local taxes as deductions) won't revert after ten years. Consequently, most of the distribution of tax payers after ten years will see a tax increase.

[Uncle Ted]

That's what I thought at first and then I read the accompanying text and I am not so sure. The numbers are based on "percentage of their income" so it seems to be comparing apples and oranges.

Yeah, given that the richest 1% pays about half the taxes this "revelation" doesn't seem all that surprising.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think they are trying to say that if there are $100 each year of tax cuts in the bill, the top 1% collectively get$31 of those tax cuts in 2017 and $48 of those tax cuts in 2027

That's what I thought at first and then I read the accompanying text and I am not so sure. The numbers are based on "percentage of their income" so it seems to be comparing apples and oranges.

And 2027? How is that projected?

[Moliere]

Why cut taxes?

Can someone explain this graphic to me? I don't get it.

I think they are trying to say that if there are $100 each year of tax cuts in the bill, the top 1% collectively get$31 of those tax cuts in 2017 and $48 of those tax cuts in 2027


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm sure glad the richest 1 percent are getting half of the tax breaks. I was really worried about those folks.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-tax-cuts.html

Can someone explain this graphic to me? I don't get it.

[frank ryan]

I'm sure glad the richest 1 percent are getting half of the tax breaks. I was really worried about those folks.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-tax-cuts.html

[cowboy]

Condescending? Really?

I have a bunch of responses, but if this exchange upsets you, I will bow out. Peace, brother.

I wasn't upset at all. I was messing with you, but wasn't offended at all. I guess I should have made my last paragraph my first. Sorry if I came across wrong.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh, the condescending game! I'll play, I'm really good at this.

Condescending? Really?

I have a bunch of responses, but if this exchange upsets you, I will bow out. Peace, brother.

[happyone]

[cowboy]

Oh, the condescending game! I'll play, I'm really good at this.

Uh... since the founding fathers.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/lexi...unding_fathers

Uh...that didn't mean what you think it meant. The argument at the time was over the concentration of land into a small number of aristocrats via primogeniture, the transfer of estates to the oldest male heir. This is distinctly different than the ability of a landowner to transfer his estate to heirs via inheritance. TJ may have been opposed to landed aristocrats, but he certainly wasn't opposed to inheriting wealth, as he inherited his and passed it on to his daughter. Had he really taken the position you seem to think he advocated, he would have left his estate to the state of Virginia to be distributed among he poor farmers.

Extra points to the Economist for trotting out Adam Smith. Smith was speaking out against feudalistic practices that kept land in the hands a very small group when land was the primary source, and limiting factor of wealth. The author either knows this but chose to ignore it, or is an ideologue who doesn't want to consider anything that may contradict his notions. He's an historian, not an economist, so I'm guessing the latter, particularly given his disdain for Romney's business acumen.

In fact, the ability it pass property on to heirs is decidedly American. The modern estate tax wasn't put in place until 1916. Other than temporary taxes to raise revenue, the 19th century had few, if any, limits on estate transfers while most other countries had strict laws governing land ownership and control.

I have news for you: when someone dies, there is automatically a wealth redistribution. So you are for a wealth redistribution, but solely to family heirs, regardless of the size of the estate.

And I have news for you. Something cannot be redistributed unless it is first distributed. Acquisition is not distribution. Wealth is distributed at death via inheritance, and not redistributed until the government takes it and decides it can allocate capital more efficiently than the person who worked and bore risk to acquire it and then bequeath it. I am not for redistribution. I am for wealth distribution by the one who earned it, and hence earned the right to determine who receives it.

Sure they should get a nice chunk (and 100% in most cases), but they did not earn that wealth any more than you or me.

So you want to take money from people who you assume, often incorrectly I might add, did nothing to earn it, and give it to someone else who certainly did nothing to earn it. Makes sense.

Sorry, those are not compelling arguments to me. Nobody is arguing it will eliminate wealth gaps entirely. Fewer poor today doesn't mean we shouldn't have an estate tax.

You missed the point, amigo. Fewer poor today has nothing to do with the estate tax, but it has everything to do with the assumption that a wealth gap is keeping the poor from increasing their standard of living. The point of those arguments is to note that 1) the wealth gap isn't a significant economic problem, 2) the most wealthy will remain so regardless of estate taxes, and 3) Given 1 and 2, there is no good reason to force small businesses to spend tens of thousands of dollars to minimize a tax that isn't really targeting them.

OK, raise the exemption. But don't make it limitless.

A farm/ranch is still a business and should be treated the same as other family businesses.

I'm fine with this. My only point was that farms and ranches, with most of their asset value tied up in land whose value is impacted by non-agriculture use, are in the unique position of having a great deal of wealth that generates very little cash.

Just so you don't misunderstand, my condescending attitude in this post is an intentional effort to be a smart-alec, not a reactionary response to some perceived offense. I respect your opinions, I just disagree. I also think you need to buy a farm in Wayne County, work your ass off on it to pay for it and build your dream place, create tons of family memories there, and then stipulate in your will that your kids mortgage it for half it's value and give the proceeds to an out of work coal miner in Kentucky.

[beefytee]

One comment about the calculator, it looks like the child tax credit doesn't phase out. Does anybody know if this is accurate? If so, that would be a big deal for me. Currently I receive no child tax credit because it faces out completely at my income level.

Yeah. I'm in the same boat except it makes a much smaller difference for me since I don't have as many kids.

I didn't receive the child tax credit last year. With the new plan I'm $545 ahead if I get the Child tax credit and $4255 behind without it.

[Topper]

I agree with this, as there are too many unyielding factions in Congress. But then, at the start of last year I thought Trump had a snowball's chance of winning the Presidency. <sniff>

Yes but this Congress has failed miserably in all of its efforts because of the discordant notes.