Donald Trump to bypass congress to give working people a tax cut

I just read an article stating that the elite are deathly afraid of Donald Trump and are afraid of losing their power.

How do people type these sentences with a straight face?

 

This seems like it would help anyone who owns a home. Yes the rich get disproportionately helped because they own stuff, but this seems like it would help working people and their pensions/retirements.

What am I missing?

 

SMH

Rocket River

 

Probably missing the part where the government loses 100 Billion in tax revenue and then has to cut aid to the poor like Medicaid and Social Security.
Or as I like to call it trickle down where the poor gets pissed on.

 

Great. More handouts for the communists! What's Next? Sideline tickets to the gallery furniture bowl on our dime? Oh...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/26/trump-tax-cuts-proposal-deductions-brackets

This plan would give the 97% of the savings to the top 10%, 88% goes to the top 1% and 66% goes to the top .1%.

 

Name a tax cut that wouldn't favor the wealthy.

 

@russia380 - you're missing that you don't pay taxes on your home sale unless your capital gain , (sale price less purchase cost and capital improvements) is over $500k for married filers ($250 for singles)

Factor in that the median home value in the US is ~200k, and lol.

 

Removing taxes from groceries would be pretty progressive since everyone eats.

 

Lower payroll tax rates would be one example. It's a tax levied specifically NOT on the wealthy.

 

That would be sales tax which is done by the states. BTW Texas doesn't charge you taxes on groceries.

 

Hail the job creators.

 

Hey man, maybe they just need 40 years of preferential economic treatment to finally start sharing some of their money with the rest of us! 30 isn't enough!

Conservatives don't realize that young folks' support for more left-leaning economic policy is a logical end point for their decades of sucking up to the stingy rich at the expense of everyone else.

 

Hail the stock buy-back-ers.

 

Last week, the CBO reported that the Trump-induced tax cut, passed by Congress earlier this year, and increase spending will propelled the deficit above the $1 trillion level by next year, $1.8 Trillion by 2028

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/09/us-deficit-trump-tax-cuts-trillion-cbo-projection
​

should this new proposed tax welfare for the top 1% come to fruition, the deficit would be much higher.




this warrants repeating:

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing (promising that tax cuts will pay for themselves) over and over again, but expecting different results”. including Traitor Trump, the last 4 Republican POTUS had pushed for tax cut as being the miracle worker, falsely claiming that they will pay for themselves.

• his Republican predecessor W's tax cut, along w a needles war, cratered the US economy
• W's Republican predecessor GHWB, promised no new tax; but
  • after realizing how HUMONGOUS the deficit was, had the good sense to raised tax
• GHWB's Republican predecessor Ronald Reagan promised and effected a tax cut, ; but
  • after realizing how HUMONGOUS the deficit was, had the good sense to raised tax

​

 

On a related note ... when this country runs out of money becoming the next Greece ...

The super-rich are hedging their bets by getting multiple passports

 

nah,

the Chinese, the Canucks, the EU and the Mexicans will continue to lend US $$$; as well as
the Japanese, the SK, the Singaporeans, the So Africans, the Aussie and many others​

 

Nah,

The Chinese, the Canucks, the EU and the Mexicans will allow for an orderly exit of the super rich.

 

From a finance perspective, I think taxing real dollars instead of nominal dollars makes sense. If you buy an asset for $100 in 2010 and sell it in 2020 for $150, but that $150 is worth only $100 in 2010 dollars, then you're taxed on the $50 nominal gain, but really you've made no gain at all in real dollars and you're break-even investment turns into an after-tax loss. Its okay to tax nominal gains, but you're essentially just layering another risk, a tax risk, on the investor.

But, from a politics perspective, I'm not down with it. Reduce tax revenues again. Increase wealth disparity again. Increase the debts my children and grandchildren must solve. No thanks. If you want to do that for the sake of encouraging investment, you need a balancing move, like increasing the rate at which capital gains are taxed or taxing high incomes. Hell, the last tax change needed two balancing moves (one for the corporate cut, one for the wealthy cut), so I reckon this one would need three balancing moves just to get us back to square 1.