What a bizarre comment. Clearly made with nothing but sound bytes and talking points in mind apart from any actual facts.
Some recent data:
Taxpayers with incomes below $30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax.
The top 5% of wage earners pay 59.58% of all taxes in this country.
Letting all people keep more of their own money (their personal property) is called freedom. You seem to have a problem with that. There should not be a segment of society that gets paid not to work or that have no skin in the game by avoiding all taxation.
One man’s ‘freedom’ is another man’s “not paying their fair share”, Wayne. And, if I’m interpreting your last sentence correctly, you support closing the loopholes that allow the very wealthiest Americans to skirt their responsibilities to the rest of society. I salute you, Comrade!
@Scroogzilla: define ‘not paying their fair share’. Now, explain who determines that definition, precisely, without diverting off topic. Ready, steady, …. GO!
Fair share?
To me it is simple, fare share means equal, that would be the same percentage of income for all people. By having the first $24000. exemp it begins to account for the necessities of life. But why increase the rate for higher earners? Should a wealthy person, who got there by hard work, be penalized because of that hard work? Increasing the rates is not fair, it socialized!
November 6, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
And what of those who inherit their wealth and who have not worked a day in their life?
Americans always want to romanticize the “self-made man” but:
America has far less upward-mobility than many western countries, including socialized economies. This is due to myriad reasons, but just a few are the gutting of education funding, gutting of infrastructure spending, gutting of social services, and so on.
This is the definition of the “F you, I’ve got mine!” mentality that permeates society today. If you want to look back a few thousand years, you could just as easily say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
B) The notion of a self-made man is also a little silly in this day in age because of what it takes to “make it” anywhere. Everyone who is anything got to where they were by standing on the shoulders of giants. Yes, there are those who work harder, stay up later, think more outside of the box, and so on, but if they think they did so without using the infrastructure of those who came before them, they are fooling themselves. Those that succeed have the highest social responsibility to pay it forward so that future generations will have the infrastructure to similarly lead the future global economy.
November 6, 2017 at 6:04 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“And what of those who inherit their wealth and who have not worked a day in their life?”
So now we determine who should be able to inherit their parent’s money based on whether or not they deserve it?
The public at large does not get a claim to that money more than an heir, what you just said is immoral justification of stealing basically, and, it’s dangerous. Then people will start to say who didn’t earn their wealth, and use it to justify increasing taxes on those people, ergo morality based taxes. That’s not ok.
Don’t come back to me saying other forms you perceive are morality based tax differences, such as child tax credits. Allowing one to keep their money is quite different than making a moral argument for taking more of someone’s money.
November 6, 2017 at 7:39 pm
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@Doug; America’s limited upward mobility relative to other countries may also be a result of being at such a high level currently.
The gutting of funding of education is no excuse for the lack of results due to the poor accountability for union member teachers. Lousy teachers permeate the school systems across the US because it’s very difficult to fire them for poor performance. It has NOTHING to do with FUNDING levels.
I see SOME college graduates entering the workforce in places I’ve worked over the last decade, and I am amazed at their inability to spell words, use correct grammar, apply logic, understand world history, etc. Those are college graduates! And they’re carrying high levels of student loans for high tuition rates paid to their colleges.
November 6, 2017 at 7:46 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Defining tax rates as an issue of morality is gross, full stop.
That is exactly why we are here today: both sides want to spend a ton of money, only one side wants to pay for it with reality-based monetary sources.
Republicans say that raising taxes is immoral. I say corporate welfare and public neglect is immoral.
Look at the effective tax rates for the richest people in America and the wealthiest corporations. Most of them pay tax rates way, way below the average middle class worker,but somehow that level tax avoidance and loopholes isn’t immoral.
As the orange Cheeto says, “taking advantage of bankruptcy loopholes makes me smart” Apparently depriving his creditors of their owed money is smart and good business. Something we should all emulate, I am sure…
All hail the rich and their self-made millions and billions!
November 7, 2017 at 11:34 am
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
@DF: your opinion on public neglect is biased toward hyuuuge wealth transfers that cannot be justified through any common sense argument. It is immoral to vote oneself the right to take / steal the wealth of others.
Also, Trump making use of US TAX LAWS, including loopholes IS very smart. The money he saved via loopholes is NOT OWED to his creditors, according to LAWS. Thos TAX LAWS including loopholes were enacted by representatives of The People, not by liberal college professors and other Socialist / Communists seeking ILLEGAL and IMMORAL wealth transfers.
November 8, 2017 at 12:56 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Defining tax rates as an issue of morality is gross, full stop.”
After YOU said:
“And what of those who inherit their wealth and who have not worked a day in their life?”
So like Ron, you’re willing to use an item that goes against your beliefs, as long as you’re pointing out someone else’s hypocrisy. This is why I have told him, and now you, that your weakness is in trying to find hypocrisy or inconsistency in others rather than sticking to talking positions.
“That is exactly why we are here today: both sides want to spend a ton of money, only one side wants to pay for it with reality-based monetary sources. ”
Incorrect. Republicans want the economy to provide and to cut in tandem with income growth. The problem is they need the income growth to come before they can cut or they leave people up the creek without a paddle. So, temporary deficits in the form of lower taxes. Also, it is not unrealistic that we can get more women in the work force with either universal day care (first suggested by Nixon) or with child tax credits expanded to higher income earners so their wives return to work. The LPR for part time folks is made up 66% by women, and, I’ve said many times my wife does not work due to the cost of daycare outweighing her return to work. If she has 3 kids this removes her from the work force for easily 8 years. I have shown how this form of tax reductions would increase revenue, several times. I gave precise numbers how $5,000 of credits would cost about $35 billion a year, and revenues from payroll even if they paid zero in federal tax, and business taxes, would bring in far excess to replace it. The goal is to make people able to work. Women’s LPR rate is not lower simply just because. We can increase it. Democrats have until this election been stone cold against expanding it to higher earners, and even now, they still won’t go above $150,000, they phase out their version of a tax credit at $150,000 entirely. This is not acceptable. Also, if they did do a $3,000 credit as they are suggesting, people in the lower class already receive enough to get to work. We have already seen those numbers skyrocket. They do not need another $2,000 in the lower income range, plus the free healthcare, etc. They already receive at $40,000 with 2 kids more taxes than they pay in.
“Republicans say that raising taxes is immoral. I say corporate welfare and public neglect is immoral.”
Lowering corporate taxes is not immoral. When I say making moral arguments I meant for who to tax more. Not who to tax less. You are now contradicting yourself again. first it should never be done, but now, you’re certainly going to bring up it’s more moral on another grounds. Public neglect does not occur from taxing less by the way. The point of corporate taxes being lower is to benefit those in the corporation, and jobs. As I have said before, a corporate tax hits the entire corporation. I would be ok with even a 60% marginal rate, if you get the hell away from corporate taxes. This is because it is simply beyond a shadow of a doubt that corporate taxes hit the business and those in it, whereas marginal rates do not. If you want to tax income in excess of $1/m at 60% I will give it to you.
“Look at the effective tax rates for the richest people in America and the wealthiest corporations.”
It doesn’t matter. Look at the tax rate for the bottom, and the fact that we spend 40% of GDP in social services. We are far too high. You will never be able to tax the rich enough to make the poor able to live. Also, what do the poor not receive which they should? What opportunity are they not given? Just because you believe their rate should be higher doesn’t mean it should be. As for the effective tax rate: Yes. For those larger corporations who can take advantage of loopholes. Not for smaller ones. So lower rates is the way to go, not to say that some big guys don’t pay their fair share so let’s keep an unreasonably high rate. Also, saying corporations don’t pay a high enough rate is damaging as I said before. A corporation is made up of thousands to people for every CEO. You will hit them with the CEO if you don’t go after marginal. Quit the business war that harms people as well.
“Most of them pay tax rates way, way below the average middle class worker”
No, they do not.
“but somehow that level tax avoidance and loopholes isn’t immoral. ”
That’s correct, I thought you said moral arguments should never occur in taxation?
“As the orange Cheeto says,”
Bigot.
“taking advantage of bankruptcy loopholes makes me smart”
I does. Loopholes may not be fair, but the lower tax rate he paid is, for his corporation and employees.
“Apparently depriving his creditors of their owed money is smart and good business.”
Now you’re rambling, this has nothing to do with taxes, and again, you’re making a moral character argument on one guy to somehow justify your tax position. That’s dangerous and you’re doing it now. It also makes you a whiny brat…But…You don’t like hearing that.
“Something we should all emulate, I am sure…”
Even whinier brat…You’re not the hero.
“All hail the rich and their self-made millions and billions!”
Good god, even whinier brat.
Knock it off kid. More like all hail the lower class? That’s what the public at large does. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there is when you try to pretend the poor are screwed and we need to tax the rich more. We don’t, and they aren’t.
November 9, 2017 at 10:58 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, how is that Income Tax passed by the City Council in Seattle working out up there? Is that a popular plan with the folks? Progressives never saw a tax they didn’t like, right?
Ok, if you want to look at it that way, lets have the top 20 people pay 1/2 the budget in taxes, since they own as much as 1/2 the population. We can adjust it a little since it is largely in capital, but they should probably pay more since they largely inherited it or got wealthy due to their family.
“Ok, if you want to look at it that way, lets have the top 20 people pay 1/2 the budget in taxes, since they own as much as 1/2 the population.”
So taxes should be based on ownership…And ownership should only be deserved (government regulated deserved) or it should be taken away.
More ownership means more taxes…
I’m curious, what are taxes for?
Do you even know?
If your argument is someone should pay half the tax burden based on their level of income, (which is ludicrous) what do you believe about property ownership? Who owns their work? You are bordering on communist and wealth distribution beliefs, which are not ok.
Bob, Progressives have always wanted to tax and spend ad nauseum and are jealous of successful people so they think it is fine to take the wealth away from them and spend it on give a way programs that are wasteful and unnecessary.
November 12, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Ray Eier says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree, Wayne, with everything you said. Good, factual comments.
From what is printed in this story, it looks better for middle and lower class, and more tax on higher earners. Looks like KKK supporter is just blasting our great President TRUMP like other dems do.
Confused, talk to the hand, dude. Progressive Socialism with high taxes has failed miserably to the detriment of the American People. Our great President is seeking to change that to a system far more fair than the current 2,000 page Progressive tax code. You may even like it once it goes into force.
@Confused; instead of reading the cherry-picked tweet by Kamala Harris, WHO SINCE DELETED HER TWEET that contained your reference, why not discuss the ACTUAL PROPOSED INCREASE IN CONTEXT OF THE FACTS?
Here are the facts and a few assumptions to demonstrate the desperation of Kamala Harris to find fault in the GOP tax overhaul plan:
1. “income earners up to $86,100” is an incorrect categorization because there are lower tax brackets; e.g. very low wage earners aren’t taxed. So, the LOW end of the bracket is not posted in the tweet, which is deceptive/ a lie intended to emotionally stimulate ALL low wage earners.
2. the increase displayed, which I did not verify or calculate directly with any specific source linked to the actual document, is +$794. Let’s assume the bracket goes down to $46k, below which I am not concerned because the taxation is lower. So, allegedly, 8 million wage earners will earn between $46k and $86,100. But we don’t know if the
8 million wage earners fall INSIDE the bracket between those two numbers. Perhaps it includes wage earners below $46k?
Regardless, the average wage in the 46k to 86k bracket is about 66k. So, the +794 increase is a 1.2% increase in those individuals tax bracket rate. However, it does not represent a +1.2% increase in their overall tax rate BECAUSE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DOUBLED in the proposal. IF the standard deduction is more than $794 (it is), then the net rate cannot be said to have increased. Someone without bias would check the other details (that can allegedly be fit onto a post-card sized tax return) to determine if any income bracket group will be impacted with an increase in taxes.
3. Assume the +$794 truly applies to 8 million wage earners, earning between $0 and $86,100. Assume there is a skewed distribution of incomes in that hyuuuuge set of brackets that indicates the midpoint of $43k is higher than the real average of, say, $36k. Then, +$794 represents a +2.2% tax rate increase BEFORE CONSIDERATION OF THE DOUBLED STD DEDUCTION.
So, now that we’ve discussed those dastardly details, do you have a guess as to why Kamala Harris deleted her tweet, and how it will adversely impact her POTUS campaign for 2020?
@Confused: can you do a simple calculation? Determine the tax rate DECREASE for each of the 4 replacement tax brackets of the DOUBLING of the Std Deduction? For simplicity, assume the midpoint of the tax brackets is the average wage for that bracket, and use $3M for the highest tax bracket average income.
Thanks in advance, in anticipation of your cooperation in regard to this important educational opportunity.
Deep inside this tax plan lies a 49% tax rate for a portion of incomes over 1 million. So that actually is a tax hike…..That should make Libs VERY HAPPY!
considering, guess who is responsible for the Progressive Tax Code that has held business and individuals back for many, many years. Their desire was to make everyone equally lower class.
@TX Agent; that is partially correct. The 49% applies to a band of income as a means of achieving an overall rate of 39.6%. Read the details, which are highly condensed as follows; lower levels of income is taxed at lower rates; e.g. 15%, 25%, 35%, and so very high income earners will pay a 49% rate at specified bands of income so as to yield a 39.6% rate OVERALL on their income. The Fake News Media and SOME liberal websites are mis-representing this facet of the new tax law proposal.
Good for IJ. Polar, on previous blogs, you were down voted to obscurity in a few short hours. Those Progressives really don’t like hearing the truth much, do they.
Still a 10 – 14% flat tax rate for all would help eliminate the deficit and is more fair for all taxpayers. Nobody is mentioning the single individuals in the lower to middle class ($15,000 – 80 to 90,000 bracket and what would be paid by them.
Kut Kut Kut plan – I tell you who it’s going to KKKut – middle class and lower income individuals. Bleed ’em dead, right GOP?
What a bizarre comment. Clearly made with nothing but sound bytes and talking points in mind apart from any actual facts.
Some recent data:
Taxpayers with incomes below $30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax.
The top 5% of wage earners pay 59.58% of all taxes in this country.
Letting all people keep more of their own money (their personal property) is called freedom. You seem to have a problem with that. There should not be a segment of society that gets paid not to work or that have no skin in the game by avoiding all taxation.
One man’s ‘freedom’ is another man’s “not paying their fair share”, Wayne. And, if I’m interpreting your last sentence correctly, you support closing the loopholes that allow the very wealthiest Americans to skirt their responsibilities to the rest of society. I salute you, Comrade!
@Scroogzilla: define ‘not paying their fair share’. Now, explain who determines that definition, precisely, without diverting off topic. Ready, steady, …. GO!
Fair share?
To me it is simple, fare share means equal, that would be the same percentage of income for all people. By having the first $24000. exemp it begins to account for the necessities of life. But why increase the rate for higher earners? Should a wealthy person, who got there by hard work, be penalized because of that hard work? Increasing the rates is not fair, it socialized!
And what of those who inherit their wealth and who have not worked a day in their life?
Americans always want to romanticize the “self-made man” but:
A) http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/
America has far less upward-mobility than many western countries, including socialized economies. This is due to myriad reasons, but just a few are the gutting of education funding, gutting of infrastructure spending, gutting of social services, and so on.
This is the definition of the “F you, I’ve got mine!” mentality that permeates society today. If you want to look back a few thousand years, you could just as easily say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
B) The notion of a self-made man is also a little silly in this day in age because of what it takes to “make it” anywhere. Everyone who is anything got to where they were by standing on the shoulders of giants. Yes, there are those who work harder, stay up later, think more outside of the box, and so on, but if they think they did so without using the infrastructure of those who came before them, they are fooling themselves. Those that succeed have the highest social responsibility to pay it forward so that future generations will have the infrastructure to similarly lead the future global economy.
“And what of those who inherit their wealth and who have not worked a day in their life?”
So now we determine who should be able to inherit their parent’s money based on whether or not they deserve it?
The public at large does not get a claim to that money more than an heir, what you just said is immoral justification of stealing basically, and, it’s dangerous. Then people will start to say who didn’t earn their wealth, and use it to justify increasing taxes on those people, ergo morality based taxes. That’s not ok.
Don’t come back to me saying other forms you perceive are morality based tax differences, such as child tax credits. Allowing one to keep their money is quite different than making a moral argument for taking more of someone’s money.
@Doug; America’s limited upward mobility relative to other countries may also be a result of being at such a high level currently.
The gutting of funding of education is no excuse for the lack of results due to the poor accountability for union member teachers. Lousy teachers permeate the school systems across the US because it’s very difficult to fire them for poor performance. It has NOTHING to do with FUNDING levels.
I see SOME college graduates entering the workforce in places I’ve worked over the last decade, and I am amazed at their inability to spell words, use correct grammar, apply logic, understand world history, etc. Those are college graduates! And they’re carrying high levels of student loans for high tuition rates paid to their colleges.
Defining tax rates as an issue of morality is gross, full stop.
That is exactly why we are here today: both sides want to spend a ton of money, only one side wants to pay for it with reality-based monetary sources.
Republicans say that raising taxes is immoral. I say corporate welfare and public neglect is immoral.
Look at the effective tax rates for the richest people in America and the wealthiest corporations. Most of them pay tax rates way, way below the average middle class worker,but somehow that level tax avoidance and loopholes isn’t immoral.
As the orange Cheeto says, “taking advantage of bankruptcy loopholes makes me smart” Apparently depriving his creditors of their owed money is smart and good business. Something we should all emulate, I am sure…
All hail the rich and their self-made millions and billions!
@DF: your opinion on public neglect is biased toward hyuuuge wealth transfers that cannot be justified through any common sense argument. It is immoral to vote oneself the right to take / steal the wealth of others.
Also, Trump making use of US TAX LAWS, including loopholes IS very smart. The money he saved via loopholes is NOT OWED to his creditors, according to LAWS. Thos TAX LAWS including loopholes were enacted by representatives of The People, not by liberal college professors and other Socialist / Communists seeking ILLEGAL and IMMORAL wealth transfers.
“Defining tax rates as an issue of morality is gross, full stop.”
After YOU said:
“And what of those who inherit their wealth and who have not worked a day in their life?”
So like Ron, you’re willing to use an item that goes against your beliefs, as long as you’re pointing out someone else’s hypocrisy. This is why I have told him, and now you, that your weakness is in trying to find hypocrisy or inconsistency in others rather than sticking to talking positions.
“That is exactly why we are here today: both sides want to spend a ton of money, only one side wants to pay for it with reality-based monetary sources. ”
Incorrect. Republicans want the economy to provide and to cut in tandem with income growth. The problem is they need the income growth to come before they can cut or they leave people up the creek without a paddle. So, temporary deficits in the form of lower taxes. Also, it is not unrealistic that we can get more women in the work force with either universal day care (first suggested by Nixon) or with child tax credits expanded to higher income earners so their wives return to work. The LPR for part time folks is made up 66% by women, and, I’ve said many times my wife does not work due to the cost of daycare outweighing her return to work. If she has 3 kids this removes her from the work force for easily 8 years. I have shown how this form of tax reductions would increase revenue, several times. I gave precise numbers how $5,000 of credits would cost about $35 billion a year, and revenues from payroll even if they paid zero in federal tax, and business taxes, would bring in far excess to replace it. The goal is to make people able to work. Women’s LPR rate is not lower simply just because. We can increase it. Democrats have until this election been stone cold against expanding it to higher earners, and even now, they still won’t go above $150,000, they phase out their version of a tax credit at $150,000 entirely. This is not acceptable. Also, if they did do a $3,000 credit as they are suggesting, people in the lower class already receive enough to get to work. We have already seen those numbers skyrocket. They do not need another $2,000 in the lower income range, plus the free healthcare, etc. They already receive at $40,000 with 2 kids more taxes than they pay in.
“Republicans say that raising taxes is immoral. I say corporate welfare and public neglect is immoral.”
Lowering corporate taxes is not immoral. When I say making moral arguments I meant for who to tax more. Not who to tax less. You are now contradicting yourself again. first it should never be done, but now, you’re certainly going to bring up it’s more moral on another grounds. Public neglect does not occur from taxing less by the way. The point of corporate taxes being lower is to benefit those in the corporation, and jobs. As I have said before, a corporate tax hits the entire corporation. I would be ok with even a 60% marginal rate, if you get the hell away from corporate taxes. This is because it is simply beyond a shadow of a doubt that corporate taxes hit the business and those in it, whereas marginal rates do not. If you want to tax income in excess of $1/m at 60% I will give it to you.
“Look at the effective tax rates for the richest people in America and the wealthiest corporations.”
It doesn’t matter. Look at the tax rate for the bottom, and the fact that we spend 40% of GDP in social services. We are far too high. You will never be able to tax the rich enough to make the poor able to live. Also, what do the poor not receive which they should? What opportunity are they not given? Just because you believe their rate should be higher doesn’t mean it should be. As for the effective tax rate: Yes. For those larger corporations who can take advantage of loopholes. Not for smaller ones. So lower rates is the way to go, not to say that some big guys don’t pay their fair share so let’s keep an unreasonably high rate. Also, saying corporations don’t pay a high enough rate is damaging as I said before. A corporation is made up of thousands to people for every CEO. You will hit them with the CEO if you don’t go after marginal. Quit the business war that harms people as well.
“Most of them pay tax rates way, way below the average middle class worker”
No, they do not.
“but somehow that level tax avoidance and loopholes isn’t immoral. ”
That’s correct, I thought you said moral arguments should never occur in taxation?
“As the orange Cheeto says,”
Bigot.
“taking advantage of bankruptcy loopholes makes me smart”
I does. Loopholes may not be fair, but the lower tax rate he paid is, for his corporation and employees.
“Apparently depriving his creditors of their owed money is smart and good business.”
Now you’re rambling, this has nothing to do with taxes, and again, you’re making a moral character argument on one guy to somehow justify your tax position. That’s dangerous and you’re doing it now. It also makes you a whiny brat…But…You don’t like hearing that.
“Something we should all emulate, I am sure…”
Even whinier brat…You’re not the hero.
“All hail the rich and their self-made millions and billions!”
Good god, even whinier brat.
Knock it off kid. More like all hail the lower class? That’s what the public at large does. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there is when you try to pretend the poor are screwed and we need to tax the rich more. We don’t, and they aren’t.
Bob, how is that Income Tax passed by the City Council in Seattle working out up there? Is that a popular plan with the folks? Progressives never saw a tax they didn’t like, right?
Probably terrible.
These guys never quit.
Ok, if you want to look at it that way, lets have the top 20 people pay 1/2 the budget in taxes, since they own as much as 1/2 the population. We can adjust it a little since it is largely in capital, but they should probably pay more since they largely inherited it or got wealthy due to their family.
“Ok, if you want to look at it that way, lets have the top 20 people pay 1/2 the budget in taxes, since they own as much as 1/2 the population.”
So taxes should be based on ownership…And ownership should only be deserved (government regulated deserved) or it should be taken away.
More ownership means more taxes…
I’m curious, what are taxes for?
Do you even know?
If your argument is someone should pay half the tax burden based on their level of income, (which is ludicrous) what do you believe about property ownership? Who owns their work? You are bordering on communist and wealth distribution beliefs, which are not ok.
Bob, Progressives have always wanted to tax and spend ad nauseum and are jealous of successful people so they think it is fine to take the wealth away from them and spend it on give a way programs that are wasteful and unnecessary.
I agree, Wayne, with everything you said. Good, factual comments.
From what is printed in this story, it looks better for middle and lower class, and more tax on higher earners. Looks like KKK supporter is just blasting our great President TRUMP like other dems do.
Your lying does not make it so. Your inability to understand basic confirms my belief that all liberals failed at it.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/washington-post-gives-senate-dems-four-pinocchios-gop-tax-plan-raises-taxes-middle-class/
Four Pinocchios and one to you.
Quote: Families making less than $86,100 on average will face a hefty tax hike
Truth: Some households (**8 million**) making under $86,100 will receive an increase based
Yes. The quote was a lie. It’s not ALL families making less than $86k, it’s ***ONLY*** 8 MILLION families.
Confused, talk to the hand, dude. Progressive Socialism with high taxes has failed miserably to the detriment of the American People. Our great President is seeking to change that to a system far more fair than the current 2,000 page Progressive tax code. You may even like it once it goes into force.
@Confused; instead of reading the cherry-picked tweet by Kamala Harris, WHO SINCE DELETED HER TWEET that contained your reference, why not discuss the ACTUAL PROPOSED INCREASE IN CONTEXT OF THE FACTS?
Here are the facts and a few assumptions to demonstrate the desperation of Kamala Harris to find fault in the GOP tax overhaul plan:
1. “income earners up to $86,100” is an incorrect categorization because there are lower tax brackets; e.g. very low wage earners aren’t taxed. So, the LOW end of the bracket is not posted in the tweet, which is deceptive/ a lie intended to emotionally stimulate ALL low wage earners.
2. the increase displayed, which I did not verify or calculate directly with any specific source linked to the actual document, is +$794. Let’s assume the bracket goes down to $46k, below which I am not concerned because the taxation is lower. So, allegedly, 8 million wage earners will earn between $46k and $86,100. But we don’t know if the
8 million wage earners fall INSIDE the bracket between those two numbers. Perhaps it includes wage earners below $46k?
Regardless, the average wage in the 46k to 86k bracket is about 66k. So, the +794 increase is a 1.2% increase in those individuals tax bracket rate. However, it does not represent a +1.2% increase in their overall tax rate BECAUSE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DOUBLED in the proposal. IF the standard deduction is more than $794 (it is), then the net rate cannot be said to have increased. Someone without bias would check the other details (that can allegedly be fit onto a post-card sized tax return) to determine if any income bracket group will be impacted with an increase in taxes.
3. Assume the +$794 truly applies to 8 million wage earners, earning between $0 and $86,100. Assume there is a skewed distribution of incomes in that hyuuuuge set of brackets that indicates the midpoint of $43k is higher than the real average of, say, $36k. Then, +$794 represents a +2.2% tax rate increase BEFORE CONSIDERATION OF THE DOUBLED STD DEDUCTION.
So, now that we’ve discussed those dastardly details, do you have a guess as to why Kamala Harris deleted her tweet, and how it will adversely impact her POTUS campaign for 2020?
@Confused: can you do a simple calculation? Determine the tax rate DECREASE for each of the 4 replacement tax brackets of the DOUBLING of the Std Deduction? For simplicity, assume the midpoint of the tax brackets is the average wage for that bracket, and use $3M for the highest tax bracket average income.
Thanks in advance, in anticipation of your cooperation in regard to this important educational opportunity.
correction: ‘average taxable income before std deduction’ should replace ‘average wage’ in my post above. bear culpa.
Please explain how your post contributes to adult level discussion of the topic.
My post above is directed at Capt Platitude.
Apologies for any confusion. Bear culpa.
I shudder at what they’ll be doing on the 1st anniversary of 11/8/16, two days from today.
I myself am lower middle class and I am thrilled with what is being proposed
Deep inside this tax plan lies a 49% tax rate for a portion of incomes over 1 million. So that actually is a tax hike…..That should make Libs VERY HAPPY!
“middle class” starts at a family income of $100,000 so my husband and I who have worked a total of 75 years combined are “upper lower class.”
considering, guess who is responsible for the Progressive Tax Code that has held business and individuals back for many, many years. Their desire was to make everyone equally lower class.
@TX Agent; that is partially correct. The 49% applies to a band of income as a means of achieving an overall rate of 39.6%. Read the details, which are highly condensed as follows; lower levels of income is taxed at lower rates; e.g. 15%, 25%, 35%, and so very high income earners will pay a 49% rate at specified bands of income so as to yield a 39.6% rate OVERALL on their income. The Fake News Media and SOME liberal websites are mis-representing this facet of the new tax law proposal.
In my defense, I was an equal-opportunity downvoter and NEVER a BOT user. I am, however, still waiting for my Soros check.
Best of luck to you, Polar. I shall continue to be amused by your witty discussions.
Good for IJ. Polar, on previous blogs, you were down voted to obscurity in a few short hours. Those Progressives really don’t like hearing the truth much, do they.
Still a 10 – 14% flat tax rate for all would help eliminate the deficit and is more fair for all taxpayers. Nobody is mentioning the single individuals in the lower to middle class ($15,000 – 80 to 90,000 bracket and what would be paid by them.