2017 Trump Tax Cuts did not go to the wealthiest 1%

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social security contributions stop at a certain level of income. Nobody ever explained why.

Benefits are also capped.

That makes up for it...riiight

If you double the tax on a rich guy and double his benefit, you're in the same hole. DURR

Its not doubling the tax.

If you make more than $140,000 or so, you stop paying SS taxes at a certain point.
If you make less than $140,000 or so, you continue paying SS taxes all year.

That's not doubling any tax....that is leveling the playing field. I pay it out of every paycheck. So should they.

The approach you're taking is not sound. If I were to die I the next minute, all that I paid in would be lost.... Nobody in my estate would get the hundreds of thousands I have contributed (if it is that much--I never calculated it).

Its not doubling the tax.

I said "IF" you double the tax.

If you double the cap, from $142,800 to $285,600, is someone who pays the max going to get double the benefit he earned before?

That's not doubling any tax....that is leveling the playing field.

Only if the benefit also increases.

The approach you're taking is not sound.

Which approach was I taking?

If I were to die I the next minute, all that I paid in would be lost....

Yup. Social Security taxes really screw blacks. Lower life expectancies.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Its not the tax rates, its the loopholes. Trump didn't pay anything, neither did many of the wealthiest.
Remember when Leona Helmsley let the cat out of the bag? "Only little people pay taxes"
The top tax rates did better over the past decades than the rest of us.
View attachment 497020

Top earners carry this nation...they always have and they always will.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released data on individual income taxes for tax year 2017, showing the number of taxpayers, adjusted gross income, and income tax shares by income percentiles.[1]

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.[2]

• In 2017, 143.3 million taxpayers reported earning $10.9 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.6 trillion in individual income taxes.
• The share of reported income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 21 percent, from 19.7 percent in 2016. Their share of federal individual income taxes rose to 38.5 percent, from to 37.3 percent in 2016.
• In 2017, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.
• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.9 percent).
• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.8 percent average individual income tax rate, which is more than six times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (4.0 percent).

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2020 Update

The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay a 26.8 percent average individual income tax rate, which is more than six times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (4.0 percent).

taxfoundation.org

 

[task0778]

The us is clearly divided by class.

The US is divided by a lot of things, and income/wealth is only one of them and IMHO not even one of the major ones. Assuming that is what you are referring to. That inequality has existed for many thousands of years, it ain't nothing new. And it wouldn't be that big of a deal if the democrats didn't harp on it all the time for political purposes.

 

[colfax_m]

Hell of a lot closer to a wealth tax than an income tax. There’s income and there’s assets. Property tax is a tax on assets.

Who said a property tax was close to an income tax?

I just showed you, two cases, same house, same tax, with wildly different wealth numbers.
That's because it's not a wealth tax.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs. The differences are not substantial.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

In a speech last week introducing his proposed $6 trillion 2022 budget, President Biden claimed that the benefits of the Republican Party’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “went to the wealthiest 1% of America.” It’s not the first time he’s made this claim, but it is a LIE.

Let’s start with that supposedly “huge windfall” that went to the “wealthiest 1%” of America. While the TCJA reduced effective income tax rates for all income groups in 2018, the top 1% experienced no windfall. Rather, according to the most recent IRS income tax data, the top 1% of taxpayers paid $616 billion in 2018, roughly the same amount they paid in 2017. But the bottom 99% paid $65 billion less. Some “windfall.” If the TCJA was a tax cut for the rich, it was the weirdest one in the history of tax cuts for the rich.

SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares | Internal Revenue Service

Access data, articles and tables on individual income tax rates and tax shares.

www.irs.gov

But did those evil 1-percenters pay their fair share? Turns out they did – and certainly a larger share than when tax rates were last at Biden’s proposed 39.6%.

In 2018, while the top 1%’s share of adjusted gross income declined slightly to 20.9% (from 21.0% in 2017), its share of the income tax burden increased to 40.1% from 38.5%. “Fair” is in the eye of the beholder, but consider: The top 1%’s share of taxes paid nearly doubles its share of income. For more “fair share” perspective, consider that in 2018, the top 1% paid more in income taxes than the bottom 90% of taxpayers – combined.

Biden also might be surprised to learn that the top 1% actually paid a higher percentage of income taxes in 2018 under the TCJA than in any year since at least 2001 – when it paid 33.2%. That includes each of the five years from 2013 to 2017 following the Obama tax hikes, when the top rate last stood at 39.6% – the rate Biden is currently proposing.

Biden and the 1 Percent | RealClearPolitics

In a speech last week introducing his proposed $6 trillion 2022 budget, President Biden claimed that the benefits of the Republican Partys Tax Cuts and Jobs...

www.realclearpolitics.com

So, how did that happen? Glad you asked:

.... the TCJA increased taxable income for wealthier Americans by reducing the itemized deductions they could claim. High earners generally benefit more from itemizing deductions. Lower earners generally benefit more from the standard deduction. The TCJA increased the standard deduction and limited itemized deductions.

According to IRS data, following the TCJA, the amount taxpayers claimed for itemized deductions dropped by 55%, from about $1.46 trillion in 2017 to about $650 billion in 2018. That’s over $800 billion that was taxed in 2018 but not in 2017, most of which came from the rich people. (see link above)

Hello SALT deduction, which was a big part of that. Funny how the Dems want to raise taxes on the rich but not THEIR rich, the ones that live in their blue states.

So, when somebody says the Trump tax cuts benefited the rich, you know they are either misinformed or outright lying. Probably they've been watching CNN or MSNBC a little too much.

Yep,Trump did not pull a Reagan,

 

[candycorn]

Social security contributions stop at a certain level of income. Nobody ever explained why.

Benefits are also capped.

That makes up for it...riiight

If you double the tax on a rich guy and double his benefit, you're in the same hole. DURR

Its not doubling the tax.

If you make more than $140,000 or so, you stop paying SS taxes at a certain point.
If you make less than $140,000 or so, you continue paying SS taxes all year.

That's not doubling any tax....that is leveling the playing field. I pay it out of every paycheck. So should they.

The approach you're taking is not sound. If I were to die I the next minute, all that I paid in would be lost.... Nobody in my estate would get the hundreds of thousands I have contributed (if it is that much--I never calculated it).

Its not doubling the tax.

I said "IF" you double the tax.

If you double the cap, from $142,800 to $285,600, is someone who pays the max going to get double the benefit he earned before?

That's not doubling any tax....that is leveling the playing field.

Only if the benefit also increases.

The approach you're taking is not sound.

Which approach was I taking?

If I were to die I the next minute, all that I paid in would be lost....

Yup. Social Security taxes really screw blacks. Lower life expectancies.

The approach that the mega rich are going to be, in any way, dependent on the SS income.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hell of a lot closer to a wealth tax than an income tax. There’s income and there’s assets. Property tax is a tax on assets.

Who said a property tax was close to an income tax?

I just showed you, two cases, same house, same tax, with wildly different wealth numbers.
That's because it's not a wealth tax.

I feel like you’re splitting hairs. The differences are not substantial.

The differences are not substantial.

One guy net worth $0, the other guy net worth $1,000,000. Both have a $50,000 property tax bill.

That's a million dollar hair. LOL!

How much would be substantial?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Social security contributions stop at a certain level of income. Nobody ever explained why.

Benefits are also capped.

That makes up for it...riiight

If you double the tax on a rich guy and double his benefit, you're in the same hole. DURR

Its not doubling the tax.

If you make more than $140,000 or so, you stop paying SS taxes at a certain point.
If you make less than $140,000 or so, you continue paying SS taxes all year.

That's not doubling any tax....that is leveling the playing field. I pay it out of every paycheck. So should they.

The approach you're taking is not sound. If I were to die I the next minute, all that I paid in would be lost.... Nobody in my estate would get the hundreds of thousands I have contributed (if it is that much--I never calculated it).

Its not doubling the tax.

I said "IF" you double the tax.

If you double the cap, from $142,800 to $285,600, is someone who pays the max going to get double the benefit he earned before?

That's not doubling any tax....that is leveling the playing field.

Only if the benefit also increases.

The approach you're taking is not sound.

Which approach was I taking?

If I were to die I the next minute, all that I paid in would be lost....

Yup. Social Security taxes really screw blacks. Lower life expectancies.

The approach that the mega rich are going to be, in any way, dependent on the SS income.

Where did I claim they'd be dependent on SS? Post #?

 

[Winston]

Trump's tax cut was across the board every income tax payer under $500,000 per year got one...and undoing it will raise everyone's taxes....

With being almost 30 trillion in debt would be the thing to do.

That's right...because when you lower taxes and cut regulation it spurs on growth...businesses earn more people earn more and the treasury receives more revenue...its simple really...I know they don't cover this in our broken school system so I'll give you a pass....

I'll call that cutting taxes to spur growth "Bullshit 101"
Trump's tax cuts assumed a 5% GDP growth, and the GDP growth was always about 1.8%
What does grow when they cut taxes is the Debt. Either a war or a pandemic will happen that busts the bubble and grows the Debt.

We're getting close to the point when the Fed raises rates, the interest on the Debt will start hurting their spending plans.

More money to the treasury is what will solve the debt crisis not clamping down on business and industry...that will never work and you get more money into the treasury by having more people contribute via income tax....its really simple stuff....

No one is "clamping down" on anything.

If you owned a coal business or a pipeline business you would not be saying that....when taxes go up I can't invest like I would like in new machinery and people...that's a clamp down in my book...your problem is you have never ran a business or made a payroll....and neither has the finger rapist Joe...lifetime public hack...

Why can't you invest when taxes go up? You don't pay taxes on money you put back in the business, so what difference does the tax rate make when it comes to making an investment?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why can't you invest when taxes go up? You don't pay taxes on money you put back in the business, so what difference does the tax rate make when it comes to making an investment?

Use WACC.......show that it makes no difference.

 

[candycorn]

Social security contributions stop at a certain level of income. Nobody ever explained why.

Benefits are also capped.

That makes up for it...riiight

If you double the tax on a rich guy and double his benefit, you're in the same hole. DURR

Its not doubling the tax.

If you make more than $140,000 or so, you stop paying SS taxes at a certain point.
If you make less than $140,000 or so, you continue paying SS taxes all year.

That's not doubling any tax....that is leveling the playing field. I pay it out of every paycheck. So should they.

The approach you're taking is not sound. If I were to die I the next minute, all that I paid in would be lost.... Nobody in my estate would get the hundreds of thousands I have contributed (if it is that much--I never calculated it).

Its not doubling the tax.

I said "IF" you double the tax.

If you double the cap, from $142,800 to $285,600, is someone who pays the max going to get double the benefit he earned before?

That's not doubling any tax....that is leveling the playing field.

Only if the benefit also increases.

The approach you're taking is not sound.

Which approach was I taking?

If I were to die I the next minute, all that I paid in would be lost....

Yup. Social Security taxes really screw blacks. Lower life expectancies.

The approach that the mega rich are going to be, in any way, dependent on the SS income.

Where did I claim they'd be dependent on SS? Post #?

You didn't.

You're wanting the benefit to double if they lived under the same rules as the 98% or whatever it is that pays every week. It doesn't work that way when it comes to taxes.

Should income tax not be taxed above a certain level? You don't get more votes on Election Day....you don't get preferred protection by the Air Force.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're wanting the benefit to double if they lived under the same rules as the 98% or whatever it is that pays every week. It doesn't work that way when it comes to taxes.

You don't want someone who pays twice the SS tax to get twice the benefit?

 

[candycorn]

You're wanting the benefit to double if they lived under the same rules as the 98% or whatever it is that pays every week. It doesn't work that way when it comes to taxes.

You don't want someone who pays twice the SS tax to get twice the benefit?

huh?

Nobody is paying twice the SS Tax. Most people get taxed very paycheck. There shouldn't be a cut off to where you don't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody is paying twice the SS Tax.

Is the guy who makes $50,000 paying twice what the guy who makes $25,000 is paying?

Should the first guy get twice the benefit?

 

[Winston]

Trump's tax cut was across the board every income tax payer under $500,000 per year got one...and undoing it will raise everyone's taxes....

With being almost 30 trillion in debt would be the thing to do.

You do understand taxes can be cut and the resulting economic activity can and has generated more tax revenue for the federal government ? Would you like to see the numbers after Kennedy cut taxes?

Yes, it worked with Kennedy, because marginal tax rates for those in the highest income classes were close to 90%. But it does not always work. It did not work with Reagan, nor Bush, nor Trump. It will not work when marginal tax rates are less than fifty percent, probably not work when they are less than sixty percent. The whole concept of cutting taxes to increase revenue is based on the Laffer curve, and the key word there is curve. Tax cuts result in more revenue at the high end of the curve, less revenue at the low end of the curve.

 

[Winston]

Why can't you invest when taxes go up? You don't pay taxes on money you put back in the business, so what difference does the tax rate make when it comes to making an investment?

Use WACC.......show that it makes no difference.

The WACC is irrelevant in this case. You don't pay taxes on money you reinvest in the business. So why should the tax rate make a difference?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why can't you invest when taxes go up? You don't pay taxes on money you put back in the business, so what difference does the tax rate make when it comes to making an investment?

Use WACC.......show that it makes no difference.

The WACC is irrelevant in this case. You don't pay taxes on money you reinvest in the business. So why should the tax rate make a difference?

You still haven't figured out your WACC confusion, have you?

 

[Winston]

Why can't you invest when taxes go up? You don't pay taxes on money you put back in the business, so what difference does the tax rate make when it comes to making an investment?

Use WACC.......show that it makes no difference.

The WACC is irrelevant in this case. You don't pay taxes on money you reinvest in the business. So why should the tax rate make a difference?

You still haven't figured out your WACC confusion, have you?

I am not confused,

The rate of corporate tax that companies pay in the U.S. plays a major part in determining WACC because as tax rates go up, the WACC falls.

How Does the Corporate Tax Rate Affect WACC? | Bizfluent

A company’s weighted average cost of capital, commonly abbreviated as WACC, is part of the calculation of a required return necessary to make a capital-budgeting project worth undertaking. Corporate taxes impact the WACC calculation because of many factors, including deductions and the tax rate.

yourbusiness.azcentral.com

 

[Dragonlady]

In a speech last week introducing his proposed $6 trillion 2022 budget, President Biden claimed that the benefits of the Republican Party’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “went to the wealthiest 1% of America.” It’s not the first time he’s made this claim, but it is a LIE.

Let’s start with that supposedly “huge windfall” that went to the “wealthiest 1%” of America. While the TCJA reduced effective income tax rates for all income groups in 2018, the top 1% experienced no windfall. Rather, according to the most recent IRS income tax data, the top 1% of taxpayers paid $616 billion in 2018, roughly the same amount they paid in 2017. But the bottom 99% paid $65 billion less. Some “windfall.” If the TCJA was a tax cut for the rich, it was the weirdest one in the history of tax cuts for the rich.

SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares | Internal Revenue Service

Access data, articles and tables on individual income tax rates and tax shares.

www.irs.gov

But did those evil 1-percenters pay their fair share? Turns out they did – and certainly a larger share than when tax rates were last at Biden’s proposed 39.6%.

In 2018, while the top 1%’s share of adjusted gross income declined slightly to 20.9% (from 21.0% in 2017), its share of the income tax burden increased to 40.1% from 38.5%. “Fair” is in the eye of the beholder, but consider: The top 1%’s share of taxes paid nearly doubles its share of income. For more “fair share” perspective, consider that in 2018, the top 1% paid more in income taxes than the bottom 90% of taxpayers – combined.

Biden also might be surprised to learn that the top 1% actually paid a higher percentage of income taxes in 2018 under the TCJA than in any year since at least 2001 – when it paid 33.2%. That includes each of the five years from 2013 to 2017 following the Obama tax hikes, when the top rate last stood at 39.6% – the rate Biden is currently proposing.

Biden and the 1 Percent | RealClearPolitics

In a speech last week introducing his proposed $6 trillion 2022 budget, President Biden claimed that the benefits of the Republican Partys Tax Cuts and Jobs...

www.realclearpolitics.com

So, how did that happen? Glad you asked:

.... the TCJA increased taxable income for wealthier Americans by reducing the itemized deductions they could claim. High earners generally benefit more from itemizing deductions. Lower earners generally benefit more from the standard deduction. The TCJA increased the standard deduction and limited itemized deductions.

According to IRS data, following the TCJA, the amount taxpayers claimed for itemized deductions dropped by 55%, from about $1.46 trillion in 2017 to about $650 billion in 2018. That’s over $800 billion that was taxed in 2018 but not in 2017, most of which came from the rich people. (see link above)

Hello SALT deduction, which was a big part of that. Funny how the Dems want to raise taxes on the rich but not THEIR rich, the ones that live in their blue states.

So, when somebody says the Trump tax cuts benefited the rich, you know they are either misinformed or outright lying. Probably they've been watching CNN or MSNBC a little too much.

Nice one, but the tax revenues for 2018 contained billions of dollars in one-time payments from multi-national corporations returning overseas profits to the USA and paying 10% tax on the repatriated funds. You'd be better to compare 2019 to 2017 and see what happened there.

But nice try Skippy.!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why can't you invest when taxes go up? You don't pay taxes on money you put back in the business, so what difference does the tax rate make when it comes to making an investment?

Use WACC.......show that it makes no difference.

The WACC is irrelevant in this case. You don't pay taxes on money you reinvest in the business. So why should the tax rate make a difference?

You still haven't figured out your WACC confusion, have you?

I am not confused,

The rate of corporate tax that companies pay in the U.S. plays a major part in determining WACC because as tax rates go up, the WACC falls.

How Does the Corporate Tax Rate Affect WACC? | Bizfluent

A company’s weighted average cost of capital, commonly abbreviated as WACC, is part of the calculation of a required return necessary to make a capital-budgeting project worth undertaking. Corporate taxes impact the WACC calculation because of many factors, including deductions and the tax rate.

yourbusiness.azcentral.com

Cool. So prove your claim that someone is more likely to invest at a 35% corporate rate than at a 21% corporate rate. Assume a pre-tax profit of $1 million.......