Biden will raise taxes by 4.3 Trillion, Trump will cut by 1.7 Tr.

[Paul Motter]

The difference between now and the 1950's and 1960's is that back then, our tax code punished rent seeking and encouraged investment. Today, our tax code encourages rent-seeking and discourages investment. Come on, unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, WTF. How does that make sense. Go out and EARN money, pay a higher tax rate than RENT SEEKING. Look, this is really simple, in regards to the corporate tax rate. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. A lower tax rate means capital is MORE EXPENSIVE. That means companies will sit on cash instead of take the risk of a capital investment. Look around, corporations have tons of cash and are investing very little. That is because the "risk" premium is too high. It would be lower if tax rates were higher. And don't get me started on stock buybacks. Until 1981 they were ILLEGAL, seen as stock price manipulation. If we can point to one thing that started this economic stagnation, the legalization of corporate stock buybacks would be the primary suspect and a lower corporate tax rate would be a close second.

You do make interesting points. How do you feel about Corporate taxes? In truth the laws appear to be designed so a C-corporation is supposed to come out at break-even - no loss or income, after all the profits and expenses are calculated including salaries. So, raising corporate taxes would increase investment as you say, but would it increase tax revenue? Not unless one of their "investments" was in higher salaries where the earners pay more personal income taxes.

But when it comes to "unearned income" like stock dividends or sales, most of those investments are made with money that has already been taxed (if we are talking about individuals). It is a little like taxing estates - that is money that is left over after taxes were already paid.

 

[Paul Motter]

You can stop tapdancing now. You know, like everyone in here does, who Rumps Buddies are.

Then name one

I can name a bunch. Call them Wall Street. Pick one, any one. How about his buddy, the Post Master General for one. Rump owes him.

And where is Hunter?

 

[Flash]

I've been in the financial industry for over 20 years,

...and you are still a dumbass.

Increased taxes and more welfare doesn't make an economy more prosperous. Left Economics always fail. Go look it up. I shit you not.

Maybe you should remind him about the trillions Barry had printed to prop up his shitty economy. He thinks I'm lying or I'm ignorant. LOL

His shitty economy.

Another example of my point, thanks.

You are confused Moon Bat.

That dumbass Muslim Negro Obama spent trillions and went in debt trillions and increased poverty, decreased family income, destroyed health care, weakened the military, let millions of filthy Illegals flood in, increased taxes and had dismal economic growth.

The only people that did well under him were the Illegals, welfare queens, abortion clinics, Iranian Mullahs and the Obamaphone Lady.

It was a disaster when that Democrat Congress was elected in 2006. Bush had a good economy for six years until those Democrat buttpirates took over and fucked everything up when the CRA chcickens came home to roost and it wasn't until Trump was elected that we had a real recovery.

If you really knew anything about Finance you would know that.

Finance, seriously. You cannot possibly make an argument supporting Trump through "finance". If you were looking at things strictly from a financial aspect, Bill Clinton would be THE MAN. Obama, not so good. His concessions to Republicans weakened his economic stimulus efforts, he should have told them to pound sand. But Trump has been a virtual disaster, in every aspect. The corporate tax cut was beyond stupid, it has stifled economic investment and vastly exacerbated rent seeking, which I am quite sure you have no concept of what that is let alone how it alone has crippled income growth and destroyed the expansion of the frontier curve. Oh, sorry, another concept you probably don't understand.

We got one way out of this debt problem, GROWTH. And that growth is going to be continue to be lackluster at best under the current tax system. Until we get back to something more progressive, like the tax system we had in the 1950's and 1960's, where we were experiencing double digit economic growth, we are destined to an eventual default on government debt, or a monetizing of it, that will all but destroy the American middle class.

Back when we had high top end tax rates there were many more deductions and very few people paid anything under those rates.

Also, more important, at that time of great economic growth the total (Fed, State and Local) burden on the economy was less than 20% whereas it is pushing 40% nowadays. Everybody paid less taxes. That meant they spent more money in the productive economy and that is why we had really good growth.

Taxes never produces prosperity. Taxes are always a burden on the economy. Sometimes that burden is necessary like for defense, courts, police etc. It is unnecessary to have a filthy welfare state where money is taken from those that earn it and given to those that didn't earn it. We should have no welfare, grants, entitlements, bailouts or subsidies.

As far as progressive taxation. That is immoral and nothing more than government sponsored thievery. We should never have a voting demographic that get to elect government officials that steal money on their behalf.

We need to have the lower wage earners pay more of the relative tax burden so that they have an incentive to vote for legislators that keep taxes lower.

If a progressive tax rate is truly immoral and would not contribute to economic growth we should be kicking ass. There is not a single state in this nation that has a progressive tax system. Each and every state has a regressive tax system. And at this point, even the federal tax system is not progressive. The highest income earners pay a lower percentage of income than other income earners, primarily because most of their income is UNEARNED, by definition. Like I said, it is absolutely STUPID to tax unearned income lower than earned income. The fact that it is is a clear example of rent seeking gone rampant.

We tax far too much. Tremendous burden on the economy.

The combined cost of government (direct and indirect) is usually the highest expenditures of most families regardless of income.

I am (retired) an Engineer and my wife a school teacher. During most of our earning years her take home salary was usually close to being our yearly direct and indirect tax burden. She was working to pay our tax bills.

 

[Mac1958]

Here's a crazy idea:

The next time the Republicans want to cut taxes, they FIRST have to cut SPENDING. They have to ACTUALLY CUT IT.

They have to run on all the cutting they want to do, get specific on what they're cutting, win elections based on those promises in cuts, and then do it before they cut taxes.

Wouldn't that be a nice change from the GOP? Wouldn't that be "fiscally responsible"?

 

[Winston]

The difference between now and the 1950's and 1960's is that back then, our tax code punished rent seeking and encouraged investment. Today, our tax code encourages rent-seeking and discourages investment. Come on, unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, WTF. How does that make sense. Go out and EARN money, pay a higher tax rate than RENT SEEKING. Look, this is really simple, in regards to the corporate tax rate. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. A lower tax rate means capital is MORE EXPENSIVE. That means companies will sit on cash instead of take the risk of a capital investment. Look around, corporations have tons of cash and are investing very little. That is because the "risk" premium is too high. It would be lower if tax rates were higher. And don't get me started on stock buybacks. Until 1981 they were ILLEGAL, seen as stock price manipulation. If we can point to one thing that started this economic stagnation, the legalization of corporate stock buybacks would be the primary suspect and a lower corporate tax rate would be a close second.

You do make interesting points. How do you feel about Corporate taxes? In truth the laws appear to be designed so a C-corporation is supposed to come out at break-even - no loss or income, after all the profits and expenses are calculated including salaries. So, raising corporate taxes would increase investment as you say, but would it increase tax revenue? Not unless one of their "investments" was in higher salaries where the earners pay more personal income taxes.

But when it comes to "unearned income" like stock dividends or sales, most of those investments are made with money that has already been taxed (if we are talking about individuals). It is a little like taxing estates - that is money that is left over after taxes were already paid.

Just going to point out that you are wrong concerning the taxing of estates. Most of the value of an estate that qualifies for estate taxes is from untaxed capital gains. For instance, I inherited a couple hundred acres of land. The cost basis for that land was zero, it was a King's grant. The value of that land was two million dollars. Tell me, where did someone pay the taxes on that almost two million dollars in capital gains?

 

[Winston]

Here's a crazy idea:

The next time the Republicans want to cut taxes, they FIRST have to cut SPENDING. They have to ACTUALLY CUT IT.

They have to run on all the cutting they want to do, get specific on what they're cutting, win elections based on those promises in cuts, and then do it before they cut taxes.

Wouldn't that be a nice change from the GOP? Wouldn't that be "fiscally responsible"?

To give you a better example of the estate tax. George Steinbrenner died in 2010. That was a unique year. In that year there was no estate tax, if someone chose not to pay it. But if you chose not to pay the estate tax you lost the "step-up". The step-up allows someone to recost their asset at the current market value. The "cost" of the New York Yankees was ten million dollars in 1973. The value at Steinbrenner's death was 1.1 billion dollars. Steinbrenner's heirs were given the choice, pay the estate tax or lose the step up. Obviously, they chose to pay the estate tax. A hell of a lot cheaper than capital gains on a billion dollars.

And that is just it. Seems nobody understands the step-up. Your parents die, you inherit their house that they bought in 1973 for thirty grand. Today, it is worth a quarter million dollars. No way in hell you even come close to qualifying for the estate tax. But eliminate that tax and there goes the step-up. Sell that house with no estate tax, you have a capital gains of $220,000. Sell that house with an estate tax all the proceeds are tax free.

 

[G.T.]

TRUMP raised taxes. He lowered the RATE and to offset same, eliminated certain deductions. For folks who weren't able to utilize those deductions, cool...but for most middle class households...

The rate went down, but total paid went up....all while he got to say "I lowered taxes!"

Orange scumbag is never not lying.

 

[Mac1958]

Here's a crazy idea:

The next time the Republicans want to cut taxes, they FIRST have to cut SPENDING. They have to ACTUALLY CUT IT.

They have to run on all the cutting they want to do, get specific on what they're cutting, win elections based on those promises in cuts, and then do it before they cut taxes.

Wouldn't that be a nice change from the GOP? Wouldn't that be "fiscally responsible"?

To give you a better example of the estate tax. George Steinbrenner died in 2010. That was a unique year. In that year there was no estate tax, if someone chose not to pay it. But if you chose not to pay the estate tax you lost the "step-up". The step-up allows someone to recost their asset at the current market value. The "cost" of the New York Yankees was ten million dollars in 1973. The value at Steinbrenner's death was 1.1 billion dollars. Steinbrenner's heirs were given the choice, pay the estate tax or lose the step up. Obviously, they chose to pay the estate tax. A hell of a lot cheaper than capital gains on a billion dollars.

And that is just it. Seems nobody understands the step-up. Your parents die, you inherit their house that they bought in 1973 for thirty grand. Today, it is worth a quarter million dollars. No way in hell you even come close to qualifying for the estate tax. But eliminate that tax and there goes the step-up. Sell that house with no estate tax, you have a capital gains of $220,000. Sell that house with an estate tax all the proceeds are tax free.

I'm CFP, and you're right, the step-up provision comes as a REAL surprise to many

 

[Winston]

TRUMP raised taxes. He lowered the RATE and to offset same, eliminated certain deductions. For folks who weren't able to utilize those deductions, cool...but for most middle class households...

The rate went down, but total paid went up....all while he got to say "I lowered taxes!"

Orange scumbag is never not lying.

You are absolutely right. He eliminated the personal exemptions while doubling the standard deduction. Great if you are some single dude living in an apartment and hitting the bars every night looking for some women. But if you are a family man, married with a mortgage and three kids, you just got screwed. Tell me, which demographic represents America better?

 

[G.T.]

TRUMP raised taxes. He lowered the RATE and to offset same, eliminated certain deductions. For folks who weren't able to utilize those deductions, cool...but for most middle class households...

The rate went down, but total paid went up....all while he got to say "I lowered taxes!"

Orange scumbag is never not lying.

You are absolutely right. He eliminated the personal exemptions while doubling the standard deduction. Great if you are some single dude living in an apartment and hitting the bars every night looking for some women. But if you are a family man, married with a mortgage and three kids, you just got screwed. Tell me, which demographic represents America better?

They both represent a demographic of Americans.....better/worse? Doesn't matter, what matters is telling the middle class in its entirety that he cut our taxes. Nawww, playa. Might be enough to fool his cult ~ and thats Politics.

 

[Dragonlady]

An independent report released on Wednesday by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's proposed policies would increase taxes by about $4.3 trillion over 10 years while President Trump's would decrease tax revenue for the government by about $1.7 trillion.

4.7 Trillion is a LOT of money folks. It is more than 7-times the size of our Military budget. Do you want to pay enough in NEW taxes to rebuild our military seven times? And where would it go? To solar panels and windmills which we in California know are useless for energy, just look at our rolling blackouts caused by what? HEAT! When it gets too hot here, they turn off our AC, refrigerators and even our fans, no electricity because it is too hot. It is hell, people.

"People" aren't going to be paying the new taxes. Corporations and the mega weathy - the people whose taxes the Republicans have been cutting for the past 35 years. The "little people" are going to benefit from the jobs created rebuilding the roads, bridges and infrastructure of the nation - all of the stuff that Republicans have allowed to fall into a dangerous state of disrepair. If the levies had been shored up before Katrina, as the Army Corps of Engineers had been saying was desperately needed, New Orleans may not have been flooded.

Your rolling blackouts are happening because the your "for profit" utilities haven't made any infrastructure investments in 40 years. Their equipment is old, and under capacity for the level of useage in today's technological society. Additionally, global warming means higher temperatures and more summer useage for A/C.

If you had government owned utiltities who were more concerned with the needs of the citizens and less concerned about shareholder dividends, they would have invested in increasing capacity to meet the increased demand, and updating transmission lines. The shareholders voted for dividends.

Lack of infrasture investment by privately owned utilties is the problem, not solar or wind. Of course conservatives try to blame it on clean energy. And you're stupid enough to fall for their lies every single time.

When are you going to realize that Republicans are playing you?

 

[22lcidw]

That debt is not going to pay itself off.

Imagine if the social programs and the corrupted waste was dealt with over the decades.

 

[Paul Motter]

The difference between now and the 1950's and 1960's is that back then, our tax code punished rent seeking and encouraged investment. Today, our tax code encourages rent-seeking and discourages investment. Come on, unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income, WTF. How does that make sense. Go out and EARN money, pay a higher tax rate than RENT SEEKING. Look, this is really simple, in regards to the corporate tax rate. The weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. A lower tax rate means capital is MORE EXPENSIVE. That means companies will sit on cash instead of take the risk of a capital investment. Look around, corporations have tons of cash and are investing very little. That is because the "risk" premium is too high. It would be lower if tax rates were higher. And don't get me started on stock buybacks. Until 1981 they were ILLEGAL, seen as stock price manipulation. If we can point to one thing that started this economic stagnation, the legalization of corporate stock buybacks would be the primary suspect and a lower corporate tax rate would be a close second.

You do make interesting points. How do you feel about Corporate taxes? In truth the laws appear to be designed so a C-corporation is supposed to come out at break-even - no loss or income, after all the profits and expenses are calculated including salaries. So, raising corporate taxes would increase investment as you say, but would it increase tax revenue? Not unless one of their "investments" was in higher salaries where the earners pay more personal income taxes.

But when it comes to "unearned income" like stock dividends or sales, most of those investments are made with money that has already been taxed (if we are talking about individuals). It is a little like taxing estates - that is money that is left over after taxes were already paid.

Just going to point out that you are wrong concerning the taxing of estates. Most of the value of an estate that qualifies for estate taxes is from untaxed capital gains. For instance, I inherited a couple hundred acres of land. The cost basis for that land was zero, it was a King's grant. The value of that land was two million dollars. Tell me, where did someone pay the taxes on that almost two million dollars in capital gains?

You said it was a "King's Grant" which I assume is like a free grant. Most assets (including real estate) that are taxed under capital gains come from investments made from earned income. For example, if I work and save money, I pay taxes on all my income. If I use some of what is left over to buy a bond that investment comes from money that has already had a tax levied on it. Not that I am against capital gains taxes or any earned income taxes, I just don't think all capital gains should be taxed like earned income.

 

[g5000]

Biden will raise taxes by 4.3 Trillion, Trump will cut by 1.7 Tr.

If you bleev that horseshit, you are dumber than you look.

Trump set to work DOUBLING the federal deficit when he took office. And that was with a Republican Congress and before the pandemic.

 

[Paul Motter]

Your rolling blackouts are happening because the your "for profit" utilities haven't made any infrastructure investments in 40 years. Their equipment is old, and under capacity for the level of useage in today's technological society. Additionally, global warming means higher temperatures and more summer useage for A/C.

Our rolling blackouts are happening because almost 1/3 of our electricity comes from "green energy" which has one major problem, it cannot be turned on/off according to demand like coal or nuclear. In fact, when we have too much electricity in our grid we run the risk of blowing a gasket (metaphorically) and CA actually PAYS Arizona to offload some of our electricity. What a foolish waste of money, and all because we have an unproven theory called "Climate change" invented by Democrat Al Gore.

By the way - where do live, you don't know much about California utilities? Right now our main electrical provider is just emerging from Bankruptcy after so many lawsuits being levied for the damage caused by Forest Fires. Our government can't manage the forests because of some obscure law that requires them to find a buyer for any dead wood before they can clear it out. Ironically, if there is no buyer the wood just sits and rots and becomes unsellable. That dead wood is what eventually burns down our forest fires.

Brings a new meaning to the term "dead wood," right?

 

[LeftofLeft]

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

When the Dems take control again you can bank on the Banana Republicans screaming "Fiscal Responsibility....Fiscal Responsibility....Fiscal Responsibility....an on an on......"

We do have a spending problem. Cut spending. Can the Democrats cut spending? Shit, if they do that, I’ll vote Democrat.

 

[BluesLegend]

A show of hands, who supports Biden's multi trillion dollar TAX INCREASE? Who supports Trumps tax cut?

 

[initforme]

Start cutting the tax loopholes that biden and trump use so they pay less than the honest guy making a pittance like 50 grand. That is unacceptable in every way. Indefensible.

 

[colfax_m]

TRUMP raised taxes. He lowered the RATE and to offset same, eliminated certain deductions. For folks who weren't able to utilize those deductions, cool...but for most middle class households...

The rate went down, but total paid went up....all while he got to say "I lowered taxes!"

Orange scumbag is never not lying.

You are absolutely right. He eliminated the personal exemptions while doubling the standard deduction. Great if you are some single dude living in an apartment and hitting the bars every night looking for some women. But if you are a family man, married with a mortgage and three kids, you just got screwed. Tell me, which demographic represents America better?

The increase in the child tax credit more than made up for the loss of individual exemptions for those with families, so they came out ahead, although not as much as would seem from the start. (As a side note why anyone making half a million a year needs a child care credit is beyond me)

The more annoying aspect of increasing standard deduction, along with severely restricting SALT deductions is that it’s extremely hard for most people to have a reason to itemize. Now, it’s not that big of a deal, except it grinds my gears that the very wealthy get tax benefits for charitable donations but the vast majority of people don’t.

 

[colfax_m]

Start cutting the tax loopholes that biden and trump use so they pay less than the honest guy making a pittance like 50 grand. That is unacceptable in every way. Indefensible.

Joe Biden’s effective tax rate for 2019 was about 30% which is far higher than the average person.