For those who want to pay more, there is NOTHING stopping you.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities

PeekingDuck said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities

---

Exactly. Anything coming from the CBPP should be taken with a huge grain of salt due to their obvious political bias.

https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Edwards-Testimony.pdf

KillerAg21 said:

---

https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Edwards-Testimony.pdf

---

Umm - - quit posting links with no commentary. It's rude, and against this site's policy. Thanks.

KillerAg21 said:

---

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver

---

Left wing propaganda.

The rich and the upper middle class pay all of the income taxes in this country. Thus, any tax cut is going to result in a larger absolute dollar amount cut for them vs people who pay little to no tax. There is no favor to the rich here. Thats called a logical outcome.

Furthermore, most of the bottom half of the country who pay nothing in tax actually get money back from the government which comes out of the pockets of those who do pay tax.

Tax policy is the most lied about topic in this country.

I've seen that article before. It's very left-leaning. he tldr version is "rich people got a tax break too and we didn't like that."

It does say. Indirectly, that everyone benefited. It tries to say that it benefited the rich more because their tax breaks were bigger (because of scale). Of course that's true - that's the way progressive tax systems work.

It does not, however, prove in any way that it was bad for the economy.

Here is an article from the Ways and Means Committee on the long term effect of this tax reform. Which by the way is a Republican led committee.


https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Edwards-Testimony.pdf

How is it left leaning if the committee is Republican led?

Also the TLDR is the summary which directly opposes your interpretation of it.

KillerAg21 said:

---

How is it left leaning if the committee is Republican led?

Also the TLDR is the summary which directly opposes your interpretation of it.

---

I think he was referring to the Soros-backed progressive editorializing in your first link.

Try harder.

I bleed maroon said:

---

KillerAg21 said:

---

How is it left leaning if the committee is Republican led?

Also the TLDR is the summary which directly opposes your interpretation of it.

---

I think he was referring to the Soros-backed progressive editorializing in your first link.

Try harder.

---

Actually, don't. Just don't post on this board if all you want to do is troll (which appears to be the way you roll given your football posting history).

I could post a Heritage Foundation study that says it's the best tax cut ever, but everyone knows it's biased as well.

We try to avoid political food-fights on the B&I board - we're about economic success. Personally, I range from center-left to center-right, depending on the issue, and I find the relative lack of partisan trolling refreshing on this board. Please contribute in kind, or go post on the Politics board where trolling is the order of the day.

Thanks.

That's fine. I have linked the Ways and Means committee report above. If you have something that opposes it I would love to see it instead of taunting.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Here is an article from the Ways and Means Committee on the long term effect of this tax reform. Which by the way is a Republican led committee.


https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Edwards-Testimony.pdf

---

The Republicans are about as trustworthy as the Democrats when it comes to spending so I don't really care if they led this committee. Considering all that we now know about how incompetent and corrupt our government is I trust absolutely nothing generated by any Congressional committee or organization. Everything they put out should be suspect and considered wrong until it's validated by people wholly unrelated and with zero ties to the government.

Having said that, I will comment on the following:

Quote:

---

The Primary Effect of the Law: Decimated Federal Revenue

---

Don't care. Until the government decides to cut spending then either let me hold more of my money, or make more people pay tax and have skin in the game. Congress never considers both halves of the equation so cry me a river until they do.

Quote:

---

The Primary Beneficiaries of the Law: Highest Income Americans

---

As they should be since they pay all of the tax in this country. Why should someone who pays nothing in tax get some kind of benefit from tax cuts?

Quote:

---

Key Point 2: The Opportunity Cost of Failed Tax Policy is Significant

---

This entire point lamented lost revenue from tax cuts without once mentioning our out-of-control spending. And then had the gall to piss and moan that these tax cuts prevented new welfare programs from being created!!

Quote:

---

Key Point 3: The Accumulating Budgetary Cost of Failed Tax Policy is Significant

The federal government is not adequately funded, and tax policy cannot avoid blame. It is failing to fulfill its fundamental purpose.

Several members of Congress past and future have warned that debt as a percentage of GDP could augur "the end of the Republic" its situation is so dire.xx Yet, the past 25 years have seen a historic decline in federal revenues.

---

LOL! Then cut spending. Debt to GDP ratio is now pushing 125% which is terrible and unsustainable and there is zero talk of cutting spending...only whining about not having enough tax revenue.

Make the bottom half of the country pay tax and have skin in the game. OR...or....we could cut spending. But, as we all know, spending cuts will never happen so let me keep more of my money in the meantime.

The combined effects of soaring inflation and a soaring stock market are in my opinion leading to a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the upper class.

The middle class didn't have enough investments to benefit from the soaring market, and the upper class just continued getting wealthier.

It's been fascinating to see the corporate tax rate drop, while continuing to get 3% raises and smaller bonuses.

More brain dead handouts on the campaign trail.

! Donald Trump now claims he will "get SALT back" if elected president. That is the previously unlimited state and local tax deduction that he capped at $10,000 in his 2017 tax law. Most Republicans oppose reinstating SALT and have attacked Democrats for wanting to bring it back. pic.twitter.com/Gd4iOfUfNF

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) September 17, 2024

themissinglink said:

---

More brain dead handouts on the campaign trail.

! Donald Trump now claims he will "get SALT back" if elected president. That is the previously unlimited state and local tax deduction that he capped at $10,000 in his 2017 tax law. Most Republicans oppose reinstating SALT and have attacked Democrats for wanting to bring it back. pic.twitter.com/Gd4iOfUfNF

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) September 17, 2024

---

I'd rather see tax breaks for middle class itemizers. Raising the standard deduction got me nothing, and the tax bill really hurt small time landlords.

You know what I'd rather see? Consistency. We can't really keep having knee-jerk tax law changes every election cycle, and expect a steady, robust, and vibrant economy. I wish Trump, Harris, and Biden would have realized this, but maybe the next generation of leaders will figure this out.

Sure, but every state has huge input as well. In Texas the wealth taxes are WAY too high on the middle class.

I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.

---

Agree. We need to be simplifying the code. Also, those that live in a high tax state are enjoying a disproportionate federal deduction (if we allow SALT), so the lower tax states end up funding a disproportionate share of the federal budget. Simplify, standardize.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.

---

While I conceptually agree with you, the tax code's current purpose, outside of raising revenue, is to encourage (or discourage) behavior. The very things people appreciate about it (i.e. encouraging home ownership via property tax and mortgage interest deduction) are politically driven. Tax deductibility of 401 (k) contributions, per child tax credits, etc. are also behaviorally driven. I'm generally OK with this, and finding the right balance is inherently part of our political process.

If, say, we replaced all taxes with a national sales tax or flat income tax, people would want another method to continue to advantage certain behaviors, and elect politicians who promote their priorities, which would lead us to another layer of deductions, credits, and exceptions. I think the best we are left with is to tinker around the margins of the current tax code to achieve the intended societal impact. I acknowledge that it's messy, and not sound conceptually, but we live in the real world.

I actually have long believed in a concept known as the negative income tax from a conceptual standpoint, but believe it's too different from the current method to be widely accepted. And also, it would likely be tinkered with, which would dilute its' theoretical positive influence.

I bleed maroon said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.

---

While I conceptually agree with you, the tax code's current purpose, outside of raising revenue, is to encourage (or discourage) behavior. The very things people appreciate about it (i.e. encouraging home ownership via property tax and mortgage interest deduction) are politically driven. Tax deductibility of 401 (k) contributions, per child tax credits, etc. are also behaviorally driven. I'm generally OK with this, and finding the right balance is inherently part of our political process.

If, say, we replaced all taxes with a national sales tax or flat income tax, people would want another method to continue to advantage certain behaviors, and elect politicians who promote their priorities, which would lead us to another layer of deductions, credits, and exceptions. I think the best we are left with is to tinker around the margins of the current tax code to achieve the intended societal impact. I acknowledge that it's messy, and not sound conceptually, but we live in the real world.

I actually have long believed in a concept known as the negative income tax from a conceptual standpoint, but believe it's too different from the current method to be widely accepted. And also, it would likely be tinkered with, which would dilute its' theoretical positive influence.

---

Campaigning on things you can actually get done is a sure-fire way to lose, because it doesn't play into the fears of the voters nearly enough. You have to tap into people's fears.

94chem said:

---

I bleed maroon said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

I want a standard deduction and no other deductions. Make it an amount that covers the true poverty level and that is it. Stop using the tax code to encourage behavior.

---

While I conceptually agree with you, the tax code's current purpose, outside of raising revenue, is to encourage (or discourage) behavior. The very things people appreciate about it (i.e. encouraging home ownership via property tax and mortgage interest deduction) are politically driven. Tax deductibility of 401 (k) contributions, per child tax credits, etc. are also behaviorally driven. I'm generally OK with this, and finding the right balance is inherently part of our political process.

If, say, we replaced all taxes with a national sales tax or flat income tax, people would want another method to continue to advantage certain behaviors, and elect politicians who promote their priorities, which would lead us to another layer of deductions, credits, and exceptions. I think the best we are left with is to tinker around the margins of the current tax code to achieve the intended societal impact. I acknowledge that it's messy, and not sound conceptually, but we live in the real world.

I actually have long believed in a concept known as the negative income tax from a conceptual standpoint, but believe it's too different from the current method to be widely accepted. And also, it would likely be tinkered with, which would dilute its' theoretical positive influence.

---

Campaigning on things you can actually get done is a sure-fire way to lose, because it doesn't play into the fears of the voters nearly enough. You have to tap into people's fears.

---

I'm not sure what point you're making, here? Clearly, fear is a powerful motivator, in elections and other decisions. But how are you applying it to the tax code being currently constructed to influence behavior?