Millionaires Tax

[Ron_Artest 1,153]

Never thought I'd say it but something I actually agree with Trump on.

“The President is considering allowing the rate on individuals making $2.5 million or more to revert from 37% to the pre-2017 39.6%. This will help pay for massive middle and working-class tax cuts, and protect Medicaid,” a source familiar with the president’s thinking said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5290814-trump-tax-hike-wealthy-gop-bill/

Still a lot to do to clean up the tax code but at least this is the right idea and maybe a start.

Maybe this is the first thing Republicans push back in.

[supermike80 1,843]

This the babylon bee?  The Onion?  All I have been told is Trump wants to give tax cuts to his rich friends.

[Ron_Artest 1,153]

21 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

This the babylon bee?  The Onion?  All I have been told is Trump wants to give tax cuts to his rich friends.

And that's all he's ever done which is why this is so odd.

It's only forecast to raise $40B a year which is about what was forecast to be lost by firing IRS agents.

We'll see what happens but for all the TDS talk, this is a step in the right direction for Trump.

[supermike80 1,843]

3 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

And that's all he's ever done which is why this is so odd.

It's only forecast to raise $40B a year which is about what was forecast to be lost by firing IRS agents.

We'll see what happens but for all the TDS talk, this is a step in the right direction for Trump.

And of course, this isn't true.   Trumps last cut cut my taxes, and I am not a millionaire.  However, I'm sure MSNBC told you that

[Ron_Artest 1,153]

19 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

And of course, this isn't true.   Trumps last cut cut my taxes, and I am not a millionaire.  However, I'm sure MSNBC told you that

I never said he didn't cut your taxes.  All hrs ever done was take care of his rich friends, this would be a reversal on that.

Also trump didn't cut my taxes.  Losing my SALT deduction ended up being about a wash, maybe even a loss.

[supermike80 1,843]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

I never said he didn't cut your taxes.  All hrs ever done was take care of his rich friends, this would be a reversal on that.

Also trump didn't cut my taxes.  Losing my SALT deduction ended up being about a wash, maybe even a loss.

Ok.  So what you meant to say, based on this post, was Trump helped a lot of people with his tax cuts, not just his rich friends.  Got it.

[Ron_Artest 1,153]

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Ok.  So what you meant to say, based on this post, was Trump helped a lot of people with his tax cuts, not just his rich friends.  Got it.

No.

In the context of raising taxes on high earners

51 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

All I have been told is Trump wants to give tax cuts to his rich friends.

 

28 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

And that's all he's ever done which is why this is so odd.

If you want to change the subject to how Trump gave tax cuts across the board, go ahead, but that's not what I meant to say.

[supermike80 1,843]

6 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

No.

In the context of raising taxes on high earners

 

If you want to change the subject to how Trump gave tax cuts across the board, go ahead, but that's not what I meant to say.

My bad...I was going off what you wrote here:  And that's all he's ever done which is why this is so odd.

I read that to mean ALL he's ever done is help his rich friends.   I tried to point out that's not all he's done, as I benefitted from his last tax cut.

If I misunderstood what you mean by "all he's done" I apologize

[Ron_Artest 1,153]

3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

My bad...I was going off what you wrote here:  And that's all he's ever done which is why this is so odd.

I read that to mean ALL he's ever done is help his rich friends.   I tried to point out that's not all he's done, as I benefitted from his last tax cut.

If I misunderstood what you mean by "all he's done" I apologize

apology accepted.  Maybe we can move past semantics debate now and discuss the merits of tax hikes on the wealthy.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,174]

Lower taxes for everyone. Millionaires don't deserve to have their money stolen. Their money shouldn't be used any more than the middle class to subsidize the government.

I will wait to see what is actually proposed.

[Mike Honcho 5,163]

5 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Lower taxes for everyone. Millionaires don't deserve to have their money stolen. Their money shouldn't be used any more than the middle class to subsidize the government.

I will wait to see what is actually proposed.

"Stolen", give me a break.  They are paying more in taxes because they have benefited more from the infrastructure that this country provides. 

[BufordT 429]

I suspect half the GC doesn't know how tax brackets work.  People making less than $48,475 annually get taxed at 10% but more than $48,475 get taxed at 22%. Where the outrage for that.

Not sure why we have a problem with someone making over 2.5 million getting taxed extra.  Btw, it is only income over 2.5 million that gets taxed at that rate.  Someone making 2.6 million would only be on the hook for $100,000 at 39.6%.

Most multimillionaires, I suspect, don't have a problem with this.

[supermike80 1,843]

2 minutes ago, BufordT said:

I suspect half the GC doesn't know how tax brackets work.  People making less than $48,475 annually get taxed at 10% but more than $48,475 get taxed at 22%. Where the outrage for that.

Not sure why we have a problem with someone making over 2.5 million getting taxed extra.  Btw, it is only income over 2.5 million that gets taxed at that rate.  Someone making 2.6 million would only be on the hook for $100,000 at 39.6%.

Most multimillionaires, I suspect, don't have a problem with this.

LOLOL  You open this with "I suspect half the GC doesn't know how tax brackets work" then you make the 10% Vs 22% point, showing you don't understand how graduated tax brackets work.   Wow...Talk about shooting yourself in the face.

Funniest post all week here

[Ron_Artest 1,153]

8 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

LOLOL  You open this with "I suspect half the GC doesn't know how tax brackets work" then you make the 10% Vs 22% point, showing you don't understand how graduated tax brackets work.   Wow...Talk about shooting yourself in the face.

Funniest post all week here

If you read his second sentence he actually does understand that.  You're having a rough day.

[BufordT 429]

2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

LOLOL  You open this with "I suspect half the GC doesn't know how tax brackets work" then you make the 10% Vs 22% point, showing you don't understand how graduated tax brackets work.   Wow...Talk about shooting yourself in the face.

Funniest post all week here

Ok. I had a couple things distracting me.  $48,475 to $103,350 taxed at 22%. Below $48,375 to %11.925 is at 12%.  I know exactly how tax brackets work hence the 2nd paragraph which you chose to ignore.

[The Real timschochet 6,541]

It’s amusing because it makes his Republican allies uncomfortable But other than that it’s so small as to be meaningless.

As for @supermike80 yes last time around he cut your taxes. He also raised your overall costs , so you gained nothing. This time around will be much worse for you. 

[Horseman 2,411]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

apology accepted.  Maybe we can move past semantics debate now and discuss the merits of tax hikes on the wealthy.

* note - again tiny has trouble with his words.  

[Horseman 2,411]

2 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

I never said he didn't cut your taxes.  All hrs ever done was take care of his rich friends, this would be a reversal on that.

Also trump didn't cut my taxes.  Losing my SALT deduction ended up being about a wash, maybe even a loss.

The bill is supposed to fix the SALT deduction too Einstein.   Of course you don't know whether it was a wash, or maybe less...you don't even know your own personal situation. 

[supermike80 1,843]

21 minutes ago, BufordT said:

Ok. I had a couple things distracting me.  $48,475 to $103,350 taxed at 22%. Below $48,375 to %11.925 is at 12%.  I know exactly how tax brackets work hence the 2nd paragraph which you chose to ignore.

I did...I apologize.   Little tired this morning.   

[supermike80 1,843]

14 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s amusing because it makes his Republican allies uncomfortable But other than that it’s so small as to be meaningless.

As for @supermike80 yes last time around he cut your taxes. He also raised your overall costs , so you gained nothing. This time around will be much worse for you. 

Wasn't the point of the discussion.   But thanks for the little of value input.

[Ron_Artest 1,153]

37 minutes ago, Horseman said:

The bill is supposed to fix the SALT deduction too Einstein.   Of course you don't know whether it was a wash, or maybe less...you don't even know your own personal situation. 

Right now the SALT has not been put back, who knows if it will.  And correct I don't remember my exact effective tax rates from 10 years ago just remember calculating it and it was about the same after the "tax cut"

[Engorgeous George 2,205]

So around an additional $26,000  in taxes if your earnings cross that threshold?  I imagine most folks in that pay range will have tax lawyers and accountants find ways to avoid that increase.  Hell, I imagine they already do even at the 37% rate.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,042]

59 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Right now the SALT has not been put back, who knows if it will.  And correct I don't remember my exact effective tax rates from 10 years ago just remember calculating it and it was about the same after the "tax cut"

The child tax credit didn’t double for you? 

[Frozenbeernuts 2,174]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

"Stolen", give me a break.  They are paying more in taxes because they have benefited more from the infrastructure provides. 

Some of the rich, sure. They are part of it. Its just funny to see how society tries to treat most things. Attack the symptoms. Ignore the root cause.

Raising taxes never addresses the root cause of why the government would need more money.

[Mark Davis 350]

4 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

And that's all he's ever done which is why this is so odd.

It's only forecast to raise $40B a year which is about what was forecast to be lost by firing IRS agents.

We'll see what happens but for all the TDS talk, this is a step in the right direction for Trump.

Not surprising.  The vast majority of earners in that stratosphere do not make their income through earned income and W2 wages.  Changing the incremental rate will have very little impact on the super high earners.  Long term capital gains rates are where most of their annual income flows through their returns.

[Mark Davis 350]

58 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

So around an additional $26,000  in taxes if your earnings cross that threshold?  I imagine most folks in that pay range will have tax lawyers and accountants find ways to avoid that increase.  Hell, I imagine they already do even at the 37% rate.  

Most of them aren't sitting with it flowing through earned income as it is.  If there's a way to avoid it, they are already avoiding it hitting in that manner.

[Mark Davis 350]

I know this is a pet peeve of mine as an old CPA but it always irks me how the wealthy and taxes becomes a political football.  It's never discussed on the level.  It's always discussed in the context of raising incremental rates.  When you do that, just off the top of my head without stats to back me up, you are going to hit specialist doctors, maybe some people with partnership income from small business flowing through.  What you aren't going to hit are the people with large fortunes who are amassing more wealth through capital gains.  I'm not villainizing people for however they earn their money, but you can tell who really owns the politicians when it's never or rarely even brought up.  The incremental rates at that level are almost a red herring.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,042]

Just now, Mark Davis said:

I know this is a pet peeve of mine as an old CPA but it always irks me how the wealthy and taxes becomes a political football.  It's never discussed on the level.  It's always discussed in the context of raising incremental rates.  When you do that, just off the top of my head without stats to back me up, you are going to hit specialist doctors, maybe some people with partnership income from small business flowing through.  What you aren't going to hit are the people with large fortunes who are amassing more wealth through capital gains.  I'm not villainizing people for however they earn their money, but you can tell who really owns the politicians when it's never or rarely even brought up.  The incremental rates at that level are almost a red herring.

Yup. Lower capital gains rates are an affront to the working class. I can see some level of a lower rate on investments,  but not what we have now. 

[Mark Davis 350]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yup. Lower capital gains rates are an affront to the working class. I can see some level of a lower rate on investments,  but not what we have now. 

As a rule I'm all for lower taxes for everyone where we can afford it.  But when we discuss things to change in our tax code the politicians never get it right, and my guess is deliberately so.  But if you want to have a progressive rate system, it's always been funny to me we do it on incremental rates and not cap gains.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,042]

19 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

As a rule I'm all for lower taxes for everyone where we can afford it.  But when we discuss things to change in our tax code the politicians never get it right, and my guess is deliberately so.  But if you want to have a progressive rate system, it's always been funny to me we do it on incremental rates and not cap gains.  

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a political party not in bed with the wealthy, Wall Street, corporations and the oligarchs? 

[Fnord 2,102]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a political party not in bed with the wealthy, Wall Street, corporations and the oligarchs? 

It would! 

Unfortunately, there's a better chance of both of us being gifted pet dragons to ride around on this weekend.

[Engorgeous George 2,205]

16 hours ago, Fnord said:

It would! 

Unfortunately, there's a better chance of both of us being gifted pet dragons to ride around on this weekend.

Totally unrealistic.  It takes weeks to gain the trust of your Dragon before it is safe to ride.  Maybe by the 4th of July, but not this weekend.

[Ron_Artest 1,153]

The idiot now says that the Republicans shouldn't include it