How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Would someone please explain to me why should state revenue experiences inform federal policy on this question? (Answer: They shouldn't.) Not only are state rates dwarfed by the federal levy (even in confiscatory dim-retard havens like New Yuck and Californicate), but state taxes were also deductible prior to the 2017 GOP tax reform.

Uh, maybe because you've got more latitude to manipulate the data, to try to justify Biden's proposed rate of 43.4%. This is especially important given that the CBO and JCT would presumably assume any rate in excess of 28% would cause revenues from the tax to decrease.

It looks like these guys came up with a range of numbers for the revenue-maximizing capital gains rate, from 37% to 48%, intended to match what Biden had previously proposed. Well, that sounds chicken shit. But it could be worse. You could have a couple of Commie economists like Saez and Zucman dictating to the Commie politicians, like Sanders and Warren, what the tax rates should be.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Want to know how to shut up a progressive SJW? Ask him/her to define EXACTLY what "paying their fair share" means!

What's the exact rate of taxation at which that nebulous thing called FAIRNESS is finally achieved? 50%? 75%? 110? They never say.

+2

Well Sanders and Warren have established what fair share means. It means they continue to pay about what they're paying now. And anyone who makes more money should pay a lot more. Why did Lizzie proposed to start the wealth tax at $50 million, instead of, say $5 million? Because that way she doesn't have to pay the tax. That's how most progressives think -- any tax they don't have to pay is a fair tax.

And yes, exactly why is it "fair" for government to take 50%+ of someone's income? A lot of these ass wipes think the "fair" amount is whatever will maximize government revenues. Although apparently when it comes to the capital gains tax not even that's enough.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

I pay 30% in taxes and I don't make shit

[rexdutchman]

Beijing BoB gonna sell the country to china ( only 250 years old )

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

I pay 30% in taxes and I don't make shit

Well a chunk of it is Medicare and Social Security, and you're probably including state income taxes too which actually go for something useful. Still I agree, that's too high.

[winn dixie]

Instead of defunding LE. Lets defund the "arts" meals for non citizens and studies about tranny health!

[Jacuzzme]

So why would you increase the capital gains tax if it were going to reduce federal revenues?

Oh that’s easy. Taxes to dims have nothing to do with revenue, they’re about social engineering.

[rexdutchman]

Really its social re-engineering

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Beijing BoB gonna sell the country to china ( only 250 years old )

what do you mean 250?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Tiny

OK, The COVID relief bill just passed will cost 1.9 trillion. Biden has just proposed another 2.2 trillion for Democratic priorities and infrastructure, and reportedly will propose another 2 trillion spending bill in April for more Democratic Party priorities. That adds up to about 6 trillion in round numbers.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Joe Manchin believe the $2.2 trillion just announced is too low. AOC wants it upped to $10 trillion and Manchin wants $4 trillion.

And then there's the Green New Deal, beloved by all the progressive Democratic Politicians. The American Action Forum estimates that would take $51 trillion to $93 trillion over the next ten years.

So most of this money is supposed to come from people who make more than $1 million a year, and all of it from those who make over $400,000 per year. President Biden has promised people making less than $400,000 per year will not have their tax rates increased.

Here's a link to the IRS tax statistics:

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-t...d-gross-income

The latest year available is 2018. In that year, the total taxable income of people making over $1 million per year was $1.6 trillion. If you add the amount of taxable income of people making from $500,000 to a million a year, that goes up to $2.3 trillion.

However, these people are already paying a large % of their income in federal and state income taxes to help pay for existing programs. Let's say 30% of their income to be conservative -- I'm pretty sure it's more than that. That means if you take every dime they make, that they're not already paying in taxes, you end up with $1.1 trillion ($1 million cutoff) or $1.6 trillion ($500,000 cutoff) to pay for all this shit the Democratic Party politicians are proposing.

There's a snowball's chance in hell these politicians can do what they want to do by just taxing the rich.

Well I am glad you realize that. All these politicians somehow acquire millions and I seriously doubt they'll tax themselves. so if they really want the "Green New Deal" to succeed they'll tax the usual subjects, the middle class.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Instead of defunding LE. Lets defund the "arts" meals for non citizens and studies about tranny health!

Oh can't do that they are on the endangered species list, lol.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Instead of defunding LE. Lets defund the "arts" meals for non citizens and studies about tranny health!

Let's defund both. Maybe black people who have access to high quality education won't grow up to hate the world they live in.

[rexdutchman]

okays 245 years old 1776-2021

[Texas Contrarian]

.

Tax increase discussion among policymakers seems to be moving slowly, but ...

It's beginning to look less and less likely that progressives will get anything close to the tax hikes they desire.

McConnell says, of course, that he has 50 "hard no" votes against any of this, meaning that Senate Democrats have to agree with 100% unanimity on any proposed rate increases. And it appears that they don't.

Manchin, for instance, is on record as saying he won't go for higher than a 25% corporate tax rate. Added to the state taxes that many firms pay, that still put the U.S at the high end of the OECD range. Not as bad as the pre-2017 status quo ante, but not great.

And Schumer has said that he doesn't favor raising capital gains tax rates to a level higher than during the Clinton era. (Presumably he means the pre-1997 28% rate, although in that case the new rate would be 31.8% after adding in the 3.8% investment income surcharge investors have been stuck with for the last decade.)

Although policymakers should always consider second- and higher-order effects of all the bullshit they dream up, they rarely do.

Deadweight loss, for instance.

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

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.co...adweight-loss/

One should consider the growth-impeding burden of deadweight loss when considering taxes, subsidies, wage and price controls, and regulatory actions.

Globally uncompetitive corporate tax rates incentivize shifting of activity to lower-tax jurisdictions, as we saw in the corporate inversion spree in the early-to-mid 2010s. That's one good example of deadweight loss.

Another is setting capital gains taxes so high that they not only fail to produce additional revenue, but at the same time inhibit the flow of investment capital to its highest and best uses. In such cases, what's called the "lock-in effect" arises, where investors may be inhibited from selling positions in mature or underperforming firms in order to redirect capital in more promising ways. A 43.4% capital gains tax would impede the free flow of capital and thus become a net negative for economic growth.

The dishonesty and disingenuity should be readily apparent when you consider how progressive politicians and media outlets are trying to peddle all this ridiculous nonsense to an uninformed public.

.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

.And Schumer has said that he doesn't favor raising capital gains tax rates to a level higher than during the Clinton era. (Presumably he means the pre-1997 28% rate, although in that case the new rate would be 31.8% after adding in the 3.8% investment income surcharge investors have been stuck with for the last decade.)

I see where Schumer said something like this in 2012. Are you aware of anything he's said more recently?

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Although policymakers should always consider second- and higher-order effects of all the bullshit they dream up, they rarely do.

Deadweight loss, for instance.

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

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.co...adweight-loss/

One should consider the growth-impeding burden of deadweight loss when considering taxes, subsidies, wage and price controls, and regulatory actions.

Globally uncompetitive corporate tax rates incentivize shifting of activity to lower-tax jurisdictions, as we saw in the corporate inversion spree in the early-to-mid 2010s. That's one good example of deadweight loss.

Another is setting capital gains taxes so high that they not only fail to produce additional revenue, but at the same time inhibit the flow of investment capital to its highest and best uses. In such cases, what's called the "lock-in effect" arises, where investors may be inhibited from selling positions in mature or underperforming firms in order to redirect capital in more promising ways. A 43.4% capital gains tax would impede the free flow of capital and thus become a net negative for economic growth.

The dishonesty and disingenuity should be readily apparent when you consider how progressive politicians and media outlets are trying to peddle all this ridiculous nonsense to an uninformed public.

.

I would like to dedicate the rest of this post to Chung Tran and SpeedRacer. You are intelligent and good writers, and I always enjoy reading your posts. Except for the one about the 300 pound pregnant lactating ghetto hooker on her period that Chung Tran banged in a Redbird Roach Motel: https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2675863

However, on the subject of tax policy, you gentlemen have lived your lives in darkness. I sincerely hope that this parable from Captain Midnight's link will enable you to know the truth, so that you may live your remaining years in a state of enlightenment. Higher and higher taxes are not a good thing. They kill the goose that laid the golden egg:

When a tax is levied on buyers, the demand curve shifts downward in accordance with the size of the tax. Similarly, when tax is levied on sellers, the supply curve shifts upward by the size of tax. When the tax is imposed, the price paid by buyers increases, and the price received by seller decreases. Therefore, buyers and sellers share the burden of the tax, regardless of how it is imposed. Since a tax places a "wedge" between the price buyers pay and the price sellers get, the quantity sold is reduced below the level that it would be without tax. To put it another way, a tax on good causes the size of market for that good to decrease.

For example, suppose that Will is a cleaner who is working in the cleaning service company and Amie hired Will to clean her room every week for $100. The opportunity cost of Will's time is $80, while the value of a clean house to Amie is $120. Hence, each of them get same amount of benefit from their deal. Amie and Will each receive a benefit of $20, making the total surplus from trade $40.

However, if the government were to decide to impose a $50 tax upon the providers of cleaning services, their trade would no longer benefit them. Amie would not be willing to pay any price above $120, and Will would no longer receive a payment that exceeds his opportunity cost. As a result, not only do Amie and Will both give up the deal, but Amie has to live in a dirtier house, and Will does not receive his desired income. They have thus lost amount of the surplus that they would have received from their deal, and at the same time, this made each of them worse off to the tune of $40 in value.

Government revenue is also affected by this tax: since Amie and Will have abandoned the deal, the government also loses any tax revenue that would have resulted from wages. This $40 is referred to as the deadweight loss. It causes losses for both buyers and sellers in a market, as well as decreasing government revenues. Taxes cause deadweight losses because they prevent buyers and sellers from realizing some of the gains from trade.