President Donald Trump’s inner circle is weighing whether the White House should back raising taxes on Americans earning more than $1 million per year as part of the GOP’s 2025 tax legislation, according to two administration officials and three other people briefed on the matter.

While the prospect of a tax hike has gotten a largely chilly reception among Republicans on Capitol Hill, Vice President JD Vance and budget director Russell Vought have expressed openness to the idea in internal administration deliberations and are viewed as supportive, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks. Stephen K. Bannon, who served as the president’s chief strategist during his first term, has been publicly urging Trump to endorse the plan in part as a way to defang Democratic attacks on the GOP as the party of the rich.

https://archive.ph/32WBl

This would be a politically very smart thing to do. A while ago Fox News published a poll which showed overwhelming support for raising taxes on the rich. Even among Republicans.

But we have been constantly reminded by posters here how trump is only giving tax breaks to his rich buddies. 

 

I'm so confused.

 

 

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

While the prospect of a tax hike has gotten a largely chilly reception among Republicans on Capitol Hill, Vice President JD Vance and budget director Russell Vought have expressed openness to the idea

Trump will have them fired soon then if it is true!

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This would be a politically very smart thing to do.

Since when has Trump made any smart moves, political or otherwise?

16 minutes ago, blaze master said:

But we have been constantly reminded by posters here how trump is only giving tax breaks to his rich buddies. 

 

I'm so confused.

 

 

Another democrat conspiracy theory blown out the water. Pelosi and the other mega rich socialists will be livid.

 Trump acting for the ordinary folk the democrats abandoned.

 

18 minutes ago, blaze master said:

But we have been constantly reminded by posters here how trump is only giving tax breaks to his rich buddies. 

 

I'm so confused.

 

 

Do you think it's a good idea?

Just now, SunnyinBangrak said:

Another democrat conspiracy theory blown out the water. Pelosi and the other mega rich socialists will be livid.

 Trump acting for the ordinary folk the democrats abandoned.

So you think this is a good idea?

If Bannon supports it this probably won't come to pass anyway.

 

On the face of it appeals to your sense of justice.

 

However, in reality if you tax the rich they'll go elsewhere, which is a problem.

4 minutes ago, blaze master said:

But we have been constantly reminded by posters here how trump is only giving tax breaks to his rich buddies. 

 

I'm so confused.

 

 

 

I know it must be difficult for you....the key is to consider is what HAS happened i.e. the past....and what MIGHT happen i.e. the future

 

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated that in 2020, the richest 5% of taxpayers received $145 billion in tax cuts, accounting for half of the law’s benefits to U.S. taxpayers....this why some people, heaven only knows why, think the rich HAVE benefitted disproportionately from Trump's TCJA.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

If Bannon supports it this probably won't come to pass anyway.

 

On the face of it appeals to your sense of justice.

 

However, in reality if you tax the rich they'll go elsewhere, which is a problem.

So the reason that taxes on the rich have been consistently lowered is that they otherwise would have left America?

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Do you think it's a good idea?

 

Tax is a tough one right. Rich people do already pay a huge chunk of taxes.

 

But

 

Governments need to tax so. 

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

I know it must be difficult for you....the key is to consider is what HAS happened i.e. the past....and what MIGHT happen i.e. the future

 

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated that in 2020, the richest 5% of taxpayers received $145 billion in tax cuts, accounting for half of the law’s benefits to U.S. taxpayers....this why some people, heaven only knows why, think the rich HAVE benefitted disproportionately from Trump's TCJA.

 

The rich do already pay quite a bit though right.

 

Nothing difficult really not sure why you're confused. 

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

I know it must be difficult for you....the key is to consider is what HAS happened i.e. the past....and what MIGHT happen i.e. the future

 

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated that in 2020, the richest 5% of taxpayers received $145 billion in tax cuts, accounting for half of the law’s benefits to U.S. taxpayers....this why some people, heaven only knows why, think the rich HAVE benefitted disproportionately from Trump's TCJA.

Trump paid taxes of $750 in 2016 and 2017.

 

Someone working for him on $50,000 pa would have paid $5900.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Trump paid taxes of $750 in 2016 and 2017.

 

Someone working for him on $50,000 pa would have paid $5900.

What about 2018 and 2019? 

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Trump paid taxes of $750 in 2016 and 2017.

 

Someone working for him on $50,000 pa would have paid $5900.

 

Don't take the numbers out of context.

 

What was Trump's income in 2016 and 2017, and how much was he allowed to legally write off from stock losses and bankruptcies?

28 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated that in 2020, the richest 5% of taxpayers received $145 billion in tax cuts, accounting for half of the law’s benefits to U.S. taxpayers....this why some people, heaven only knows why, think the rich HAVE benefitted disproportionately from Trump's TCJA.

 

 

Seems fair that those paying the most should benefit more from the cuts.

 

All of a sudden their "fair share" is a bad thing.

It's a subtle balance to find, as it will encourage them to leave. It happened in France and lots of them moved to Switzerland.

44 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So you think this is a good idea?

Good ideas and Trump policies/lies/actions is an oxymoron!

7 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Don't take the numbers out of context.

 

What was Trump's income in 2016 and 2017, and how much was he allowed to legally write off from stock losses and bankruptcies?

What context would you like?

 

The rich have platoons of tax lawyers working on minimizing the tax they pay, how many does the ordinary wage earner have?

I posted this topic as a test to see what Trump supporters would say. First off, it's significant that so few replied to it. And what's just as significant is how Trumpist did reply to it. Cagily. Not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing but temporizing. And the reason for this is clear. They don't want to be burned again. Remember Trump's H-1B flip-flop? From being very negative to very positive? And how all the Trumpists followed suit? Well, they learned their lesson well. Don't get out ahead of Trump because you don't want to be caught out in opposition to whatever stance he assumes.

Anyway, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say I'm fo raising taxes substantially on the wealthy.

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

It's a subtle balance to find, as it will encourage them to leave. It happened in France and lots of them moved to Switzerland.

Well what happened if France isn't comparable. Those people who left, may have moved but they were still in the EU or, in the case of Switzerland, a country that freely trades with the EU.

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

What context would you like?

 

The rich have platoons of tax lawyers working on minimizing the tax they pay, how many does the ordinary wage earner have?

 

How 'bout...........ANY...........context.

 

For ezzample:

 

Bob earned $60K.  He's married with no kids.  He files jointly, and takes an IRA deduction and mortgage interest deduction.  He pays $5800 tax.

 

Fred earned $1 Billion.  He's single and owns a private jet.  He runs a casino resort...........poorly.............and lost $400 Million.  He invests in a company selling gold-colored sneakers that also did poorly.  He sold his entire holdings for a loss of $600 Million.  Fred pays no tax.

 

That, dear, is context.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Well what happened if France isn't comparable. Those people who left, may have moved but they were still in the EU or, in the case of Switzerland, a country that freely trades with the EU.

 

How about something closer to home, say.......Indiana.

 

IRS: Illinois loses $9.9B in income as 87,311 residents move out in 2022

 

New data shows $9.9 billion flowed from Illinois to other states because people moved out in 2022. Most of those leaving earned $100,000 or more.

While Illinoisans of all income levels left the state, the heaviest losses were among those earning more than $100,000 annually. Those tax filers represented 56.4% of the state’s net migration losses. The loss of these taxpayers is even greater when it comes to their economic impact: filers making more than $100,000 annually took 88.4% – nearly $8.8 billion – of Illinois’ net income losses with them.

 

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/irs-illinois-loses-9-9b-in-income-as-87311-residents-move-out-in-2022/

21 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

How 'bout...........ANY...........context.

 

For ezzample:

 

Bob earned $60K.  He's married with no kids.  He files jointly, and takes an IRA deduction and mortgage interest deduction.  He pays $5800 tax.

 

Fred earned $1 Billion.  He's single and owns a private jet.  He runs a casino resort...........poorly.............and lost $400 Million.  He invests in a company selling gold-colored sneakers that also did poorly.  He sold his entire holdings for a loss of $600 Million.  Fred pays no tax.

 

That, dear, is context.

How about this. A real estate provision in the tax code used to allow for depreciation over 20 years. That is to say that you could deduct from your income 5 percent of that value of that real estate each year. After 20 years the value of that real estate for tax writeoffs is nothing. So what do you do? You create an LLC that buys the property and the tax write-offs begin all over again. But wait a minute, It gets even better, Let's say you become President of the United States. And you change the tax code to allow a write-off of 10% a year...do you see where I'm going with this.

 

Or let's say you're a rich guy and you announce that you aren't going to take any pay for your services. How generous is that?  Instead you take out loans using as collateral shares of stock Or some other asset. You pay a lot less in interest on those loans than you would in taxes. Because loans don't count as income, so that never shows up in income figures. Which means that the actual amount of earning plus such loans is greater than the reported amount of earnings.

 

Let's say you're a rich person nearing the end of his life and you want to leave your wealth to your children including your stocks. Let's say you bought those stocks for $10 per share adjusted for inflation and at the time of inheritance they are worth$100. How much in capital gains does the person inheriting the stock have to pay? None except for what inheritance taxes might apply.. But get this, if the heir ever decides to sell the stock they will pay capital gains only on the value that is over $100, that being the value at the time of inheritance, instead of the $10 that was paid for it originally.

 

As for inheritance taxes...well, that's another story.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

How about this. A real estate provision in the tax code used to allow for depreciation over 20 years. That is to say that you could deduct from your income 5 percent of that value of that real estate each year. After 20 years the value of that real estate for tax writeoffs is nothing. So what do you do? You create an LLC that buys the property and the tax write-offs begin all over again. But wait a minute, It gets even better, Let's say you become President of the United States. And you change the tax code to allow a write-off of 10% a year...do you see where I'm going with this.

 

Or let's say you're a rich guy and you announce that you aren't going to take any pay for your services. How generous is that?  Instead you take out loans using as collateral shares of stock Or some other asset. You pay a lot less in interest on those loans than you would in taxes. Because loans don't count as income, so that never shows up in income figures. Which means that the actual amount of earning plus such loans is greater than the reported amount of earnings.

 

Let's say you're a rich person nearing the end of his life and you want to leave your wealth to your children including your stocks. Let's say you bought those stocks for $10 per share adjusted for inflation and at the time of inheritance they are worth$100. How much in capital gains does the person inheriting the stock have to pay? None except for what inheritance taxes might apply.. But get this, if the heir ever decides to sell the stock they will pay capital gains only on the value that is over $100, that being the value at the time of inheritance, instead of the $10 that was paid for it originally.

 

As for inheritance taxes...well, that's another story.

 

Those all sound perfectly fine.

 

Don't be jealous of other peoples' success.

 

Work hard, invest, and maybe you can benefit.........unless Trump crashes your 401K or tariffs your employer out of existence.

5 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Those all sound perfectly fine.

 

Don't be jealous of other peoples' success.

 

Work hard, invest, and maybe you can benefit.........unless Trump crashes your 401K or tariffs your employer out of existence.

When you've got nothing make it personal. You've got nothing.

29 minutes ago, placeholder said:

When you've got nothing make it personal. You've got nothing.

 

If you can't explain why the policies are "bad",..........

2 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

If you can't explain why the policies are "bad",..........

Because they're subsidies to the rich. Should buildings even be allowed depreciation? Items like cars which invariably lose value over time (unless it's a collector's item) do lost value. But real estate like building often increase in value. Why do they deserve any subsidy much less a bigger one?

 

As for rich people taking out a loan instead of getting paid...well for one thing it means that those income figures cited above don't really reflect all income. Just that which is technically income

 

And why should capital gains taxes not be applied based on the original value? Why should the wealthy be able to escape taxes on them?

 

And the thing is, all these deductions and a lot more like them allow for an entrenched hereditary class of the superwealthy. The founding fathers feared such a development since they saw the ills that such entrenched wealthy classes inflicted on Europe. That's why they supported strong inheritance taxes to keep that kind of thing in check.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because they're subsidies to the rich. Should buildings even be allowed depreciation? Items like cars which invariably lose value over time (unless it's a collector's item) do lost value. But real estate like building often increase in value. Why do they deserve any subsidy much less a bigger one?

 

As for rich people taking out a loan instead of getting paid...well for one thing it means that those income figures cited above don't really reflect all income. Just that which is technically income

 

And why should capital gains taxes not be applied based on the original value? Why should the wealthy be able to escape taxes on them?

 

And the thing is, all these deductions and a lot more like them allow for an entrenched hereditary class of the superwealthy. The founding fathers feared such a development since they saw the ills that such entrenched wealthy classes inflicted on Europe. That's why they supported strong inheritance taxes to keep that kind of thing in check.

 

Thank you.

 

Depreciation subsidies are part of policies designed to support businesses.  Factories wear out, buildings must eventually be demolished.  If depreciation not deducted, it gets applied to the price of the product or service.

 

Loans are just loans, and allegedly must be paid back.  If not, there can be penalties for tax evasion.  Otherwise we'd have to claim credit card purchases as income.

 

Why should the government get to impose death taxes.  Families should be able to build wealth.  Why don't we rescind the tax exemption on primary residences?  Fred in the suburbs should have to pay tax when he moves to a new home?