Trump’s inner circle weighs push for higher taxes on millionaires

[placeholder]

54 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

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?

 

54 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

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?

Something's wear out a lot more slowly than others. Buildings wear out after 10 years 20 years these are absurd rates of depreciation 

 

Who said loan shouldn't be paid back? I just said that rich people use loans instead of  or in addition to earned income.

 

I pointed out the reason why the government should tax inherited wealth .  That was the founding father's reasoning. And you have no answer for why capital gains should be bumped up to a new basis with no tax consequences. 

 

In fact, whno less a person than Milton Friedman who pointed out that capital gains being taxed at a different rate is in effect saying that certain kinds of income are better than other kinds of income and it's a distortion of the marketplace. At this point in time it's too late to do anything about the exemptions granted for residences. But it does distort the marketplace.

 

[Lacessit]

4 hours 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.

Fred should be flat broke. If he still owns a private jet and a casino, he is not.

 

The solution is not obvious to most. Forget about taxing on profit and deducting on loss, there are too many ways to legally evade taxes with some jiggery-pokery.

 

Tax on revenue instead, 1-2%. Revenue can't be fiddled, it just is. 

 

Wealth inequality is created when wages are taxed at far higher levels than billionaires, who can simply take out loans against growing assets to provide the cash for their lifestyle.

 

Wages are revenue. You'll eliminate the debt in 1-2 years.

 

When I was earning six figures, I would have loved to be taxed at 2%.

 

 

[NoDisplayName]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

Something's wear out a lot more slowly than others. Buildings wear out after 10 years 20 years these are absurd rates of depreciation 

 

Who said loan shouldn't be paid back? I just said that rich people use loans instead of  or in addition to earned income.

 

I pointed out the reason why the government should tax inherited wealth .  That was the founding father's reasoning. And you have no answer for why capital gains should be bumped up to a new basis with no tax consequences. 

 

In fact, whno less a person than Milton Friedman who pointed out that capital gains being taxed at a different rate is in effect saying that certain kinds of income are better than other kinds of income and it's a distortion of the marketplace. At this point in time it's too late to do anything about the exemptions granted for residences. But it does distort the marketplace.

 

 

Sorry, I'm just have trouble wrapping my libertarian brain around this communist "fair share" nonsense, and the presumption that the government has a right to 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% or more of MY income to spend on welfare, wunderwaffles, and trans-mice.

 

We could easily cut the government by thousands of programs, hundreds of agencies, 400 foreign military bases and 3 supercarrier fleets.....and voila, saved $1 Trillion.

 

Reduce the tax code to one page, and tax returns to postcard sized forms.  Flat tax at 5%, no deductions, no exemptions.  That's fair.

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Sorry, I'm just have trouble wrapping my libertarian brain around this communist "fair share" nonsense, and the presumption that the government has a right to 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% or more of MY income to spend on welfare, wunderwaffles, and trans-mice.

 

We could easily cut the government by thousands of programs, hundreds of agencies, 400 foreign military bases and 3 supercarrier fleets.....and voila, saved $1 Trillion.

 

Reduce the tax code to one page, and tax returns to postcard sized forms.  Flat tax at 5%, no deductions, no exemptions.  That's fair.

 

 

 

 

The kind of government you long for worked well when economies were largely agrarian and populations were sparse. Not so much anymore.

[NoDisplayName]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Fred should be flat broke. If he still owns a private jet and a casino, he is not.

 

Fred is a hard worker.  He made millions in previous years, paid too much in taxes, invested the remainder wisely.  Why should he be broke?

 

This year's losses offset this year's profits.

 

But yeah, let's tax 'revenue,' which will eliminate any chance of maintaining our edge in technology and health sciences.  If it doesn't earn a profit from day one, there will be no investment.

 

Sounds like a Trump policy.

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Fred is a hard worker.  He made millions in previous years, paid too much in taxes, invested the remainder wisely.  Why should he be broke?

 

This year's losses offset this year's profits.

 

But yeah, let's tax 'revenue,' which will eliminate any chance of maintaining our edge in technology and health sciences.  If it doesn't earn a profit from day one, there will be no investment.

 

Sounds like a Trump policy.

Because the Federal government isn't a huge supporter of scientific research...or maybe I should put that in the past tense.

[NoDisplayName]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because the Federal government isn't a huge supporter of scientific research...or maybe I should put that in the past tense.

 

Not necessarily in direct subsidies.

 

If it takes 5+ years in research and development to bring a product to market, fewer companies and individuals will be willing to take the risk if losses and expenses can't be used to offset current year income.

[Lacessit]

39 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Fred is a hard worker.  He made millions in previous years, paid too much in taxes, invested the remainder wisely.  Why should he be broke?

 

This year's losses offset this year's profits.

 

But yeah, let's tax 'revenue,' which will eliminate any chance of maintaining our edge in technology and health sciences.  If it doesn't earn a profit from day one, there will be no investment.

 

Sounds like a Trump policy.

How will taxing revenue "eliminate any chance of maintaining our edge"? That sounds like a response without any thought behind it, a reflex.

 

So what is your method of reducing wealth inequality?

[NoDisplayName]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 

So what is your method of reducing wealth inequality?

 

Why would I desire a method of reducing wealth inequality?

 

Wealth inequality is good.  It incentivizes.

 

Otherwise, the government takes from those who learned to code and gives to those who learned to shoot meth.

 

 

[Callmeishmael]

58 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Sorry, I'm just have trouble wrapping my libertarian brain around this communist "fair share" nonsense, and the presumption that the government has a right to 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% or more of MY income to spend on welfare, wunderwaffles, and trans-mice.

 

We could easily cut the government by thousands of programs, hundreds of agencies, 400 foreign military bases and 3 supercarrier fleets.....and voila, saved $1 Trillion.

 

Reduce the tax code to one page, and tax returns to postcard sized forms.  Flat tax at 5%, no deductions, no exemptions.  That's fair.

 

 

 

 

Except that Trump loves the military and usually gives them more money than they even ask for.  Aside from cutting the DEI programs he will probably add a 4th supercarrier fleet! 

 

Don't expect DOGE to touch the Defense budget, which is probably the most bloated and wasteful part of the Federal Government!

[NoDisplayName]

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

How will taxing revenue "eliminate any chance of maintaining our edge"? That sounds like a response without any thought behind it, a reflex.

 

Tax revenues on all the successful products, but disallow losses on all the failures?

 

Good luck getting a company to commit to basic research to devise new methods of making chips or fund research into new cancer treatments.

[EVENKEEL]

22 hours 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 top 5% pay more than 65% of federal income taxes, the highest 10% pay 75% of them and the top 25% are accountable for 89%. The bottom half of earners, who make below $46,627 a year, paid just 2% of federal personal income tax, according to the report.

 

 

https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/so-how-much-do-the-rich-actually-pay-in-taxes-high-earners-effective-tax-rate-trump-tax-cuts-government-spending-internal-revenue-service

 

[NoDisplayName]

5 minutes ago, Callmeishmael said:

Except that Trump loves the military and usually gives them more money than they even ask for.  Aside from cutting the DEI programs he will probably add a 4th supercarrier fleet! 

 

Don't expect DOGE to touch the Defense budget, which is probably the most bloated and wasteful part of the Federal Government!

 

Except Trump announced 8% annual cuts in the defense budget over the next 5 years.  But then he announced the first $1 Trillion budget.

More lies, unless this is more 5D chutes-n-ladders.

 

And what's this "add a 4th supercarrier fleet"?  I said we could get rid of 3 entire fleets....hundreds of ships.

 

The United States has 11 aircraft carriers, of which 10 are classified as supercarriers, specifically from the Nimitz class and the Gerald R. Ford class.

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

 

 

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?

How often do loans get rolled over into new loans? It's a game for the wealthy.

 

How much wealth should a family be able to build?

 

You don't seem to understand the middle class is being hollowed out, the poorest classes are being replaced by robots, and wealth inequality of this generation is unprecedented.

 

If that does not trouble you, perhaps you need an empathy transplant.

[NoDisplayName]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If that does not trouble you, perhaps you need an empathy transplant.

 

Only if it's covered by welfare.

[spidermike007]

This will never happen. It would be the fair thing to do, and the right thing to do. But, Trump has repeatedly promised his rich buddies and his super rich donors he would lower their taxes. And that might be the only promise he keeps. Raising the deficit, raising consumer prices with dumb tariffs, increasing unemployment, and lowering taxes on the super rich. Disaster Don at work. 

[Lacessit]

8 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Tax revenues on all the successful products, but disallow losses on all the failures?

 

Good luck getting a company to commit to basic research to devise new methods of making chips or fund research into new cancer treatments.

You don't think companies would exaggerate the cost of their losses?

 

Working for a company that was getting R&D subsidies from the Australian Government was a real eye-opener.

 

It's a bit like liquidators, who charge $200/hr for the office secretary in charge of the photocopier.

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Only if it's covered by welfare.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[Lacessit]

21 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Why would I desire a method of reducing wealth inequality?

 

Wealth inequality is good.  It incentivizes.

 

Otherwise, the government takes from those who learned to code and gives to those who learned to shoot meth.

 

 

Wealth inequality also causes revolutions.

[NoDisplayName]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Wealth inequality also causes revolutions.

 

You're welcome to donate YOUR income to charity.

 

Too many liberal types being overly generous with other peoples' earnings.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

You're welcome to donate YOUR income to charity.

 

Too many liberal types being overly generous with other peoples' earnings.

The Constitution gives the government the right to create and impose taxes and what to spend it on. I have never noticed any provision in the Constitution for the government to rely on charitable contributions.