Posts: 39,623
Threads: 10,315
Joined: Jun 2025
Reputation:
2
reversing the trump/GOP tax heist...and more!
Not rich? Good news: You’re probably getting a tax cut.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/25...den-484476
Everyone knows that Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich, but what hasn’t gotten nearly as much notice is how much they’ve cut them for most everyone else — substantially more than Republicans did in the first year of their 2017 tax overhaul.
New estimates by Congress’s official forecasters show Democrats’ tax cuts — included in their March stimulus package — will drive down tax rates on low- and middle-income people so much this year that those earning less than $75,000, on average, will owe nothing in federal income taxes.
Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay a scant 1.8 percent average tax rate this year, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation predicts.
That will shift the relative burden to the wealthy, at least temporarily, with those earning more than $500,000 expected to pay more than two-thirds of all income taxes this year.
It’s a flip side to Democrats’ campaign to raise taxes on the well-to-do, though one that’s sometimes overlooked. Much of the focus has been on their bid to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations to help pay for big new spending initiatives.
President Joe Biden is preparing to officially unveil another tranche of tax increase proposals, including hiking the top marginal income tax rate and upping levies on capital gains. That would come on top of previous calls to raise the corporate tax rate and require businesses to pay more on their foreign earnings.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
There is no doubt in my mind that income and wealth are egregiously maldistributed in the U.S. I don't see a way right now of significantly mitigating that that doesn't involve much greater taxation of the wealthy and distributing that wealth to lower incomes through tax breaks and government programs. But I don't like the idea of a small percent of the population paying for such a large share of government spending. It sorta feels like it would be easy for them to think, well, if I'm paying for it, then I want my say in what the government does to be proportionately greater (greater than the already far too disproportionate greater say that they already have).
We need to figure out a way to jigger the economic system so that more of the wealth created goes to the hands and brains of the people making the bolts and beds of the goods and services rather than so much going to the hands that control the flow of cash in private corporations. Strong unions will help but unions come with their own problems. I think a better economic model is to have ownership of the corporation be shared by capital sources and workers. I have no idea how to do that or if it's even legally possible in the US, though.
Posts: 40,656
Threads: 1,025
Joined: May 2025
Ted King wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that income and wealth are egregiously maldistributed in the U.S. I don't see a way right now of significantly mitigating that that doesn't involve much greater taxation of the wealthy and distributing that wealth to lower incomes through tax breaks and government programs. But I don't like the idea of a small percent of the population paying for such a large share of government spending. It sorta feels like it would be easy for them to think, well, if I'm paying for it, then I want my say in what the government does to be proportionately greater (greater than the already far too disproportionate greater say that they already have).
We need to figure out a way to jigger the economic system so that more of the wealth created goes to the hands and brains of the people making the bolts and beds of the goods and services rather than so much going to the hands that control the flow of cash in private corporations. Strong unions will help but unions come with their own problems. I think a better economic model is to have ownership of the corporation be shared by capital sources and workers. I have no idea how to do that or if it's even legally possible in the US, though.
They'd call you a Commie and fight on it.
Posts: 13,305
Threads: 2,485
Joined: May 2025
...that those earning less than $75,000, on average, will owe nothing in federal income taxes. Those making between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay a scant 1.8 percent average tax rate this year, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation predicts.
For those of us in the semi-retired group, that sounds encouraging. It might even drive some married couples to file separately.
But I also find it hard to believe.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
vision63 wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
There is no doubt in my mind that income and wealth are egregiously maldistributed in the U.S. I don't see a way right now of significantly mitigating that that doesn't involve much greater taxation of the wealthy and distributing that wealth to lower incomes through tax breaks and government programs. But I don't like the idea of a small percent of the population paying for such a large share of government spending. It sorta feels like it would be easy for them to think, well, if I'm paying for it, then I want my say in what the government does to be proportionately greater (greater than the already far too disproportionate greater say that they already have).
We need to figure out a way to jigger the economic system so that more of the wealth created goes to the hands and brains of the people making the bolts and beds of the goods and services rather than so much going to the hands that control the flow of cash in private corporations. Strong unions will help but unions come with their own problems. I think a better economic model is to have ownership of the corporation be shared by capital sources and workers. I have no idea how to do that or if it's even legally possible in the US, though.
They'd call you a Commie and fight on it.
No doubt, even though I am talking about joint ownership between capital and labor, not government ownership of the corporation.
Posts: 40,656
Threads: 1,025
Joined: May 2025
Ted King wrote:
[quote=vision63]
[quote=Ted King]
There is no doubt in my mind that income and wealth are egregiously maldistributed in the U.S. I don't see a way right now of significantly mitigating that that doesn't involve much greater taxation of the wealthy and distributing that wealth to lower incomes through tax breaks and government programs. But I don't like the idea of a small percent of the population paying for such a large share of government spending. It sorta feels like it would be easy for them to think, well, if I'm paying for it, then I want my say in what the government does to be proportionately greater (greater than the already far too disproportionate greater say that they already have).
We need to figure out a way to jigger the economic system so that more of the wealth created goes to the hands and brains of the people making the bolts and beds of the goods and services rather than so much going to the hands that control the flow of cash in private corporations. Strong unions will help but unions come with their own problems. I think a better economic model is to have ownership of the corporation be shared by capital sources and workers. I have no idea how to do that or if it's even legally possible in the US, though.
They'd call you a Commie and fight on it.
No doubt, even though I am talking about joint ownership between capital and labor, not government ownership of the corporation.
I got that. :-) Being reasonable isn't part of the equation. If they were reasonable we wouldn't even have these problems.
Posts: 2,129
Threads: 203
Joined: Oct 2024
Reputation:
0
Ted King wrote:
But I don't like the idea of a small percent of the population paying for such a large share of government spending. It sorta feels like it would be easy for them to think, well, if I'm paying for it, then I want my say in what the government does to be proportionately greater (greater than the already far too disproportionate greater say that they already have).
They may like to think otherwise, but most wealthy people aren't self-made. Others educated them and built the systems/infrastructure that enabled that wealth to be created and funneled to them. Success is a debt to society that they are disproportionately able to pay.
Posts: 9,996
Threads: 393
Joined: Apr 2022
Reputation:
0
Marc Anthony wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
But I don't like the idea of a small percent of the population paying for such a large share of government spending. It sorta feels like it would be easy for them to think, well, if I'm paying for it, then I want my say in what the government does to be proportionately greater (greater than the already far too disproportionate greater say that they already have).
They may like to think otherwise, but most wealthy people aren't self-made. Others educated them and built the systems/infrastructure that enabled that wealth to be created and funneled to them. Success is a debt to society that they are disproportionately able to pay.
Don't forget inheritance.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
Marc Anthony wrote:
They may like to think otherwise, but most wealthy people aren't self-made. Others educated them and built the systems/infrastructure that enabled that wealth to be created and funneled to them. Success is a debt to society that they are disproportionately able to pay.
Yeah, there is a pervasive sense that they merit their wealth based on their work and brains. But there is no magic fairy touching people with her "merit" wand in the way wealth is distributed. As you say, for them to make their wealth they depend on the efforts and cooperation of a vast number of people - how do we account for that when assessing merited fortune? And, as Sarcany says, inheritance plays a huge role in the wealth of a lot of wealthy people. Inheritance isn't merited wealth. That great wealth is merited is a fallacy as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 31,261
Threads: 2,348
Joined: Feb 2025
Ted King wrote:
[quote=Marc Anthony]
They may like to think otherwise, but most wealthy people aren't self-made. Others educated them and built the systems/infrastructure that enabled that wealth to be created and funneled to them. Success is a debt to society that they are disproportionately able to pay.
Yeah, there is a pervasive sense that they merit their wealth based on their work and brains. But there is no magic fairy touching people with her "merit" wand in the way wealth is distributed. As you say, for them to make their wealth they depend on the efforts and cooperation of a vast number of people - how do we account for that when assessing merited fortune? And, as Sarcany says, inheritance plays a huge role in the wealth of a lot of wealthy people. Inheritance isn't merited wealth. That great wealth is merited is a fallacy as far as I'm concerned.
Hey folks - Welcome to the BernieTrain!
|
