Pipe the tax money right out of your house!
Posted on 07/27/2018 5:03:30 AM PDT by calvincaspian
Sen. Elizabeth Warren made an amateur mistake on CNBC on Monday when she gave real answers to a reporter’s questions. The appearance should have been an easy media score as the questioner was John Harwood, a journalist who famously fawned over President Obama’s ability to swat a fly in a 2009 interview.
It did not go well, though, as Warren explained why she wants to overturn the Trump tax cuts.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
“Well, it’s not about the number,” Warren said in response to a question about the corporate tax rate. “Here’s how I look at budgets, and taxes are at the heart of this. A lot of people think they’re just numbers. They’re not. They are the expression of our values. The values of the Republican Party that passed those tax cuts are to give $1.5 trillion away to the richest Americans and the biggest corporations, and let everybody else pick up the crumbs.”
I wouldn't call hiring a lot more people and handing out bonuses "crumbs", but then, I'm just a dumb deplorable.
Squaw use Wampum to make Federal Government bigger.
Also, Squaw scalp just little off top, Squaw need 2019 Audi Q3.
Her progressive logic is that higher taxes and spending is the best way of helping us and tax cuts just help the wealthy and hurt us by limiting spending for us.
When she says ‘They are the expression of our values.’ it reminds me of when Obama was POTUS and Paul Ryan put up those completely phony balanced budget resolutions in the House and when called on it told the media “Its a moral document’
When Obama was talking to a reporter, the reporter said something like, it appears that giving out tax cuts does increase the amount of tax revenue received, while increasing taxes causes the amount of revenues received to decrease. What’s your take on that? Obama said, “It’s not about tax revenue. It’s about fairness.” (What? No. It is about tax revenue. Where do you think all that free stuff you hand out comes from?)
Fauxahontas’ campaign slogan: “We are going to tax the sh*t out you!”
Cue up “I’m an Indian, too.”
Pipe the tax money right out of your house!
The Democrats mantra: Tax and spend
It worked for the governor of NJ.
“They are the expression of our values. “
Shove your “values” Hagawatha.
She’s just used to her base which wants handouts.
They can’t understand that hard working, tax paying Americans have pride in earning a middle income and appreciate saving a percentage of that.
Losers that don’t work and / or don’t pay taxes are never appreciative of any amount. They think they deserve a life style comparable to the people who get up every day and head to work.
Elizabeth Warren and her leach base are pitiful human beings.
“This is why GOP should have passed real reform that would be hard to reverse...such as getting rid of payroll taxes & the corporate income tax completely & replacing them with consumption taxes.....as well as making the tax code much less steep instead of just cutting rates....& having a standard deduction at least that’s equal to minimum wage.
Clinton added two tax rates of 36% & 39.6% on top of George HW Bush’s newly added 31% tax bracket because the tax code was so steep to begin with. Reagan had his 28% tax bracket kick in at about where there was a low cap on payroll taxes, below $100,000. Because the top tax rate was 28% on top of an ultra steep tax code under Reagan, it made it easy for Bush & Clinton to appear “moderate” by sticking a few rates atop Reagan’s top rate because the code wasn’t made any steeper.
Suppose Reagan decided on 3 tax brackets instead of two & had eliminated payroll taxes & the corporate income tax. (The top tax rate under Reagan before the 1986 reform was 50%, down from Carter’s 70%.)
Suppose Reagan eliminated payroll taxes & the corporate income tax & had 3 tax brackets of 20% to $500,000.....then 35% to $5 million, then 50% above $5 million & maybe had a graduated capital gains tax of 11%,22%, & 33%. That sort of reform would be harder to characterize & change in any big way in a hurry.
Reagan raised the capital gains tax from 20% to 28%, but the stock market made pretty good gains before Clinton cut it down to 20% again in 1997.
Before 1997, millions of new corporations were created to dodge the Clinton tax increase, plus Clinton taxed dividends as regular income without even giving corporations a deduction for paying dividends...unlike most countries in the world. From 1913 to 1953, there wasn’t any tax on dividends at all..except for that wonderful period of economic growth from 1933-1937! Creating corporations after the Clinton tax increase in 1993 was a tax avoidance strategy because the corporate income tax rate was lower than Clinton’s highest rate of 39.6% ...& with the corporation tax code allowing for more deductions than the post 1988 Reagan code.
Reagan equalized his 28% top tax rate with his 28% capital gains tax rate, whereas Clinton had his top tax rate of 39.6% & his top rate on dividends at 39.6% but his capital gains rate at 28%m then 20% after 1997, which had the capital gains rate at half his top tax rate.
George W Bush for some reason believed his dividend rate & capital gains rate should be equal at 15% (lower than payroll taxes on the middle class) & he equalized his top tax rate at 35% with his corporate income tax rate...which seemed to be more about optics than about economics or fairness. But then again, if it weren’t for the Bush tax code....& if we had Hoover’s or FDR’s or Jimmy Carter’s or even Reagan’s tax codes......the period after 2008 would have been more brutal & probably still wouldn’t be over. For all their words, Democrats still can’t explain why Obama allowed trillion deficits for most of his presidency or why-—even though they complained about the Bush tax code......which was mostly about pandering to every constituency.......they didn’t change it at all when they had the majority......and in the end, they didn’t change it much after 2012 when they did change it.
Sad thing is that Democrats offered Republicans a better tax deal before the 2010 elections when they were desperate than they did after Obama got re-elected in 2012. GOP was fixated on keeping George Bush’s 35% top tax rate, when they could have made a deal to put Clinton’s top rate at $1 million as Democrats offered, or to argue for putting the 40% bracket at $10 million. Imagine if right now we had a 40% top tax bracket at $10 million & 30% tax bracket at $1 million instead of having Trump’s top 37% rate at $700,000. A 40% bracket at $10 million actually makes for lower effective rates for 99.9% of the American people, than simply cutting Obama’s top rate from 39.6% to 37% & getting politically hammered for cutting taxes mostly for big corporations & billionaires. Making the code much less steep is the best way to make it simpler, have fewer brackets and fewer deductions.
But making it simpler & more fair also means eliminating payroll taxes & the corporate income tax...which can be a big tax dodge for billionaires..especially with a 21% corporate tax rate & 15% tax on dividends. Paul Ryan & Trump have people earning under $118,000 paying 16% total effective first dollar payroll tax rate..... with over 20% brackets kicking in below the payroll tax cap. It makes no sense & isn’t fair...which is why Democrats so easily can demogogue it as a choice between our way & their way. Considering payroll taxes.....at 16%......and understanding that child tax credits for unwed mothers reduces effective income tax rates......a steep tax code combined with payroll taxes means that a Mitt Romney pays 14% total effective tax rate on $20 million income ...while —as Warren Buffet pointed out——his secretary pays 16% just in payroll taxes alone. If you have her paying into tax brackets of just 15%, her rate then goes over 30%....which is the TOP of the Laffer Curve. A secretary shouldn’t be paying an over 30% total tax rate at the top of the Laffer Curve....whereas a 40% bracket at $10 million would be politically less damaging to GOP, but in he end, would mean bilionaires paying a little over the Laffer Curve, but not enough to matter much, whereas 99.9% of taxpayers would be under the Laffer Curve....as the point of diminishing returns on tax rates.
According to the United States Supreme Court decision, the corporate income tax is an EXCISE TAX, ie a consumption tax on goods bought by consumers......but a consumption tax on exports but not imports...and even on goods manufactured & sold outside our borders. So the corporate income tax is a BAD consumption tax which should be eliminated & replaced by a consumption tax that taxes imports but does NOT tax exports or overseas operations. That’s how you get real job & income boom along with real tax fairness, by eliminating the corporate income tax as a tax dodge. The corporate income tax AND the individual income tax BOTH were created to tax the rich ONLY & we don’t need both taxes just to tax the rich.....High, steep tax codes reduce revenues by increasing tax avoidance & reducing investment & competition & innovation....resulting in higher inflation & interest rates because owners & corporate boards of directors will refuse to pay sky high salaries if they know government is going to get 70% of most of it. There’s a BIG difference between having a 70% tax bracket at $100,000 income or having a 70% tax bracket at $100 MILLION income. One destroys the economy...the other, not so much.
Liberals believe their 90% & 70% tax rates on millionaires & billionaires will bring in so much new tax revenue that they can have working class paying almost no income tax (and it is true that in the 1940s & 1950s...standard deductions were very HIGH & exempted most middle class income at a time when government spent a lot less & when payroll taxes were either non existent or low. Don’t think with the help of the news media & a strong youth vote, public opinion & voting might enable a blue tide like in 1992 & 2005,2008 if GOP doesn’t get smart on taxes & debating economics. People trade work for money. Businesses trade money for work. Almost all taxes are taxes & a burden on even trades...which is why discussions about “free trade” are so lame”. We tax the same work 4 times at the federal level...and sometimes as much as 4 times at the state/local level. At least if we replaced the corporate income tax and payroll tax by consumption taxes, we get rid of three out of 4 income taxes on jobs and work. and since SS and Medicare is almost 2/3 of the federal budget, 2/3 of tax revenues should be aimed to come from payroll taxes, but raising payroll taxes is a political disaster for both political parties...so it’s better to replace them with better consumption taxes. Payroll taxes are a tax on WORK, on JOBS, wages & raises. The corporate income tax is a bad excise/consumption tax that taxes exports but not imports. Eliminating payroll taxes and the corporate income tax & replacing them with good & better consumption taxes will be hard for Democrats to oppose & change back while being popular with middle class workers & professionals as long as the income tax code isn’t steep. Eliminating payroll taxes & the corporate income tax aids tax simplicity and limits debate on taxes & makes it easier for people to understand. Instead of fighting over the difference between a 40% tax bracket & a 37% tax bracket at the top, the most important debate should be about where the “top” is more than what the rate is....when ranges are so narrow. Should the 40% tax bracket start at $250,000 or at $10 million? GOP values should say $10 million....and that is how you stop blurring the distinction between parties. Bush cutting the top rate from 40% to 35% on a still steep tax code didn’t win over voters...and cutting rates more across the board wouldn’t help either if the code still is steep. They way to bring in business owners and professionals is to make the tax code much less steep....eg having the 30% tax bracket at $1 MILLION income instead of Marco Rubio wanting it at $70,000. or Paul Ryan wanting it at $150,000 or less.
Alan Reynolds has pointed out that Democrat claims about a ‘shrinking middle class” are a complete lie because liberal economists used individual IRS tax returns for their data proof, whereas after Reagan, there was a boom in business creation that lasts to this day & even has intensified. So all that income was reported as “business” income. That along with an increase in retired people & immigrants at the bottom constitutes your entire “shrinking middle class”. People who retire live off savings, investments, Medicare & Social Security, but liberal economics moved retired people into their “became poor” category because they used IRS data only on wages, salaries & tip income.”——
-friend’s rant blog!
(I thought this was interesting, but I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, except I do agree that middle class workers should be paying over 30% total income tax effective rate to the federal government)
-Beowulf
Who here on FR remembers when Jimmah Carter had us only being able to buy gasoline every other day & the PRIME interest rate was over 22%????
NO ONE could buy a house or a car.
And the loan sharks looked on the 22% with amazement, "And they throw us in prison for charging 20% on the street."
The interest hike was a painful necessity given the out of control inflation at the time. Think of it like drug withdrawal.
I recall early summer 1979 gas lines and odd and even days and PPG jumped from 70 cents to $1.25
I brought my 35mm camera and recorded history on the gas line which reached around the block. That gas station is long gone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.