Home | About | Donate

The Rich Get Richer Still


#1

The Rich Get Richer Still

Tim Koechlin

The Trump Tax Plan is Plunder, Plain and Simple.

It is virtually impossible to find a reputable economist who supports this plan.

#2

Trump seems to be trying to further curry favor with the uber wealthy in hopes that they will fly high cover for him. They will, until the market tops and quite likely the SHTF. I’d like to see the longs and shorts of Goldman et al. Trump’s a useful idiot for big money–until he’s not…


#3

Theft is illegal, right?

If this president and this Congress, through their so-called, “Tax Reform” are using the powers of their office, to steal in excess of $500, they are all felons and must be arrested, jailed, and removed from any public service jobs forever.

These actions to make theft legal, threaten the livelihoods of the majority of Americans.

The Revolution is about to begin.

Sharpen your pitchforks, and prepare your torches, as We the People have much work ahead of us.


#4

When I see signs that say “I paid my fair share, you should too”, I always get curious.

How much did the individual actually pay? What do they consider someone else’s “fair share” to be?


#5

If non labor income is taxed at 15% labor income should be taxed at 15%. No deductions.


#6

Works for me


#7

If you saw me holding that sign, I could tell you that, like a majority of people at my income level, I cap out on social security and then pay the rate set by the AMT. Here’s my basic “fair” plan:

I think the idea of brackets with fixed numbers as thresholds is archaic and creates all sorts of artificial shenanigans. I favor a progressive tax system based on a continuous tax rate function on next dollar earned rather than the step function approach. The tax rate function then has three parameters to be set by Congress: one parameter determines the minimum rate which I would set at the amount needed to provide retirement and health benefits for a “Medicare for all” system (i.e. this would eliminate the cap on Social security contributions and also subject non-payroll income to the social security and a single payer health care tax), a second parameter determines the degree of progressivity, and the third parameter determines the maximum rate.
Next I would take the budget for the defense department and break it into two parts. The first part would be the amount needed for defense and the second part would be the amount needed for wars with strict enforcement of the War Powers Act (i.e. if we need to fund a war than it must get approved and it must be counted as part of the official War budget along with any interest charges on past war budgets). Finally, I would make the maximum tax rate adjustable so there is a basic maximum level of about 50% (remember that includes funding social security and single payer health care) and then, whenever there are wartime expenses, the maximum level automatically increases to pay for the additional war costs. This gives an economic disincentive to the wealthy when the country wages war.


#8

The system was rigged by the oligarchy from the start yet the people have been conditioned since childhood to love it, preserve it and defend it with their lives even as it enslaves, impoverishes and kills them.

Direct Democracy


#9

As always, an interesting concept, although I disagree on parts of it. I have no issue with brackets, as I think the continuous function would be a boon to the tax preparation industry. Also, while Congress has never been significantly constrained by tax revenues (at least in our lifetimes) I think the sliding scale would encourage Congress to rate creep and increased spending, neither of which I generally favor. (I never see us having to worry about Congress setting taxes “too low”). Also, I disagree on the uncapped Social Security taxes. As enacted SS was to provide a pension related to wages earned. Unless SS benefits are also uncapped, that breaks the compact implicit in SS,


#10

I didn’t say anything about uncapping benefits in Social Security. That isn’t necessary. The current 90-40-10 formula takes care of that (though again I’m no fan of brackets and feel a continuous function would be better).

On the other points - The tax preparation industry survives completely because of discrete rules - not because of continuous ones. It is the weird incentives and exemptions based on doing X at time Y under circumstances Z if it hasn’t been depreciated under rule 3.2 or 4.7 that makes tax preparers necessary. People don’t need tax preparers to follow an instruction like “enter your income here and the website will tell you the amount owed”.

Your thinking that there is no problem with Congress setting tax rates too low seems pretty much contradicted by the evidence, given our long running budget deficit.


#11

Oops - the benefit rates at the bend points are different then what I remembered. They are really 90-32-15. So 15% of average wages for those at the high end. I don’t support that high of a percentage at the upper end so my proposal would have to move that down to 10% (but still uncapped) in order to keep everything solvent.