Tax Policy

[LFC]

I've created this for posting the impacts of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 that are still being felt and the multiple changes if/when the Democrats get their reconciliation bill passed.

First up a steaming turd left behind by Republicans as a gift to their big donors.

In the months after President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017, some tax professionals grew giddy as they discovered opportunities for their clients inside a law that already slashed rates for corporations and wealthy individuals.

At a May 2018 conference of financial advisers, one wealth planner told the room that a key provision of the new law “leaves a gaping hole in the tax code.” As he put it, “The goal by the end of the presentation today is to make you guys the bus drivers, or the truck drivers, to drive right through that hole with your clients.”

Among the tax-saving opportunities offered by the law: Taxes on profits from certain types of businesses were cut dramatically, while the rate on salaries those businesses paid was reduced only slightly.

That created an alluring opportunity. People who were both owners and employees of a company could make the same amount of money but change how they label it, by lowering their salaries and in turn increasing the company’s profits, which they shared in. That would reduce their tax bill by moving money from a high-tax category to a lower one: Wages are taxed at a top rate of 37% plus an additional 3.8% Medicare levy, while profits, under the new law, are taxed at a top rate of 29.6% (with no Medicare tax). Proponents of this provision claimed it would foster increased investment in American businesses (economists say it’s too early to determine whether that’s true). But even before the bill passed, prominent tax academics warned, in an article titled “The Games They Will Play,” that the tax break would be abused.

Their fears appear to have materialized. Secret IRS data shows multiple instances in which salaries for top executives and owners suddenly and inexplicably dropped in the first year after the Trump tax cut, reducing their tax bills even as their companies appeared to thrive. The mysterious pay cuts played out across industries, from logistics companies to real estate firms to makers of bathtubs, and among executives of varying degrees of prominence. The salary for one construction firm executive dropped from more than $4 million in 2017 to $105,000 in 2018.

The wages for car accessory manufacturer David MacNeil, whose WeatherTech floor mats are featured in a Super Bowl ad each year, fell from $68 million in 2017 to $47 million in 2018.

The salary of Jeffrey Records, CEO of Oklahoma City-based MidFirst Bank, plummeted from $8.6 million to $1.8 million.

And the wages of Dick Uihlein, the Republican megadonor and chairman of shipping supplies behemoth Uline, sank from $5.1 million to $2.1 million.

[goldenvalley]

What a coincidence that CEO salary changed when the tax code did! If only we regular folk could adjust our income, and therefore our taxes, that way.

[LFC]

Here's hoping the Democrats go through with a massive overhaul of the tax code, unwinding as much of the damage done by George W., Trump, and the rest of the Republicans who live by the Two Santa Clause Theory as is possible.

Over the past 30 years, Congress has enacted roughly three major tax hikes.

There’s the 1990 tax hike, the infamous breaking of George H. W. Bush’s “read my lips” promise, Bill Clinton’s 1993 increase, and ACA-associated hikes passed under Barack Obama.

Democrats now are eying proposals, however, which contain elements that go beyond any of those last three. While the corporate tax rate, even in Biden’s plan, would not return to the pre-Trump tax cut level, Biden has asked Congress to consider changes to capital gains taxation that would impose the tax upon the transfer of assets at death, and which would bring capital gains tax rates in line with income taxes.

Coupled with additional moves to beef up IRS enforcement and mandates for more information reporting to the tax authorities, the policies could constitute the biggest increases on wealthy individual taxpayers in generations; an opportunity for progressives to implement a chunk of their vision for economic justice that’s unlikely to return anytime soon.

“This is a rare opportunity – you don’t get these trifectas very often, particularly timed with a crisis and public support to do big things in response,” Chuck Marr, senior director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told TPM. “So the stars are aligned – support from support groups, the public, and Dems in power, but those are very tight margins, so there’s no room for error.”

As it stands, Biden asked Congress to raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from its current rate of 21 percent. Congress appears to be headed towards a compromise number of 25 percent, a far cry from the pre-Trump corporate tax rate of 35 percent.

But it’s the capital gains changes that constitute both the most contentious part of the package and potentially the biggest new money pot with which Democrats can partly finance climate change measures and social safety net expansions in the reconciliation bill.

I have no problem with a lower corporate tax rate as long as it is offset through the cutting of tax expenditures and special giveaways. This is what Paul Lyin' Ryan told us would happen. He never even tried because he never meant it. Skyrocketing deficits were a feature, not a bug. And 70 years of ultra-favorable tax policy is more than enough.

[LFC]

From the Department of Knock Me Over With a Feather...

The Democratic plan to crack down on individual retirement accounts worth hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars and to tighten the rules governing IRA investments is facing intense opposition from several industry groups seeking to kill or soften the proposed reforms.

Several retirement industry firms, including one backed by tech investor Peter Thiel, who amassed a multibillion-dollar IRA, have mounted a lobbying push against the plan, disclosure filings show. They have hired an array of former Capitol Hill staffers, a former congressman and at least one former U.S. senator to fight efforts to rein in and regulate the accounts.

ProPublica reported in June that, as of 2019, Thiel had $5 billion in one of the tax-advantaged accounts, which were originally intended to incentivize retirement savings by the middle and working classes. Other superrich Americans have also protected large fortunes from taxation using the retirement vehicles. Income generated inside an IRA is not taxed and, in the case of a Roth IRA such as Thiel’s, withdrawals are also tax-free once the owner reaches the age of 59 and a half.

In response, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee included a proposal to curb mega-IRA accounts as part of the package of social spending and tax changes being debated on Capitol Hill. The House proposal would effectively cap the total amount someone could hold in a Roth IRA at $20 million and compel the holders of the giant accounts to withdraw anything over that limit. “Incentives in our tax code that help Americans save for retirement were never intended to enable a tax shelter for the ultra-wealthy,” Ways and Means Chair Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., said earlier this year. “We must shut down these practices.”

The proposal would also bar IRAs from making certain nonpublic investments, an area that congressional investigators have flagged as ripe for abuse. Purchasing shares of startups through an IRA has become popular among the founders of Silicon Valley companies. Buying difficult-to-value shares at extremely low prices can sidestep IRA contribution limits and potentially generate massive tax-free growth.

[LFC]

A wealth tax? I thought there was ample evidence from other countries that the wealthy are quite capable of dodging these in a multitude of ways.

Democrats are poised to orient the country’s tax system in a whole new direction.

The move, under consideration as part of the reconciliation package, would bring a previously untouched class of wealth under federal taxation.

Not long ago, it seemed like a far-fetched progressive priority: ensuring that the unrealized capital gains of billionaires fall under the ambit of the taxman.

But now, after a meeting on Sunday, key vote Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) reportedly supports the measure.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) talked it up on CNN the same day: “We will probably have a wealth tax,” she said.

It’s widely called the billionaire tax because it primarily targets the unrealized capital gains of taxpayers with capital assets valued at north of $1 billion. (It would also hit the small pool of taxpayers who make more than $100 million in income per year for three consecutive years.)

Right now, capital gains are generally taxed only when they’re sold and the capital gain is realized.

But under the billionaire tax as proposed, unrealized capital gains would be taxed annually.

[AnBr]

I would still like to see capital gains taxed the same as ordinary income.

[LFC]

I'm digging into proposed tax changes more for work. I've really just started digging but the rule changes for grantor trusts are long overdue. These have been used as a transparent gift and estate tax dodge since I started in the industry nearly 20 years ago. They have no legitimate purpose and I really hope they drive a stake into them.

If you're not familiar with these toys of the rich the rules allow a grantor to move assets into a grantor trust which they control and pay the taxes on. It's like just moving some of your assets to a parking spot that returns them back to you over time. The transfer to the trust is literally a gift to yourself so there are no gift tax ramifications. The overwhelmingly most common forms pay it right back with a tiny interest rate over a few years. (To see how tiny the interest rates are look at the historic values for the IRC 7520 Rate they use.) Why would you do this if it just moves assets between pockets? Because anything that isn't returned to the grantor within the term of the trust becomes magically stranded outside of the gift tax law. It then gets passed on to the beneficiary(ies) gift tax free. It's a way to push the majority of the growth of your assets out of your estate with zero tax ramifications. In other words it's a scam but, unfortunately, a very legal one.

[LFC]

Now THIS is interesting. And apparently Sinema has expressed support.

Senators Elizabeth Warren, Angus King, and Ron Wyden have announced an updated proposal that prevents America’s largest corporations from paying nothing in federal taxes. The Corporate Profits Minimum Tax is a new corporate minimum tax that would strengthen our economy and create a fairer tax system. The lawmakers are pushing to include the proposal as a pay-for in the Build Back Better package. The proposal is cosponsored by Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

The Corporate Profits Minimum Tax would ensure companies that report over $1 billion in profits to shareholders pay at least a 15% tax rate on those gigantic profits. Based on estimates for similar proposals, this proposal would generate hundreds of billions in revenue over ten years. Establishing the Corporate Profits Minimum Tax would not only put an end to profitable corporations getting away with paying zero (or less) in taxes, it would also generate revenue needed to invest in child care, clean energy jobs, and more – investments that make American companies more competitive and our economy more resilient.

The Corporate Profits Minimum Tax would:
• Apply to roughly 200 companies that report over $1 billion in profits;
• Create a 15% minimum tax on the profits that these giant companies report to shareholders;
• Preserve the value of business credits – including R&D, clean energy, and housing tax credits – and allow credits for taxes paid to foreign countries;
• Include some flexibilities for companies to carry forward losses and claim a minimum tax credit against regular tax in future years;
• Raise hundreds of billions in revenue over 10 years.

[LFC]

Here's an interesting already existing provision of the tax code that I did not know about. It knocks back quite a bit of the concern over appreciated value for the family farm. Biden is looking to expand it. In full:

Increasing the Dollar Limit on Discounts for Businesses Reflecting Value in Use

The tax code allows businesses to value their assets at use as a farm or businessrather than market value. This provision is particularly beneficial to farms and allows a reduction in the estate value of up to $1 million, adjusted for inflation ($1.19 million in 2021). It means, for example, that the value of the farm will be what it could be sold for if restricted to farm use rather than to be subdivided for development. Heirs are required to continue use of the assets as a farm or business for 10 years.

The proposal would increase the dollar limit on the reduction to $11.7 million. The JCT estimates this provision to cost $0.3 billion for FY2022-FY2031.

[LFC]

Rick Scott (R-FLucking Dickhead) illustrates in spectacularly transparent terms why Republicans can't be trusted with the nation's economy. Another Republican buffoon ... but I repeat myself.

Wallace would then bring up the fact that Scott, besides opposing the Build Back Better bill, also did not vote for the bipartisan infrastructure package that passed the Senate with a healthy majority. Noting that the infrastructure package would provide funds to repair thousands of miles of Florida’s roads, the Fox anchor wondered aloud why Scott voted against the bill when 19 Republican senators supported it.

“Chris, I believe in spending money on real infrastructure. Roads, bridges—,” the Florida Republican declared, prompting Wallace to interject.

“But that’s what this bill has in it, sir,” the Fox News Sunday moderator said.

Scott went on to tout his record as Florida governor, saying he was able to balance the state’s budget and pay down Florida’s debt. At the same time, he alleged that the infrastructure bill isn’t paid for and would not only contribute to inflation but also add to the national debt.

“I’m not going to bankrupt this country. This country has almost $30 trillion worth of debt and that bill by itself was a quarter of a trillion dollars of debt. This has got to end,” he exclaimed, adding that the federal government has got to “live within our means.”

“You talk about living within your means, you talk about debt, you talk about deficits, the Trump tax cuts—which were passed in 2017, the year before you were elected to the Senate—was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that it will increase the budget deficit by over $2 trillion over 11 years,” Wallace shot back. “So should the Trump tax cuts be repealed?”

Dodging the veteran Fox anchor’s question, the senator once again referenced his past experience as governor, saying he cut taxes and fees during his time running the state. “We need lower taxes,” he added.

“Sir, respectfully, when Donald Trump was president, you had a tax cut which added $2 trillion to the deficit according to the CBO and you didn't have the commensurate spending cuts,” Wallace pushed back. “So the question is if you are not going to have the spending cuts, should you repeal the tax cuts if that debt and deficit are so vital?”

Scott once more deflected Wallace’s direct query, insisting that he’s “not raising anyone’s taxes” and he wants to “watch how we spend our money.” He also repeated his line that the government’s “got to figure out how to live within our means” and continued to boast about balancing Florida’s budget as governor.

[LFC]

Josh Marshall put up a defense of the SALT deduction. Taxing local tax is both red state punishment and an ecouragement to make a race to the bottom. (paywalled)

With SALT deductions again – at least momentarily today – at the center of a Senate legislation battle, I wanted to write out in one place why reducing the SALT deduction is terrible policy, even though many progressives don’t seem to realize it. The SALT deduction is the part of the federal tax code that allows you to deduct state and local taxes when calculating your federal tax bill. Critics argue that the benefits go mainly to wealthy and very wealthy people. And that is true as far as it goes. But that’s going to be true in almost any revision of graduated income taxes. The key is that in many blue states it hits a lot of middle and upper middle class families too.

Now, boohoo for them right? Well, if it’s them versus subsidizing people’s out of control insulin costs, sure. But it’s not. That’s not the trade off. Here we get to the myopia of progressive opposition to or lack of support for SALT deductions. The SALT deduction was originally gutted in the 2017 Trump tax cut bill. That was done in part to make up revenue lost by giving huge tax cuts to the extremely wealthy. But that wasn’t the main reason. The authors of the bill correctly believed that gutting the SALT tax was a direct attack on the (mostly) blue states with high-tax/high-service governance. We all know that some states put more into health care, unemployment insurance, education, social services than others – all the basic stuff mostly or partly paid for at the states. That high-tax/high service model is what’s behind that. States that follow the low-tax/low-service model not only have fewer benefits. They also rely more on federal subsidies to provide what services and benefits they do provide. Which is to say that, in most cases, they rely on transfers from blue states to red states to cover part of the bill for their already stingy social safety nets.

The aim of the SALT portion of the 2017 tax cut bill was to penalize states with the high-tax/high service model and over time, via the federal tax code, convert them into low-tax/low-service states. In other words, convert New Jersey into Alabama, Minnesota into South Carolina.

That’s great policy if you’re a laissez-faire libertarian. But if you’re a progressive or anyone who supports a generous social safety net it’s clearly not. The federal government can’t help but be in the business of favoring one model of state and local government over the other. People make different arguments over whether deductions for state and local taxes are inherently more fair or unfair. To me, it’s clear cut: state and local taxes effectively reduce your total income; you have no choice but to pay them; and they go to socially useful purposes. You should be able to deduct them. But this argument is really beside the point. Clearly in the here and now eliminating SALT deductions penalizes high-tax/high-service blue states and is a way to push more states into the low-tax/low-service/federal subsidy model of state and local government – converting Connecticuts into Mississippis.

The follow-on to the equity argument above is why should we have to cater to the concerns of the upper middle class or merely wealthy in blue states? Maybe it’s not fair that the wealthiest 20% of the population in say … California has a lot more political clout than bottom or middle 20%. But that is how political-economy works in our society. And in any case, it’s not the wealthiest 20% of Californians versus those in the bottom 20%. It’s the wealthiest 20% of Californians versus the stupidly rich across the country who got windfalls like they got in the 2017 Trump tax cut bill.

If you want the merely wealthy and the insanely wealthy to pay higher taxes do it at the federal level because that’s where it applies evenly regardless of state tax and social safety net policies. If you’re upset by the crazy wealthy getting some break at the state level, then just put the cap on the deduction super high. The simple reality is that further gutting the SALT deduction isn’t just terrible policy for blue state Democrats it’s bad policy for anyone who believes in generous social spending and government services at the state level.

[LFC]

In case any of you would like to know, here is a great article on the various provisions in the SECURE 2.0 Act that was passed by Democrats in December. There's a lot of retirement account tweaks that impact RMDs (required minimum distributions), Roth availability, catch-up contributions, and repayment of student loans.

[goldenvalley]

Seven states are introducing some form of wealth tax proposals this year.  

A group of legislators in statehouses across the country has coordinated to introduce bills simultaneously in seven states later this week, with the same goal of raising taxes on the rich.

“The point here is to make sure we do at the state level what is not being done at the federal level,” said Gustavo Rivera (D), a New York state senator who is part of the seven-state group.

Some of the state bills resemble the “wealth tax” that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pitched during her 2020 presidential candidacy. It’s a form of taxation never before attempted in the United States, in which very wealthy people would have to pay taxes annually on assets that they own, rather than just their income that year. Other bills focus on raising money from more conventional forms of taxation, including capital gains taxes and estate taxes.

The state legislators say they would like to try such ideas as a test case for future national policy while acting collectively to minimize the threat of people moving to a nearby lower-tax state.

“States are the labs of innovation,” said Noel Frame (D), a state senator in Washington. “But taxes are different. This is why we are all here together.”

No longer will states “get pitted against each other,” she added.

Sponsors told The Washington Post that they will introduce their bills on Thursday in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Washington, and shared the text of their draft bills.

These are all states that have billionaires living in them.  Of course, they could all move to Mississippi or Ireland or a privately owned island.  

[LFC]

Jan 18, 2023 18:34:19 GMT goldenvalley said:

Seven states are introducing some form of wealth tax proposals this year. 

There are a lot of issues with a wealth tax. I doubt they'll be able to pull this off. I guess we'll see.

[Bact PhD]

Jan 18, 2023 19:13:48 GMT LFC said:

Jan 18, 2023 18:34:19 GMT goldenvalley said:

Seven states are introducing some form of wealth tax proposals this year. 

There are a lot of issues with a wealth tax. I doubt they'll be able to pull this off. I guess we'll see.

Yup.
Interestingly enough, about 20 years ago Florida had an “intangibles tax” on assets such as stocks. Under Jeb!, the threshold at which the tax kicked in was increased and the tax was eventually repealed. I forget the finer points, as I didn’t have anything subject to the tax.

[LFC]

Texass Republican tax policy is going full metal culture war.

A newly introduced Texas House bill proposes property tax cuts for couples who get married, stay married, and have lots of children. There’s a catch though. In order to qualify for the tax benefit, couples need to be heterosexual, never divorced, and their children born or adopted after their date of marriage. LGBTQ couples, single parents, divorced parents, and blended families will not qualify for full benefits.

H.B. 2889 would provide qualifying couples with a 40 percent property tax reduction if they have four children, with the tax break increasing for every additional child. Couples with 10 or more children would pay no property tax at all. Just getting started? A couple that meets the requirements laid out by the bill gets a 10% reduction even before they have children.

“Supporting Texas means supporting Texas families,” said Rep. Bryan Slaton, who introduced the bill. “Texas will start saying to couples, ‘Get married, stay married, and be fruitful and multiply.”

But the bill won’t be supporting all Texas families and children, just the ones deemed morally acceptable by the state’s Republican party.

In his press release outlining the contents of the bill,Slaton suggested that the proposal had been modeled after laws implemented in Hungary and Poland, which provide a virtually tax-free existence to large families. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s family policies were heavily promoted by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson last year.

[goldenvalley]

Mar 3, 2023 21:48:36 GMT LFC said:

Texass Republican tax policy is going full metal culture war.

A newly introduced Texas House bill proposes property tax cuts for couples who get married, stay married, and have lots of children. There’s a catch though. In order to qualify for the tax benefit, couples need to be heterosexual, never divorced, and their children born or adopted after their date of marriage. LGBTQ couples, single parents, divorced parents, and blended families will not qualify for full benefits.

H.B. 2889 would provide qualifying couples with a 40 percent property tax reduction if they have four children, with the tax break increasing for every additional child. Couples with 10 or more children would pay no property tax at all. Just getting started? A couple that meets the requirements laid out by the bill gets a 10% reduction even before they have children.

“Supporting Texas means supporting Texas families,” said Rep. Bryan Slaton, who introduced the bill. “Texas will start saying to couples, ‘Get married, stay married, and be fruitful and multiply.”

But the bill won’t be supporting all Texas families and children, just the ones deemed morally acceptable by the state’s Republican party.

In his press release outlining the contents of the bill,Slaton suggested that the proposal had been modeled after laws implemented in Hungary and Poland, which provide a virtually tax-free existence to large families. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s family policies were heavily promoted by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson last year.

Breeder exemptions?  And then Texas will say "sorry no more public K-12 education, can't support enough schools to teach these multiple children."  

[andydp]

Mar 3, 2023 21:48:36 GMT LFC said:

Texass Republican tax policy is going full metal culture war.

“Supporting Texas means supporting Texas families,” said Rep. Bryan Slaton, who introduced the bill. “Texas will start saying to couples, ‘Get married, stay married, and be fruitful and multiply.”

But the bill won’t be supporting all Texas families and children, just the ones deemed morally acceptable by the state’s Republican party.

In his press release outlining the contents of the bill,Slaton suggested that the proposal had been modeled after laws implemented in Hungary and Poland, which provide a virtually tax-free existence to large families. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s family policies were heavily promoted by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson last year.

Doesn't that Constitution "thingy" require "equal protection under the law" ?  Didn't the writers realize that is a "woke" attitude ?

[LFC]

I wonder how that Texass tax policy will look to them when they realize Hispanics can have large families too.

[pg]

Bryan Slayton is the latest of a long, long string of TX pols who want to force their backward religious views into political arenas on every person possible. It appears that his wife is Hispanic. It also appears that they have one child.

Aside from everything, the real fuc@aroo about this proposed BS? First, how many years would it take a married, heterosexual couple to have that many children to qualify? Ha, for any fools-in-love who would try that since their "property tax" benefits would be in the future. And that's only IF they could afford a property with all those mouths to support plus day care plus food, gas, utilities plus plus plus. Do note that Slaton is a religious extremist always and a "financial services professional." My guess is that if anybody took a small dive into his financial affairs, they'd find some rickety RE ripe for the selling. Oh, and how does this freak think that this godforsaken hell hole of a state could support public education? By diverting public tax dollars to pay for religious schools is my guess. Trust? There are some fairly powerful Constitutional lawyers working in concert to fight it.

[LFC]

Biden is looking to increase the Medicare tax on the highest earners. He's clearly putting a stake in the ground that the Democrats can keep Medicare healthy without cutting benefits. This puts him in exact opposition to Republicans who have been trying to cut Medicare for years. He's setting them up on both this and Social Security, as well he should. It's a fundamental difference between the parties.

President Joe Biden previewed a plan to extend the solvency of Medicare “at least into the 2050s” without cutting benefits Tuesday, an opening salvo as he prepares to release his full budget proposal later this week.

Currently, Medicare’s hospital-insurance fund is expected to fall short of full coverage in 2028.

The White House is set to roll out the plan in full Thursday.

Biden wants to lift the Medicare tax rate on earned and unearned income above $400,000 from its current 3.8 percent to 5 percent. Part and parcel with that, he wants to close the loopholes used by “high-paid professionals and other wealthy business owners” to wiggle out of paying that Medicare tax, per the White House.

“When Medicare was passed, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans didn’t have more than five times the wealth of the bottom 50 percent combined, and it only makes sense that some adjustments be made to reflect that reality today,” Biden wrote in a guest essay in the New York Times.

Biden’s plan would redirect and enhance a relatively new revenue stream from the Inflation Reduction Act to Medicare’s coffers. The IRA allowed Medicare to negotiate the price of some high-cost drugs, and required the drug companies to pay a rebate to the program if they increased costs faster than inflation. Biden’s proposal would extend that rule to commercial health insurance, and channel those savings — which the White House estimates will amount to $200 billion over 10 years — into the Medicare trust fund.

He also introduced two cost-cutting measures: a $2 cap per prescription per month on cost-sharing for certain generic drugs, and eliminating cost-sharing for three mental health or behavioral health visits per year.

“For decades, I’ve listened to my Republican friends claim that the only way to be serious about preserving Medicare is to cut benefits, including by making it a voucher program worth less and less every year,” Biden wrote in the Times. “Some have threatened our economy unless I agree to benefit cuts.”

[goldenvalley]

Mar 7, 2023 19:57:48 GMT LFC said:

Biden is looking to increase the Medicare tax on the highest earners. He's clearly putting a stake in the ground that the Democrats can keep Medicare healthy without cutting benefits. This puts him in exact opposition to Republicans who have been trying to cut Medicare for years. He's setting them up on both this and Social Security, as well he should. It's a fundamental difference between the parties.

There are two ways to cut a deficit.  The first method everyone thinks of is cutting.  But raising revenue is also a way to do it.  California has tried to do that repeatedly...the Chamber of Commerce and others portray a mass exodus of the millionaires of the State and the legislators loose their nerve.  I hope the US Senators don't lose their nerve. Don't know about the House.

[LFC]

Mar 7, 2023 21:33:33 GMT goldenvalley said:

There are two ways to cut a deficit.  The first method everyone thinks of is cutting.  But raising revenue is also a way to do it.  California has tried to do that repeatedly...the Chamber of Commerce and others portray a mass exodus of the millionaires of the State and the legislators loose their nerve.  I hope the US Senators don't lose their nerve. Don't know about the House.

Republicans have made taxes toxic as part of their implementation of the Two Santa Clause Theory. As a result they've helped created a large population of whining, selfish children who want this and want that but screech "I'm being taxed to deeeaaath!"

[AnBr]

Mar 7, 2023 21:44:28 GMT LFC said:

Republicans have made taxes toxic as part of their implementation of the Two Santa Clause Theory. As a result they've helped created a large population of whining, selfish children who want this and want that but screech "I'm being taxed to deeeaaath!"

Just wait until 'this and that' is privatized and see how much it costs them when the big corps takes over and starts charging them. Witness the recent soaring inflation from corps reporting the highest profits in their history.

[LFC]

Just a bit of reality, not that the right-wing whiners will believe it. Of course our handling of capital gains taxes makes certain that the burden isn't necessarily distributed by the ability to pay.