Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,937
In Reply To
Norvell

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,060
Subj: Re: Thoughts on a minimum income? (Re: The Impending Tax Cut Vote)
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 10:55:12 am EST (Viewed 107 times)
Reply Subj: Thoughts on a minimum income? (Re: The Impending Tax Cut Vote)
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 at 09:20:52 am EST (Viewed 141 times)



    Quote:
    If the Republicans skewed the tax cut heavily towards the middle class, away from the ultra-mega-rich, the Dems would have no choice but to support it. And whereas the rich sit on the money and/or divvy it up to share holders for them to sit on, the Middle Class actually spend and propel the economy.


Yes, but that is not going to happen. At least not with the current two bills in play. Not to many middle class people pay the AMT, estate tax or much business tax. And lowering the tax for pass through just really helps the wealthy more than it would help average joe.

I guess we have to see what the final bill ends up being and what stays and goes but there is very little to like in the bill as it stands. At least in my view. And some of the logic I have heard from senators about why they are doing various component boarder on ridiculous.

Chuck Grassley used an analogy for the estate tax to help support savings and investment. Give two people $100k and the person who saves it should be rewarded. Somebody that squanders it should be punished. That makes zero cents. What about the people that cannot save much or will never get $100k in one place at one time.

Or that the estate tax itself seems to get revenue on past down income on uber valuable property. If I was getting an estate or inheritance that big than what did I do to save or invest? It was given to me?

I think a report recently even said that it only applies to about 80 farms and other such things. Which is a favorite talking point. It will very much help Trump and his fellows but for the middle class. Zip.


    Quote:
    The benefit of putting money into the pockets of the poor / middle class cannot be understated. So much so that economic models have been suggested of guaranteeing a 20k/per year minimum allowance by the state -- per person -- would vastly solve many issues of poverty (eliminating welfare) while simultaneously stimulating the economy. I'm not on board with this theory, yet, but it's an interesting outside-the-box viewpoint that is actually being tested by some countries.


I am sure it would. I do not think it is practical or something government should do, unless the person works for the government (and most should be paid more than that).

There is something to be said for the minimum wage being increased into a living wage. Many of the arguments I have heard against it do not make a ton of sense. I guess the biggest one is that it does increase costs of labor for companies. Particularly small ones.

I suppose that is true to some extent but these same people will complain about bigger companies being less competitive internationally because of it. Again, maybe, but they are also sitting on more cash than at nearly any other time in history and just not doing anything with it.

If that alone would be invested, at least in part, on employees than it would be a sizable economic boost.


    Quote:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/guaranteed-20k-income-for-all-canadians-endorsed-by-academics-1.2691847



    Quote:
    Tax cuts for the rich have been tried repeatedly, and every time it's been tried it has failed. Even the so-called success of the Reagan tax cuts tripled the debt.


And they will keep being tried. The irony, this time, is they are not stimulus. They say they are but things have been humming along pretty well over the last few years.

Nobody wants to pay taxes. However, most of this just hides a willingness to shrink government. Which may or may not be bad on its face. However, cut taxes, increase debt, wait for a Dem or Dems to be in power and demand spending cuts. Or demand them of yourselves for decreasing revenue.

Deficits only matter when Dems are in power really. That is the core of the whole mess.

I am actually somewhat supportive of a decrease in the cooporate tax rate, however the plan as it is provides a lower tax rate for bringing money into the US and no taxes on foreign income. So, why bring it to the US to get taxed at one low rate and then 20%. Or just move things overseas and pay zero to the US?






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software