MovieChat Forums > Politics > The US has the most progressive taxes in...

The US has the most progressive taxes in the world.

posted 8 years ago by krl97a (5619)
41 replies | jump to latest

Even some informed liberals concede this, though it doesn't get enough attention. Rational dialogue is only possible if people know the issue's basic, factual premises.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

https://taxfoundation.org/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/other-countries-dont-have-a-47/?utm_term=.4167ad90a4d1

"The rich" pay a much bigger share of their income than other groups do. Many have always acknowledged this about federal income taxes, but despite years of Democrat talking points to the contrary, the subject line remains true if you include FICA taxes, and as this academic study shows...

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/95615/1/576828521.pdf

...it becomes even more true when state/local taxes are considered, since European nations rely heavily on regressive VAT taxes more than US governments rely on sales taxes.

Which isn't a good thing, as a progressive tax structure is a drag on economic growth. In fairness it's mitigated by the US tax burden being lighter in total size, but a progressive structure that puts more of the burden on fewer people leads to revenue volatility as well as being a drag on growth. In fact most European tax systems are flat out regressive. They "make up for it" (in leftists' eyes) by redistributing more and supposedly paying out more in welfare benefits, but on taxes per se they make sure everyone, even poor people, are paying a lot.

As liberal Dylan Matthews points out in one of the above links, if Democrats truly want a European style welfare state, math dictates that the tax hikes will mostly have to land on lower and middle income people. In the short term poor people might get more back in welfare, but the middle class will be squeezed down and even those who about break even between taxes and welfare benefits would essentially just be ceding control of much of their finances to the government, with it often telling you what you can or can't buy.

[–] [email protected] (690) 8 years ago

Are you ignoring corporate taxes? A lot of people like to reduce the tax argument to simply the have-nots want the haves to pay for their idleness, but it's a lot more complicated. Living wages are difficult to find, and it doesn't take much income for a low-wage worker to be taxed while having little left for basic expenses. So from my perspective, the little guy pays plenty, and I don't understand how successful people who are benefiting greatly from our capitalist system complain so bitterly about being asked to pay their taxes.
I know government is bloated and out-of-control (and I'm a liberal dem) but wealthy people crying robbery seems disingenuous.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

No, corporate taxes are included, and the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, though the progressivity comparison holds true whether corporate taxes are counted or not. An old Democrat talking point is that an abundance of deductions reduces the corporate tax rate, which is true, but the weight of scholarship on international comparisons indicates that the US also has one of the highest effective corporate tax rates (other countries have deductions too), hurting US competitiveness. Trump is absolutely right about that.

Liberal discourse tends to focus merely on the direct "beneficiaries" of tax cuts (e.g. "tax cut for the rich"). What gets lost are the consequences of taxes, particularly on job creation, wages, and economic growth, ripple effects that impact the entire population, and often low income people who may not make enough to pay much in taxes or get much in a tax cut even more than the high earners who directly receive the tax cut. Furthermore, don't forget that many small businesses pay in the highest personal income tax bracket instead of the corporate rate. My support for tax cuts doesn't stem from sympathy for the rich (who will be fine either way), but from a desire for the whole country to get back to being freer and more prosperous than it is.

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 8 years ago

"My support for tax cuts doesn't stem from sympathy for the rich (who will be fine either way), but from a desire for the whole country to get back to being freer and more prosperous than it is."

Answer: The minimum wage.

If businesses had their way, they would probably pay lower than the minimum wage. Economics is a system, not a sympathy card. Business are there to make profit, not to cater to ethics. This is why we have the human aspect, government, to regulate and balance.

Theory: Cutting taxes --> should be MAKING businesses pay more to their employees because you are taking a penalty away (tax is a penalty).

Reality: Cutting taxes --> makes businesses prosper and pocket the excess they should be giving to their employees (businesses, from models, we know are not going to pay their employees more)

Freedom is great in theory, however, it results in poverty.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

The US having much lower unemployment rates in the long run than higher taxed countries in Europe and elsewhere refutes you. In fact there are numerous international studies showing that lower tax rates facilitate stronger economic/job growth than higher tax rates do, and the bulk of job creation within the US has occurred in states with relatively low tax rates. As for the minimum wage, businesses will pay what they have to attract employees, but if the an employee is too expensive they won't hire him. It's supply and demand. Government intervening to artificially raise the cost of labor reduces the amount of hiring (jobs) companies will do.

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 8 years ago

"The US having much lower unemployment rates in the long run than higher taxed countries in Europe and elsewhere refutes you."

I need that one explained to me. Shouldn't Europe be having higher unemployment rates if they have higher taxes?

"In fact there are numerous international studies showing that lower tax rates facilitate stronger economic/job growth than higher tax rates do, and the bulk of job creation within the US has occurred in states with relatively low tax rates."

I would say that is partly true; however, the jobs are mostly menial and they do not pay as well. I have lived in both California and Kentucky. Kentucky has Coca Cola, Pepsi, Smuckers, Jiff, etc. all these big companies; however, the wage is low. Most of the jobs here, even plenty, all pay very low. The cost of living in KY is also very low and there is tons of poverty.

In California, it can be said the same; however, the businesses you work for will pay a livable wage. The only problem there is that there are way too many people for the amount of jobs available.

Businesses will not pay what they have to, to attract employees and that is partly because they can find cheaper labor elsewhere. You see all these companies outsourcing to places like India, China etc.? Those countries have poor regulation of our own companies going overseas. Those people, working for our first world companies, are still worse off than even people working for the companies that are native to their own countries.

It is safe to say that these companies will pay as much as they can get away with. This is why FDR set the minimum wage in the first place. This is why unions existed. These businesses had sweatshop mentality. Work long hours, sometimes with no breaks and paid low. There are businesses that still use those practices.

Amazon KY is a good example. Yes, they pay $11.25/hr. to attract people. Still, a low wage, AND you have to be ready to work mandatory overtime and zero job security.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

"I need that one explained to me. Shouldn't Europe be having higher unemployment rates if they have higher taxes?"

They do. You must have misread what I said.

"I would say that is partly true; however, the jobs are mostly menial and they do not pay as well. I have lived in both California and Kentucky. Kentucky has Coca Cola, Pepsi, Smuckers, Jiff, etc. all these big companies; however, the wage is low. Most of the jobs here, even plenty, all pay very low. The cost of living in KY is also very low and there is tons of poverty."

The low cost of living means the real wages are higher than they appear nominally (serious analyses adjust for cost of living), but you're cherry-picking a relatively poor state and comparing it to a rich state. There's also history to consider. These differences accumulate over a long time. New England, for example, grew rich over centuries with conservative/libertarian policies. The US southeast, by contrast, was wrecked by the Civil War, saddled with inefficient racial segregation for decades, and governed by economic populist liberal Democrats for a century. So by the mid-20th Century it was a lot poorer then New England. However, with New England lurching to the left from the 1970s on, and the south moving to the right and being increasingly governed by conservative Republican policies, in recent decades the "New South" economy has seen the fastest income growth in the country, and isn't that far from catching up with New England.

"In California, it can be said the same; however, the businesses you work for will pay a livable wage. The only problem there is that there are way too many people for the amount of jobs available."

Labor is subject to the laws of supply and demand too. If labor, at least legal labor, becomes too expensive, then businesses will create fewer jobs.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

"Businesses will not pay what they have to, to attract employees and that is partly because they can find cheaper labor elsewhere. You see all these companies outsourcing to places like India, China etc.? Those countries have poor regulation of our own companies going overseas. Those people, working for our first world companies, are still worse off than even people working for the companies that are native to their own countries."

Your first two sentences are right, which is a big reason Trump won (though in fairness people are also consumers, and free trade makes goods more affordable), but your last sentence is completely wrong. These aren't slaves. Third Worlders choose to work at those jobs because they're better than whatever job, if any, they could get otherwise. They would be worse off without those US jobs being outsourced to them.

"It is safe to say that these companies will pay as much as they can get away with. This is why FDR set the minimum wage in the first place."

But there's a cost. A government imposed minimum wage artificially makes labor more expensive, reducing the amount of jobs available. That's one reason some of these fast food places are getting fed up and looking to replace some people with automation. As wages increase at some point the machine becomes cheaper.

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 8 years ago

"Third Worlders choose to work at those jobs because they're better than whatever job, if any, they could get otherwise. They would be worse off without those US jobs being outsourced to them."

But would you not find it embarrassing that a first world country churns out businesses that would pay third worlders a wage that they can barely survive on? I mean they are not that much better off. If I were to put myself in their shoes, I would probably look at the U.S. as a very "flawless" country with the best opportunities available. It should not be a country where jobs give me maybe a few cents higher than a job I could find in my own country. These same details were are taking effect here as well.

It is understood that businesses have set margins for equipment, labor, profit margins etc.; however, think of how streamlined it would be if every business could take care of their own? They only hired as many as they could cover and pay a minimum wage that was at least somewhat livable. Most businesses like Walmart would not have employees that are struggling both with holding down a job and staying on the government. Yeah, the mindset is is that its a free market, supply and demand, and you earn it; however, it seems to be more detrimental to the entire system.

If we were to go back and allow these businesses to set whatever wage, you would continue to see that. There are not many livable jobs in a corporate entity because it works itself into an apex. You always have to have a top and a large bottom, pyramids. Not everyone is going to enjoy living well off or living just to get by, there will be far more people struggling just to get by. So if we are looking for job growth, it is not necessarily helping anyone. Job growth is helping businesses expand; however, it is keeping the working man poor.

In all your comments so far, it is great that cutting taxes would increase jobs; however, are these jobs worth working?

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 8 years ago

There was one argument that I always had heard. "Why should anyone be entitled to a job with benefits if they are not willing to work hard? They should be taking two or three jobs......" Wait, what? Stop right there.

In a first world country, why should ANYONE be working two or three jobs? There is something wrong there. And these businesses are making major profit off people they are hiring and still cannot afford to pay enough to keep them from working other jobs?

I do not know about you; however, in a first world country, supposedly suppose to be setting the standard for the rest of the world, we need to be cracking down on this. I honestly then believe and only then, believe we COULD give tax cuts as an incentive. The more a business can keep an employee off the government dime deserves that tax cut, to remove a burden of having to pay that penalty.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

"Job growth is helping businesses expand; however, it is keeping the working man poor."

I honestly don't know how to respond to that, except to say I disagree. Wow...

"But would you not find it embarrassing that a first world country churns out businesses that would pay third worlders a wage that they can barely survive on?"

No. The American objection to outsourcing is that it deprives Americans of jobs. The third world locals are better off with those jobs than without them.

"If we were to go back and allow these businesses to set whatever wage, you would continue to see that. There are not many livable jobs in a corporate entity because it works itself into an apex."

You realize the vast majority of people get paid well above minimum wage don't you? Minimum wage isn't necessarily supposed to be a "living wage". Most people who make minimum wage are either teenagers who don't yet have full adult expenses or are entry level people who soon get raises.

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 8 years ago

I find it embarrassing that our corporations, even when they outsource, are still lacking in ethics. It is astounding and I would not want them back here. PERIOD!

Majority of people are paid near or at minimum wage. There are so many struggling single moms, rurals, poor etc. I think people really underestimate the kind of trouble this country is in.

Back in FDR's time, it was suppose to be a living wage and a wage that would ethically be sound with the business. Businesses were taking advantage of the worker and really, prior to the minimum wage, they were paid some weird day rate. Now days we have salary, hourly, and in the movie/film industry, day rates.

We even see businesses stiffing the American worker on salary. WTF?! So they pay the guy like minimum wage on salary and jack up the number of hours. This is why Obama had to look into it and set a threshold.

I would not for once trust a business. I would work for it, work up, and ask to regulate the ethics.

Minimum wage SHOULD BE a living wage or at least be up to inflation.

I just recently checked an inflation calculator and actually, the inflation wage should be like $4 and something adjusted for $0.25/hr. in 1940. That, I think, should be paid to people on welfare to at least get them to want to work up. For businesses, it should be somewhere around $15/hr. to $20/hr. If that shocks you, then it should. I have spoken to many livable wage naysayers and that is actually what low end workers should be getting paid.

If one were to work up, as they say because no everyone should be working minimum wage; there just are not enough jobs. Not everyone can be a manager, not everyone can be a CEO, people are going to suffer. You might as well allow those suffering to at least live somewhat well. That is the minimum wage I seek.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

"Majority of people are paid near or at minimum wage."

Nope. Not even close.

FDR was a terrible president whose idiotic, sometimes contradictory policies prolonged the Great Depression. The US economy had never had an extended down period like that before. It kept trying to recover and he kept stomping on it. Obama similarly helped cause the worst "recovery" in US history, a period of prolonged stagnation more typical of Europe than America.

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 8 years ago

Well, we have to figure something else out because I am sure most of the poor and middle class would agree to be near livable. There is no incentive to work a job with this "job growth" if I could live on welfare, better than I could, doing a job. It puts strain on the government and taxpayers like you, but who cares right?

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

We need to get strong GDP and job growth going again. Creating more jobs, along with cracking down on illegal immigration, will result in a tighter labor market. More demand for employees and a shrinking supply of potential employees means higher wages. Supply and demand.

[–] Bubbathegut (18049) 7 years ago

neato toledo

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 8 years ago

The discrepancy lies on the fact that there is no way to regulate a living wage. The system is lopsided because the government taxes the businesses to make up for the loss experienced by working class people. Instead of going to the middle class, it goes to the poor (because they are the only ones living solely off it).

If corporations would just hire as many people as they could afford to, pay them and take care of them, the government would probably be non-existent.

If Walmart gives someone a living wage, healthcare, and retirement for all positions; you would never need to hear about them paying barely livable, no person would be still on the government, and we could all live happy lives. In fact, more people would work for Walmart.

[–] Sandoz (2021) 8 years ago

""The rich" pay a much bigger share of their income than other groups do."

They still don't pay enough. If we're talking about the ultra-rich, that is (and to me, that would comprise any individual with a yearly income of over ten million dollars).

It's my opinion that there shouldn't even BE a class in America considered "ultra-rich." I will support any legislation or action that helps to whittle down these money-grubbing parasites and redistributes their wealth.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

Then we'd have even slower economic growth, even less hiring, even more stagnant wages, and even more government revenue volatility, since placing more and more of the tax burden on a smaller and smaller percentage of the population leads to wild fluctuations up or down.

[–] Sandoz (2021) 7 years ago

"...placing more and more of the tax burden on a smaller and smaller percentage of the population leads to wild fluctuations up or down.'

That's a fallacy. There is no tax "burden" to be borne if the ultra-rich were taxed at a higher rate. They can afford to make do with less. And their families wouldn't be going hungry or worrying about whether they had a roof over their heads, either.

And this applies to corporations, too, since according to the bozos on the Supreme Court, they deserve the same treatment as people. Or should we shed a tear if instead of making hundreds of billions in profits, they only make half that amount?

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

You missed my point, and that's no fallacy. If fewer and fewer people are responsible for most of the tax burden, then it takes fewer changes in circumstances to drive government revenue wildly up or down to unpredictable levels. That's a problem for trying to control deficit spending.

More importantly, raising taxes on high earners also hurts the economy, job creation, and wages, especially for lower and middle income people, not just those directly taxed.

I wouldn't tax corporations at all since individuals in those corporations are already taxed on the personal income they receive. Trump's plan would still tax corporations but reduce the rate to something more competitive with the rest of the world, something even many Democrats acknowledge is needed. The US corporate tax rate has gone from one of the lowest in the world in the 1980s to about the highest in the world now, as other countries have slashed their rates for years. It's hurting the US economy.

[–] Sandoz (2021) 7 years ago

"I wouldn't tax corporations at all..."

Ok, I can see there's not point in continuing to discuss this matter with you.

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Should have read the rest of the sentence. You might have learned something.

[–] Sandoz (2021) 7 years ago

I read it, and the personal income of the individuals who work for corporations should have no bearing on how much those businesses are taxed. To even mention it like you did was disingenuous, but that was obvious.

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

The shareholders are also taxed when they get their personal money, doofus. Learn something about a topic before presuming to preach on it. Of course ideally I wouldn't impose an income tax at all, but would fund the government with revenue raised by tariffs the way we did for most of American history when there was no income tax and the US became the richest nation on earth, but that's just me.

[–] Sandoz (2021) 7 years ago

Yeah, they're taxed. Good. Tax them some more.

And the U.S. became the richest nation on earth because we bombed the shit out of Europe and Asia in the 40s and rode that economic one-way street because we were the only country capable of mass-production for nearly twenty years.

Now why don't you respond with one of your thousand word replies that proves your alt-right no taxation BS actually makes rational sense?

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

The US was the richest nation in the world by the late 1800s, moron, which is why we were later able to bomb the shit out of Europe and Asia. Learn some history.

alt-right

LOL!

[–] Sandoz (2021) 7 years ago

Sorry, didn't mean to refer to you as alt-right.

Alt-dickhead is more accurate.

[–] arvin g borkar (2854) 7 years ago

In actuality, when the rich pay, they need to pay the difference between what they pay their employees and what the actual minimum wage should be. $15/hr. was thrown around and so whatever the difference is, all that needs to be taxed.

Now for all the rich that do not have businesses, they should be taxed like middle class people.

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Whatever, you moronic douchebag.

[–] rebelwolf15 (13) 7 years ago

"The shareholders are also taxed when they get their personal money, doofus."

Shareholders of corporations dont get "personal money" from them. They get dividends for whatever shares they own if the C-Corp issues dividends at all. Is your argument that Walmart shouldn't pay tax because if they issue dividends some of their shareholders will pay tax on them depending on their tax bracket and what else is on their 1040? Facebook and Google dont issue dividends so in your tax plan the federal government doesnt get any tax from them or their shareholders?

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Dividends are taxed. So are capital gains. By "personal money" I was trying to use language the poster I was conversing with might understand. My "argument" was simply pointing out that not taxing corporate entities wouldn't mean individuals would be personally raking in money tax free. I could and have argued against what's frequently called "double taxation", since the same money stream is taxed at both the corporate and individual levels (employee salary/dividends/capital gains), and I just said here earlier that I would prefer not taxing income of any stripe at all. But my main purpose here was just to clear up what's actually happening.

[–] rebelwolf15 (13) 7 years ago

Yes, C-corps are double taxed, if they issue dividends, which they dont have to. The only companies that have to be C-Corps are publicly traded companies and there arent many C-Corps who arent.
So if you want to get rid of all corporate taxes, where are you gonna make up the billions in lost revenue?

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Capital gains and employee salaries are taxed too, not just dividends. Any personal money an individual gets from a corporation is taxed, on top of whatever corporate tax was already paid.

I already answered the other question elsewhere on this thread and I'm not inclined to repeat myself. I'll add that I'd also dramatically cut spending, and that you shouldn't conflate my ideal policies with Trump's plan, as those are two completely different things. He's not abolishing the corporate tax.

[–] rebelwolf15 (13) 8 years ago

What changes to the tax code would you propose?

Do you agree with Trumps plan of cutting C-Corps and pass thru entities to 15% (which essentially lowers the rate to 15% on the wealthiest as the majority of their income is from them), doubling the standard deduction, getting rid of most itemized deductions and getting rid of exemptions which would raise taxes on many middle class families and have some paying a higher tax rate than their employers?

Personally, I would be for lowering taxes but I think his plan goes a little too far. I dont think its possible to get enough growth to make up that much in lost revenue. Plus getting rid of the estate tax and lowering to 15% all pass-thrus is just a hand out to the wealthiest and mostly wouldnt change anything other than the number of zeroes in big bank accounts.
I could go for lowering the self employment tax which kills many small business owners and combine it with a raise in the income in which its applied. I would also agree with lowering taxes on non-passive income business income.
I would also be for simplifying the tax code by increasing the standard deduction but keeping a portion of exemptions or changing child tax credits so some middle families dont see their taxes go up.

[–] krl97a (5619) 8 years ago

If I had my way there would be far more drastic changes, but Trump's plan, or at least what's been released about it so far (it's in flux), would bring great, much needed reform. I disagree with your characterization of it. Doubling the standard deduction would result in a net tax cut for the middle class and wiping most other deductions mostly raises taxes on high earners ("the rich"), though this is balanced out by lowering rates. It's essentially what Obama's own ballyhooed bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission ultimately suggested in its report....though Obama ended up ignoring it. Single people making under $25,000 and married couples jointly making under $50,000 are removed from the tax rolls entirely. In fact the biggest problem with this is that it would make the US system even more progressive.

But I love simplifying the ridiculously complex tax code.

I like reducing brackets from seven to three.

I like slashing small business taxes to 15% (I'm more concerned about getting the economy going than punishing "rich" people), and corporate taxes are way too high.

I love switching from a worldwide tax scheme that causes companies to park trillions of dollars abroad to a territorial scheme like most other countries use that would cause that money to flow back home for investment. I've been arguing for that for years.

I love smoothing out the code so there's a level playing field, without the perks that leave some corporations like GE paying no taxes while others get hammered by taxes.

More progressivity is problematic, but greater efficiency and an overall lighter burden could facilitate greater economic growth, especially if the changes are permanent rather than sunsetted. No one knows if it will completely pay for itself, but it will at least partially pay for itself, and will do better than whatever the CBO ends up scoring it as. I put no stock at all in CBO scoring, partly because the CBO is always wrong in its predictions.

[–] rebelwolf15 (13) 7 years ago

Doubling the standard deduction would result in a net tax cut for the middle class and wiping most other deductions mostly raises taxes on high earners ("the rich"), though this is balanced out by lowering rates

Net tax cut is a way of dancing around my point that many middle class families taxes will go up. Millions of middle class families will see their taxes increase under Trumps plan while all of the top get huge tax breaks.

Not true about the wealthy, most deductions that are going away they dont use. Childcare expenses, medical expenses, exemptions, student loan interest, legal, all get phased out at high income levels. For the most part the only deduction they lose is state and local taxes but with their tax rate going from 39 to 15 because of pass thru entities going to 15 they still have a huge tax break as none of them pay anywhere near 25% in state taxes.

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

No, the "wealthy" (of course we're mostly talking income here, not wealth) would be more likely to see their effective tax rate go up than people in the middle class under Trump's plan, and "pass through" businesses often aren't run by wealthy people (especially if you consider that much or all of the business's income is put back into it, with people who look "rich" with a quick glance at the bottom line really living middle class lifestyles; farms are often the same way). The top bracket for people who don't run a small business will be 25%, not 15%. Most of the middle class would only be paying 10%, with single people who make $50,000-$150,000 paying 20%. About half of all current filers on the bottom end, an estimated 73 million people, would be taken off the income tax rolls entirely. Single people making less than 25k and married people making less than 50k would pay 0%. Those in the 10% bracket would keep most or all of their current deductions (those that haven't become redundant), the 20% bracket would keep fewer, and the 25% bracket would keep still fewer. About the only relevant deduction I've heard about "rich" people keeping would be the charitable one, to continue encouraging charitable giving.

And all that's aside from the fact that Trump's plan would facilitate stronger, possibly much stronger, economic growth, with enormous ripple effects benefiting people across income levels. Getting GDP and wage growth up is far more important to the middle class and certainly lower income people (who mostly don't pay taxes anyway) than direct tax rates per se.

[–] rebelwolf15 (13) 7 years ago

" The top bracket for people who don't run a small business will be 25%, not 15%"

You have no fking clue what you are talking about. Small business has nothing to do with it. Funny thing is you have it completely the opposite. Most small businesses are on schedule C which would not see a tax break depending on income level. The top 1%, all of their income comes from pass through entities, whether it be partnerships or S-corps they invest in or their investment accounts which they have in trusts which file their own returns and guess what, it passes through to their tax return. You think George Soros has a E-Trade account in his own name? No, he has all his money in trusts.
I prepare tax returns for a living and the richest clients we have, all of their income comes through K-1s on their schedule E, and your boy trump wants to lower their tax rate to 15%, lower than a lot of people who get a paycheck like me. Pretty much the only income that wont be taxed at 15% for the top earners would be the interest on their personal bank accounts, everything else is in trusts or invested in a business which they get a K-1. I dont see how the rich paying a lower tax rate than many of their employees is good for anyone other than them, they will just have more money in their bank accounts.

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

You're a tax accountant, LOL? No wonder you're upset about Trump's plan and repeatedly lying about it here. Simplifying the tax code might force you to get a different job. And I know exactly what I'm talking about. Cutting taxes for small businesses is the entire point.

[–] Mythic (7) 7 years ago

"a progressive tax structure is a drag on economic growth"

False. If you had said the way it's currently being spent it's a drag on economic growth it wouldn't be false. Nope, dummy right wingers have to push their ideology whether they have to making deceitful blanket statements or flat out lying. I hope you all get what you want, i want to see the look on your face when someone murders you and your family and takes all your shit.

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Wrong, moron. You mean "right wingers" like European OECD economists?

"The results of the analysis suggest that income taxes are generally associated with lower economic growth than taxes on consumption and property.... Corporate income taxes appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita.... There is also evidence of a negative relationship between the progressivity of personal income taxes and growth....While progressivity can provide some degree of risk-sharing between entrepreneurs and fiscal authorities because potential losses can be written off against other income, it also discourages risk-taking....This is because progressive taxes reduce the post tax income differential between the cases where an entrepreneur is successful and the alternative case of a business failure....This hypothesis has been tested...The results in Table 2 show that a stronger progressivity of personal income taxes seems to be associated with lower long-run GDP per capita"

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=eco/wkp(2008)51

Though less focused on that issue, the left wingers I cited in the op also allow for that as a likely possibility.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/95615/1/576828521.pdf

And many of the studies covered in this comprehensive meta-study firmly finding the same thing were by left wingers.

https://taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth/

I hope you all get what you want, i want to see the look on your face when someone murders you and your family and takes all your shit.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the true face of the left. Hey, Mythic, why are you only watching in this fantasy, wuss? Not that it matters. Thank God for the Second Amendment.