Well, well, looks like this thread has gotten off to a start, but definitely not as robust as I was hoping. No one's fault but it's kind of funny that we would rather focus on politics that do not affect us much rather than a tax policy that will affect most of us. Just interesting. Anyways, I will be more active and provide analysis as I read more into the plan in this thread.
Caveat emptor: For those that think I'm some type of tax law expert, that I am ABSOLUTELY not. I am a licensed CPA but did not practice tax preparation in any way except for a few family members, friends and couple random customers. That said, I understand key components of the tax law very well. On top of that, I understand financial statements and key components of revenue and cost extremely well. Let's get something straight, however. Tax law is "regulatory" by nature and Financial Health is "natural" for the most part. To understand the effects of the code, you have to separate the two and understand how one affects the other. For example, alimony doesn't affect everyone, the same as the standard deduction may affect most. Hence, the code and its changes affect everyone in different ways, including companies. That's a fact.
However, then we get into the political nature of the changes in the code, whether liberal or conservative. This is where the arguments really start and end for you and me. These arguments are about a broader case of social justice and income equality, rather than the changes in the tax code, its effect on individuals and furthermore, the effect on financial health of companies and small businesses. In arguments with liberals, if you separate these, they will not have a place to argue.
Without going into detail, I will post my response to a liberal on facebook.
Libtard's last argument
Quote:Quote:
the wealthiest 400 taxpayers pay tax rates less than 20% because their income is currently considered investment and because of that they also hardly pay payroll taxes. A worker who is bringing in a higher than average salary will get taxed at a much higher rate than the ultra wealthy taxpayer - because it’s not investment income like theirs.
I’m referring to tax percentages and mostly talking about the 1% -2% that are ultra wealthy compared to salaried higher and medium income individuals.
So yes I agree that the wealthy pay a huge chunk of the federal tax revenue, because we are talking percentages, but their percentage is dramatically lower than that of other high income people due to capital gains tax and other deductions.
Now with Trump’s tax plan they will save even more money. That’s the issue, and I still disagree with you that this money will be infused back into the economy because historically that has not happened. Once again trickle down economics is a hoax. We saw this theory in history fail many times like in 2001 and 2003 when Bush lowered top tier income taxes and capital gains, and even though conservatives predicted an economic boom instead the economy barely grew and soon collapsed.
What I then said
Quote:Quote:
I haven't had a chance to reply due to the Christmas holiday! Hope you enjoyed it and spent quaity time with loved ones! Getting back to the debate...
I think at least we are in agreement that the wealthy pay the largest chunk of tax revenue. However, yes they have passive income which by its nature is taxed differently since it's incentivized. There's no way around that. Here's something else there is no way around: income inequality. Due to the nature of our economy, there will always be income disparity period. Those that work harder will make more money. As they pay more money, they will pay more taxes. In order to have a meaningful debate with liberals, I have never been able to separate income inequality (which is a natural function of the economy) from tax inequality (which is regulated). My view is this: the tax code is there to run the government and incentivize investments and grow the economy. It is not there as a social welfare tool, which liberals nonchalantly believe it is. We have other programs for that.
Also, as far as trickle down economics and how it's a hoax. I don't think you can legitimately prove its a hoax aside from article headlines which show nothing but a neutral view of the subject when you read the underlying content. Similarly, I cannot sit here and tell you that trickle down economics is great. Reason being, that the economy every president has inherited has been different. Not only that, in addition to tax policy, there has been monetary policy (eg. interest rates) that have affected the end result somewhat. As far as Bush, in 2001 his cuts stimulated the economy after the 2001 recession. People kept more money in their pockets because of it even though the public debt increased. The 2003 business tax cuts were necessary due to the economic uncertainty created by 9/11. Economy grew 3.8% (very robust) in 2004 because of it. The 2008 tax rebate though was not totally realized because the economy crashed by the time the checks came out. The economic crash was not as much a result of tax or monetary policy as it was due to greed on Wall Street and smart people trying to beat the system. So again, without looking into the actual reasons for collapse of the economy you are conflating theory with fact.
In almost every scenario including Bush as I outlined above, there has been more money in the hands of people and growth in the economy. However, public debt has always increased. That's a whole another debate from the question of economic growth. Do you want more economic growth or less public debt? I'm not sure economists can figure out the answer clearly base on a number of factors. I'm neither an expert nor an oracle to guess how.
So yes, the wealthy will save some money but honestly so will the middle class. If you're saying only the middle class should save more money, it's a bit ridiculous because you're essentially putting restrictions on incentives to reach the American dream, reducing entrepreneurship and establishing social welfare platforms rather than meaningful policy. So the choice is to put more money in the hands of those that work the hardest OR take that away to increase social welfare. That is a meaningful debate but we need to be logical and honest as to how much it benefits us a whole on either side. We don't better the economy by spending, we grow it by generating more wealth to be distributed to those who work hard. That's why this country is what it is. Remember, we have only so many resources; the way we use them has been challenging for every president. We can really cut off the head to save the body.
![[Image: icon_biggrin.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/icon_biggrin.gif){kind=icon}
