Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Monday, July 30, 2018

It's All About the Grift

The Trump administration is considering bypassing Congress to grant a $100 billion tax cut mainly to the wealthy, a legally tenuous maneuver that would cut capital gains taxation and fulfill a long-held ambition of many investors and conservatives.Right.

And then, when there's not enough money for the two current wars, plus the B-21 and whatnot, they cry will go out to cut social services becsuse there's no money.

Trump and Mnuchin are fucking evil incarnate.

7 comments:

doubledee said...

Mainly to the wealthy? Defined benefit plans are now rare (except in government). Traditional IRA's and 401k's have contribution limits and are tax-deferred. You gotta have a nest egg. This is a good thing for a large number of responsible, not so wealthy, people who hope to have a decent retirement.

Are Roth IRA's for wealthy grifters too since there is no cap. gain tax?

3383 said...

And I thought Trump wanted to get re-elected.

CenterPuke88 said...

Doubledee, incidentally helping a small number of the little people is a risk when you cut taxes for the rich. This does nothing to protect a nest egg, but simply alllows the wealthy to adjust up the cost basis of their investments to reduce their liability, most often on stocks and property. This does nothing to help the average person unless they inherit stock from a relative or bought a large chunk of stock decades ago (very unlikely)...and even then, their liability has already been slashed due to capital gains rate cuts.

doubledee said...

CP, it would do a lot to protect a nest egg. If you inherit, the cost basis becomes the date of death, so we're not talking about that. As for your "small number", you would be surprised at how many "little people/average persons" have investments and would see quite a benefit from this. Many of them hope their money will last till they die. (Why do you think there are so many ads for reverse mortgages?)

Just curious. What is your definition of wealthy?

CenterPuke88 said...

Doubledee, the Treasury’s own figures show 90% of the benefit of this change accrues to people on the top 1% of income. This is the same old trickle down shit...

doubledee said...

Trickle down ain't in it but hey, I get it. Better to not let those evil rich bastards get any more of your money, especially since it's only crumbs.

CenterPuke88 said...

Tell me, doubledee, how giving $90,000,000,000 to the top 1% and spreading the remaining $10,000,000,000 among the remaining 99% makes any sense when it immediately has to be paid for by reducing spending by $100B? The simple math says that the average person will see a reduction in benefits (perhaps federal highway spending, National Park maintainence, etc) massively larger than their “savings”.

On your wealth question, the numbers vary by location, but in to top 5% of income and/or net worth is a decent starting point. That’s a bit north of $220,000 a year on average, and even then it’s too easy to be a medical condition away from poverty.