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.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Monday, July 30, 2018
7 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
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.
ReplyDeleteAre Roth IRA's for wealthy grifters too since there is no cap. gain tax?
And I thought Trump wanted to get re-elected.
ReplyDeleteDoubledee, 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.
ReplyDeleteCP, 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?)
ReplyDeleteJust curious. What is your definition of wealthy?
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...
ReplyDeleteTrickle 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.
ReplyDeleteTell 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”.
ReplyDeleteOn 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.