Biden Tax Increases
- Thread starter scotchtiger
- Start date
yes they pay more because they can afford to pay more without it negatively affecting them. it's not like they're taxed at 37% across the board, it's only for any dollar over $515k or whatever the threshold is. pardon me if i don't weep tears because someone making $600k/year in income is having that last $80k taxed 2% higher than from 200k to 500k
edit: i see i didn't answer your other questions.
i'd be happy if the gov't decided to charge less in taxes - the problem is we're spending more and more each year through defense and social programs that it'll never happen. until we overhaul social programs and our absurd defense budget, then unfortunately that's not a realistic option.
and the haves have always paid more taxes than the have nots - i wasn't solely focusing on income taxes
Is that what you "content"?
This post sums up what we see from you better than anything I have ever seen from you. All ridicule, no substance. I hope that makes you happy.
This post sums up what we see from you better than anything I have ever seen from you. All ridicule, no substance. I hope that makes you happy.
You are scolding me and not the guy who called all liberals retarded? This post sums up what we see from you better than anything I have ever seen from you.
Spring is in the air, so it's a good time to start thinking of ways to punish success. The Biden administration is doing just that as it prepares its priority legislation: Taking more money from hard-working Americans. We have these fun things to look forward to according to The Hill:
- Increase the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%.
- I'm sure this will be good for jobs/unemployment/costs of goods.
- Increasing the income tax rate on people making more than $400,000
- Because this arbitrary number surely targets the Billionaires that the democrats love to complain about. It's really those damn upper middle earners getting drilled with the top ordinary tax rates that we need to squeeze for more money.
- Expanding the estate tax.
- Tax income, tax earnings and then tax again when you die. Yea, that sounds fair.
- Paring back tax preferences on pass-through businesses such as limited-liability companies.
- Haven't small businesses suffered enough? And now you want to raise their taxes?
- Setting up a higher capital gains tax rate for individuals making at least $1 million.
- I could actually see adding some scale here. I think $1M is too low though and it needs to be progressive like income tax, not a cut-off at which you pay a new rate on all cap gains.
- For example, a decently high earner has to pay 20% on every dollar of cap gains instead of 15%. If they implement this the same way, someone earning $1M of ordinary income would then get hit with a huge cap gains rate on everything (Biden has suggested ordinary income tax rates, which would be 37%+).
- I could see a structure under which your first $500K of long term gains is taxed at 15%, the next $500K is taxed at 20% and the rest ($1M+) is taxed at 25%. Break it off from ordinary income levels.
Biden planning first major tax hike in almost 30 years: report
President Biden is reportedly planning the first major hike in federal taxes in almost 30 years to fund the economic program set to follow the recently approved $1.9 trillion pandemic stimulus pack…thehill.com
The cycle continues. A republican president cuts taxes for those making the most money and promises that all that money being pumped back into the economy will generate so much economic growth that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. It never does. Then the subsequent Democratic president (who will be facing an economic crisis that happened on the republican president's watch) will be forced to raise taxes. The only modern exception to this is when Bush (R) followed Reagan. and of course we all know happened to Bush senior. He was forced to raise taxes and got hammered in the following election.
The cycle continues. Biden takes over from Trump with the country in an economic crisis and further in debt than before (after Trump promised to erase the debt in his 2016 campaign).
I agree that the $400K threshold should be higher. I think it will be. I agree that they should not touch the pass through benefits for business owners. As a business owner I left a high paying job and ate a shit sandwich for lunch for years to start a business that now makes myself and other people rich. I think I am entitled to some pass through benefit for my efforts. Otherwise, I should have just remained a W2 employee.
I agree with the other taxes you listed being raised, especially the estate tax.
Our country clearly needs to raise revenue because (surprise) the republican tax cuts are not paying for themselves. What would you recommend we do? Raise taxes on poors? And don't talk about removing entitlements, you and I both know neither party is going to touch that.
correct, ~30T is the debt. i wonder what the service on that large of a loan would be?
Yeah, let's further incentivize people who can not afford to have children to have more children. I am all for helping people who need AND who are trying to help themselves. However, I think if you are already receiving government assistance you should have to abstain from having more children you can not support. It is insane and cruel to bring children into a situation where they are going to suffer due to financial hardship. Particularly when much of the $$ intended to help children is not spent for their welfare in many cases.
If you are dependent on income from the government you have no business bringing a child into the world when you can not support the people in your family now. This one change, would make a huge difference in in the quality of life for future children and curb long term spending. We constantly talk about the hardship poor children face and the disadvantages they have, yet we institute policies that encourage and support the creation of circumstances that produce more of the same. It's like advocating to increase the budget for the fire department while leaving free matches and lighter fluid on every street corner.
Reganomics on full display in here. If we are truly going to MAGA we should return in tax rates from 1985 and charge people 50% tax on single income above 85k. This total sham of forgetting recent history and to keep under taxing and over spending and putting the country in debt is a problem. But the LIE that we should cut taxes and it will increase revenue is such a crock.
Every single time its done, the corporations reinvest in themselves and wages stay stagnant. Oh sure inflation will go up some, but the middle class has had the shit squeezed out of it for 40 years now and here we are talking about the poor 1.8%.
Americans need to stop falling for the same bull crap.
Every single time its done, the corporations reinvest in themselves and wages stay stagnant. Oh sure inflation will go up some, but the middle class has had the shit squeezed out of it for 40 years now and here we are talking about the poor 1.8%.
Americans need to stop falling for the same bull crap.
Maybe start by not spending $2T on a bloated covid bill? And then end the ridiculous notion of even more entitlement programs?
If you want to raise taxes, maybe actually focus it on those used in talking points about the evil rich?
And yea, we need to find a way to cut spending and address entitlements, but you are correct, neither party will actually fix it. Which is why it's incredibly stupid to consider adding more entitlements.
That $2T bill will do more to stimulate our economy than the tax cuts.
The problem with taxing the super rich is that they will just figure out a way to get around paying those taxes. Look at how Trump did that for 20 years.
while i agree it's probably not in the best interest of the child to have a family relying on gov't assistance to get by, trying to regulate who can and can't have children is an awfully authoritarian idea coming from who i'm assuming is a small gov't guy.
i think we need to increase funding to rural and inner city health clinics and start further promoting safe sex alternatives to abstinence (which as we all know is pointless.) i'm hardly an authority on the subject, but there has to be something different we can do to educate the most vulnerable in our society about preventing pregnancies. and before someone chimes in with "well herp we're paying people to have tons of children and people are exploiting it!" yeah i'm sure that happens, but the vast majority of people in that position aren't churning out kids for an extra $300/month.
His point was the arbitrary number. People will just figure out ways around it, pay in vehicles, mileage, etc. Taxes are stupid and our government needs to get out of our pockets instead of deeper.
Lists of taxes
Drivers license
Passport
Income Tax
FUDA
Sales Tax
Luxury Tax
Business personal property tax
Business tax
Unemployment insurance tax
Resort tax
City tax
County tax
Vehicle tax
Property tax
Get the drift, we are already lucky not to be completely poor and no wonder no one can ever get ahead when you add debt to the equation
With very few exceptions, I don't think education on safe sex would make much difference. The vast majority of kids in middle school understand the basics at the very least. The fact of the matter is as long as we are doling out $$$ for kids, people are going to keep having them. It not just $300/month. you have child tax credits, snap program, housing assistance, earned income credit, etc. Even in places where it is not purposely abused it is a problem we could reduce. Furthermore, in many lower income populations it is definitely purposely abused and a way of life.
I know someone who was a local high school track coach. He had a young ninth grade girl who was athletically gifted. She was from a lower income family and honestly was not likely on a path that led to a great future. However, he was excited because he was pretty sure if she continued with track, she would be able to get a good scholarship from a smaller college. At the start of tenth grade she had not signed up for track. He found her one day and told her that even though it was passed the deadline, he would get her signed up. She said that she was not going to take track anymore and would not really say why. He pleaded with her and again told her how much talent he thought she had and that track would provide her a path to college and a better life and could not understand why she wanted to quit. She finally told him that her mother and her grandmother, whom she lived with told her over he summer that they did not want to have any more children and that it was her turn to start having them so they could keep getting checks. She was pregnant soon afterward. This may not be "typical", but it is not an uncommon way of life in many areas.
You give them a choice, sign up for voluntary birth control administered by a doctor, and other people will help pay to raise your child. If you don't need other people to pay for your children, have twenty if you want to. It's not real complicated.
Teenage pregnancy has decreased significantly and the us birth rate is not increasing either.
I agree with your second paragraph. Birth control should be super easily accessible in poor areas.
I'm all for prevention. Early personal finance education. Early nutrition education. Early sex education and access to birth control. Those are good uses of our resources. And there will be a positive ROI that should result in a net reduction in government dependence and health care costs over time.
You attribute this to telling people how birth control works? Also, while teen pregnancy reduction is fantastic, it does not change the fact that people should not be getting $$$ to have additional children if they can afford the first one.
I hope you know, and normally I would post the data, but I'm just not going to deal with you here, almost all of the horseshit you just posted is directly contradicted by facts.
For every dollar spent on contraception and education in Colorado, we save $6. This is easy.
But the culture war idiots don't seem to care about details and nuance.
Same leoe who just passed laws in Utah forcing new cell phones to include porn filters.
People are so ****ing stupid.
So you are saying there are very few families with more than one child receiving government assistance?
This is why I didn't bother looking anything up... Carry on with your ignorant assumptions and anti-science idiocy though.
It was a serious question. If you tell me only a small percentage of families on govt assistance have more than one child, I will take you at your word.
That's called deadweight loss and it highlights why increasing federal tax on the wealthy doesn't work. They just change their spending, investing and location of money which results in tax revenue shortages and puts strain on the economy via less spending, less investing, less dollar momentum.
Also, roughly 10% of whatever percentage of the $2T which was given to Americans landed in the stock market. I wonder how many lost their stimmy on GME or AMC? How is that kick starting a closed economy?
Why doesn't Biden go after the massive corporations that don't even pay the 21% of owed taxes, much less 28%? He should start with Pfizer, Nike, Amazon, Google, Oracle, Microsoft..........all of which net out well under 10% and no administration seems to do anything about it.......see Nike under Obama admin.
Lastly, while your boy Biden is raising taxes on the surface, he's handing back the SALT deduction which will erode a huge portion of additional tax increase benefits especially for that middle to top 1.8% that you all love to hate. That will cost $136b over 2 years and shows that every administration avoids biting the hand that feeds them.
Im actually okay revisiting the SALT cap. $10K is way too low. It should be changed to a percentage of income rather than a dollar cap. Say, 8%.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have it back. My property taxes are absorbent and I had to adjust when Trump capped it. My point was dems take care of the wealthy just as much as the repubs do. The argument for either party being harder on the rich is really just semantics.
The Debt to GDP Ratio Is the Highest It's Been Since World War II
Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1900.
What is strange to me about your post is you are talking about things that Biden has done or not done that have not happened yet.
How do you know what people did with their payments from the $2T stimulus when no payments have gone out yet?
Congressional democrats have not introduced any legislation yet on taxes. You are speculating based on Biden's campaign platform and what is being reported in the newspapers (the same ones you called "fake news" for the last 4 years). And the legislation that will be put forward will be a starting point. It will have things to appease progressives that will have not chance in hell of passing in the senate.
And "my boy" Biden has been president for 2.5 months. "your boy" Trump had four years to make the companies you listed pay their fair share.
The Debt to GDP Ratio Is the Highest It's Been Since World War II
Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1900.
Thanks Trump and republicans!
Was referring to the stimulus money that went out last year, 10% of that money landed in the stock market. Apologies for not being more clear.
Sorry, I didn't know we couldn't discuss current events until they signed a bill on the floor. My bad
ha, dude.....and Obama was there for 8 years, what did he do?
There's a lot of really bad economic policy in this thread and even more just not understanding some realities.
Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue. Federal revenue as a % of GDP hasn't really changed by more than 1% either direction for the last 70 years. Lower tax rates spur growth and that's really important. The reason we have such a large debt is because as the economy grows, we just keep spending more and more. The spending is 100% of the problem. Revenue is not a problem.
Back in 1965, the tax rate if you made more than $500.00 per year was 15% and if you made $10,000 per year (roughly $80k today) you paid 32% of your income taxes. Back in 1965 there was no Earned Income Tax Credit to help low income heads of household. Fast forward to today and if you make $30,000 you pay 12% income taxes but that figure will be reduced because of the EITC if you are head of household. It's not a balanced system anymore and anyone that looks at the numbers know that
Ultimately, we have hollowed out almost all revenue from the bottom 50% and massively increased what we take from the top half of the earning bracket. Yet despite all this and $22T spending on anti-poverty programs, we are no better off. How can that be?
Anyone who is ignorant enough to think that raising rates increases revenue successfully is just absent of any factual understanding of economics. It doesn't and history shows this regardless of tax rates. Also, trying to generate tax revenues from businesses is the worst idea ever. We should have NO corp and business taxes in this country. Want to help the poor and see the standard of living increase all around? Get rid of business taxes. They are super regressive and impact the poor far more than the rest of us.
We can play with the numbers all we want but here's reality. SS/Medicare/Medicaid must be dealt with directly. They must be cut and they must have their contribution rates altered very slightly. We must pay down our debt because interest on the debt is going to be 25% of the federal budget soon. We must deal with government spending and shrink our government dramatically. Absent of doing these things, we will never get our deficit situation under control. Neither party is going to care about this. People screamed for 8 years about Obama's spending but said nothing as Trump spent like mad during his term. Fiscal responsibility should not be a partisan issue. It will take us all down. It's sad that we're all scrambling to beat the crap out of one another so we can get the best deck chair on the Titanic. And yes, our nation is very much the Titanic at this point.
Raising taxes doesn't increase revenue. Federal revenue as a % of GDP hasn't really changed by more than 1% either direction for the last 70 years. Lower tax rates spur growth and that's really important. The reason we have such a large debt is because as the economy grows, we just keep spending more and more. The spending is 100% of the problem. Revenue is not a problem.
Back in 1965, the tax rate if you made more than $500.00 per year was 15% and if you made $10,000 per year (roughly $80k today) you paid 32% of your income taxes. Back in 1965 there was no Earned Income Tax Credit to help low income heads of household. Fast forward to today and if you make $30,000 you pay 12% income taxes but that figure will be reduced because of the EITC if you are head of household. It's not a balanced system anymore and anyone that looks at the numbers know that
Ultimately, we have hollowed out almost all revenue from the bottom 50% and massively increased what we take from the top half of the earning bracket. Yet despite all this and $22T spending on anti-poverty programs, we are no better off. How can that be?
Anyone who is ignorant enough to think that raising rates increases revenue successfully is just absent of any factual understanding of economics. It doesn't and history shows this regardless of tax rates. Also, trying to generate tax revenues from businesses is the worst idea ever. We should have NO corp and business taxes in this country. Want to help the poor and see the standard of living increase all around? Get rid of business taxes. They are super regressive and impact the poor far more than the rest of us.
We can play with the numbers all we want but here's reality. SS/Medicare/Medicaid must be dealt with directly. They must be cut and they must have their contribution rates altered very slightly. We must pay down our debt because interest on the debt is going to be 25% of the federal budget soon. We must deal with government spending and shrink our government dramatically. Absent of doing these things, we will never get our deficit situation under control. Neither party is going to care about this. People screamed for 8 years about Obama's spending but said nothing as Trump spent like mad during his term. Fiscal responsibility should not be a partisan issue. It will take us all down. It's sad that we're all scrambling to beat the crap out of one another so we can get the best deck chair on the Titanic. And yes, our nation is very much the Titanic at this point.
The Debt to GDP Ratio Is the Highest It's Been Since World War II
Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1900.
Looks like we need to slash spending. Why are there proposals to spend even more? Was $2T really necessary for the covid bill? With spending out of control, why propose free college or Medicare for all?
That's easy. They want to addict voters to the benefits of their spending and thus create a permanent ruling class. It's just unfortunate people are so stupid and look to daddy government to solve their problems. It's probably already too late but we need to stop this madness. People need to wake up to what they are creating.
It’s hard for me to imagine taking money from the government or asking other people to pay for government programs that I want. Call it self-respect or whatever. I’m kinda shocked there are Clemson fans ITT who are totally okay asking others to pay for things they want.
It isn't about that. It's about power. It's about control over the direction of this country. Just look at the Georgia Senate races. Once the Dems promised $2000 checks, the polls moved 5 points. They know they can buy votes and control people with handouts.
