More tax cuts for the wealthy?

rambot · Jun 28, 2019

Jonathan Walkerin said:
Actually it has been shown to be total opposite. That consuming of poor and middle class is what keeps economy turning not the billions that keep getting hidden in bank accounts of cayman islands by the superrich.

So if you really want some economy stimulus cut the taxes from the poor and middle class.

If you REALLY want to stimulate the economy, find a way to loose the dozens of trillions of dollars in offshore taxhavens. Watch what happens to the world economy if THAT money gets spent.

archer75 · Jun 28, 2019

Guojing said:
It will depend on your views about the morality of taxing someone who is trying to save his income, rather than to consume it.

Any form of capital tax is basically taxing earned income a second time.

Because of course no money is ever taxed more than once.

Newtheran · Jun 28, 2019

mukk_in said:
It's being reported that the President is considering bypassing Congress to further cut taxes on the wealthy. I'm ambivalent on this. Tax cuts on the wealthy may be OK if they lead to more consumption, investment, and redirection of capital gains into new or existing businesses. But, I'm not in support of tax cuts for mere wealth creation for a few. I also think that the middle class and corporate class (especially SMEs) need more permanent relief. As an investor, all my capital gains (minus taxes) are ploughed back into the market (people like me would also benefit from lower taxation on stock sale and dividends). I'm not sure if all the Billionaires do that. What do you folks think?

Here's a link:

Trump considers bypassing Congress to cut capital gains tax on wealthy, report says

There is a management class in fortune 500 companies that take the majority of their salaries as stock options, thereby bypassing the income tax and paying only capital gains tax. If you want to close this loophole so that it is illegal to use stock shares as a form of compensation it could work. Otherwise no.

Offshore tax havens don't really exist anymore.

RDKirk · Jun 28, 2019

Ronald said:
Trickle down economics was a coined phrase created by the Left - wasn't it Bill Clinton or before?

No.

The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." — David Stockman, The Atlantic

Everything you said below that is just as erroneous.

nonaeroterraqueous said:
Contrary to what I've seen many people say, I don't think the economy is stimulated by spending. Rather, I think it is stimulated by producing desirable goods and services. Encouraging people to spend more only means that the money moves more freely, resulting in more transactions, which means that each product made in China has more opportunity to take our dollars away from us.

Precisely. The only way a particular economic sphere gains wealth is by bringing more wealth in than it has "leaking" out--having a product that people outside the sphere will pay money for.

That's why production economies work and "service economies" don't work. Wealth will always leak out of an economic sphere for things not produced within that sphere, but if it's not also producing something valuable to people outside that sphere, then no replacement wealth is coming in.

That's what has happened to a ghost town. It's production engine has moved out or played out, leaving nothing but the supporting service economy behind.

In the case of the US, corporations have moved production out of the US itself, leaving a moribund "service economy" behind, exactly like towns in the Rust Belt where the factory has closed.

At least in the 80s, the factories that left the Rust Belt relocated to the south and southwest...production stayed in the nation if not in those states.

"Supply-side" economics can work, but only in a closed system. It doesn't work when the fatted corporations invest in production outside their economic sphere.

rambot · Jun 28, 2019

mukk_in said:
I agree on this. As I said in the OP, middle class (and lower class) need permanent tax breaks to boost consumption and demand.

No they don't. They need a GOOD paycheque.

Why is the onus so often on the government to tax less and not on employers to pay more? There is FAR too strong a focus on "keeping investors happy" before keeping workers healthy.

rambot · Jun 28, 2019

Newtheran said:
Offshore tax havens don't really exist anymore.

Really?
Top 10 Offshore Tax Havens in the Caribbean

Panama Papers helps recover more than $1.2 billion around the world - ICIJ

mukk_in · Jun 28, 2019

rambot said:
No they don't. They need a GOOD paycheque.

Why is the onus so often on the government to tax less and not on employers to pay more? There is FAR too strong a focus on "keeping investors happy" before keeping workers healthy.

Good question. I guess because it's investors money. I have no idea what workers need.

rambot · Jun 28, 2019

mukk_in said:
Good question. I guess because it's investors money. I have no idea what workers need.

A liveable paycheque that matches the cost of living. And if that comes at the cost of investment dollars, that is a market problem and, dare I say it, perhaps also an investor problem as "worker satisfaction" is of no concern to them unless it causes massive loses.

Most of the true investors I know could pull out their cash and survive the rest of their lives on the cash they have. The same cannot be said for the workers that I know.

mukk_in · Jun 28, 2019

rambot said:
A liveable paycheque that matches the cost of living. And if that comes at the cost of investment dollars, that is a market problem and, dare I say it, perhaps also an investor problem as "worker satisfaction" is of no concern to them unless it causes massive loses.

Most of the true investors I know could pull out their cash and survive the rest of their lives on the cash they have. The same cannot be said for the workers that I know.

Indeed. I could retire now, if I wanted to. I wasn't always an investor. I was poor, hungry and homeless. By God's grace I re-skilled myself to be where I'm today. One doesn't need a million dollars to invest. Most brokerages are offering zero balance accounts. They may need an initial deposit but no minimum balance. Workers can be investors too. Investing is a discipline. I've quoted some scriptures in the previous responses. Sorry, but just like me workers can retrain themselves for better jobs and paychecks. I shouIdn't be expected to pay a higher wage with my tax or investment money if someone doesn't deserve it. Companies like Amazon raised the minimum wage and I'm happy with that. I hold Amazon and use its services frequently. I have to disagree with your take on that. I didn't complain when I was poor and can't sympathize with those who do. We should all pull our weights.

tulc · Jun 28, 2019

mukk_in said:
Not arguing that and not subscribing to consensus either.

Some scriptures on ethical investing, reinvesting, diversifying, and social responsibility (trickle down):

Matthew 25:14-30, Genesis 41:34-36, Proverbs 21:5; 21:20, Ecclesiastes 11:2, Psalm 112:5, Luke 16:10, 1 Timothy 6:17.

...I'm sorry, but none of those Scriptures seem to actually be about "trickle down". :scratch:

tulc(is just sayn') :sorry:

inquiring mind · Jun 28, 2019

rambot said:
No they don't. They need a GOOD paycheque.

In my experience, most businesses do reward those employees who are not easily replaceable with a similar level of performance. They’re just hurting themselves if/when they don’t.

rambot said:
Why is the onus so often on the government to tax less and not on employers to pay more? There is FAR too strong a focus on "keeping investors happy" before keeping workers healthy.

The government sets minimum wage. It’s up to worker performance from there... but entitlement mentality is alive and well in the workforce too.

Mel333 · Jun 28, 2019

nonaeroterraqueous said:
Contrary to what I've seen many people say, I don't think the economy is stimulated by spending. Rather, I think it is stimulated by producing desirable goods and services. Encouraging people to spend more only means that the money moves more freely, resulting in more transactions, which means that each product made in China has more opportunity to take our dollars away from us.

The actual building of wealth is no mystery. If you want an income, then you get a job, and you do or make something that other people want. The same is true for the larger economy. The numerical quantity of dollars and the frequency of transactions is deceptive, because the actual wealth is a little more abstract than that.

Without getting into tiresome detail, the real question is whether giving tax cuts to the rich is more beneficial, or giving tax cuts to the poor. Generally, I find that even the richest people have surprisingly little cash on hand, because they tend to keep it perpetually reinvested. This goes a long way toward promoting production. The poor people spend a much higher percentage of their money on themselves, which, while it gets the money circulating is not actually stimulative of economic growth, overall. This is not to say that more money to the rich always helps. There are always the lazy heirs to the rich, for whom even the work of making their money work for them is sometimes too much, but they don't tend to remain eternally rich, being that they lose grasp on the art of building wealth.

In short, cutting taxes for the rich can help the economy, but not necessarily. If it helps, then the effect is not immediate. In fact, it is so gradual that most may not even realize the initial cause of the economic growth. Tax cuts for the poor will make the poor feel better, but it will not improve the economy. Middle class, naturally, is somewhere in the middle.

The economy is stimulated by spending ie creating new loans and for example, getting people into purchasing houses with debt to expand the currency supply.

This is what inflation is: expanding the currency supply. Tax cuts are just a means at expanding it. Industry as well expands it. Anything that creates more debt expands it. Stimulating the economy is just another word for inflation.

Spending needs to occur so the currency is passed around to everyone and new loans need to be created to increase the supply or the economy goes into a depression and people lose their jobs. It's a stupid system based on creating more debt for everyone to be a slave to it.

Guojing · Jun 28, 2019

archer75 said:
Because of course no money is ever taxed more than once.

If you considered VAT/GST, it is taxed another time.

The real question people should ask is whether someone should be taxed again for saving the money.

Contenders Edge · Jun 29, 2019

mukk_in said:
It's being reported that the President is considering bypassing Congress to further cut taxes on the wealthy. I'm ambivalent on this. Tax cuts on the wealthy may be OK if they lead to more consumption, investment, and redirection of capital gains into new or existing businesses. But, I'm not in support of tax cuts for mere wealth creation for a few. I also think that the middle class and corporate class (especially SMEs) need more permanent relief. As an investor, all my capital gains (minus taxes) are ploughed back into the market (people like me would also benefit from lower taxation on stock sale and dividends). I'm not sure if all the Billionaires do that. What do you folks think?

Here's a link:

Trump considers bypassing Congress to cut capital gains tax on wealthy, report says

Here is the tax plan that works better than any tax plan devised by man: It is called God’s tax plan which he designated for the ancient Israelites in which He said:

“Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above shall give an offering unto the Lord. The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel…” (Ex. 30:15)

God did not require more from one economic class than He did another, but unfortunately man does. To place the tax burden on one economic class more than another is, whether it be taxing the wealthy more than the poor or the poor more than the wealthy, or the middle class more than either one, is an injustice that any nation should seek to correct.

I can give Trump credit for at least setting a precedent that can be built upon (the tax breaks of the most wealthy have actually been made smaller than the tax breaks that have been given to the lower classes by the way) but our ultimate goal should be a tax system in which everyone is taxed equally and not one class more than other.

The Lord in His Word has given us an example of that and if applied, would in the long run, prove itself to work far better than any other tax plan but unfortunately, sinful man, in his lack of faith and arrogance, thinks he knows better than God.

And finally, God's tax plan is much simpler than any tax plan of man.

Neogaia777 · Jun 29, 2019

Communism and/or socialism existed long, long before any other kind of system, when we were still tribal, and hadn't yet learned to capitalize off of what we had, or what we could do, or get or gain (ourselves), or others or each other, when we had all things "in common" and when their was no such word as "stealing" or "stolen", being only one example...

When we did learn to start doing that, we fell, and were no longer perfect in God's eyes, and that led to all kinds of evil after that or after we learned to start doing that...

The end of the Law is the end of us having learned to do that, or more appropriately, not do that anymore, for that is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets... All of Jesus moral or behavioral teachings were specifics of what the Law was and really meant, and what the end of "THE LAW" would be or mean... A law we kept until we learned to capitalize or exploit ourselves and each other or whatever, before we became a bunch of greedy bastards and then also became infected with all other kinds of wickedness or evil...

The only reason socialism or communism is labeled "evil" is because we are still evil, and that is also the reason it doesn't or won't work or fails as well... As long as this problem of evil exists with us and in us, nothing is going to work, but socialism or communism might, if we did, or could fix that, or have it fixed by some sort of divine intervention or something... I do not think we can do it on our own...

As long as the problem of evil exists that started out long, long ago, when we went from being perfect in God's eyes to no longer being perfect, as I just described, (capitalism and exploitation started to become the norm, ect) As long as that problem, which I heard in a film described as a "mental illness" which is what I would agree it most definitely is, anyway, as long as that problem exists; nothing is going to work until that is fixed, but it/they might if it was or were...

The only reason we label socialism or communism evil, is because we are evil, and a bunch of greedy, coveting, or whatever, bastards, or became bastard children basically...

If we can't find a way to go back to the "original good ole days" before these problems ever started or existed nothing is going to work basically, our end or the end of this wicked age is supposed to be us going back to that, it is the fulfillment of the Law and our future... And we better learn it soon, cause now that our world seems to be getting smaller or more confining... Anyway, we better learn it soon or else...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 · Jun 29, 2019

Neogaia777 said:
Communism and/or socialism existed long, long before any other kind of system, when we were still tribal, and hadn't yet learned to capitalize off of what we had, or what we could do, or get or gain (ourselves), or others or each other, when we had all things "in common" and when their was no such word as "stealing" or "stolen", being only one example...

When we did learn to start doing that, we fell, and were no longer perfect in God's eyes, and that led to all kinds of evil after that or after we learned to start doing that...

The end of the Law is the end of us having learned to do that, or more appropriately, not do that anymore, for that is the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets... All of Jesus moral or behavioral teachings were specifics of what the Law was and really meant, and what the end of "THE LAW" would be or mean... A law we kept until we learned to capitalize or exploit ourselves and each other or whatever, before we became a bunch of greedy bastards and then also became infected with all other kinds of wickedness or evil...

The only reason socialism or communism is labeled "evil" is because we are still evil, and that is also the reason it doesn't or won't work or fails as well... As long as this problem of evil exists with us and in us, nothing is going to work, but socialism or communism might, if we did, or could fix that, or have it fixed by some sort of divine intervention or something... I do not think we can do it on our own...

As long as the problem of evil exists that started out long, long ago, when we went from being perfect in God's eyes to no longer being perfect, as I just described, (capitalism and exploitation started to become the norm, ect) As long as that problem, which I heard in a film described as a "mental illness" which is what I would agree it most definitely is, anyway, as long as that problem exists; nothing is going to work until that is fixed, but it/they might if it was or were...

The only reason we label socialism or communism evil, is because we are evil, and a bunch of greedy, coveting, or whatever, bastards, or became bastard children basically...

If we can't find a way to go back to the "original good ole days" before these problems ever started or existed nothing is going to work basically, our end or the end of this wicked age is supposed to be us going back to that, it is the fulfillment of the Law and our future... And we better learn it soon, cause now that our world seems to be getting smaller or more confining... Anyway, we better learn it soon or else...

God Bless!

Or we have to find or come up with a system that is sustainable long term that will work with the evil in us... Both, or either way, is just as equally impossible if you ask me...

God Bless!

Blade · Jun 29, 2019

Bush tried this in 1992.. lawyers said he didnt have that right. Saying "cut taxes on the wealthy" is not what its called or exactly what it is. There is SO much more to it.

Hollow Man · Jun 29, 2019

mukk_in said:
It's being reported that the President is considering bypassing Congress to further cut taxes on the wealthy. I'm ambivalent on this. Tax cuts on the wealthy may be OK if they lead to more consumption, investment, and redirection of capital gains into new or existing businesses. But, I'm not in support of tax cuts for mere wealth creation for a few. I also think that the middle class and corporate class (especially SMEs) need more permanent relief. As an investor, all my capital gains (minus taxes) are ploughed back into the market (people like me would also benefit from lower taxation on stock sale and dividends). I'm not sure if all the Billionaires do that. What do you folks think?

Here's a link:

Trump considers bypassing Congress to cut capital gains tax on wealthy, report says

What provision in the tax cut specifies that these cuts are only for the wealthy? Where do we see in this proposal that the middle class and others who receive capital gains taxes are exempted from the cut?

ilovejcsog · Jun 29, 2019

I think we need to see it proved one way or another. There's always a lot of garbage said out there.

mukk_in · Jun 29, 2019

Hollow Man said:
What provision in the tax cut specifies that these cuts are only for the wealthy? Where do we see in this proposal that the middle class and others who receive capital gains taxes are exempted from the cut?

Only some ideas are being reported, no specifics (check out the piece at the link in the OP). This seems to be an idea floated by CEA Larry Kudlow which is being opposed by some members in the administration. I'll post updates when available. Peace in Christ.

More tax cuts for the wealthy?

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Senior Member

Senior Member

Yankees Fan

Senior Member

Yankees Fan

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

and a discerning heart

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Old Soul

Veteran

Active Member

I am a Christian mutt. You can call me Rox

Yankees Fan

Similar threads