Trump administration considering $100B tax cut to the rich without approval from Congress

[Ajay]

Ummm, as jobs increase wages should remain level until excess labor has been absorbed back into the labor force at which point supply of jobs exceeds supply of labor, giving workers leverage to increase wages. So increased jobs coupled with increased wages isn't "dreamland commutopia" it's basic capitalist economics.

Except American businesses are doing their best to stop that particular "vicious" cycle. Money is for shareholders, not stakeholders.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans know that the only way to pay for their corporate tax breaks is through hyper inflation, and are trying to protect their corrupt oligarch donors from the consequences.

 

[child of wonder]

This thread has a lot of hysteria and not many reasonable thoughts.

 

[Jhhnn]

This thread has a lot of hysteria and not many reasonable thoughts.

So give us some reasonable thoughts.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I see no problems with adjusting for inflation. Hell, gov workers get cost of living adjustments every year so why shouldn't people who invest in our country's great businesses also be compensated accordingly?

I worked for the civil service system for many years, and wage increases were far from keeping up with inflation. Many years (especially under republican administrations), the "annual" cost of living wage was frozen (i.e. cancelled) because of "national emergency". In most other years the raise was reduced below that recommended based on the inflation rate, again, because of that "national emergency." Never knew quite what that "national emergency" was, except perhaps the ballooning deficit caused by tax cuts that benefited primarily the upper income bracket.

 

[ElFenix]

are ordinary income brackets adjusted for inflation? pretty sure they're not.

 

[Zorba]

This basically protects capital investments against inflation, when literally no other investment is. Banking interest is taxed at your maginal rate and you can't take any deduction for inflation loses. This is nothing but a give away.

 

[fskimospy]

Ummm, as jobs increase wages should remain level until excess labor has been absorbed back into the labor force at which point supply of jobs exceeds supply of labor, giving workers leverage to increase wages. So increased jobs coupled with increased wages isn't "dreamland commutopia" it's basic capitalist economics.

Not to mention increased jobs with increased wages was happening as recently as with Obama, and at higher job growth rates no less. (Although wage growth was slow) As wage growth and job growth both reflect increased demand for labor, if anything they have a positive relationship, not a negative one. Speedy has no clue what he’s talking about.

What’s scary is that he claims to work in finance in some way if I’m not mistaken and he doesn’t know these really basic things. Maybe he should spend less time on squats and more time cracking the books.

 

[Brainonska511]

This basically protects capital investments against inflation, when literally no other investment is. Banking interest is taxed at your maginal rate and you can't take any deduction for inflation loses. This is nothing but a give away.

Capital investments already get special treatment under tax law thanks to their lower bracket rates. This would just be icing on the cake for people taking it in from capital gains.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Trump wants to cut capital gains tax by claiming that inflation applies to stocks. So, instead of subtracting the purchase price from the sell price to determine your capital gains like every normal person understands it is done, no, Trump wants investors to deduct the inflation rate because, hey, no fair! It'll cost $100 billion and the plan is to push it through without consulting Congress. Because, it is all about working families, folks.

 

[Fern]

Still struggling to see why anyone thinks that’s a good idea. Capital gains are already taxed at a reduced rate specifically because they are more vulnerable to inflation. Why should you make capital gains inflation protected while keeping their preferential tax rate?

I don't think the preferential (LTCG) rate would be retained. That would make no sense. The LTCG rate is already a 'rough' inflation adjustment, to retain it would be redundant.
Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think the preferential (LTCG) rate would be retained. That would make no sense. The LTCG rate is already a 'rough' inflation adjustment, to retain it would be redundant.
Fern

It obviously would be retained if this change can occur administratively. Our current Congress won't raise taxes on rich people.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump wants to cut capital gains tax by claiming that inflation applies to stocks. So, instead of subtracting the purchase price from the sell price to determine your capital gains like every normal person understands it is done, no, Trump wants investors to deduct the inflation rate because, hey, no fair! It'll cost $100 billion and the plan is to push it through without consulting Congress. Because, it is all about working families, folks.

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens pay earned income rates when they make withdrawals from their 401k's.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think the preferential (LTCG) rate would be retained. That would make no sense. The LTCG rate is already a 'rough' inflation adjustment, to retain it would be redundant.
Fern

‘I bet republicans won’t do this foolish thing that disproportionately helps the rich’ seems like a great bet to go broke on, haha.

 

[blackangst1]

Nope, it's income won't help us a damn bit.

The whole ideal of investing is to make yourself more money, not the country. Thus, 401k's, IRA's, SEP-IRA's, etc.

 

[blackangst1]

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens pay earned income rates when they make withdrawals from their 401k's.

Good point.

 

[theeedude]

The same people refuse to make minimum wage indexed to inflation. But the rich better be protected from it, amirite?