3 ms·

So lets raise taxes now and pay it off. Who should we tax? Should we squeeze blood from stones and try to get the poor to pay more taxes, or should we tax the w

So lets raise taxes now and pay it off. Who should we tax? Should we squeeze blood from stones and try to get the poor to pay more taxes, or should we tax the wealthy? Who am I kidding. The current administration showed us--what was it? last week?--that they prefer cutting taxes for the wealthy and increasing the deficit. Republicans ALWAYS increase the deficit. Democrats usually do, but not always. It looks like we'll probably let the generation that created this mess retire like normal, and instead try to fix it by making their children and grandchildren work until death.

WalterBright 1y ago
Tax cuts for the wealthy were not in the BBB.
- maxerickson 1y ago
  If the baseline is whatever you say it is, what's the point of discussing it with you?
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    The baseline is the current tax rate.
    - maxerickson 1y ago
      The current tax rate for 2026?
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        The tax rate for the wealthy is the same in 2026 as in 2025 as in 2024.
        maxerickson 1y ago
        Oh? And what would they have been without a change in the law this year?
        WalterBright 1y ago
        Not buying that the tax rates staying the same is a tax cut.
- Buttons840 1y ago
  Are you saying that extending that Trump tax cuts is not a tax cut, because it's only extending and maintaining the status quo? Or are you saying the Trump tax cuts never benefited the wealthy at all?
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > Are you saying that extending that Trump tax cuts is not a tax cut? Of course. It's disingenuous to claim that not raising taxes is a "cut". It's the same lie as claiming a reduction in a spending increase is a "budget cut". There are actual tax cuts in Trump's bill, but they don't apply to the wealthy.
    - ac29 1y ago
      They cut taxes for the years 2026 and later. The TCJA tax cuts expire this year.
    - Buttons840 1y ago
      Can we agree that the taxes on the wealthy would be higher if the BBB was not passed? It's not a "cut", it's just that the BBB makes taxes lower for the wealthy than they would have been without the BBB <eyeroll>.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        The BBB repealed the tax increase, yes. That's not a cut, because the increase didn't happen.
        Buttons840 1y ago
        So we agree that Republicans did things that resulted in the rich paying less taxes than they would have otherwise.
- FreakLegion 1y ago
  The BBB increased the QSBS exclusion and gross asset value limit by 50% and quadrupled the SALT deduction, among other things. I guess you could argue the meaning of "for the wealthy" here, but it would be hard to do in good faith.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > it would be hard to do in good faith QSBS is capped, and the SALT deduction goes away with increasing MAGI. They're targeted at the upper middle class, not the wealthy. The "S" in QSBS stands for "Small" business. The previous limits were fixed, and this change seems to be adjusting it for inflation. It's been around since 1993. An inflation adjustment is not a "cut". Even so, as I'm sure you're aware, these two items are not what people mean by "tax cuts for the wealthy". If you ask anyone (other than a tax accountant) what a QSBS deduction is, you'll get a blank stare.
    - FreakLegion 1y ago
      QSBS is only capped for sweat equity. My Series A lead gets a $200m exclusion. With the new $75m asset limit, the Series B lead will probably triple that. Things like QSBS and carried interest are absolutely part of what people mean by "tax cuts for the wealthy".
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        > Things like QSBS and carried interest are absolutely part of what people mean by "tax cuts for the wealthy". No they aren't. Nobody mentions them on the news/editorials, nobody's heard of them but you and I. What people meant is the marginal tax rate. I am not a tax accountant, and never heard of them before your mention. I spent some time googling it, and it looks like the limits were adjusted for inflation.
        FreakLegion 1y ago
        Yes, they are. You're wrong that nobody's heard of these things and that they aren't in the news. Pick up the NYT or Fortune or any moderately substantive source. These issues have been discussed all over for decades, and they came up again repeatedly in the context of the BBB. QSBS and SALT came up because of their expansions, and carried interest came up because Trump promised to eliminate it but didn't. I didn't go digging for this information. It was handed to me. More importantly you're wrong that people only think of tax cuts in terms of marginal rates, and that they need to know about specific schemes like QSBS and carried interest to include them in the broader idea of tax cuts for the wealthy. People have a general awareness that such schemes (popularly: "loopholes") exist and benefit the wealthy. The names of the schemes and how each one works don't matter. People know they exist and what they amount to. So: The idea that people don't know about specific tax schemes used by the wealthy, and therefore don't think of these schemes as tax cuts for the wealthy, is wrong, and the idea that people need to know about specific tax schemes used by the wealthy in order to think of those schemes as tax cuts for the wealthy is also wrong. The first is wrong empirically, and the second is wrong logically.
- kyo_gisors 1y ago
  [dead]
missedthecue 1y ago
It will probably have to look something like western Europe with massive across the board tax increases. I make $60k a year in the USA and my tax rates are about 12%, with no VAT. They'd probably need to look more like France, where a $60k income is hit with a 42% effective tax (adjusted for progressive rates) before 20% VAT is paid at the store.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  vat is simply corporate income tax, it's a tax on "value added", i.e. profit or income. I don't know in europe whether that is on top of other corporate income tax or not.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    And they then pass that expense off to the consumer, because praise be to the shareholders.
    - Buttons840 1y ago
      Companies can just raise prices without consequences? Is that free market competition in action? Snark aside. I've always heard the idea was that free markets and competition would drive down prices, and that if a company was to just raise their prices, they would actually lose money because people would buy from a competitor with better prices. Turns out companies can just raise prices though. What does it mean when the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening?
      - lenerdenator 1y ago
        > Companies can just raise prices without consequences? Well, when they have a monopoly, yes, yes they can. > Is that free market competition in action? No.
  - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
    VAT is not corporate income tax, and it is not levied on profit or income. As a business, you can deduct VAT that you had to pay to others from the VAT you charged your customers, and you only pay the difference. So the only people who end up paying are the final consumers. It is essentially cost neutral to a business - you just have to account for it properly. UPDATE: in the UK, at least.
RickJWagner 1y ago
You can’t tax the rich enough to pay off the debt. They already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. One company alone— Berkshire Hathaway— paid almost $27 Billion in taxes for 2024. That’s about 5% of all corporate taxes paid. To really make money, you have to tax a bunch of smaller fish, not a handful of bigger fish. You need big numbers. That’s politically unpalatable, especially for Republicans. ( Though Democrats seem to have no appetite for it either. ) In the past, Republicans would cut taxes ( popular ) while not spending as much ( unpopular ). Democrats would not cut taxes ( unpopular ) while spending more ( popular ). Sadly, today both parties are acting like undisciplined parents. Everybody wants to give out the treats ( spend big ) while nobody wants to earn the paycheck ( raise the taxes ). It’s a bipartisan formula for disaster.
- Buttons840 1y ago
  > You can’t tax the rich enough to pay off the debt. They already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. Yes. This means that if we double the taxes on the wealthy we will roughly double our total taxes collected. A neat trick. It's true that the top 50% pay 97% of taxes, but that's not the slam dunk you think it is, because the top 50% have 97.5% of the wealth (see sources). Your suggestion to tax the poor is stupid, because the poor have nothing more to give. Even if we could extract 10x the amount of taxes from the poor, it would barely be a blip. If the bottom 50% paid 10x the taxes, then they'd be contributing, what, like 15% of all taxes? We're going to take from the poor, take food out of their mouths, for 15% more taxes? Like I said before, its like trying to squeeze blood from a stone, there's just nothing there to squeeze. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... https://usafacts.org/articles/who-owns-american-wealth/ https://usafacts.org/articles/who-owns-american-wealth/
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    >Yes. This means that if we double the taxes on the wealthy we will roughly double our total taxes collected. A neat trick. no, you won't, people change their financial decisions in the face of taxes. increasing taxes will slow the economy, bringing in a change of party in the whitehouse and congress, and taxes will be lowered again. high taxes don't work, and people don't like them. >It's true that the top 50% pay 97% of taxes, but that's not the slam dunk you think it is, because the top 50% have 97.5% of the wealth (see sources). taxes are on income, not wealth. the reason those percentage numbers and the wealth numbers come out the same is because poor people pay small or zero tax so it's as if their income is not counted higher taxes on the wealthy will not benefit the poor, their taxes don't get lowered. However slowing the economy does hurt the poor

WalterBright 1y ago

Tax cuts for the wealthy were not in the BBB.

maxerickson 1y ago
If the baseline is whatever you say it is, what's the point of discussing it with you?
- WalterBright 1y ago
  The baseline is the current tax rate.
  - maxerickson 1y ago
    The current tax rate for 2026?
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      The tax rate for the wealthy is the same in 2026 as in 2025 as in 2024.
      - maxerickson 1y ago
        Oh? And what would they have been without a change in the law this year?
        WalterBright 1y ago
        Not buying that the tax rates staying the same is a tax cut.
Buttons840 1y ago
Are you saying that extending that Trump tax cuts is not a tax cut, because it's only extending and maintaining the status quo? Or are you saying the Trump tax cuts never benefited the wealthy at all?
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > Are you saying that extending that Trump tax cuts is not a tax cut? Of course. It's disingenuous to claim that not raising taxes is a "cut". It's the same lie as claiming a reduction in a spending increase is a "budget cut". There are actual tax cuts in Trump's bill, but they don't apply to the wealthy.
  - ac29 1y ago
    They cut taxes for the years 2026 and later. The TCJA tax cuts expire this year.
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    Can we agree that the taxes on the wealthy would be higher if the BBB was not passed? It's not a "cut", it's just that the BBB makes taxes lower for the wealthy than they would have been without the BBB <eyeroll>.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      The BBB repealed the tax increase, yes. That's not a cut, because the increase didn't happen.
      - Buttons840 1y ago
        So we agree that Republicans did things that resulted in the rich paying less taxes than they would have otherwise.
FreakLegion 1y ago
The BBB increased the QSBS exclusion and gross asset value limit by 50% and quadrupled the SALT deduction, among other things. I guess you could argue the meaning of "for the wealthy" here, but it would be hard to do in good faith.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > it would be hard to do in good faith QSBS is capped, and the SALT deduction goes away with increasing MAGI. They're targeted at the upper middle class, not the wealthy. The "S" in QSBS stands for "Small" business. The previous limits were fixed, and this change seems to be adjusting it for inflation. It's been around since 1993. An inflation adjustment is not a "cut". Even so, as I'm sure you're aware, these two items are not what people mean by "tax cuts for the wealthy". If you ask anyone (other than a tax accountant) what a QSBS deduction is, you'll get a blank stare.
  - FreakLegion 1y ago
    QSBS is only capped for sweat equity. My Series A lead gets a $200m exclusion. With the new $75m asset limit, the Series B lead will probably triple that. Things like QSBS and carried interest are absolutely part of what people mean by "tax cuts for the wealthy".
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      > Things like QSBS and carried interest are absolutely part of what people mean by "tax cuts for the wealthy". No they aren't. Nobody mentions them on the news/editorials, nobody's heard of them but you and I. What people meant is the marginal tax rate. I am not a tax accountant, and never heard of them before your mention. I spent some time googling it, and it looks like the limits were adjusted for inflation.
      - FreakLegion 1y ago
        Yes, they are. You're wrong that nobody's heard of these things and that they aren't in the news. Pick up the NYT or Fortune or any moderately substantive source. These issues have been discussed all over for decades, and they came up again repeatedly in the context of the BBB. QSBS and SALT came up because of their expansions, and carried interest came up because Trump promised to eliminate it but didn't. I didn't go digging for this information. It was handed to me. More importantly you're wrong that people only think of tax cuts in terms of marginal rates, and that they need to know about specific schemes like QSBS and carried interest to include them in the broader idea of tax cuts for the wealthy. People have a general awareness that such schemes (popularly: "loopholes") exist and benefit the wealthy. The names of the schemes and how each one works don't matter. People know they exist and what they amount to. So: The idea that people don't know about specific tax schemes used by the wealthy, and therefore don't think of these schemes as tax cuts for the wealthy, is wrong, and the idea that people need to know about specific tax schemes used by the wealthy in order to think of those schemes as tax cuts for the wealthy is also wrong. The first is wrong empirically, and the second is wrong logically.
kyo_gisors 1y ago
[dead]

missedthecue 1y ago

It will probably have to look something like western Europe with massive across the board tax increases. I make $60k a year in the USA and my tax rates are about 12%, with no VAT. They'd probably need to look more like France, where a $60k income is hit with a 42% effective tax (adjusted for progressive rates) before 20% VAT is paid at the store.

fsckboy 1y ago
vat is simply corporate income tax, it's a tax on "value added", i.e. profit or income. I don't know in europe whether that is on top of other corporate income tax or not.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  And they then pass that expense off to the consumer, because praise be to the shareholders.
  - Buttons840 1y ago
    Companies can just raise prices without consequences? Is that free market competition in action? Snark aside. I've always heard the idea was that free markets and competition would drive down prices, and that if a company was to just raise their prices, they would actually lose money because people would buy from a competitor with better prices. Turns out companies can just raise prices though. What does it mean when the things that happen in a healthy free market aren't happening?
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      > Companies can just raise prices without consequences? Well, when they have a monopoly, yes, yes they can. > Is that free market competition in action? No.
- MattPalmer1086 1y ago
  VAT is not corporate income tax, and it is not levied on profit or income. As a business, you can deduct VAT that you had to pay to others from the VAT you charged your customers, and you only pay the difference. So the only people who end up paying are the final consumers. It is essentially cost neutral to a business - you just have to account for it properly. UPDATE: in the UK, at least.

RickJWagner 1y ago

You can’t tax the rich enough to pay off the debt. They already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. One company alone— Berkshire Hathaway— paid almost $27 Billion in taxes for 2024. That’s about 5% of all corporate taxes paid. To really make money, you have to tax a bunch of smaller fish, not a handful of bigger fish. You need big numbers. That’s politically unpalatable, especially for Republicans. ( Though Democrats seem to have no appetite for it either. ) In the past, Republicans would cut taxes ( popular ) while not spending as much ( unpopular ). Democrats would not cut taxes ( unpopular ) while spending more ( popular ). Sadly, today both parties are acting like undisciplined parents. Everybody wants to give out the treats ( spend big ) while nobody wants to earn the paycheck ( raise the taxes ). It’s a bipartisan formula for disaster.

Buttons840 1y ago
> You can’t tax the rich enough to pay off the debt. They already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. Yes. This means that if we double the taxes on the wealthy we will roughly double our total taxes collected. A neat trick. It's true that the top 50% pay 97% of taxes, but that's not the slam dunk you think it is, because the top 50% have 97.5% of the wealth (see sources). Your suggestion to tax the poor is stupid, because the poor have nothing more to give. Even if we could extract 10x the amount of taxes from the poor, it would barely be a blip. If the bottom 50% paid 10x the taxes, then they'd be contributing, what, like 15% of all taxes? We're going to take from the poor, take food out of their mouths, for 15% more taxes? Like I said before, its like trying to squeeze blood from a stone, there's just nothing there to squeeze. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in... https://usafacts.org/articles/who-owns-american-wealth/ https://usafacts.org/articles/who-owns-american-wealth/
- fsckboy 1y ago
  >Yes. This means that if we double the taxes on the wealthy we will roughly double our total taxes collected. A neat trick. no, you won't, people change their financial decisions in the face of taxes. increasing taxes will slow the economy, bringing in a change of party in the whitehouse and congress, and taxes will be lowered again. high taxes don't work, and people don't like them. >It's true that the top 50% pay 97% of taxes, but that's not the slam dunk you think it is, because the top 50% have 97.5% of the wealth (see sources). taxes are on income, not wealth. the reason those percentage numbers and the wealth numbers come out the same is because poor people pay small or zero tax so it's as if their income is not counted higher taxes on the wealthy will not benefit the poor, their taxes don't get lowered. However slowing the economy does hurt the poor