Trump Plan to Overhaul Tax Code.

[Forty Two]

Bill Maher - Elizabeth Warren

I found this interesting.

Watch out, some folks don't take kindly to videos being posted without transcripts and time-references to important bits.... you may get a dressing-down.

[Alan B]

Some folks?

[Hermit]

The top 20% of income earners pay 84% of the taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes.

I wonder what percentage of Sundar Pichai’s $US198.7 million remuneration package will finish up being paid to the IRS. Warren Buffet had something interesting to say about that topic.

If you're actually interested in discussing it, why don't you set forth what his remuneration package consists of?

$US198.7 million.

Obviously, it's important to know what part of that represents stock holdings and other non-monetary remuneration

No. He has a job and gets paid 198.7 million dollars for doing it. What is important is how much of his remuneration finishes up with the IRS, not why it does or does not. To argue that most of his remuneration is not in the form of a taxable wage or salary is to pretend that bonuses, stock options and any other material benefits Google cannot be defined as remuneration. I hope you do realise that remuneration means repayment or reward for work done. Ordinary workers normally receive remuneration in wages, sometimes piecework and occasionally a salary, all of which is taxable at set rates. Just because other forms of remuneration are not taxable or taxable at vastly reduced rates does not mean they are not payments or rewards for work done.

[Forty Two]

The top 20% of income earners pay 84% of the taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes.

I wonder what percentage of Sundar Pichai’s $US198.7 million remuneration package will finish up being paid to the IRS. Warren Buffet had something interesting to say about that topic.

If you're actually interested in discussing it, why don't you set forth what his remuneration package consists of?

$US198.7 million.

Generally folks in that price range receive remuneration in forms other than money. Stocks and retirement packages, etc. -- that's why they said "remuneration" instead of "salary."

But, if they handed him $198.7 million, then he's in the highest tax bracket and pays taxes at that rate, less some deductions, like mortgage interest, charitable donations, qualified health care expenses, and the like. I would make a reasonable guess that he'd pay about $35 million in taxes when it's all said and done, if that's the money he got this past year.

Obviously, it's important to know what part of that represents stock holdings and other non-monetary remuneration

No. He has a job and gets paid 198.7 million dollars for doing it. What is important is how much of his remuneration finishes up with the IRS, not why it does or does not.

Well, the problem with that logic is that if he's paid in non-monetary assets, some may not be taxable until later, so you don't know what it is until it's realized.

To argue that most of his remuneration is not in the form of a taxable wage or salary is to pretend that bonuses, stock options and any other material benefits Google cannot be defined as remuneration. I hope you do realise that remuneration means repayment or reward for work done. Ordinary workers normally receive remuneration in wages, sometimes piecework and occasionally a salary, all of which is taxable at set rates. Just because other forms of remuneration are not taxable or taxable at vastly reduced rates does not mean they are not payments or rewards for work done.

Indeed, however, what the compensation consists of may determine what year the tax is paid in and what the overall rate is.

However, very likely, based on present tax rates, it would probably be, as I said, something on the order of $35 million to $50 million --- I would think about a 20% to 25% effective tax rate, something in that range.

If your assumption is that he's going to pay like 10% or only about $19.8 million, then I think you're wrong about that. But, right now both of us are speculating, since we really don't know his tax position. I suspect I'm close to the truth, however.

[Hermit]

The top 20% of income earners pay 84% of the taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes.

I wonder what percentage of Sundar Pichai’s $US198.7 million remuneration package will finish up being paid to the IRS. Warren Buffet had something interesting to say about that topic.

If you're actually interested in discussing it, why don't you set forth what his remuneration package consists of?

$US198.7 million.

Generally folks in that price range receive remuneration in forms other than money. Stocks and retirement packages, etc. -- that's why they said "remuneration" instead of "salary."

Me too, brother. And the remuneration was valued at $US198.7 million at the time the reward was made. Nobody said "We give you x units of shares and other benefits, but fuck knows what they are worth. It is income in forms other than wages or a salary. Does that mean it should not be taxed?

[Tero]

"The top 20% of income earners pay 84% of the taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes."

Good plan. But make them all pay!

[Brian Peacock]

....
I am in favor of eliminating the income tax for the bottom 80% altogether. And, only taxing the top 20%, and graduating up with marginal income tax on incomes over that level. What say you? Would you eliminate the income tax for those in the bottom 80%?

Progressively Increasing the threshold at which income tax is paid so that it takes the low-waged out of the system is a good idea imo, as is a truly progressive tax system generally. it could drive real incomes up at the dusty end of the economy and act as a multiplier on the back of raised levels of consumer spending. I also agree that simplification of the tax code is needed across the board (and across borders). My concern about slashing corporate and business taxes by a proposed c.40% is not just that it signals a race to the bottom as far businesses' operating premise not to undermine the economy in which they operate goes, but also that it will have little real terms impact on average earnings or employment levels, merely securing higher levels of profit extraction by those bodies and institutions that habitually convert income into a range of assets to avoid tax on capital gains. At the moment, it looks and smells very much like a tax-break-handout that won't benefit the wider economy.

[pErvinalia]

plus where do you think the money corps save in taxes will go? into the pockets of the stockholders.

You object to the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%? By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent. The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.5 percent. The United States Has the Third Highest Corporate Tax Rate among 188 Nations, and if you combine US state corporate income tax with the federal corporate income tax, the total averages about 38.9%.

Ireland and Liechtenstein have a 12.5% corporate income tax rate. Gibralter has 10% rate. In Canada, they have a graduated federal corporate income tax, ranging from 15% to 26%.

Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Guernsey and Jersey have no corporate income tax....guess what goes on there?

What does this have to do with your rhetorical implication that the 1% won't benefit from these tax cuts?

This post was not addressed to that issue.

So why did you quote Svarty who was directly addressing that issue?

I'm still waiting for proof of the claims about the tax plan, and an explanation as to how the 1% benefit. I've heard the allegation that they will, but I haven't seen the explanation based on the proposal.

Svarty just provided the explanation. Of course you disagree with it. We wouldn't expect anything different.

As Svarty says, this will lead to increased profits for shareholders (at least initially, until the bottom falls out of the system), most of which are institutional and represent the uber wealthy.

That would, it seems to me, result in increased revenue, because if shareholders profit, that profit is reported by the company to the shareholders on a schedule K-1. They have to pay income tax on that at their individual income tax rate.

As I said, in the short term this would be the case. But if the cuts are unsustainable in terms of government revenue, then the whole system collapses. What will the individual income tax intakes look like then?

The purpose of reducing the corporate rate is to compete with the 186, give or take, other countries that have lower corporate tax rates than the US. In a global economy, companies with the flexibility to choose a tax domicile will try to pick the lowest cost, most beneficial environment they can find. If you're double the rate of some other place, companies will look to that other place. If you want to incentivize companies to stay in the US, then a low corporate tax rate is one thing that can be done.

So, if companies are leaving the US to other tax domiciles, then the IRS loses lots of tax revenues as a result. If the US can keep them here, and even draw others here, then ultimately the tax revenues could conceivably go up, by increasing the number of companies here paying taxes over time.

I understand that perfectly. Which is why I pointed out in my first post in this thread that it is simply a race to the bottom. It's ultimately unsustainable. I don't know what the solution is to this problem, other than some sort of broad international agreement to halt the race to the bottom very soon. I actually think we are way past the point where current corporate tax rates are sustainable. Almost every western country is running deficits. This isn't going to change with increased cuts to government revenue.

[pErvinalia]

It's basic maths. If you massively cut government revenue, then that shortfall needs to be made up in some way, unless Trump is planning to borrow money to fund his tax cuts. I know you are going to blab on about some naive Laffer Curve argument here, so I'd ask you to provide evidence if you do.

The Laffer Curve is basic maths.

As I said, naivety. Where is your evidence for what side of the curve various countries are on? That's right, you don't have it. No one has it. It's a simplistic rhetorical relationship for the basics of Economics 101.

If you want to produce evidence that the Trump tax proposal necessitates cuts in welfare, then please do, and let's see your basic maths.

Is Trump planning to cut welfare and services to the poor? Yes. Has every government since the advent of neoliberalism cut welfare and services to the poor? Yes. These are the fucking basics. You know very well I don't engage in arguments with you about stuff that is commonly known yet somehow doesn't reach you at the rock you live under. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... -proposal/

And the shortfall has been made up at the expense of welfare, health, education and other social spending since the advent of neoliberalism in the 80's.

Where did the cuts in welfare, health and education occur which offset any tax reductions?

As it stands, that figure is useless. There's no indication accounting for per-recipient and whether that is in PPP (or real) dollars.

And the rhetoric from conservative governments has been consistent and remains consistent, that welfare and social spending needs to be cut and left to the free market to "work out".

Where is that rhetoric under Trump's plan? Or, from the Trump administration?

See links above. In fact, it's not rhetoric, it's actual budgetary proposals.

[pErvinalia]

Bill Maher - Elizabeth Warren

I found this interesting.

Watch out, some folks don't take kindly to videos being posted without transcripts and time-references to important bits.... you may get a dressing-down.

[pErvinalia]

Some folks?

Hermi got a bee in his bonnet a few weeks back because 42 posted some long videos.

[JimC]

Some folks?

Hermi got a bee in his bonnet a few weeks back because 42 posted some long videos.

The complexities of the aggressive 3-way interactions between you lot would form the basis for an interesting PhD....

[pErvinalia]

[Hermit]

Some folks?

Hermi got a bee in his bonnet a few weeks back because 42 posted some long videos.

The complexities of the aggressive 3-way interactions between you lot would form the basis for an interesting PhD....

PhD? As in "Push here, Dummy?"

We all know where to push each other's buttons, and I am the only one to refrain from doing so.

Alan B, don't worry about Coito's attempt to make light of the fact that he linked to well over eleven hours worth of videos on the grounds that "Here's the explanation much better than I can type it out" He did apologise for that, as if he discovered that the links explain what he was trying to explain much better than he could type it out without noticing what time it took to get through them. He then whittled them down to just one video with a duration of not quite one hour.

I am not against letting other people doing the talking on his behalf, and not because I do that myself. What annoyed me was that he left it up to us to comb through hours worth of stuff to find the relevant bits.

[Alan B]