Cost of tax breaks

[Sactowndog]

Got to give you cred for recognizing that the game has changed. That Foreign manufacturers with factories in the US employ almost as many Americans as "american manufacturers".. Really no distinction in terms of investment anymore. And certainly, there should be no moral taint in holding shares of Toyota or Nestle or Shell..

Where the money ends up is more complex than you make out to be. I think you know better than to say it's lost to our interests if GE opens a plant to serve the Far East. We are not the only overstimulated consumers on the planet anymore.

I've been trying to explain to Paleolithic Leftists for a long time now why Keynesian policies don't work anymore.. Same kind of global redistributional change...

You can sprinkle as many bucks of "stimulus from heaven" into the hands of CONSUMERS, and that USED to crank up the economy.. But now, all it does is summon vast fleets of containers ships from the Far East to dock in Long Beach..

We have to live with this and understand the textbooks are obsolete... There is no tax (or other) policy, short of isolationism and Kim Jun style governance that will get us back to the 60s or 70s when China was a starving basketcase..

So many fallacies, so little time. The point of capital gains tax cuts is to produce more revenue for the Treasury. It also tends to make the economy run more efficiently but that isnt the purpose. Those cuts achieve their aim, regardless where the money is reinvested because the tax is paid by the taxpayer in the U.S.
No one is making the claim that reduced cap gains rates drove the economy. The economy is much bigger than that. But they did produce far more in revenue than the higher rates did. Even Obama acknowledged that.

They assumed that because the underlying assumption has been that investors invest locally. The point of capital gains tax cuts is to drive investment. Yes they can drive short term revenue gain if people sell assets to lock in profits at low rates but this is not the main driver of why rates are cut.

Given the significant shift of investments into overseas markets the benefit side of capital gains tax cuts are reduced significantly while the cost side stays the same. I have not seen a study on the effects of the 2000 cuts but I would bet my house they were a significant net loss for the treasury if their affects could be studied in isolation.

OK, let me know when you're ready to send the deed.

First off the chart you are showing is mostly pre-2000 which shows you have a reading comprehension problem. It also shows you are so dogmatic you can't even consider appropriately other people's viewpoints which I am sure is a bit of a problem in your life.

Second if you look at the chart you showed after 2000 you will see declining capital gains rates and declining revenue. To the point of 2007 where you have post WW2 lows in both capital gains rates and revenue. So for the small amount of data you have shown which actually is relevant to my point, it would indicate I am right. Capital gains cuts do little to spur domestic growth and result in significant revenue loss for the treasury largely because most of the investment has been overseas.

Why don't you try to post something post 2000 that is actually supportive of your argument. Or are you too pig headed and incapable of reading to provide that data.

 

[Sactowndog]

I disagree that nothing can be done about it however. Tax policy can be adjusted to account for this global reality and spur domestic growth. It requires 3 key changes to keep it revenue nuetral:

1) eliminate the corporate income tax. This change will direct investment into the United States

Even this Libertarian wouldn't go that far. I'd keep corporate rates in line and slightly better than my competitors. AND -- to do this -- you'd have to remove the blight of all those crony tax breaks BEFORE setting a better "across the board rate". That's a patronage power that NEITHER existing party will ever give up willingly.

2) eliminate the delta between capital gains and income tax. The capital gains tax has become a worthless tool in a global market unless your goal as a US politician is to spur growth in Vietnam.

Let's see. Do I want to buy a fancy yacht and forego that factory modernization? Hmmm. Same tax rate. You're dooming the stabilization of domestic business by removing the ability of an owner to transfer his business INTACT without selling it off for taxes. Because Cap Gains is not JUST for Wall Street. It hits Main Street as well. Perhaps if you limit the detriment to individual and small businesses -- you might have an argument.

3) impose a 25% capital exportation tax on business that encourages revenue generated in the US to be invested in the US. Under this model, no matter where you company is headquartered they will be dissuaded from pulling capital out of the economy such as done by Apple. If I HAVE to have an international market for my product -- or it's not economically feasible to develop it ----- then I won't develop it here. Because you're gonna punish me for distributing my product and properly servicing the markets overseas. We are NOT the only people buying Apple crap. And coordinating an entire WORLD full of app developers and 3rd party support is not done from PittsBurgh anymore. If I'm making heavy stuff like wind turbines and cars, I need foreign infrastructure. Just like BMW built here in America so that I can afford to have my Bimmer built in South Carolina.

These three things will go a long way to spurring growth in the US economy while operating in a global investment environment. It will also provide a dramatic spur to small business.

Progress.. At least we both agree, no one is modernizing economic theory fast enough to keep up. Especially politicians who apparently have no idea what's being off-shored and why...

But we still have miles between us on what can done about tax policy to encourage investment to stay home.. See the comments above...

On phone so tried to clean some text and I will try to address you points but first I want to say I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and lack of spouting current dogma.

From a small business perspective

I have simply shifted the point of taxation from when income is earned to when income is distributed. Your point about investing in a yacht or modernization is a red herring because the business who would invest in modernization pays no tax if they reinvest their money. If they distribute it to the owners they do pay a tax on that distribution no matter how it occurs.

This model greatly favors small business already as they have no means to shift income overseas and therefore make it tax free like a large corporation can.

In terms of selling it is like saying a Roth 401K is inherently better than a traditional 401K. The small business becomes a wealth generation (and jobs) device since all capital generated can be reinvested. At the time of sale then that income growth becomes a taxable event. The advantage of this model is you are targeting your favorable tax treatment for investment in the US and not investment globally.

In terms of the wealth transfer tax. First remember corporations pay no US Income tax. The wealth transfer tax would look at cash flow which any accountant will tell you is hard to manipulate. Cash generated in the US in the form of sales, investments or capital funding must equal cash spent in terms of expenses, US investents, US Cash accounts.

Your example of sales in Europe misses the point as that cash is generated in Europe and would not count as US generated cash. Similarly funding generated from German bonds would be generated in Germany and would not be subject to the tax. Now if an company took money generated in the US to invest in plant property and equipment in India that money would be subject to the 25% tax. Similarly if a foreign company generated 1B in US revenue but spent/invested 500M in the US they could export the capital and pay a 25% rate or reinvest in US assets and keep the money tax free.

In the above example, the account could export the 500M and pay 125M tax or they could move production to the US to meet US demand. Alternatively they could acquire US assets or park their cash into a US venture capital fund associated with their industry. All these items are good for US growth and US small business.

Now you can argue those small businesses whom are not incorporated would be disadvantaged you would be right. But under this model most business would quickly shift to some form of incorporation.

 

[The Rabbi]

They assumed that because the underlying assumption has been that investors invest locally. The point of capital gains tax cuts is to drive investment. Yes they can drive short term revenue gain if people sell assets to lock in profits at low rates but this is not the main driver of why rates are cut.

Given the significant shift of investments into overseas markets the benefit side of capital gains tax cuts are reduced significantly while the cost side stays the same. I have not seen a study on the effects of the 2000 cuts but I would bet my house they were a significant net loss for the treasury if their affects could be studied in isolation.

OK, let me know when you're ready to send the deed.

First off the chart you are showing is mostly pre-2000 which shows you have a reading comprehension problem. It also shows you are so dogmatic you can't even consider appropriately other people's viewpoints which I am sure is a bit of a problem in your life.

Second if you look at the chart you showed after 2000 you will see declining capital gains rates and declining revenue. To the point of 2007 where you have post WW2 lows in both capital gains rates and revenue. So for the small amount of data you have shown which actually is relevant to my point, it would indicate I am right. Capital gains cuts do little to spur domestic growth and result in significant revenue loss for the treasury largely because most of the investment has been overseas.

Why don't you try to post something post 2000 that is actually supportive of your argument. Or are you too pig headed and incapable of reading to provide that data.

I see you cannot read a simple chart. The chart certainly shows post 2000. Check those numbers at the bottom to the right. They'll tell you when it is.
Second, I note that revenue does not immediate start rising the instant the new rate is signed into law. There is some lead time. As shown in the chart, which indicates rising revenue following the tax cut, until the recession kicked in and revenue across the board went down as asset prices deflated.

I realize that you are locked into a world view that makes you incapable of recognizing simple things, like the graph goes past 2000. I am sorry. You have a lot to learn.

 

[Montrovant]

Got to give you cred for recognizing that the game has changed. That Foreign manufacturers with factories in the US employ almost as many Americans as "american manufacturers".. Really no distinction in terms of investment anymore. And certainly, there should be no moral taint in holding shares of Toyota or Nestle or Shell..

Where the money ends up is more complex than you make out to be. I think you know better than to say it's lost to our interests if GE opens a plant to serve the Far East. We are not the only overstimulated consumers on the planet anymore.

I've been trying to explain to Paleolithic Leftists for a long time now why Keynesian policies don't work anymore.. Same kind of global redistributional change...

You can sprinkle as many bucks of "stimulus from heaven" into the hands of CONSUMERS, and that USED to crank up the economy.. But now, all it does is summon vast fleets of containers ships from the Far East to dock in Long Beach..

We have to live with this and understand the textbooks are obsolete... There is no tax (or other) policy, short of isolationism and Kim Jun style governance that will get us back to the 60s or 70s when China was a starving basketcase..

So many fallacies, so little time. The point of capital gains tax cuts is to produce more revenue for the Treasury. It also tends to make the economy run more efficiently but that isnt the purpose. Those cuts achieve their aim, regardless where the money is reinvested because the tax is paid by the taxpayer in the U.S.
No one is making the claim that reduced cap gains rates drove the economy. The economy is much bigger than that. But they did produce far more in revenue than the higher rates did. Even Obama acknowledged that.

They assumed that because the underlying assumption has been that investors invest locally. The point of capital gains tax cuts is to drive investment. Yes they can drive short term revenue gain if people sell assets to lock in profits at low rates but this is not the main driver of why rates are cut.

Given the significant shift of investments into overseas markets the benefit side of capital gains tax cuts are reduced significantly while the cost side stays the same. I have not seen a study on the effects of the 2000 cuts but I would bet my house they were a significant net loss for the treasury if their affects could be studied in isolation.

OK, let me know when you're ready to send the deed.

Hopefully I'm reading this correctly....wouldn't it be important to see what total federal revenue is to better see the impact of changes in capital gains tax rates? This chart shows what percentage of total federal revenue capital gains tax is, but if total revenue is fluctuating, it might not be an accurate indicator of the amount of capital gains revenue being received.

I have only the simplest layman's understanding of economics, so I certainly might be completely misreading things!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you think all tax cuts are equal and do you accept some may cost the government money?

Gee, I guess I wasn't clear.

Tax cuts do not cost the government anything.

Ever.

Under no circumstances.

Do you get the point, or does someone have to drop a tank on your head?

Let me rephrase for the crotchety. Do you think all tax cuts result in less revenue to the government or do you believe tax cuts result in more revenue and is this true of all tax cuts in your mind.

The amount of revenue generated by taxes depends on a lot of factors. I do know that no CBO model has ever accurately predicting how much revenue comes from a tax hike, or how much is lost because of a tax cut, because they always assume that people do not adjust their behavior based on their taxes.

I also know that a loss of revenue is not a cost.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you willing to end oil and gas exploration subsidies as well or just the ones you politically don't like?

If the tax break is for a particular product being produced and that product is a commodity item already existing in the marketplace ---- it needs to go... So yes..

HOWEVER..

If that exploration is on GOVT LEASED LAND --- the Govt (owner) of that property gets a benefit from the exploration of that lease.. Therefore I wouldn't be opposed to a tax break in that case.

You know darn well that MOST of what the left bitches about in oil subsidies is faulty. The leftist litany includes the cost of road maintenance as "an oil company subsidy"...

Actually most of the cost for oil exploration is written off. Oil gets far more subsidy than green energy does. If the road is a road to nowhere where they have an oil rig it pretty much is a public subsidy.

That is a lie.

Oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE, neither of them get a subsidy for that. GE actually collects money from the government in the form of green energy subsidies that Exxon does not get. This actually resulted in GE getting billions from the government instead of actually paying taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

The tax code for the 98% is very straightforward and relatively simple.

The tax code for the wealthy is not.

Those who can afford an army of tax lawyers and tax preparers are the ones who own congress. And, of course, the teepubs (aka Koch's little minions) will always protect them.

Never thought I'd hear you arguing for a Flat Tax. Welcome to the GOP!

Nope.

Nothing I have ever said even hints at that and I have no desire to support the 2% any more than I already do.

Well if you dont want a tax code with tons of carve outs and exemptions then you are for a flat tax. That simple. It's the fairest tax of all.

 

[Sactowndog]

OK, let me know when you're ready to send the deed.

First off the chart you are showing is mostly pre-2000 which shows you have a reading comprehension problem. It also shows you are so dogmatic you can't even consider appropriately other people's viewpoints which I am sure is a bit of a problem in your life.

Second if you look at the chart you showed after 2000 you will see declining capital gains rates and declining revenue. To the point of 2007 where you have post WW2 lows in both capital gains rates and revenue. So for the small amount of data you have shown which actually is relevant to my point, it would indicate I am right. Capital gains cuts do little to spur domestic growth and result in significant revenue loss for the treasury largely because most of the investment has been overseas.

Why don't you try to post something post 2000 that is actually supportive of your argument. Or are you too pig headed and incapable of reading to provide that data.

I see you cannot read a simple chart. The chart certainly shows post 2000. Check those numbers at the bottom to the right. They'll tell you when it is.
Second, I note that revenue does not immediate start rising the instant the new rate is signed into law. There is some lead time. As shown in the chart, which indicates rising revenue following the tax cut, until the recession kicked in and revenue across the board went down as asset prices deflated.

I realize that you are locked into a world view that makes you incapable of recognizing simple things, like the graph goes past 2000. I am sorry. You have a lot to learn.

I am pretty sure I pointed out the graph went past 2000. Again you seem to have trouble reading.

Post 2000 the trend line of the rates is down and the trend line of the revenue is also down dramatically. Even the bounce back peak was significantly lower than the original peak. If this graph extended to today you would see it continue down.

You really are one of the most dogmatic posters on this board and that is not a compliment. Show me some data with a long term trend that shows falling rates and rising revenue and I will recognize your point. The graph you have shown does not show that. At best it might show a short term bump from selling based on the rate reduction but no long term benefit.

 

[The Rabbi]

First off the chart you are showing is mostly pre-2000 which shows you have a reading comprehension problem. It also shows you are so dogmatic you can't even consider appropriately other people's viewpoints which I am sure is a bit of a problem in your life.

Second if you look at the chart you showed after 2000 you will see declining capital gains rates and declining revenue. To the point of 2007 where you have post WW2 lows in both capital gains rates and revenue. So for the small amount of data you have shown which actually is relevant to my point, it would indicate I am right. Capital gains cuts do little to spur domestic growth and result in significant revenue loss for the treasury largely because most of the investment has been overseas.

Why don't you try to post something post 2000 that is actually supportive of your argument. Or are you too pig headed and incapable of reading to provide that data.

I see you cannot read a simple chart. The chart certainly shows post 2000. Check those numbers at the bottom to the right. They'll tell you when it is.
Second, I note that revenue does not immediate start rising the instant the new rate is signed into law. There is some lead time. As shown in the chart, which indicates rising revenue following the tax cut, until the recession kicked in and revenue across the board went down as asset prices deflated.

I realize that you are locked into a world view that makes you incapable of recognizing simple things, like the graph goes past 2000. I am sorry. You have a lot to learn.

I am pretty sure I pointed out the graph went past 2000. Again you seem to have trouble reading.

Post 2000 the trend line of the rates is down and the trend line of the revenue is also down dramatically. Even the bounce back peak was significantly lower than the original peak. If this graph extended to today you would see it continue down.

You really are one of the most dogmatic posters on this board and that is not a compliment. Show me some data with a long term trend that shows falling rates and rising revenue and I will recognize your point. The graph you have shown does not show that. At best it might show a short term bump from selling based on the rate reduction but no long term benefit.

Correct. You will never see a steadily rising graph because eventually the effect of lower rates wears off as people adjust to them.
You really have some difficulty keeping your story straight and not accusing others of exactly what you do.

 

[Sactowndog]

If the tax break is for a particular product being produced and that product is a commodity item already existing in the marketplace ---- it needs to go... So yes..

HOWEVER..

If that exploration is on GOVT LEASED LAND --- the Govt (owner) of that property gets a benefit from the exploration of that lease.. Therefore I wouldn't be opposed to a tax break in that case.

You know darn well that MOST of what the left bitches about in oil subsidies is faulty. The leftist litany includes the cost of road maintenance as "an oil company subsidy"...

Actually most of the cost for oil exploration is written off. Oil gets far more subsidy than green energy does. If the road is a road to nowhere where they have an oil rig it pretty much is a public subsidy.

That is a lie.

Oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE, neither of them get a subsidy for that. GE actually collects money from the government in the form of green energy subsidies that Exxon does not get. This actually resulted in GE getting billions from the government instead of actually paying taxes.

Tax Benefits of Oil and Gas Drilling: Energy Capital Group

It is not a lie. Yes they deduct expenses but those are completely written off up front as opposed to be depreciated over the life of the well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually most of the cost for oil exploration is written off. Oil gets far more subsidy than green energy does. If the road is a road to nowhere where they have an oil rig it pretty much is a public subsidy.

That is a lie.

Oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE, neither of them get a subsidy for that. GE actually collects money from the government in the form of green energy subsidies that Exxon does not get. This actually resulted in GE getting billions from the government instead of actually paying taxes.

Tax Benefits of Oil and Gas Drilling: Energy Capital Group

It is not a lie. Yes they deduct expenses but those are completely written off up front as opposed to be depreciated over the life of the well.

Mainly because the drilling has to take place before any extraction.

You're really not very good at this, you know?

 

[Sactowndog]

I see you cannot read a simple chart. The chart certainly shows post 2000. Check those numbers at the bottom to the right. They'll tell you when it is.
Second, I note that revenue does not immediate start rising the instant the new rate is signed into law. There is some lead time. As shown in the chart, which indicates rising revenue following the tax cut, until the recession kicked in and revenue across the board went down as asset prices deflated.

I realize that you are locked into a world view that makes you incapable of recognizing simple things, like the graph goes past 2000. I am sorry. You have a lot to learn.

I am pretty sure I pointed out the graph went past 2000. Again you seem to have trouble reading.

Post 2000 the trend line of the rates is down and the trend line of the revenue is also down dramatically. Even the bounce back peak was significantly lower than the original peak. If this graph extended to today you would see it continue down.

You really are one of the most dogmatic posters on this board and that is not a compliment. Show me some data with a long term trend that shows falling rates and rising revenue and I will recognize your point. The graph you have shown does not show that. At best it might show a short term bump from selling based on the rate reduction but no long term benefit.

Correct. You will never see a steadily rising graph because eventually the effect of lower rates wears off as people adjust to them.
You really have some difficulty keeping your story straight and not accusing others of exactly what you do.

My story is fine. If you were correct a 10 year decline in rates like you see in your chart should show an increase in revenue over that time period. But instead as rates fall so does revenue. Get your story straight on the benefits of a capital gains cut on the economy, besides some rich guys taking profits quickly to save a buck.

Compare the 1975 ten year stretch when investment was local. In that period rates fell and income did trend up over that period. That period shows the point you are trying to make but it didn't repeat post 2000 despite the sharp drop in rates because investment is no longer local.

 

[Mr. H.]

Are you willing to end oil and gas exploration subsidies as well or just the ones you politically don't like?

If the tax break is for a particular product being produced and that product is a commodity item already existing in the marketplace ---- it needs to go... So yes..

HOWEVER..

If that exploration is on GOVT LEASED LAND --- the Govt (owner) of that property gets a benefit from the exploration of that lease.. Therefore I wouldn't be opposed to a tax break in that case.

You know darn well that MOST of what the left bitches about in oil subsidies is faulty. The leftist litany includes the cost of road maintenance as "an oil company subsidy"...

Actually most of the cost for oil exploration is written off. Oil gets far more subsidy than green energy does. If the road is a road to nowhere where they have an oil rig it pretty much is a public subsidy.

Writing off and/or expensing costs aren't subsidies, dimwit.

That "road to nowhere" to the drilling rig constitutes the access agreed upon in the terms of the lease. If it's a dry hole, the road is reclaimed and all damages remediated.
If the well is completed, compensation is dictated by the terms of the lease.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am pretty sure I pointed out the graph went past 2000. Again you seem to have trouble reading.

Post 2000 the trend line of the rates is down and the trend line of the revenue is also down dramatically. Even the bounce back peak was significantly lower than the original peak. If this graph extended to today you would see it continue down.

You really are one of the most dogmatic posters on this board and that is not a compliment. Show me some data with a long term trend that shows falling rates and rising revenue and I will recognize your point. The graph you have shown does not show that. At best it might show a short term bump from selling based on the rate reduction but no long term benefit.

Correct. You will never see a steadily rising graph because eventually the effect of lower rates wears off as people adjust to them.
You really have some difficulty keeping your story straight and not accusing others of exactly what you do.

My story is fine. If you were correct a 10 year decline in rates like you see in your chart should show an increase in revenue over that time period. But instead as rates fall so does revenue. Get your story straight on the benefits of a capital gains cut on the economy, besides some rich guys taking profits quickly to save a buck.

The chart of course does show an increase in revenue after every cap gains tax cut. It wouldnt be hard to go back and demonstrate this. Even Obama acknowledges this is the case.
You seem to be failing desperately here.

 

[Sactowndog]

If the tax break is for a particular product being produced and that product is a commodity item already existing in the marketplace ---- it needs to go... So yes..

HOWEVER..

If that exploration is on GOVT LEASED LAND --- the Govt (owner) of that property gets a benefit from the exploration of that lease.. Therefore I wouldn't be opposed to a tax break in that case.

You know darn well that MOST of what the left bitches about in oil subsidies is faulty. The leftist litany includes the cost of road maintenance as "an oil company subsidy"...

Actually most of the cost for oil exploration is written off. Oil gets far more subsidy than green energy does. If the road is a road to nowhere where they have an oil rig it pretty much is a public subsidy.

Writing off and/or expensing costs aren't subsidies, dimwit.

That "road to nowhere" to the drilling rig constitutes the access agreed upon in the terms of the lease. If it's a dry hole, the road is reclaimed and all damages remediated.
If the well is completed, compensation is dictated by the terms of the lease.

If you ever ran a business you would know that accelerated depreciation is a tax benefit.

 

[Mr. H.]

Actually most of the cost for oil exploration is written off. Oil gets far more subsidy than green energy does. If the road is a road to nowhere where they have an oil rig it pretty much is a public subsidy.

Writing off and/or expensing costs aren't subsidies, dimwit.

That "road to nowhere" to the drilling rig constitutes the access agreed upon in the terms of the lease. If it's a dry hole, the road is reclaimed and all damages remediated.
If the well is completed, compensation is dictated by the terms of the lease.

If you ever ran a business you would know that accelerated depreciation is a tax benefit.

Make up your fucking mind. First you use the term subsidy, now it's "tax benefit".

I have run a business, and quite successfully, for 36 years. Drilling holes in the ground so you can drive your goddamn Volvo to the whole foods market.

You're out of your league. Fuck off.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually most of the cost for oil exploration is written off. Oil gets far more subsidy than green energy does. If the road is a road to nowhere where they have an oil rig it pretty much is a public subsidy.

That is a lie.

Oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE, neither of them get a subsidy for that. GE actually collects money from the government in the form of green energy subsidies that Exxon does not get. This actually resulted in GE getting billions from the government instead of actually paying taxes.

Tax Benefits of Oil and Gas Drilling: Energy Capital Group

It is not a lie. Yes they deduct expenses but those are completely written off up front as opposed to be depreciated over the life of the well.

Again, oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE. That is not a subsidy, a subsidy is a check you get from the government.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is a lie.

Oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE, neither of them get a subsidy for that. GE actually collects money from the government in the form of green energy subsidies that Exxon does not get. This actually resulted in GE getting billions from the government instead of actually paying taxes.

Tax Benefits of Oil and Gas Drilling: Energy Capital Group

It is not a lie. Yes they deduct expenses but those are completely written off up front as opposed to be depreciated over the life of the well.

Again, oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE. That is not a subsidy, a subsidy is a check you get from the government.

He seems to argue by changing definitions and standards mid stream. So I show that cuts in cap gains provide more revenue to Treasury and suddenly I have failed to prove that they provide ever increasing revenue to treasury regardless of the overall economy. He maintains that oil companies get subsidies and then redefines "subsidy" as "allowed to keep more of their own revenue."
It isn't worth arguing with people like that.

 

[Toro]

CBO: Tax Breaks Cost $12 Trillion Over Decade, Benefit Most Wealthy

Top 20 pct of earners get half the benefit of top breaks

* Tax breaks on capital gains favor the wealthy

* Study favors Obama's approach to tax reform -Democrats

The top ten U.S. tax deductions, credits and exclusions will keep $12 trillion out of federal government coffers over the next decade, and several of them mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans, a new study from the Congressional Budget Office shows.

The top 20 percent of income earners will reap more than half of the $900 billion in benefits from these tax breaks that will accrue in 2013, the non-partisan CBO said on Wednesday.

Further, 17 percent of the total benefits would go to the top 1 percent of income earners -- families earning roughly $450,000 or more. The same group that was hit with a tax rate hike in January.

The benefits of preferential tax rates on capital gains and dividends, a break worth $161 billion this year, go almost entirely to the wealthy, including 68 percent to the top one percent of earners.

Why don't tax payers demand change from their congress person? Why do we keep re-electing the same Republican congress people that rob us?

Because they aren't robbing you.

 

[Toro]

The tax code for the 98% is very straightforward and relatively simple.

No it's not.