"We have to increase taxes on the wealthy"

[Mac1958]

Minimum effective tax sounds like it might be a good idea. It's not fair that the super-rich can pay 0 taxes. But when you start talking about 30% taxes on corporations, that's crazy to me.

The same thing can be done on individual taxes.

Global business competition is only getting more intense, so corporate taxes that are too high just won't work.

 

[alang1216]

Whoa. Holy crap. I'm not surprised by much any more, but this made me do a double-take. STEVE BANNON said this.

“I’m for a dramatic increase in corporate taxes. We have to increase taxes on the wealthy. For getting our guys’s taxes cut, we’ve got to cut spending, which they’re gonna resist. Where does the tax revenue come from? Corporations and the wealthy,” Bannon said during an interview with Semafor that was published Friday.

“And when they start squealing, we have a conversation,” the conservative media personality added. “We’re all partners in this, everybody’s going to take a little pain, but the working people are going to take less pain than you guys.”

On the campaign trail, Trump, Bannon’s former boss, said he wants to extend many provisions in his 2017 tax legislation, his signature economic achievement during his first White House term. He also vowed to slash taxes on tips and Social Security. Trump has also shown support for dropping the corporate income tax rate to 15 percent.

Personally, I'm for adding perhaps four new higher brackets on the top end. So yeah, I agree. On corporate taxes, we need to be careful and remain competitive globally, but I'm for establishing a Minimum Effective Tax Rate of maybe 10%, so that we don't have huge companies paying zero, like Amazon.

Thoughts?

Steve Bannon supports increasing taxes on the wealthy

Oh no, am I going to start supporting Trump and Bannon policies???? I feel an existential crisis coming on!

 

[Mac1958]

Oh no, am I going to start supporting Trump and Bannon policies???? I feel an existential crisis coming on!

Well, all of their insanity and chaos and juvenile behaviors aside, I think they're going to be a mixed bag.

I'm fine with that, since most administrations are like that. But the chances of them going too far on something are definitely higher than normal.

 

[eagle1462010]

The numbers don't work. Not even trickle-down can MAKE them work. We have to streamline spending AND increase taxes.

And as usual, the only way to REALLY do this is for the two parties to work together like normal adults. Ha ha.

I think that taxing (specific tax rates) and spending should happen AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE SAME BILL. THAT is a REAL "budget".

Make these people MAKE SENSE of what they're pushing.

17.1 % of GDP is the Historical average of revenue over a long time no matter the tax rates.

Any spending over that is more of the same. We Race to RESET

 

[DGS49]

The best ways of increasing government tax revenue are not easy to find. Trump's tax cuts of 2017 dramatically INCREASED Federal income tax revenues, with exception for the 2 Covid years. You could look it up.

It comes down to the two ways of looking at tax changes: the Static view and the Dynamic view. The Static view supposes that taxpayers WILL NOT REACT to changes in the tax code. They see a certain amount of economic activity and figure that if they increase the taxes on that activity, then tax revenues will SURELY go up. Sometimes it happens that way, but only for the first year. The Dynamic view anticipates that taxpayers WILL REACT to the changes, and tries to anticipate that reaction.

The key is this: The highest earners and corporations can MANAGE their income, and if they think that the tax code is screwing them, they will rearrange their affairs to RECOGNIZE less in taxable income to minimize taxes. If they think the tax code is treating them fairly, they will just go about their affairs to maximize their income and go ahead and pay the taxes. This is what happened with the 2017 tax cuts (which are due to expire).

Increasing tax rates in the hope of increasing tax revenues is a fool's errand. It satisfies the Masses, but rarely achieves what it promises to achieve.

And as everybody knows, the real problem is on the SPENDING side, not the taxing side. Congress always seeks to BUY votes with taxpayer money, and most of the discretionary spending is unconstitutional, but few in Congress have the balls to say so. This is partly because any Congress electee who votes in accordance with the Constitution will quickly be voted out of office.

Parenthetically, the SS changes that were enacted last night are just one more example of Congress spending OUR money to buy themselves votes. The beneficiaries of the changes are mainly GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES who DID NOT pay into the SS system, or paid very little, and who generally retire ten to fifteen years earlier than people in the Real World. These people need a break? No. Give ME a fucking break!

The spending "powers" of Congress are laid out in Article I, Section 8. They do NOT include things like, education, healthcare, housing, food, entertainment, or saving the [fucking] planet. ALL of these things are "reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people" (ever seen those words before?).

If the DOGE brothers want to truly make a splash, they should propose that Congress establish a "Constitutionality Panel" that would review every piece of spending proposed by Congress to see whether Congress is actually empowered to do it.

Balanced budget. Immediately.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You miss the point. Who cares if you grow by even 10% while your debt increases.by even larger numbers. $1T a year on interest payments alone. I repeat again and again, you don't have a revenue problem.you have a spending problem and no one cares.because those who can tell you that you should care are going to cash out long before you do or even can.

/——/ Trump and Musk managed to cut billions from democRATs bloated pork bill and 40% pay raise.

 

[shockedcanadian]

/——/ Trump and Musk managed to cut billions from democRATs bloated pork bill and 40% pay raise.

It wasn't a 40% pay raise, it was approx. $6k a year.

That is chicken feed. You spent hundreds of billions of dollar for a month of peace.

It doesn't make sense. You are going bankrupt and 95% of Americans aren't even aware of it because the media won't tell you.

Perhaps another drop in the U.S credit rating as Biden experienced, will wake up even some of the wealthy.

 

[Seymour Flops]

“And when they start squealing, we have a conversation,” the conservative media personality added. “We’re all partners in this, everybody’s going to take a little pain, but the working people are going to take less pain than you guys.”

Raise taxes on corporations and the working people will take nearly all of the pain if not 100%.

The fantasy that the wealthy CEO's and Board Chairs will say, "They raised corporate taxes! Now, I'll have to sell one of my yachts, and I can't buy my mistress that villa in France I promised her!" is a complete myth. A naive fantasy.

Raise taxes on corporations and the working people will pay it in the form of higher prices, lowered values of their 401k portfolios, or both.

 

[Picaro]

I really have no answers in that regard other than scrapping the reams of tax code and going with a fair/flat tax.

We have plenty of revenue but a totally dysfunctional .gov as far as spending goes.

In other words:

IF most people got some bang for the buck taxes wouldn't be an issue at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, all of their insanity and chaos and juvenile behaviors aside, I think they're going to be a mixed bag.

I'm fine with that, since most administrations are like that. But the chances of them going too far on something are definitely higher than normal.

Like what?

Will they send their DOJ after their political enemies?

Will they have their FBI treat parents at a local school board as domestic terrorists?

Will they work with social media to eradicate "disinformation"?

Will they deplatform Biden?

Please tell us!

 

[Nostra]

Whoa. Holy crap. I'm not surprised by much any more, but this made me do a double-take. STEVE BANNON said this.

“I’m for a dramatic increase in corporate taxes. We have to increase taxes on the wealthy. For getting our guys’s taxes cut, we’ve got to cut spending, which they’re gonna resist. Where does the tax revenue come from? Corporations and the wealthy,” Bannon said during an interview with Semafor that was published Friday.

“And when they start squealing, we have a conversation,” the conservative media personality added. “We’re all partners in this, everybody’s going to take a little pain, but the working people are going to take less pain than you guys.”

On the campaign trail, Trump, Bannon’s former boss, said he wants to extend many provisions in his 2017 tax legislation, his signature economic achievement during his first White House term. He also vowed to slash taxes on tips and Social Security. Trump has also shown support for dropping the corporate income tax rate to 15 percent.

Personally, I'm for adding perhaps four new higher brackets on the top end. So yeah, I agree. On corporate taxes, we need to be careful and remain competitive globally, but I'm for establishing a Minimum Effective Tax Rate of maybe 10%, so that we don't have huge companies paying zero, like Amazon.

Thoughts?

Steve Bannon supports increasing taxes on the wealthy

Define fair share.

 

[DonGlock26]

Whoa. Holy crap. I'm not surprised by much any more, but this made me do a double-take. STEVE BANNON said this.

“I’m for a dramatic increase in corporate taxes. We have to increase taxes on the wealthy. For getting our guys’s taxes cut, we’ve got to cut spending, which they’re gonna resist. Where does the tax revenue come from? Corporations and the wealthy,” Bannon said during an interview with Semafor that was published Friday.

“And when they start squealing, we have a conversation,” the conservative media personality added. “We’re all partners in this, everybody’s going to take a little pain, but the working people are going to take less pain than you guys.”

On the campaign trail, Trump, Bannon’s former boss, said he wants to extend many provisions in his 2017 tax legislation, his signature economic achievement during his first White House term. He also vowed to slash taxes on tips and Social Security. Trump has also shown support for dropping the corporate income tax rate to 15 percent.

Personally, I'm for adding perhaps four new higher brackets on the top end. So yeah, I agree. On corporate taxes, we need to be careful and remain competitive globally, but I'm for establishing a Minimum Effective Tax Rate of maybe 10%, so that we don't have huge companies paying zero, like Amazon.

Thoughts?

Steve Bannon supports increasing taxes on the wealthy

The real wealthy aren't really affected by income taxes. They make their money from investment income. The West's lawmakers have shielded them with tax laws. If you want to tax the rich, you have to change the tax laws and the focus on working and middle class "income".

 

[berg80]

“We’re all partners in this,

Since when did a nihilist like Bannon look at the world like that? Unless by "this" he meant the destruction of the current social/constitutional order.

 

[Dekster]

Whoa. Holy crap. I'm not surprised by much any more, but this made me do a double-take. STEVE BANNON said this.

“I’m for a dramatic increase in corporate taxes. We have to increase taxes on the wealthy. For getting our guys’s taxes cut, we’ve got to cut spending, which they’re gonna resist. Where does the tax revenue come from? Corporations and the wealthy,” Bannon said during an interview with Semafor that was published Friday.

“And when they start squealing, we have a conversation,” the conservative media personality added. “We’re all partners in this, everybody’s going to take a little pain, but the working people are going to take less pain than you guys.”

On the campaign trail, Trump, Bannon’s former boss, said he wants to extend many provisions in his 2017 tax legislation, his signature economic achievement during his first White House term. He also vowed to slash taxes on tips and Social Security. Trump has also shown support for dropping the corporate income tax rate to 15 percent.

Personally, I'm for adding perhaps four new higher brackets on the top end. So yeah, I agree. On corporate taxes, we need to be careful and remain competitive globally, but I'm for establishing a Minimum Effective Tax Rate of maybe 10%, so that we don't have huge companies paying zero, like Amazon.

Thoughts?

Steve Bannon supports increasing taxes on the wealthy

He probably wants to create a feud between the Donald and Elon so Sweet Potato starts listening to him instead again.

 

[Mac1958]

The real wealthy aren't really affected by income taxes. They make their money from investment income. The West's lawmakers have shielded them with tax laws. If you want to tax the rich, you have to change the tax laws and the focus on working and middle class "income".

Agreed.

 

[Mac1958]

Since when did a nihilist like Bannon look at the world like that? Unless by "this" he meant the destruction of the current social/constitutional order.

Yeah, I almost spit out my coffee when I saw that.

There's no way to predict what's going to happen here. Maybe he/they said one thing and planned another. That would be par for the course for politicians. And now it's fair to wonder, as discussed, whether the congressional will just rubber stamp everything.

Who knows.

 

[Rigby5]

Not surprised.

. . . . there were, after all, rumors.

View attachment 1056225

https://archive.ph/tWGnC

Bannon says he’s a Leninist: that could explain the White House’s new tactics​

This article is more than 7 years old
Victor Sebestyen

Bannon says he’s a Leninist: that could explain the White House’s new tactics | Victor Sebestyen

Trump’s top political adviser says he wants to destroy the state, like the Bolshevik leader, and some of his ideas certainly echo the Russian revolutionary

www.theguardian.com

Did Steve Bannon Describe Himself as a 'Leninist' Who Wants to Destroy the State?

After reports about the quote emerged, President Donald Trump's chief strategist told journalists that he did not recall the conversation.

www.snopes.com

I may agree with you on many things, but you have Marxism and Leninism wrong.
They are NOT oriented as power coming from the state.
They are the most democratic republic form of government possible, considering how powerful and dangerous the capitalist and monarchist greed and power are.

After the invention of edged weapons, the wealthy elite took over and created monarchies through capitalism.
The invention of firearms brought back the opportunity for democratic republics again, but then the industrial revolution took away individual freedom once again.
So Marxists and Leninists who want collective means of production are correct.
Whenever you allow the capitalists to exert their control over a monopoly on capital, then everyone without enough personal capital becomes a feudal serf.
Anti-trust laws and unions cannot save us since save us since the wealthy elite control the media, and therefore the elections.
It is obvious only public resources can work to protect individuals.
Just look at public schools for example, and imagine how horrific would be without them.
We only have to look at how badly the insurance companies have taken over and ruined health care in the US to see that the profit motive cannot possibly work.
People try to use car makers to show how great competition is, and it's a total failure.
US cars are twice as big and twice as expensive as they should be and are everywhere else in the world.
That is because the profit margins are much better on big SUVs than they are in reasonable minimalist cars.
But private car makes have lead to unsafe working conditions, all car manufacturing being offshored, dozens of domestic car companies gone bankrupt, whole cities abandoned, etc. Brazil, Iceland, and Sweden show that socialization can produce far better and cleaner cars that can run on things like ethanol, hydrogen, palm oil, etc., that do not pollute.
The US democratic republic cannot survive global capitalism.

 

[Rigby5]

Minimum effective tax sounds like it might be a good idea. It's not fair that the super-rich can pay 0 taxes. But when you start talking about 30% taxes on corporations, that's crazy to me.

A 30% tax on corporations is nothing since that is only on extra profit, and money made but reinvested in things like mansions for the owners, are not taxed at all. All the owner has to do is have a few meetings in offices created in the mansion estate.

 

[Rigby5]

You miss the point. Who cares if you grow by even 10% while your debt increases.by even larger numbers. $1T a year on interest payments alone. I repeat again and again, you don't have a revenue problem.you have a spending problem and no one cares.because those who can tell you that you should care are going to cash out long before you do or even can.

That is true.
But the majority of spending is for the military, and people in the US do not understand that the military is the biggest and most dangerous capitalist monopoly we are threatened by.
While it looks like the miliary only gets about half the federal budget, the reality is all the interest on the national debt is entirely military spending, and most social services, like VA and GIBill, are also actually for the military.
The US spends about as much on our military as the whole rest of the world does combined.

 

[Rigby5]

Minimum effective tax sounds like it might be a good idea. It's not fair that the super-rich can pay 0 taxes. But when you start talking about 30% taxes on corporations, that's crazy to me.

A flat 30% tax with a flat 25k personal deduction would fix the problem and level the playing field.
The problem now is that the poor do not get to write off from their cost of doing business, like rent, food, gas, etc.
The wealthy not only get to write off everything, but can pay themselves in stock options in order to get the lowest capital gains rates.