ninetyfourbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anyone catch the new tax on college endowments? Apaprently the threshold was increased so maybe Cal with its low endowment might be safe. However, if the tax applies to UC as a whole, kiss 1.5% of the UC budget good bye (am I reading this right?)! What next, a tax on late night comics? What is the pubic policy behind this one, other than colleges are seen as liberal bastions? Why colleges and not other non-profits with huge endowments?

BTW, is the charitable deduction still being eliminated in an effort to really slam higher eduction?

A qualification is that the 7 figure attorney who is being vilified (and everyone else making that many zeros) has most of their itemized deductions phased out in any event. So again, as far as this board is concerned, it is the California professional making between 100K to 500K who really being shafted the most.

---

I think the college endowment tax is targeted at Harvard. IIRC, it would apply if assets were greater than $100,000 per student and only for private schools.

---

How about the furd and SC?

ninetyfourbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anyone catch the new tax on college endowments? Apaprently the threshold was increased so maybe Cal with its low endowment might be safe. However, if the tax applies to UC as a whole, kiss 1.5% of the UC budget good bye (am I reading this right?)! What next, a tax on late night comics? What is the pubic policy behind this one, other than colleges are seen as liberal bastions? Why colleges and not other non-profits with huge endowments?

BTW, is the charitable deduction still being eliminated in an effort to really slam higher eduction?

A qualification is that the 7 figure attorney who is being vilified (and everyone else making that many zeros) has most of their itemized deductions phased out in any event. So again, as far as this board is concerned, it is the California professional making between 100K to 500K who really being shafted the most.

---

I think the college endowment tax is targeted at Harvard. IIRC, it would apply if assets were greater than $100,000 per student and only for private schools.

---

Good, thanks. I guess in the Pac, only Furd and SC are in the crosshairs. Still, I don't see the policy behind taxing money earmarked for higher eduction, even if only private schools.

wifeisafurd said:

---

ninetyfourbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anyone catch the new tax on college endowments? Apaprently the threshold was increased so maybe Cal with its low endowment might be safe. However, if the tax applies to UC as a whole, kiss 1.5% of the UC budget good bye (am I reading this right?)! What next, a tax on late night comics? What is the pubic policy behind this one, other than colleges are seen as liberal bastions? Why colleges and not other non-profits with huge endowments?

BTW, is the charitable deduction still being eliminated in an effort to really slam higher eduction?

A qualification is that the 7 figure attorney who is being vilified (and everyone else making that many zeros) has most of their itemized deductions phased out in any event. So again, as far as this board is concerned, it is the California professional making between 100K to 500K who really being shafted the most.

---

I think the college endowment tax is targeted at Harvard. IIRC, it would apply if assets were greater than $100,000 per student and only for private schools.

---

Good, thanks. I guess in the Pac, only Furd and SC are in the crosshairs. Still, I don't see the policy behind taxing money earmarked for higher eduction, even if only private schools.

---

They moved the endowment limit to $250k per student earlier today. But yeah the policy rationale behind this is mystifying unless you believe the tax code should be used to target your enemies.

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Very few folks file any kind of sizeable capital gain on any kind of regular basis. I would love to see this polled and I would bet money you are wrong on what the average American knows about ordinary income vs. capital gain tax treatment.

HKBear97! said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Obviously you guys are way more intelligent on this subject than me, so perhaps you can help me on this one regarding corporate taxes. According to the U.S. General Accountability Office, "In each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability." For those that were profitable, they stated "For tax years 2008 to 2012, profitable large U.S. corporations paid, on average, U.S. federal income taxes amounting to about 14 percent of the pretax net income that they reported in their financial statements (for those entities included in their tax returns)." Here's the link: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-363

My question is, why do we need to reduce the corporate tax rate when it appears most companies are paying nothing or those that are paying actually are paying at a rate well below the headline one to begin with? Seems to me we should be eliminating the loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying taxes all together, no?

---

Because it is a con being played out on the American people who are told corporations are overtaxed when they are not, while these same corporations engineer huge untraced donors to the politicians. Then the politicians vote to lower the taxes of their donors. This all happens because the average American doesn't fully understand tax policy in this country.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

calbear93 said:

---

What part of the tax reform do you find objectionable? Any provision in particular or is it that certain people even richer than you may benefit as well?

---

People richer than me tend to pay a lower average tax rate than me because they tend to have more investment income while I have ordinary income. I am in the group of Americans who pay among the highest average tax rate in the country. I am not asking for lower taxes for myself but I do believe people richer than me should pay at least what I pay in terms of an average tax rate. This doesn't happen because they are able to buy politicians - particularly Republican politicians but also Democratic politicians to a lesser extent.

But to answer your question from a bigger perspective, in my opinion, tax policy should work towards two issues:
1) Covering the spending we want as a country.
- We currently run unsustainable deficits so I'm opposed to any tax cuts right now. I think this viewpoint of mine could correctly be called fiscally responsible, or maybe even fiscally conservative.

2) Foster economic growth and fairness
- The capital markets are currently telling us there is an abundance of capital (i.e. the 1% have more money than they know what to do with). This is evidenced by record highs across multiple asset classes, especially very low interest rates, and also low consumer inflation (the middle class doesn't have enough money to push demand).
- Growth is on a secular decline due to the issues above
- This tells me that the wealthy, in particular holders of large amounts of capital should pay more taxes, which should be used to push economic growth by spending on jobs and other services at the lower end.

This is the solution for 2017. In 1980 I probably would have suggested the opposite.

The uncontrolled selfish greed is consuming the country/world at a savage pace.

Things will just continue to get worse and worse. But is that the goal/intention?

Until the majority of the super rich=more$$ than they can spend in 20 lifetimes change their mindset (which is probably how they amassed the overkill wealth) enjoy the ride until the show is over.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

---

This would be valid criticism if he wanted capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income. He doesn't. I see no justification for capital gains treatment and preferring the corporate form over LLC's or other pass through entities. other than Dems tend to like big business donors over small business which usually uses pass through entities already.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

---

This would be valid criticism if he wanted capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income. He doesn't. I see no justification for capital gains treatment and preferring the corporate form over LLC's or other pass through entities. other than Dems tend to like big business donors over small business which usually uses pass through entities already.

---

You should just admit your original comment was poorly worded and move on. Instead you keep trying to create nuance to support your incorrect comment. You tried to imply bipartisan support for something resembling the current tax proposal from a person who is opposed. That's it. That's the whole story.

I'll be shocked if the Senate gets 60 votes for a corporate tax cut. I'll be doubly shocked if any Democrat running for Senate in 2018 votes in favor of a corporate tax cut and gets re-elected.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

---

So let me see if i understand your concerns correcty. Because I left out that Reich actually wants to eliminate corporate taxes and give shareholders special treatment over pass through entity owners who have to pay ordinary income rates, you think I was misleading when I said Reich and others wanted to reduce corporate taxes? Seriously? Fine, be small. Riech wants to give shareholders bigger tax advantages than being proposed. Happy? Using Reich was a mistake because his positions is more extreme than most liberal economists. How is that corporate income tax rate rreconciliation thing going btw?

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

---

This would be valid criticism if he wanted capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income. He doesn't. I see no justification for capital gains treatment and preferring the corporate form over LLC's or other pass through entities. other than Dems tend to like big business donors over small business which usually uses pass through entities already.

---

You should just admit your original comment was poorly worded and move on. Instead you keep trying to create nuance to support your incorrect comment. You tried to imply bipartisan support for something resembling the current tax proposal from a person who is opposed. That's it. That's the whole story.

I'll be shocked if the Senate gets 60 votes for a corporate tax cut. I'll be doubly shocked if any Democrat running for Senate in 2018 votes in favor of a corporate tax cut and gets re-elected.

---

They're doing this with reconciliation, so it's just 50 votes needed in the Senate.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

---

So let me see if i understand your concerns correcty. because I left out that Reich actually wants to eliminate corporate taxes and give shareholders special treatment over pass through entity owners who have to pay ordinary income rates, you think I was misleading when I said Reich and others wanted to reduce corporate taxes? Seriously? Fine, be small. Riech and other economists want to give shareholders bigger tax advantages than being proposed. Happy? How is that corporate income tax rate rreconciliation thing going btw?

---

You implied that Reich was in support of corporate tax treatment in the current tax proposal. That was incorrect and misleading.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

---

This would be valid criticism if he wanted capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income. He doesn't. I see no justification for capital gains treatment and preferring the corporate form over LLC's or other pass through entities. other than Dems tend to like big business donors over small business which usually uses pass through entities already.

---

You should just admit your original comment was poorly worded and move on. Instead you keep trying to create nuance to support your incorrect comment. You tried to imply bipartisan support for something resembling the current tax proposal from a person who is opposed. That's it. That's the whole story.

I'll be shocked if the Senate gets 60 votes for a corporate tax cut. I'll be doubly shocked if any Democrat running for Senate in 2018 votes in favor of a corporate tax cut and gets re-elected.

---

They're doing this with reconciliation, so it's just 50 votes needed in the Senate.

---

Yes, but for it to be permanent they would need 60 votes. Through reconciliation it would expire in ten years. The question is around permanence. WIAF said corporate tax rate reduction had bipartisan support and would be permanent. I think he's wrong.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Very few folks file any kind of sizeable capital gain on any kind of regular basis. I would love to see this polled and I would bet money you are wrong on what the average American knows about ordinary income vs. capital gain tax treatment.

---

Let us test that theory about all the masses beings so dumb:

Per a April 17, 2017 NPR study (with excerpts copied):

1)Americans underestimate the share of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes

Given four choices of how many Americans pay zero or negative federal income taxes (11, 27, 45, or 63 percent), fully 70 percent of poll respondents chose the options under the correct answer, which was 45 percent. Some of these people simply have no taxable income, and others get money back as a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Of course, these people might pay other taxes, like payroll taxes, as well as whatever sales and property taxes their states impose.)

2) Americans didn't appreciate that for the highest earners, the percent of federal income taxes they pay now is significantly higher than it was in 1980. How does that work? As the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams explained to NPR, the share of income going to the rich has climbed in a big way over the last few decades. So how Americans think about this could affect what they think should happen to the top tax rates on the richest. In 1980, the top 10 percent brought in 32 percent of all adjusted gross income, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2013, it was 46 percent. For example, many Americans also believe taxes should be raised on the richest. In contrast, a sizable majority said their taxes should be reduced, including those in the highest income tax brackets.

3) Americans also appear to have strong views on how people earn their money. We asked people to what degree they agreed with this statement: "The tax rate on income from work should be lower than the tax rate on income from wealth.

75 percent said they did, including 77 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents. This is another result that might make the richest Americans squirm. The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks. Most of those capital gains are taxed at a rate far below that top income tax rate. (People at any income level of course can have those kinds of investments, but capital gains are overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.)

4) Americans overestimate how important income taxes are to government revenue. About half of the poll's respondents (with very little variance by party) said they believe 75 percent of the federal government's revenue comes from income taxes. In reality, it's just under half. Of all the taxes Americans pay, income tax probably requires the most thought. After all, payroll tax comes automatically out of each paycheck. Sales tax is imposed at the cash register. And so on. So maybe it makes sense that Americans think all that work they put into filling out their forms ends up doing the lion's share of funding the government.

5)On tax policy, views aren't always all that partisan. Our poll, nearly half of Democrats 45 percent agreed with the proposition that "federal income taxes should be cut for all income levels." Likewise, Republicans the party that has spoken of "makers" and "takers" were split roughly evenly on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to economic growth. (Democrats and independents tended to disagree slightly more that is, to say that tax cuts for the wealthy do not lead to that growth.)These are only two examples, but they suggest that partisan messaging in Washington on some specific issues doesn't necessarily filter down to Americans.

6)Americans agree: Taxes are too complicated (but that's no reason to cheat). My comment: that won't change with this legislation.

Hopefully, you didn't bet much.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Very few folks file any kind of sizeable capital gain on any kind of regular basis. I would love to see this polled and I would bet money you are wrong on what the average American knows about ordinary income vs. capital gain tax treatment.

---

Let us test that theory about all the masses beings so dumb:

Per a April 17, 2017 NPR study (with excerpts copied):

1)Americans underestimate the share of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes

Given four choices of how many Americans pay zero or negative federal income taxes (11, 27, 45, or 63 percent), fully 70 percent of poll respondents chose the options under the correct answer, which was 45 percent. Some of these people simply have no taxable income, and others get money back as a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Of course, these people might pay other taxes, like payroll taxes, as well as whatever sales and property taxes their states impose.)

2) Americans didn't appreciate that for the highest earners, the percent of federal income taxes they pay now is significantly higher than it was in 1980. How does that work? As the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams explained to NPR, the share of income going to the rich has climbed in a big way over the last few decades. So how Americans think about this could affect what they think should happen to the top tax rates on the richest. In 1980, the top 10 percent brought in 32 percent of all adjusted gross income, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2013, it was 46 percent. For example, many Americans also believe taxes should be raised on the richest. In contrast, a sizable majority said their taxes should be reduced, including those in the highest income tax brackets.

3) Americans also appear to have strong views on how people earn their money. We asked people to what degree they agreed with this statement: "The tax rate on income from work should be lower than the tax rate on income from wealth.

75 percent said they did, including 77 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents. This is another result that might make the richest Americans squirm. The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks. Most of those capital gains are taxed at a rate far below that top income tax rate. (People at any income level of course can have those kinds of investments, but capital gains are overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.)

4) Americans overestimate how important income taxes are to government revenue. About half of the poll's respondents (with very little variance by party) said they believe 75 percent of the federal government's revenue comes from income taxes. In reality, it's just under half. Of all the taxes Americans pay, income tax probably requires the most thought. After all, payroll tax comes automatically out of each paycheck. Sales tax is imposed at the cash register. And so on. So maybe it makes sense that Americans think all that work they put into filling out their forms ends up doing the lion's share of funding the government.

5)On tax policy, views aren't always all that partisan. Our poll, nearly half of Democrats 45 percent agreed with the proposition that "federal income taxes should be cut for all income levels." Likewise, Republicans the party that has spoken of "makers" and "takers" were split roughly evenly on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to economic growth. (Democrats and independents tended to disagree slightly more that is, to say that tax cuts for the wealthy do not lead to that growth.)These are only two examples, but they suggest that partisan messaging in Washington on some specific issues doesn't necessarily filter down to Americans.

6)Americans agree: Taxes are too complicated (but that's no reason to cheat). My comment: that won't change with this legislation.

Hopefully, you didn't bet much.

---

Nothing in that poll shows me to be wrong. The author explaining differences between capital gains and ordinary income tax treatment doesn't say anything about what the average American knows about it.

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

---

This would be valid criticism if he wanted capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income. He doesn't. I see no justification for capital gains treatment and preferring the corporate form over LLC's or other pass through entities. other than Dems tend to like big business donors over small business which usually uses pass through entities already.

---

You should just admit your original comment was poorly worded and move on. Instead you keep trying to create nuance to support your incorrect comment. You tried to imply bipartisan support for something resembling the current tax proposal from a person who is opposed. That's it. That's the whole story.

I'll be shocked if the Senate gets 60 votes for a corporate tax cut. I'll be doubly shocked if any Democrat running for Senate in 2018 votes in favor of a corporate tax cut and gets re-elected.

---

They're doing this with reconciliation, so it's just 50 votes needed in the Senate.

---

Yes, but for it to be permanent they would need 60 votes. Through reconciliation it would expire in ten years. The question is around permanence. WIAF said corporate tax rate reduction had bipartisan support and would be permanent. I think he's wrong.

---

I said the plan was not to go though reconciliation and every newspaper and magazine appears to say the same thing. The plan is the cuts would be permanent. To be permanent you have to get 60 votes in the Senate. This could change. Just Google and read my posts, rather than listening to some guy making-up stuff about what I said for his agenda.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I predict this tax reform effort will go about as well as the health care repeal effort.

---

I predict that some tax bill will pass, because the GOP survival is dependent on same. The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive. As for reconciliation, my guess is that the personal tax cuts (note no tax rate cut at highest rates, but it take longer to reach the higher rates, and the lowest rate is increased, but there are new credits and standard deduction to offset the rate gain) will go into effect and certain deductions and benefits will be removed. None of this will improve simplification. The big dollar controversy will be a separate lower tax rate for "small business", whatever that means, which has high growth potential, but also real risk of deficits due to revenue reductions (there are a lot of small businesses). Not sure this change passes. The end of the inheritance tax is a symbolic, high controversy, low impact proposal, as relatively little revenue is raised from this tax, and the tax can be avoided for the most part through good tax planning. GOP probably would give this up.

---

Please provide a source for Robert Reich advocating for lower corporate tax rates.

I don't believe there are 60 votes in the Senate for a decrease in the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, I think any democratic Senator that votes in favor would be more likely to lose their next election.

---

Reich advocates eliminating the corporate income tax actually. He would do what another poster said, which is tax the shareholders with a capital gain. To quote Reich:

"It's time we eliminated the corporate income tax and made up the shortfall by increasing capital gains taxes. Here's the logic: First, the corporate income tax favors big companies that are able to shift their income abroad and engage in other tax-avoidance activities, while harming small companies that can't do any of this and therefore suffer a competitive disadvantage. Yet small companies are the engines of job growth in America.

Second, the people who actually pay the corporate income tax should properly be the company's shareholders, who are the legal owners of the company and who benefit from increases in its income. But in many cases, depending on the structure of the market, a significant share of the actual burden of paying the corporate income tax is often borne instead by employees in the form of lower wages, or consumers in the form of higher prices."

March 19, 2014 article in Economy. You can Google his other articles or follow him on Linked-In.

As for the permanence of corporate tax reduction, I was quoting the NYT. They could be wrong. But currently the current track is to not include the corporate tax reduction in reconciliation. That could change obviously.

---

If Reich supports lower corporate taxes in conjunction with higher capital gains taxes, that's a pretty big caveat you may want to have included in your original post. Without higher capital gains taxes, Reich has made it clear he opposes a corporate tax cut. Your attempt at showing bipartisan support requires very misleading details.

---

Actually, your misrepresenting his position. He wants to eliminate corporate taxes in their ENTIRETY and instead have taxation at one level at capital gain rates. While that approach makes sense to me (why penalize companies for using a corporate approach versus an LLC for example, though I'm not sure of the justification for capital gain treatment, and would have all pass through income taxed at ordinary income rates), most economists are not supporting the Reich approach of a single level of taxation. I quoted him because he is a well known liberal to cal folks and his approach is extreme in that it is a huge reduction of taxes, by eliminating the double taxation on income and then giving taxpayers capital gains treatment. Under consideration simply is reducing the corporate tax rates 15% and dividends still taxed at ordinary income rates. Again, unless you have some other source you wold like to quote, the current approach is too make the corporate rate change permanent and not included in reconciliation, as the NYT and various other sources have stated.

---

But Reich wants capital gains taxes to go up, which you left out of your original statement making your original statement misleading

---

This would be valid criticism if he wanted capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income. He doesn't. I see no justification for capital gains treatment and preferring the corporate form over LLC's or other pass through entities. other than Dems tend to like big business donors over small business which usually uses pass through entities already.

---

You should just admit your original comment was poorly worded and move on. Instead you keep trying to create nuance to support your incorrect comment. You tried to imply bipartisan support for something resembling the current tax proposal from a person who is opposed. That's it. That's the whole story.

I'll be shocked if the Senate gets 60 votes for a corporate tax cut. I'll be doubly shocked if any Democrat running for Senate in 2018 votes in favor of a corporate tax cut and gets re-elected.

---

They're doing this with reconciliation, so it's just 50 votes needed in the Senate.

---

Yes, but for it to be permanent they would need 60 votes. Through reconciliation it would expire in ten years. The question is around permanence. WIAF said corporate tax rate reduction had bipartisan support and would be permanent. I think he's wrong.

---

I said the plan was not to go though reconciliation and every newspaper and magazine appears to say the same thing. The plan is the cuts would be permanent. To be permanent you have to get 60 votes in the Senate. This could change. Just Google and read my posts, rather than listening to some guy making-up stuff about what I said for his agenda.

---

I think we all agree on what WIAF said. Here it is:
"The corporate tax reduction likely is bipartisan, will be permanent and not even face reconciliation (the corporate tax also is small percentage of tax revenues (around 9%) and most liberal economists (the Reich's of the world) agree that a cut is necessary to be competitive"

I think he is wrong about the permanence (i.e. ability to get 60 votes) and misleading about Reich's viewpoint. Nothing is made up. WIAF is lashing out because I caught him in an uncomfortable spot again.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Very few folks file any kind of sizeable capital gain on any kind of regular basis. I would love to see this polled and I would bet money you are wrong on what the average American knows about ordinary income vs. capital gain tax treatment.

---

Let us test that theory about all the masses beings so dumb:

Per a April 17, 2017 NPR study (with excerpts copied):

1)Americans underestimate the share of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes

Given four choices of how many Americans pay zero or negative federal income taxes (11, 27, 45, or 63 percent), fully 70 percent of poll respondents chose the options under the correct answer, which was 45 percent. Some of these people simply have no taxable income, and others get money back as a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Of course, these people might pay other taxes, like payroll taxes, as well as whatever sales and property taxes their states impose.)

2) Americans didn't appreciate that for the highest earners, the percent of federal income taxes they pay now is significantly higher than it was in 1980. How does that work? As the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams explained to NPR, the share of income going to the rich has climbed in a big way over the last few decades. So how Americans think about this could affect what they think should happen to the top tax rates on the richest. In 1980, the top 10 percent brought in 32 percent of all adjusted gross income, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2013, it was 46 percent. For example, many Americans also believe taxes should be raised on the richest. In contrast, a sizable majority said their taxes should be reduced, including those in the highest income tax brackets.

3) Americans also appear to have strong views on how people earn their money. We asked people to what degree they agreed with this statement: "The tax rate on income from work should be lower than the tax rate on income from wealth.

75 percent said they did, including 77 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents. This is another result that might make the richest Americans squirm. The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks. Most of those capital gains are taxed at a rate far below that top income tax rate. (People at any income level of course can have those kinds of investments, but capital gains are overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.)

4) Americans overestimate how important income taxes are to government revenue. About half of the poll's respondents (with very little variance by party) said they believe 75 percent of the federal government's revenue comes from income taxes. In reality, it's just under half. Of all the taxes Americans pay, income tax probably requires the most thought. After all, payroll tax comes automatically out of each paycheck. Sales tax is imposed at the cash register. And so on. So maybe it makes sense that Americans think all that work they put into filling out their forms ends up doing the lion's share of funding the government.

5)On tax policy, views aren't always all that partisan. Our poll, nearly half of Democrats 45 percent agreed with the proposition that "federal income taxes should be cut for all income levels." Likewise, Republicans the party that has spoken of "makers" and "takers" were split roughly evenly on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to economic growth. (Democrats and independents tended to disagree slightly more that is, to say that tax cuts for the wealthy do not lead to that growth.)These are only two examples, but they suggest that partisan messaging in Washington on some specific issues doesn't necessarily filter down to Americans.

6)Americans agree: Taxes are too complicated (but that's no reason to cheat). My comment: that won't change with this legislation.

Hopefully, you didn't bet much.

---

Nothing in that poll shows me to be wrong. The author explaining differences between capital gains and ordinary income tax treatment doesn't say anything about what the average American knows about it.

---

Yes, if you ignore wording "The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks."

According to the IRS, 53.9% of those stupid masses have a taxable gain or loss each year. Guess their stupid to know what is on their tax return. Elite on dude.

"Elite" is the most meaningless term in America n 2017. But best used when Column A rich people tell Column B rich people about how elite they are. It's one sad, beautiful joke.

Wanna cut deficit? An easy solution is cut defense spending, which is an inefficient black hole now.

Not gonna happen.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Very few folks file any kind of sizeable capital gain on any kind of regular basis. I would love to see this polled and I would bet money you are wrong on what the average American knows about ordinary income vs. capital gain tax treatment.

---

Let us test that theory about all the masses beings so dumb:

Per a April 17, 2017 NPR study (with excerpts copied):

1)Americans underestimate the share of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes

Given four choices of how many Americans pay zero or negative federal income taxes (11, 27, 45, or 63 percent), fully 70 percent of poll respondents chose the options under the correct answer, which was 45 percent. Some of these people simply have no taxable income, and others get money back as a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Of course, these people might pay other taxes, like payroll taxes, as well as whatever sales and property taxes their states impose.)

2) Americans didn't appreciate that for the highest earners, the percent of federal income taxes they pay now is significantly higher than it was in 1980. How does that work? As the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams explained to NPR, the share of income going to the rich has climbed in a big way over the last few decades. So how Americans think about this could affect what they think should happen to the top tax rates on the richest. In 1980, the top 10 percent brought in 32 percent of all adjusted gross income, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2013, it was 46 percent. For example, many Americans also believe taxes should be raised on the richest. In contrast, a sizable majority said their taxes should be reduced, including those in the highest income tax brackets.

3) Americans also appear to have strong views on how people earn their money. We asked people to what degree they agreed with this statement: "The tax rate on income from work should be lower than the tax rate on income from wealth.

75 percent said they did, including 77 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents. This is another result that might make the richest Americans squirm. The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks. Most of those capital gains are taxed at a rate far below that top income tax rate. (People at any income level of course can have those kinds of investments, but capital gains are overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.)

4) Americans overestimate how important income taxes are to government revenue. About half of the poll's respondents (with very little variance by party) said they believe 75 percent of the federal government's revenue comes from income taxes. In reality, it's just under half. Of all the taxes Americans pay, income tax probably requires the most thought. After all, payroll tax comes automatically out of each paycheck. Sales tax is imposed at the cash register. And so on. So maybe it makes sense that Americans think all that work they put into filling out their forms ends up doing the lion's share of funding the government.

5)On tax policy, views aren't always all that partisan. Our poll, nearly half of Democrats 45 percent agreed with the proposition that "federal income taxes should be cut for all income levels." Likewise, Republicans the party that has spoken of "makers" and "takers" were split roughly evenly on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to economic growth. (Democrats and independents tended to disagree slightly more that is, to say that tax cuts for the wealthy do not lead to that growth.)These are only two examples, but they suggest that partisan messaging in Washington on some specific issues doesn't necessarily filter down to Americans.

6)Americans agree: Taxes are too complicated (but that's no reason to cheat). My comment: that won't change with this legislation.

Hopefully, you didn't bet much.

---

WIAF - I made the original statement that 93 called elitist, using the Republican's favorite insult these days. My statement was: "90% of Americans do not understand the difference between how investment income is taxed vs. straight up I go to work and get a paycheck. If they did there would be open revolt."

Note I did not say they do not understand the difference between wages and capital gains. That is what 93 rephrased my statement to be in the usual bullshyte attempt to try and make me sound elitist. I said they did not understand the difference in how they were taxed and they would be mad about it.

What you post above doesn't prove that they don't know the difference in how they are taxed, but it sure proves my point that they don't agree with the policy. Given the numbers in Section 3 that are consistent across all political spectrums, it would seem to me to be an extremely good political stance for a politician to make sure the current system is understood and then to run on flipping the system or at least on the premise that I have proposed that all income is treated equally.

I will stand by my statement. I'll take the hyperbole out of it. Most Americans pay little if any capital gains taxes because their investments, to the extent they have them, are either in a 401K or in their residence. Therefore, they do not see that there is a different rate for that income. If it was widely known that the capital gains rate is barely over half the rate of tax on wages, rightly or wrongly, they'd be pissed off. Given the overwhelming response to the poll question (and by the way, distinguish the poll question/results from the author's interpretation of the results. The poll says nothing about their understanding of tax treatment. It makes a statement - wages should be taxed lower than wealth and asks if they agree.), they either don't know the current policy or feel helpless to change it. And by the way, there is nothing dumb about not knowing tax rates that don't apply to you.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Yes, if you ignore wording "The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks."

According to the IRS, 53.9% of those stupid masses have a taxable gain or loss each year. Guess their stupid to know what is on their tax return. Elite on dude.

---

The author writes that the polling showed taxpayers understand the rich earn their money differently. Great. Earning and tax treatment are two different things. The poll doesn't address the latter - at least not in the excerpt you provided.

If you want to say, the average American knows that wealthy people pay lower taxes due to "loopholes", fine I'll agree with that. But the average American can't explain the different tax treatment of ordinary income vs. capital gains income. My wife can't and she pays it, and has an ivy league education.

Please provide a source for the 53.9% number you cite. I located that number but it doesn't say what you say it says. I'd like to see your source for that number.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Very few folks file any kind of sizeable capital gain on any kind of regular basis. I would love to see this polled and I would bet money you are wrong on what the average American knows about ordinary income vs. capital gain tax treatment.

---

Let us test that theory about all the masses beings so dumb:

Per a April 17, 2017 NPR study (with excerpts copied):

1)Americans underestimate the share of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes

Given four choices of how many Americans pay zero or negative federal income taxes (11, 27, 45, or 63 percent), fully 70 percent of poll respondents chose the options under the correct answer, which was 45 percent. Some of these people simply have no taxable income, and others get money back as a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Of course, these people might pay other taxes, like payroll taxes, as well as whatever sales and property taxes their states impose.)

2) Americans didn't appreciate that for the highest earners, the percent of federal income taxes they pay now is significantly higher than it was in 1980. How does that work? As the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams explained to NPR, the share of income going to the rich has climbed in a big way over the last few decades. So how Americans think about this could affect what they think should happen to the top tax rates on the richest. In 1980, the top 10 percent brought in 32 percent of all adjusted gross income, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2013, it was 46 percent. For example, many Americans also believe taxes should be raised on the richest. In contrast, a sizable majority said their taxes should be reduced, including those in the highest income tax brackets.

3) Americans also appear to have strong views on how people earn their money. We asked people to what degree they agreed with this statement: "The tax rate on income from work should be lower than the tax rate on income from wealth.

75 percent said they did, including 77 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents. This is another result that might make the richest Americans squirm. The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks. Most of those capital gains are taxed at a rate far below that top income tax rate. (People at any income level of course can have those kinds of investments, but capital gains are overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.)

4) Americans overestimate how important income taxes are to government revenue. About half of the poll's respondents (with very little variance by party) said they believe 75 percent of the federal government's revenue comes from income taxes. In reality, it's just under half. Of all the taxes Americans pay, income tax probably requires the most thought. After all, payroll tax comes automatically out of each paycheck. Sales tax is imposed at the cash register. And so on. So maybe it makes sense that Americans think all that work they put into filling out their forms ends up doing the lion's share of funding the government.

5)On tax policy, views aren't always all that partisan. Our poll, nearly half of Democrats 45 percent agreed with the proposition that "federal income taxes should be cut for all income levels." Likewise, Republicans the party that has spoken of "makers" and "takers" were split roughly evenly on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to economic growth. (Democrats and independents tended to disagree slightly more that is, to say that tax cuts for the wealthy do not lead to that growth.)These are only two examples, but they suggest that partisan messaging in Washington on some specific issues doesn't necessarily filter down to Americans.

6)Americans agree: Taxes are too complicated (but that's no reason to cheat). My comment: that won't change with this legislation.

Hopefully, you didn't bet much.

---

Nothing in that poll shows me to be wrong. The author explaining differences between capital gains and ordinary income tax treatment doesn't say anything about what the average American knows about it.

---

Yes, if you ignore wording "The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks."

According to the IRS, 53.9% of those stupid masses have a taxable gain or loss each year. Guess their stupid to know what is on their tax return. Elite on dude.

---

That is his interpretation of what the polling showed. The polling showed that they agree with the statement that wages should be taxed lower. In any case, that still does not say they know the tax policy which is what the statement I originally made was. It says they understand there is a difference in the way rich make money and understand the difference between paychecks and capital gains. I fully believe they understand the difference between paychecks and capital gains. I don't believe they understand the difference in tax treatment.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Very few folks file any kind of sizeable capital gain on any kind of regular basis. I would love to see this polled and I would bet money you are wrong on what the average American knows about ordinary income vs. capital gain tax treatment.

---

Let us test that theory about all the masses beings so dumb:

Per a April 17, 2017 NPR study (with excerpts copied):

1)Americans underestimate the share of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes

Given four choices of how many Americans pay zero or negative federal income taxes (11, 27, 45, or 63 percent), fully 70 percent of poll respondents chose the options under the correct answer, which was 45 percent. Some of these people simply have no taxable income, and others get money back as a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Of course, these people might pay other taxes, like payroll taxes, as well as whatever sales and property taxes their states impose.)

2) Americans didn't appreciate that for the highest earners, the percent of federal income taxes they pay now is significantly higher than it was in 1980. How does that work? As the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams explained to NPR, the share of income going to the rich has climbed in a big way over the last few decades. So how Americans think about this could affect what they think should happen to the top tax rates on the richest. In 1980, the top 10 percent brought in 32 percent of all adjusted gross income, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2013, it was 46 percent. For example, many Americans also believe taxes should be raised on the richest. In contrast, a sizable majority said their taxes should be reduced, including those in the highest income tax brackets.

3) Americans also appear to have strong views on how people earn their money. We asked people to what degree they agreed with this statement: "The tax rate on income from work should be lower than the tax rate on income from wealth.

75 percent said they did, including 77 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents. This is another result that might make the richest Americans squirm. The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks. Most of those capital gains are taxed at a rate far below that top income tax rate. (People at any income level of course can have those kinds of investments, but capital gains are overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.)

4) Americans overestimate how important income taxes are to government revenue. About half of the poll's respondents (with very little variance by party) said they believe 75 percent of the federal government's revenue comes from income taxes. In reality, it's just under half. Of all the taxes Americans pay, income tax probably requires the most thought. After all, payroll tax comes automatically out of each paycheck. Sales tax is imposed at the cash register. And so on. So maybe it makes sense that Americans think all that work they put into filling out their forms ends up doing the lion's share of funding the government.

5)On tax policy, views aren't always all that partisan. Our poll, nearly half of Democrats 45 percent agreed with the proposition that "federal income taxes should be cut for all income levels." Likewise, Republicans the party that has spoken of "makers" and "takers" were split roughly evenly on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to economic growth. (Democrats and independents tended to disagree slightly more that is, to say that tax cuts for the wealthy do not lead to that growth.)These are only two examples, but they suggest that partisan messaging in Washington on some specific issues doesn't necessarily filter down to Americans.

6)Americans agree: Taxes are too complicated (but that's no reason to cheat). My comment: that won't change with this legislation.

Hopefully, you didn't bet much.

---

Nothing in that poll shows me to be wrong. The author explaining differences between capital gains and ordinary income tax treatment doesn't say anything about what the average American knows about it.

---

Yes, if you ignore wording "The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks."

According to the IRS, 53.9% of those stupid masses have a taxable gain or loss each year. Guess their stupid to know what is on their tax return. Elite on dude.

---

Your last sentence is completely wrong. 53.9% of those earning $200K-$1M have a taxable gain. To the contrary "Fewer than one in seven individual taxpayers report taxable capital gains in any year. In 2006 just 13.4 million out of 138.3 million taxpayers reported taxable net gains (net long-term gains in excess of net short-term capital losses and capital gains distributions, which are taxed at favorable capital gains rates)

Quite honestly, I would argue it is pretty out of touch (one might say elitist) to think that over half of Americans have taxable capital gains each year.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Income and education do not make you elitist. Thinking that the regular folks are ignorant and need to be led like little children is elitist. Yeah, I would take that bet that most working folks would know the difference between capital gain and ordinary income. Most regular folks file tax returns and own homes.

---

Very few folks file any kind of sizeable capital gain on any kind of regular basis. I would love to see this polled and I would bet money you are wrong on what the average American knows about ordinary income vs. capital gain tax treatment.

---

Let us test that theory about all the masses beings so dumb:

Per a April 17, 2017 NPR study (with excerpts copied):

1)Americans underestimate the share of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes

Given four choices of how many Americans pay zero or negative federal income taxes (11, 27, 45, or 63 percent), fully 70 percent of poll respondents chose the options under the correct answer, which was 45 percent. Some of these people simply have no taxable income, and others get money back as a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Of course, these people might pay other taxes, like payroll taxes, as well as whatever sales and property taxes their states impose.)

2) Americans didn't appreciate that for the highest earners, the percent of federal income taxes they pay now is significantly higher than it was in 1980. How does that work? As the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams explained to NPR, the share of income going to the rich has climbed in a big way over the last few decades. So how Americans think about this could affect what they think should happen to the top tax rates on the richest. In 1980, the top 10 percent brought in 32 percent of all adjusted gross income, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2013, it was 46 percent. For example, many Americans also believe taxes should be raised on the richest. In contrast, a sizable majority said their taxes should be reduced, including those in the highest income tax brackets.

3) Americans also appear to have strong views on how people earn their money. We asked people to what degree they agreed with this statement: "The tax rate on income from work should be lower than the tax rate on income from wealth.

75 percent said they did, including 77 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents. This is another result that might make the richest Americans squirm. The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks. Most of those capital gains are taxed at a rate far below that top income tax rate. (People at any income level of course can have those kinds of investments, but capital gains are overwhelmingly concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.)

4) Americans overestimate how important income taxes are to government revenue. About half of the poll's respondents (with very little variance by party) said they believe 75 percent of the federal government's revenue comes from income taxes. In reality, it's just under half. Of all the taxes Americans pay, income tax probably requires the most thought. After all, payroll tax comes automatically out of each paycheck. Sales tax is imposed at the cash register. And so on. So maybe it makes sense that Americans think all that work they put into filling out their forms ends up doing the lion's share of funding the government.

5)On tax policy, views aren't always all that partisan. Our poll, nearly half of Democrats 45 percent agreed with the proposition that "federal income taxes should be cut for all income levels." Likewise, Republicans the party that has spoken of "makers" and "takers" were split roughly evenly on the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to economic growth. (Democrats and independents tended to disagree slightly more that is, to say that tax cuts for the wealthy do not lead to that growth.)These are only two examples, but they suggest that partisan messaging in Washington on some specific issues doesn't necessarily filter down to Americans.

6)Americans agree: Taxes are too complicated (but that's no reason to cheat). My comment: that won't change with this legislation.

Hopefully, you didn't bet much.

---

Nothing in that poll shows me to be wrong. The author explaining differences between capital gains and ordinary income tax treatment doesn't say anything about what the average American knows about it.

---

Yes, if you ignore wording "The polling showed taxpayers understood the rich tend to earn their income in a different way from most other Americans. Besides paychecks, many make money from capital gains income they get from selling investments like stocks."

According to the IRS, 53.9% of those stupid masses have a taxable gain or loss each year. Guess their stupid to know what is on their tax return. Elite on dude.

---

Your last sentence is completely wrong. 53.9% of those earning $200K-$1M have a taxable gain. To the contrary "Fewer than one in seven individual taxpayers report taxable capital gains in any year. In 2006 just 13.4 million out of 138.3 million taxpayers reported taxable net gains (net long-term gains in excess of net short-term capital losses and capital gains distributions, which are taxed at favorable capital gains rates)

Quite honestly, I would argue it is pretty out of touch (one might say elitist) to think that over half of Americans have taxable capital gains each year.

---

That is what I found as well, but I wanted to see how WIAF would spin it.

Next year I have to cash out my wife's TSP (fed IRA) (or I can do it earlier this year).
As it currently stands it would be taxed as income and would move me
into a much higher tax bracket under the current system. One option is
to cash out a portion each year and be subject to a lower marginal tax rate.
My wife's intent was for it to be split five ways between her daughter, grand
daughters, and me; however she didn't change her beneficiaries and left
the distribution up to me. She didn't want the grand daughters to get the money
before they were 25 unless they needed it for college. If they had been beneficiaries
they would have gotten the funds as minors.

If upper tax brackets (in this case around $300K) have the marginal rate significantly reduced
it may be wise to wait for the new tax plan (unless it is retroactive). Each year I
withdraw cash from the TSP will triple my Medicare deduction for the year; so there
are some benefits to a lump sum, get it over now, withdrawal plan.

Exactly what is in the GOP plan seems to be shifting shadows. I can't see a 400 page
piece of legislation reducing tax filing down to a post card size tax form for most taxpayers
(those who actually pay taxes). If it was that successful, there would be almost no need
for CPAs and tax professionals; a significant segment of the economy that is being ignored
in the reform movement.

ColoradoBear said:

---

Another consequence could be the elimination of tax deductions on donations required for football seats. Like ESP...

https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/republican-tax-bill-takes-aim-at-season-ticket-donations-in-college-and-pro-sports/

Also, certain kinds of Muni bonds would not be tax exempt, which wold definitely affect NFL teams like the Raiders and their ability to fund stadiums. I'm not sure what it would mean for those currently holding UC bonds sold to fund the stadium and SAHPC projects, but I'd think it could affect future use of bonds by UC to raise capital for projects.

---

I would have NO PROBLEM with this. I cannot stand that anything requires a "donation," particularly seats to watch a game, since the definition of a truism is that a donation can't be compelled. But we do this to get money to sidestep paying taxes on it, because we know we'd never be able to charge the price we're asking for it if we didn't make it possible for people to recoup some of that donation. There is no reason, in otherwords, people sitting in the North, South or East Side of Memorial stadium should be, through the tax code, subsidizing the dollars of people sitting on the West Side, who are enjoying their prawns and cocktail sauce (and yes, I've enjoyed those myself :-) )

Sebastabear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

How sheltered do you have to be to think that rich people are not getting taxed more. I may not be a billionaire, but I would consider myself rich and I will be getting taxed more. Why are options and the excess dilution as opposed to RSUs, RSAs or cash so sacred? Because you have to make the tech people wealthy and not taxed more? Many companies have gone to restricted stock awards or restricted stock units anyway. I understand that sweat equity for hedge fund getting taxed lower is unfair but to say that earnings I make in investing my already taxed capital at a lower rate is unfair is just arbitrary determination. Why is it unfair? Are you saying that any capital gain on the sale of your house should be taxed as ordinary income?

---

As I noted originally, RSUs have the same problem as options. They are both deferred compensation and both taxed at vesting. And again all of this works great for public companies. It does not, however, work for private companies where there is no public market in which to sell shares to pay taxes. And private companies are what is driving the vast majority of the growth in recent years. If you are pro-growth and pro-business this plan is an abomination.

---

You know, I was one of the first employees of a start-up, CenterBeam, back in 1999. Founded by a Valley luminary. We had something like $35M in funding out of the gate, and after our first year Microsoft, Dell, Equity Office Properties had all invested in us to the tune of something like $200M. My options were at, if I recall correctly, $.05 / share. I exercised them upon joining the company, thinking, awesome, I'll start the capital gains clock and when we go public I'll be able to sell my SHARES, not exercise options. We never went public. The continued investment diluted the stock price with later inverstors getting preferred... and when the company was finally sold to, I can't even remember, I think Xerox, long after I had left, somehow, my shares were worthless.

I may be the only person on the planet who could lose money at 5 cents a share on a hot start up in Silicon Valley!

Sebastabear said:

---

I think you could append "ifornia"to the end of your title and be completely accurate.

Hard to imagine Congress could come up with a better bill to ruin California and the economic engine it provides to the entire country if not the world if you tried. Let's see...

1. No more ability to deduct state taxes = massive tax increase on high earners

2. Property tax deductions capped at $10k means (given our home prices) most people who itemize and bought a home in LA or the Bay Area in the last decade lose a good sized sized deduction.

3. Maximimum mortgage deduction halved. Live in Kansas? Not a problem. Live in CA? See point 2.

4. Loss of ability to deduct student debt? Luckily we don't have an educated workforce or anything.

5. And my favorite... Stock options and restricted stock units (basically the magic juice that makes the Valley economy run) are gone. These things are now immediately taxable for the employee on vesting. Not a problem if you are an employee of a public company since you can just sell some of your stock in the market to pay your tax bill, but if you work for a private company like Uber or Airbnb or Palantir - you know basically the companies that have generated most of the growth over the past five years - you are screwed.

So all in all a disaster for the state and for all of the States who feed off of us. They might not see it now, but they will.

Any Ca rep voting for this should be drummed out of office.

---

I make it a point to NEVER disagree with Sebastabear (I enjoy riding his coattails too much!!!), but I'm not sure on some of this. This is sort of like the Gordion knot, but I'm not sure why someone in North Dakota or Utah, or New Mexico, should subsidize our home prices and taxes because of where we live. Now California gives more to the Fed budget than we get, but even so, I don't know, there's a lot not right about the tax code. Maybe if it was indexed or something. This is a conversation I would like to have over a long overdue dinner!

Like you I am a fiscal conservative.

My favorite has been listening to a few of my very liberal friends talk about how they were planning on buying a Tesla, but may not now, now that the tax incentive has been removed... these are the same people who for years have been saying "I'm happy to pay more in taxes" until of course they're faced with having to pay mor in taxes...

TheFiatLux said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I think you could append "ifornia"to the end of your title and be completely accurate.

Hard to imagine Congress could come up with a better bill to ruin California and the economic engine it provides to the entire country if not the world if you tried. Let's see...

1. No more ability to deduct state taxes = massive tax increase on high earners

2. Property tax deductions capped at $10k means (given our home prices) most people who itemize and bought a home in LA or the Bay Area in the last decade lose a good sized sized deduction.

3. Maximimum mortgage deduction halved. Live in Kansas? Not a problem. Live in CA? See point 2.

4. Loss of ability to deduct student debt? Luckily we don't have an educated workforce or anything.

5. And my favorite... Stock options and restricted stock units (basically the magic juice that makes the Valley economy run) are gone. These things are now immediately taxable for the employee on vesting. Not a problem if you are an employee of a public company since you can just sell some of your stock in the market to pay your tax bill, but if you work for a private company like Uber or Airbnb or Palantir - you know basically the companies that have generated most of the growth over the past five years - you are screwed.

So all in all a disaster for the state and for all of the States who feed off of us. They might not see it now, but they will.

Any Ca rep voting for this should be drummed out of office.

---

I make it a point to NEVER disagree with Sebastabear (I enjoy riding his coattails too much!!!), but I'm not sure on some of this. This is sort of like the Gordion knot, but I'm not sure why someone in North Dakota or Utah, or New Mexico, should subsidize our home prices and taxes because of where we live. Now California gives more to the Fed budget than we get, but even so, I don't know, there's a lot not right about the tax code. Maybe if it was indexed or something. This is a conversation I would like to have over a long overdue dinner!

Like you I am a fiscal conservative.

My favorite has been listening to a few of my very liberal friends talk about how they were planning on buying a Tesla, but may not now, now that the tax incentive has been removed... these are the same people who for years have been saying "I'm happy to pay more in taxes" until of course they're faced with having to pay mor in taxes...

---

I am friends with many liberals and I've never had similar conversations to what you report. If it makes you feel better, I plan on the Tesla Model 3 being my next car regardless of tax incentives. Also, I voted to raise my own taxes as recently as September in a local school referendum.

TheFiatLux said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Another consequence could be the elimination of tax deductions on donations required for football seats. Like ESP...

https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/republican-tax-bill-takes-aim-at-season-ticket-donations-in-college-and-pro-sports/

Also, certain kinds of Muni bonds would not be tax exempt, which wold definitely affect NFL teams like the Raiders and their ability to fund stadiums. I'm not sure what it would mean for those currently holding UC bonds sold to fund the stadium and SAHPC projects, but I'd think it could affect future use of bonds by UC to raise capital for projects.

---

I would have NO PROBLEM with this. I cannot stand that anything requires a "donation," particularly seats to watch a game, since the definition of a truism is that a donation can't be compelled. But we do this to get money to sidestep paying taxes on it, because we know we'd never be able to charge the price we're asking for it if we didn't make it possible for people to recoup some of that donation. There is no reason, in otherwords, people sitting in the North, South or East Side of Memorial stadium should be, through the tax code, subsidizing the dollars of people sitting on the West Side, who are enjoying their prawns and cocktail sauce (and yes, I've enjoyed those myself :-) )

---

While it hurts Cal, I have to agree on this. I don't see any reason why you should be able to deduct money for ESP's. I suspect Cal would be able to go back to the old system of giving points for seating priority based on donations. Even if not, I suspect that the people that donate now within the ESP scheme will still donate (as they mostly had prior to ESP) if Cal just sells the tickets at a normal price and asks separately for a donation. But even if not, the justification was always shaky as far as I'm concerned.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

This is sort of like the Gordion knot, but I'm not sure why someone in North Dakota or Utah, or New Mexico, should subsidize our home prices and taxes because of where we live. Now California gives more to the Fed budget than we get, but even so, I don't know, there's a lot not right about the tax code. Maybe if it was indexed or something. This is a conversation I would like to have over a long overdue dinner

---

---

If it makes you feel any better, residents in ND get more federal aid per capita than any other state so they aren't the ones subsidizing us. New Mexico does pretty well too although admittedly Utah isn't getting as great a deal. Still, they should be thankful that taxpayers in CA effectively subsidize produce through our social services expenditures on migrant workers which benefits the whole country.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

I think you could append "ifornia"to the end of your title and be completely accurate.

Hard to imagine Congress could come up with a better bill to ruin California and the economic engine it provides to the entire country if not the world if you tried. Let's see...

1. No more ability to deduct state taxes = massive tax increase on high earners

2. Property tax deductions capped at $10k means (given our home prices) most people who itemize and bought a home in LA or the Bay Area in the last decade lose a good sized sized deduction.

3. Maximimum mortgage deduction halved. Live in Kansas? Not a problem. Live in CA? See point 2.

4. Loss of ability to deduct student debt? Luckily we don't have an educated workforce or anything.

5. And my favorite... Stock options and restricted stock units (basically the magic juice that makes the Valley economy run) are gone. These things are now immediately taxable for the employee on vesting. Not a problem if you are an employee of a public company since you can just sell some of your stock in the market to pay your tax bill, but if you work for a private company like Uber or Airbnb or Palantir - you know basically the companies that have generated most of the growth over the past five years - you are screwed.

So all in all a disaster for the state and for all of the States who feed off of us. They might not see it now, but they will.

Any Ca rep voting for this should be drummed out of office.

---

I make it a point to NEVER disagree with Sebastabear (I enjoy riding his coattails too much!!!), but I'm not sure on some of this. This is sort of like the Gordion knot, but I'm not sure why someone in North Dakota or Utah, or New Mexico, should subsidize our home prices and taxes because of where we live. Now California gives more to the Fed budget than we get, but even so, I don't know, there's a lot not right about the tax code. Maybe if it was indexed or something. This is a conversation I would like to have over a long overdue dinner!

Like you I am a fiscal conservative.

My favorite has been listening to a few of my very liberal friends talk about how they were planning on buying a Tesla, but may not now, now that the tax incentive has been removed... these are the same people who for years have been saying "I'm happy to pay more in taxes" until of course they're faced with having to pay mor in taxes...

---

2 points. Like holding in football, one can always find unfairness in the tax code. The question is whose problems do you fix? Certainly, you can argue that there shouldn't be a mortgage interest deduction. I've always said that maybe there should not have been one, but once you had one, you cause a lot more problems getting rid of it than you solve. But the bottom line is states like California in totality are paying a lot more than their fair share already. Now republicans come along and decide all the problems that need to be fixed with the tax code are the ones that shift even more burden on the states that have more of a burden in the first place. I'm happy to give up my deductions if in exchange the less burdened states accept more of the burden.

Second point - you are implying liberals are hypocrites when that is misplaced. No one, liberal or conservative wants to pay more taxes to fund bad policies or programs. I think you would be hard pressed to find a liberal who would complain about paying more taxes to fund universal health care. We are happy to pay more taxes for programs we believe, rightly or wrongly, will increase benefit to the country. We are mostly happy to pay more taxes to give a break to those less fortunate than we are. We are not happy to pay more taxes so it can mostly be diverted to those that earn more and have more wealth then we do based on the tired chestnut that if you give rich people money we will all benefit.

I am perfectly fine with fixing the corporate tax rules. They are inefficient. I've even proposed eliminating it and replacing it with capital gains increases as those are the people that are benefiting from the reduction. In any case, if the republicans wanted to modify the corporate tax rules, I'm fine with that. Then they can either not make the cut fiscally neutral (bad idea in my opinion) or make it fiscally neutral by as best as they can having the people who benefit from the modification pay for it themselves. Eliminate all the loopholes and deductions that allow some corporations to get around paying taxes, then reduce the corporate rate such that as a whole we are bringing in the same revenue, just in a fair and efficient manner. Or, as I say (and I think better policy) pay for it with capital gains increases.

I beg of you to raise my taxes to adequately fund UC. Raise my taxes to mostly give breaks to people that make a lot more money than I do, and I'm going to be unhappy about it.

If anything, I have to say that states that scream about paying taxes but then lap up the benefits of government spending are the ones who are being hypocritical. At this point, I'm with them on the taxes. Cut federal taxes to the bone. Eliminate federal programs. They can drink contaminated water, choke on their air and have no safety net for the poor if that is what they want. I'd rather pay my taxes to the State of California who certainly doesn't always or necessarily often get things right, but they'll spend my taxes at least intending to benefit Californians.

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Another consequence could be the elimination of tax deductions on donations required for football seats. Like ESP...

https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/republican-tax-bill-takes-aim-at-season-ticket-donations-in-college-and-pro-sports/

Also, certain kinds of Muni bonds would not be tax exempt, which wold definitely affect NFL teams like the Raiders and their ability to fund stadiums. I'm not sure what it would mean for those currently holding UC bonds sold to fund the stadium and SAHPC projects, but I'd think it could affect future use of bonds by UC to raise capital for projects.

---

I would have NO PROBLEM with this. I cannot stand that anything requires a "donation," particularly seats to watch a game, since the definition of a truism is that a donation can't be compelled. But we do this to get money to sidestep paying taxes on it, because we know we'd never be able to charge the price we're asking for it if we didn't make it possible for people to recoup some of that donation. There is no reason, in otherwords, people sitting in the North, South or East Side of Memorial stadium should be, through the tax code, subsidizing the dollars of people sitting on the West Side, who are enjoying their prawns and cocktail sauce (and yes, I've enjoyed those myself :-) )

---

While it hurts Cal, I have to agree on this. I don't see any reason why you should be able to deduct money for ESP's. I suspect Cal would be able to go back to the old system of giving points for seating priority based on donations. Even if not, I suspect that the people that donate now within the ESP scheme will still donate (as they mostly had prior to ESP) if Cal just sells the tickets at a normal price and asks separately for a donation. But even if not, the justification was always shaky as far as I'm concerned.

---

Cal did not just allocate seats by priority points before ESP, there were still large yearly donations required for seats in GG/G of $1200 per seat, FF/H were $600 per seat, and T/F/HH were $300.

And now there are required yearly donations on the rest of the donor sections of $1200/$400/$200 per seat.

It's not just ESP that wouldn't be deductible, it's all the donor seats.

Not disagreeing that the seat donation was a shaky tactic, but the finance people who created ESP were relying that tax deduction in their calculations. Given that ESP is no where near sold out - 1/2 the value in seats remains to be sold IIRC, and most sold are on a yearly basis - there could be significant losses in sales
as there will be a significant drop in 'purchasing power' across all levels.

My thought regarding the debt relief for CMS was that the AD could reevaluate (aka lower) prices on some ESP seats to get more people to buy. Now they may have to lower the prices just to keep the same level of sales, with no one in addition signing up to buy due to the actual increase in cost.

Now if what you are proposing is no donations required (which again were not how things were done pre-ESP), just assign seats everywhere based on priority points, that is fraught with issues. Would you re-seat EVERY year? If not, no one would give money on a yearly basis to improve seats. If yes, it would be a major pain that would wear everyone out.

And it hurts other schools a lot more than Cal in terms of pure dollars - look at how much texas or ohio state gets as donations... most are tied to football seats. But they are not on the razor's edge of financial stability with debt that counted on a certain price being palatable.