Agreed it wouldn't be a big drag if done right, but they would rather inflate it. People aren't happy with sustainable growth. 1) care to post the data 2) At least it made you invest in something to get the deduction. The idea there is that the rock will do more direct investment in the economy.
Katrina, (Ike), Sandy, Harvey, (Irma?) ... Clearly, we need to budget for big storm disasters every few years. (I'm not making a "climate on noes!1!" statement, but just looking at the data and how crowded our shorelines and low-lying areas seem to be.) So are we going to cut military spending, cut something else that is similarly enormous, or are we going to effectively raise taxes? Asking for a friend. This is just practical at some level. FEMA is going to need a new kind of permanent budget, it seems.
By all means cut military spending - we could cut it by 50% and still be the largest military in the world. DD
Correct and nobody during Ike's time or now actually pay the listed top rate of corporate taxes either.
I would like to see the data on that as well. Another difference between the era before Reagan's huge tax cuts (and spectacular rise in the budget deficit) and today is the difference between the salaries of those who work for large corporations and the CEO's of those corporations. CEO's today make a staggering amount relative to those who work for them. Truly staggering. It didn't use to be that way, and that was when the tax rates were far higher. Somehow, the CEO's back then made out pretty good. So did those who worked for them as evident by the big increase in both prosperity and the size of the middle class during the "high tax" era. Now? CEO's, in the main, are so removed from those who work for them in the matter of compensation that they may as well live on another planet. In my opinion, many have lost touch with their employees.
I typed too fast. I meant that capital gains would bring down the % on the right side. Basically what I'm saying is that the slope from left to right is pretty shallow when you consider total tax burden.
Apparently tax cuts are coming from your 401k. The one source of retirement we have anymore. Folks ... the Republican Party. How ironic that this comes out on Labor Day too. It's almost as if this President is a professional troll or something.
middle class, you thought the dems were screwing you? that was just cinemax screwing. What the reps are going to do to you is GGG stufff. They're going to line you up, finish their loads on you and then wipe it out with pee. g*ngbang p*rn can be beautiful. Japanese can make anything beautiful, the word bukkake. It sounds so nice and innocent right?
I'm a bit confused, why would capital gains bring down the % on the right side (I'm assuming you are referring to the income tax % at different income bracket chart?).
Because the tax rate on long term capital gains is 20% which is less than 22.6 and 27.4%. People with incomes at that level are more likely to have large amounts of capital gains income outside of regular income.
17% difference is a lot. Weird chart title. If the top 1% pays 45-50% of income taxes then a 17% increase would be ~8% additional income tax revenue. Imagine how much infrastructure (topically flood control.coastal protection) you could build for 8% of the yearly income tax...
And interest rates are super low so money is cheap.... but the wealthy and job creators need more in order to let that wealth trickle down...
You got to be fk. 401k tax savings is my biggest strategy to save and reduce taxable income. You take that away, and I will be paying more in taxes.
