Democrats Say They're Fighting Inequality. But Many of Their Policies Favor the Rich.
Over the last several years, they have worked nonstop to ease the tax burden of their high-income constituents.

In the grand ballroom of American politics, Democrats have long waltzed to the melody of progressivism while ridiculing Republicans' preference for outdated tax cut tunes. Ironically, they don't want to pay for their style of big government with higher taxes on ordinary Americans, which their expansionary ambitions would require. Instead, they loudly proclaim that they want to tax the rich. It remains to be seen how true this is.
Indeed, while Democrats profess their devotion to social justice and fight against income inequality, they often push for policies that favor the rich. Take their nonstop battle over the last five years to ease the tax burden of their high-income constituents.
The State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap, part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), placed a $10,000 limit on the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted from federal taxable income. This move predominantly affected high earners in high-tax states like New York, California, and many others that are Democratic strongholds.
That's a tax hike on the rich. This shouldn't bother Democrats, who are usually happy to demonstrate their egalitarian chops by clamoring for that very thing. Yet this time, by demanding repeal of the SALT cap, they are on the front lines of a battle to restore tax breaks for the rich. As it turns out, when affluent Californians and Northeasterners felt the pinch, Democrats were ready to cha-cha for tax relief.
Contrast this with the refusal by moderate New York Republicans to vote for Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) for House speaker in exchange for doubling the deduction cap to $20,000 for individuals and $40,000 for married couples. Now, this might mean these guys really didn't want Jordan as speaker, but they wouldn't roll over even in exchange for tax cuts for their own constituencies.
Would New York Democrats be so principled? Back in 2021, 17 of 19 members of this delegation threatened to block a Democrat-sponsored infrastructure bill if the SALT deduction cap wasn't entirely repealed. I would have been OK with that crony bill failing; I highlight this incident only to reveal some Democrats' commitment to tax breaks for rich blue-state voters.
Add to this the fact that big government tends to work out well for people with big bank accounts. Billions of dollars in tax credits and subsidies have gone de facto to high-income taxpayers to buy expensive electric cars, or to large, well-connected companies to build green infrastructure or semiconductors they would have produced anyway.
For all the populist huffing and puffing, many big-government policies squarely hurt middle-class and poorer Americans. A good example is Democrats' starring role in Congress' refusal to reform insolvent entitlement spending. It amounts to supporting an enormous transfer of money, through regressive payroll taxes, from the young and poor to the old and rich.
Even Democrats' support for raising the corporate income tax rate from its current 21 percent to 25 percent is inconsistent with their populist self-identification. As economists have long known, most, if not all, of the economic burden of corporate income taxes is shouldered by primarily middle-class workers in the form of lower wages. It's wrong to call this a tax on the rich.
There are other instances in which Democrats balk at the notion of raising taxes or even, in Republican-like fashion, support tax cuts. In 2010, they heralded the passage of the Affordable Care Act. However, one key funding mechanism was a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices.
Many Democrats eventually joined Republicans in calling for this tax's repeal, citing the potential negative impact on the medical device industry. By 2015, even liberal stalwarts like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) were advocating to suspend the tax. It was permanently repealed in 2019 as part of a year-end spending package.
In 2011, Democrats, led by then-President Barack Obama, pushed for an extension of the payroll tax cut, a policy that provided relief to millions of working families. While this move aligned with their commitment to supporting the middle class, it marked another significant departure from their traditional stance on tax cuts, showing a willingness to embrace tax relief when politically expedient.
Soon, Congress must debate the sunset of the TCJA's tax relief provisions in 2025, which are scheduled to raise taxes by roughly $3 trillion over a 10-year period. It will be entertaining to watch Democrats extend a vast majority of these policies, including some for the benefit of very well-off Americans, while continuing to blame former President Donald Trump's tax cuts for raising the deficit.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
OBL’s law.
LOL
In year 3 of #Bidenomics the 10 richest Americans have gained a combined $310,000,000,000.
#VoteDemocratToHelpBillionaires
I am making money from home with facebook. i received $15000 in this month for doing easily home job. I work in my part time only 3 to 4 hours a day on facebook. Everyone can earn more cash easily from home. For more information visit below this website....... BiteCoinTrader
That's because of Trump's tax cuts for the rich and Biden's political inability to repeal them, not for lack of trying, coupled with lack of a wealth tax, which Biden and Dems have advocated but would require a Dem congress. You're blaming Dems for further enriching the super-rich, when doing so is explicit Republican policy?
"a wealth tax, which Biden and Dems have advocated but would require a Dem congress."
A. They had one for 2 years.
B. Would take a constitutional amendment, as wealth and income are two different things
Five wealth taxes were enacted in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were apportioned by state population as required by the Constitution.
Citation(s), please? I'm not familiar with those and would like to learn more.
Of course wealth and income are different things. And in a strict sense, a constitutional amendment would be required. But as all policy people of all constituencies understand, all depends on how things are framed and packaged. C.J. Roberts voted to uphold "Obamacare" because (to everyone's surprise), "it was really a tax." I and 80 million other beneficiaries of ACA liked the result, but Roberts's rationale was really lame. Similarly, a wealth tax would be constitutional (without amendment) if you called it something else.
My uncle would be my aunt if I called him that?
In the famous words of Humpty Dumpty:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.'
Great logic.
And here is the democrats in a nut shell - it's fine if we call it something else.
Man-made Global Warming - let's call it climate change so we can say everything that happens is because of man
ACA - we have to pass it before we know what's in it.
IRA - big handouts to people that didn't need them.
And you can't lie right; from ACA site - The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, is a law that provides health insurance coverage to millions of Americans. As of 2021, roughly 31 million individuals in the U.S. benefited from the ACA and were enrolled in some form of ACA-related health insurance1. This figure has increased from 12.6 million in 2014, the year ACA took effect1. The ACA offers government subsidies to eligible individuals looking to purchase a health insurance plan2.
just some examples
Everyone got tax cuts under Trump's plan, not just the "rich" and the income to the government has increase every time a cut is passed.
Lower taxes mean the wealthy don't have as much incentive to cheat on the byzantine laws, that the LieCheatSteal party passes, to hand out favors.
Pull your head out.
Whenever the GOP starts changing the tax code, the Dems always point to how "unfair" it is that 20% of the cuts go to 1% of taxpayers, but leave out that under the previous code, that subset of taxpayers had been kicking in 35% (or more) of the total revenue collected.
If the people paying 35% of the previous tab get 20% of the benefits of a tax cut, the resulting system is actually more progressive than the one it's replacing. This is why leftist teachers want everyone to be pushed toward a "liberal arts" degree; Business and STEM majors learn enough math to pull back the curtain on the lies needed to make left-"progressive" economic policies seem to be a good idea. Good luck trying to explain to voters who love AOC that there aren't any poor people getting hit with $40k/year in state/local taxes that become even more of a hardship when the Feds aren't subsidizing that tab; putting the limit at $10k does catch some earners in the 10th or so percentile in high-tax states like NY, NJ, IL, or CA, but almost anyone paying over $20k, and all of those paying over $35k are into the upper 1-2 percent of earners (those who supposedly "don't pay their fair share", but also really deserve to get back to receiving the 5-6 figure deduction that the bad orange man took away in the process of supposedly emptying the US Treasury at their feet).
If you ever want to see cognitive dissonance in action, ask a leftist about almost any two of their "deeply held principles" and how both can possibly be true in the same world. Are the cops "actively hunting black and brown people", or are they the only ones who can be trusted to carry firearms in public? Is "Big Pharma" a bunch of Evil Profiteers out to destroy humanity to make a buck, or are they the saviors who selflessly delivered us from the horrors of covid?
Or just ask something simple like, "why does the principle of bodily autonomy not apply to someone who wants a 20oz soda?", or "how did 'big corporate money' defeat Net Neutrality when the world's 5 largest corporations (by market capitalization) were agressive supporters of the Open Internet Order?"
For a master-class level demonstration, explain the actual tax, immigration and education policies of Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, or Iceland to anyone who claims that the US needs to "do more to emulate the Scandinavian countries"; for a finishing blow, ask if we should also put severe restriction on the use of puberty blocking drugs and other hormone treatments for children and teens who "identify" as some other gender than how they were born, like they've done in all of those countries (they used to be fairly aggressive like how the US left wants to be currently, but found that around 80% later de-transitioned and went on to live as homosexual adults).
To take only one of your points, the answer to "Are the cops “actively hunting black and brown people”, or are they the only ones who can be trusted to carry firearms in public? ," is BOTH. And it's not that cops are the only ones who can be "trusted," but that cops are the only ones AUTOMATICALLY AND OFFICIALLY RESPONSIBLE for their use of firearms against citizens. Shoot someone and bang, you're suspended pending internal review. And you work for a solvent employer who can pay a judgment. It ain't "trust," it's accountability, not to mention the underlying basis of legitimacy, as in the state holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
"You’re blaming Dems for further enriching the super-rich, when doing so is explicit Republican policy?"
Stop sockpuppeting Shrike.
Are you really stupid enough to think that the 10 richest billionaires in America made an extra 310BB from tax cuts?
The same billionaires that voted FOR Biden, even though Trump was supposedly “their” candidate?
We know the names of the ten richest American billionaires. Which ones do you say voted for Biden? Charles Koch? Betsy DeVos? And no, not tax cuts, personal and corporate, alone. Untouched tax loopholes such as carried interest. Rollback of environmental regulations and worker rights. Exploitation of the SCOTUS freedom from conflict-of-interest disclosure/recusal. The list is long.
546-54
OBL's First law: still undefeated.
Sorry, I don't hang out here much. OBL = Osama bin Laden? Surely not. But then I can't think of an Athenian figure who fits the bill. Please reveal.
Open borders Liberaltarian. A long running parody of statist left leaning libertarians run by Sandra above.
I understand how there's room for left-right variation among libertarians.
How can any actual libertarian be statist as well? Isn't that like claiming to be a "dwarf" when you're 7'6" tall?
It is satire. Get it?
Thank you. I guess "open borders liberalism" means "observance of human rights in treatment of immigrants and aspiring immigrants." Parody indeed. Or maybe it means "opposition to environmentally destructive, private property-rights-trampling, brainless reflex wall-building?"
Also the return to normalcy Reason pined for.
What I really liked was how our betters didn’t need to wear masks at these affairs.
Don't look at me! 40 mins ago
GM and Ford can’t compete with Tesla.
Do go on about the hypocrisy of Democrats giving tax breaks to the average or lower-than-average consumer. Dumbass.
Not following.
Of course you aren't. If Ford and GM are compelled to comply with CA and NY Union rules, fuel taxes, and arbitrary EPA regulations and mandates and Tesla makes more expensive, higher class cars by avoiding and/or being exempted from those laws and burdens well... that's not favoring the rich, that's just the kind of good engineering it takes to save the environment.
“and arbitrary EPA regulations and mandates”
What exactly are electric cars supposed to do to level that bit of the playing field, seeing as how they don’t have emissions?
Oh wow. I can't tell if you're consciously doubling down or if it's genuine obliviousness.
If I said, celery was being taxed and regulated and carrots weren't, would you, as a libertarian, *really* ask me "What exactly are carrots supposed to do to level that playing field?"
Is that how libertarianism, economics, or even good science works? You see and know the scales are being slanted and you just say "Welp. Somebody else's problem. Everyone should just pretend that the playing field is level and acknowledge that the result that the outcome is slanted towards is objectively better."? Sounds like the sloshing of carrying water to me.
But I appreciate you demonstrating the brazen selective stupidity and firmly anti-libertarian ethos that is the religious Cult of Gaia.
I thought that Tesla didn't qualify for the rebates because they were non-union, and then the vast majority of other electric vehicles ALSO didn't qualify because too many of their components (batteries, etc) came from overseas.
But what does that have to do with masks?
I thought that Tesla didn’t qualify for the rebates because they were non-union,
Are you guys in line with JFree to collect your $0.50 for being this transparently stupid?
Owning a Tesla is a wealthy virtue signal every inch of forcing others to wear masks. I didn't say anything about rebates and, per your own point, forcing Ford and GM to deal with the UAW to sell cars while exempting Tesla is still, again without rebates, thumbing the scales and/or generating a market advantage.
Are you guys really this stupid? Do you really not see that UAW, Unions, the DNC, and the "living wage" movement aren't largely, if not entirely, overlapping with one another (esp. in the modern era)? Do you really think a law saying "Ford and GM must
meet union demandspay a living wage or make more electric cars. Tesla, being non-union *and* EV, doesn't." is in any way, not the government picking winners in the market that just happen to align with their ESG goals?>>Owning a Tesla is a wealthy virtue signal every inch of forcing others to wear masks.
yup. nothing less.
edit: Who!?!? Who does not want to drive the Tesla?!?!
"while exempting Tesla"
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sounds like an issue between you and whomever taught you English.
exempt:
ĭg-zĕmpt′
transitive verb
-To free from an obligation, duty, or liability to which others are subject.
-To set apart; isolate.
adjective
-Freed from an obligation, duty, or liability to which others are subject; excused.
-Not subject to certain federal workplace laws or protections, especially those requiring overtime compensation.
-Set apart; isolated.
noun
-One who is exempted from an obligation, duty, or liability.
Use it in a sentence:
Whether Tesla is exempt from the rebates or they're exempt from having to negotiate with the UAW because they're non-union, they are still exempt and the people who enforce UAW rules against Ford and GM, but not Tesla are exempting Tesla.
whomever taught you English
That's . . . not how you use "whom."
I freely admit that I hated the pretty much all of my English teachers in school.
Also, water is wet and runs downhill. More updates as events warrant.
telling stupid poor people they will benefit from a vote is good politics. water is wet.
do love the dress ...
Reminds me of this book cover....and its contents:
https://www.walmart.com/ip/It-Can-t-Happen-Here-9780451216588/3920933?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&item_group_id=PG_3920933
enough to think it was on porpoise.
Hell, I have a hard time thinking of one policy that does not benefit primarily the rich that they have championed in the last decade or so.
why would any policymaker make policy not directly enriching himself?
..and his donors.
Don't forget who pulls the strings on these puppets.
^^^
"The custom dress, shoes, handbag and jewelry were provided as rentals from the designer, Aurora James, and initially led to a bill for about $2,300."
So if we say that the rental is 1% of the value (which is a common metric), that would make the dress' actual cost ~200k.
Well, I guess we've been told.
1% would be a common metric for durable goods like power tools, trucks, construction equipment, etc. That would be rather a lot low for more perishable goods like clothing. Even a low-end tux that's primarily rented out for proms will only go through so many cycles before getting a stain that can't be washed out. High-end clothing will get even fewer uses before being considered obsolete. A 10% or even 20% valuation might be closer to the mark.
That said, there is a significant offset in advertising value for the highest-end clothing. Factoring that in and your estimate of $200k might not be far off the mark.
Didn't the designer also have a problem of not paying her taxes?
Yes. Yes she did.
They were actually bragging at the time about how much it cost. I want to say something like $60k, but I don't care enough to look it up.
Democrats always promise their programs will be funded by taxes paid by the rich, but they're LYING. They know that to pay for the bloated government they want they'll need to tax the middle class more. So they run on these lies and then when they push their bills through Congress they change the definitions of "rich" to mean "everyone who needs to pay to fund the program." Back when Clinton was president they defined "millionaire" as someone who earns $250k so that over a 4 year period they'd earn $1m. Biden promised no taxes on anyone making less than $400k, but he couldn't break that promise fast enough. They can't and shouldn't be trusted no matter what they say.
Yes, they're hypocrites, but they really don't care. They know once the programs are enacted they create dependent constituencies and the program will never die.
The game is given away any time someone switches from "billionaires" to "the 1%," as "the 1%" invariably gets interpreted as the top 1% of wage earners, which does not, in fact, include the billionaires.
The hypocrisy of politicians is not news. What's sadly also not news is the charge that Democrats want "bloated government" per se, as in "for its own sake." FYI, it's not Dems who vote to fund weapons systems the Pentagon hasn't requested and doesn't want. It's not Dems who want to fund virtue police or "faith-based" charities, education, prisons, Social Security, the Medicare Advantage scam, or any other privatization - of - sovereign - function - at - public - expense boondoogle. Nope, those are the bright ideas of the other team. And I'm a member of neither team of hypocrites, BTW. But like everyone else, I do trouble to hold my nose and check the boxes all the same.
Social Security and Medicare were put into place by the Democrats. Federal funding of education is an evergreen Democrat issue (the federal Department of Education is their baby too). What in the holy hell are you babbling about?
Can you read? I said Reps have been campaigning to PRIVATIZE Social Security and Medicare. Dubya Bush staked his entire political capital on that one issue at the beginning of his second term -- and lost. This hasn't stopped them. Their program is, if you can't eliminate it (I can't conceive the rationale for than, given the incalculable health and welfare benefits SS has provided over the past 85 years), then privatize it. Which is also what Medicare Advantage does.
You do realize this "Repubs bad, Dems good" screed you have going on here is as close to parody as one can get while attempting to be serious, right?
this has to be a joke account. The parody is dead on
No duh.
Three word summary:
Democrats still lie.
I'll borrow from Sevo (as it's applicable):
Democrats lie. Democrats lie when they know they're lying. Democrats lie when we know they're lying. Democrats lie when they know we know they're lying. Democrats lie and support pederasts like Bill Clinton besides.
You didn't even have to do the find/replace on turd for it to fit.
*sigh* I remember when tax rates were the biggest thing we argued over.
*sigh* I can remember when the magazine's fiscal stance was that we shouldn't have given away the TARP money even if it paid off because theft, even if we all can afford it, is wrong.
Welcome to TeenReason. 😛
Indeed, while Democrats profess their devotion to social justice and fight against income inequality, they often push for policies that favor the rich.
FYI, if they made good on the former instead of blundering into the latter, things would be even worse, trust me. The "devotion to social justice" and "fight against income inequality" aren't the "means well" part of the equation.
I'll file this under 'things I already knew'.
Let me introduce you to the concept of "propaganda".
Let me introduce you to the concept of "interests of the intelligentsia" and "interests of the donor class".
Dems: Hold my beer and if you suffered under Bideneconomics, wait until you get a load of AOCommics.
Please don't tempt them, this isn't the GOP that you need to embarrass into cutting spending.
My shocked face is shocked! ????
Private / Public partnerships are bipartisan, at least where I live.
Private Profits Public charge
Private / Public partnerships are bipartisan, at least where I live.
Do you mean in the abstract or are you trying to say that you don't live in a number of major cities and/or a number of effective, if not rather literal, one-party States?
Republicans and Democrats run for local , county and state office on “Public/Private partnerships” platforms.
If I ask you "Do Republicans and Democrats run for local , county and state office on “Public/Private partnerships” platforms?", to I get the answer to the question "Do you mean in the abstract or are you trying to say that you don’t live in a number of major cities and/or a number of effective, if not rather literal, one-party States?"?
"Take their nonstop battle over the last five years to ease the tax burden of their high-income constituents."
You spelled donors wrong.
Get rid of the income tax entirely. its an absolute monstrosity
The language of the 16A acknowledges that it is giving leverage to the federal government.
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Now the federal government can take away taxes on income, and set conditions upon returning the money.
Enumerated powers just left the building.
The 16th Amendment had overwhelming support form everywhere on the political spectrum. And when Congress finally enacted the tax it included a massive cut in import taxes. Trump cut income taxes and massively increased import taxes.
Define massive. The tax cuts dwarf the total sum of the tariffs passed. You know what else dwarfs it? Industry cost from theft from China. Do you know when China agreed to go after the rampant theft? After the tariffs.
This entire belief system from idealists that ignore bad market actors and their actions is mesmerizing. If someone knows they can constantly steal from you without any push back, what do you think happens?
Tariffs are far Far FAR worse.
Wrong. You can choose to buy a product or not. You have to make an income to survive in a modern economy.
You can also choose who to buy from. Most of the bumper sticker crowd doesn't understand supply shifts occur all the time in markets.
Just finished reading Ian Toll 'Six Frigates: the founding of the US Navy'. Jefferson paid for the expansion of the Navy, all overseas operations against Tripoli and managed to pay off the debt with a minor tariffs on imports. Since the merchants were the ones who were screaming for Naval protection, it was felt they should bear the lion share of the cost to field one. It was a really small tariffs but managed to pay for the entire Navy and combat operations thousands of miles away from US, where we didn't have any ports or bases and therefore we had to pay other countries for the privilege of being able to support our overseas operations.
Pays for a war without accruing debt and pays off debt from the last war. Hmmm. And you maintain tariffs suck worse than income taxes. When was the last time we paid for a war without accruing debt and paid off the debt of the last war with income taxes?
It worked great until Jefferson and Madison shot themselves in the foot with their ban on doing business with Great Britain after the Leopard Incident.
And for the most part the merchants were actually happy to pay the tariffs as they greatly desired Naval protection, especially in the Mediterranean. In fact, not only did they pay the tariffs, but many also paid for private construction of warships which were then either leased (often for a nominal fee) or gifted to the US Navy, to supplement the six government contracted frigates. As the War of 1812 demonstrated though, the lack of ship of the line severely limited the impact of our naval forces. It wouldn't have taken much either, as most of Great Britain's line ships were blockading France, and they only had limited, mainly older, inferior line ships to prosecute the war against America. A half dozen modern 74s (especially if they were built along the same line as our heavy frigates) would have greatly hampered the Royal Navy in the Western Atlantic.
If we had built 74's the same no-expense-barred way we built 44-gun frigates, they would have been very expensive indeed - but a small British fleet of 12 of their 74's would still have been enough to beat our 6 super-74's.
Our frigates easily outran any British ships of near the same firepower, so hunting them down was difficult. It's not so for ships of the line - the weight they had to carry required tubby lines compared to a frigate.
And that's assuming we ever found crews large enough to man the 74's. The British were working from a much larger population but were perpetually desperate for more crewmen.
Taxing me for the privilege of supporting my family is so massively immoral that anyone who supports it while trying to claim they care about the average American, freedom, or liberty should be roundly mocked.
Why should someone making $250k in TN or TX pay more than $4k more in Federal taxes than someone making $250k in CA or CT?
Just because they vote for stupid bloated state government to waste their money on bullet trains, tranny indoctrination at the needle exchanges, and huge government pensions?
I think this is why they got rid of Cuomo in NY. (No, it had nothing to do with me too or Covid, he was up for POTUS, remember?). Cuomo said out loud that progressive taxes do not work because the real net taxpayers leave the state. He begged rich people to come back from Florida and Tennessee.
Oh well, progressives are true believers and they run the Democrat party machine.
Real estate tax deductions are a really big deal for the upper middle class in high state & local tax jurisdictions. What you overlook is that the educated, high-salaried upper middle classes vote strongly Dem, and Trump's lowering of the S&L tax exemption ceiling was SPECIFICALLY TARGETED at this core influential Dem constituency. You know who's unaffected by the S&L exemption change? The super-rich, many of whom now live full-time on mega-yachts, free from any S&L taxes -- in other words, the Republican superdonors. The Trump tax plan was concocted by think tanks funded by the Kochs and their ilk. You know, the same folks who buy off Supreme Court justices.
Washington DC actually has low property taxes, but houseboats such as the one owned by Joe Manchin isn't taxed at all. Manchin is a clever guy. The houseboat also cost him less than apartments in that part of Washington.
Entirely false. The SALT tax was a benefit to blue donors and states who lobied washington to deduct those costs so states who chose high taxes could keep more of their share. Full stop. The tax cuts made the deductions more equal.
You know who’s unaffected by the S&L exemption change? The super-rich
You know who's also unaffected? Middle- and lower-class people.
The Trump tax plan was concocted by think tanks funded by the Kochs and their ilk.
You know that Koch despises Trump, right? You know that Koch actually abandoned the Republican Party because of Trump, right?
You know, the same folks who buy off Supreme Court justices.
If it's just going to be a boogey-man parade, why not thrown in Nixon and Hitler, too? Did you know that Henry Kissinger and Joe McCarthy ate children and liked tax cuts?
Hickamore has never shown themselves to be very bright. Or anything more than a standard leftist.
This may be the dumbest post here in weeks. Congrats
Heaven forbid that NY, CA and the like get to see what tax they are paying for state.
You are right. Trump messed up. He should do away with the SALT tax completely.
I'm neither R or D, but of course the Democrats policies favor the rich. Democrats are more elitist, more racist and more anti-poor and it isn't even a competition. The Republicans are stupid about a lot but they can't touch the Democrats on abusing fellow Americans.
Reason's claim: "As economists have long known, most, if not all, of the economic burden of corporate income taxes is shouldered by primarily middle-class workers in the form of lower wages. It's wrong to call this a tax on the rich." OK, and why is THAT? Because rather than reduce dividends or executive bonuses, corporations cut worker wages. So in Reason's view, corporations run the show by natural right and there's nothing public tax policy can or should do about it. It's always "no point in taxes; corps just pass them on to consumers and workers." Well, not so with a wealth tax, and we KNOW how that wealth was acquired, don't we?
It's not just Reason's claim. CBO has said as much, too.
The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states
"A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
"The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general... In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation."
Awww, poor hick. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair!
Haha.
we KNOW how that wealth was acquired, don’t we?
No, actually, "we" don't. You seem to presume that you do, but my money says you have no idea.
Wealth taxes have been tried. They don't work. Your "super-rich" don't have piles of gold lying around that can just be counted up and taken. Where they do tend to have their wealth is invested in corporations. But see - now you're back to taking money from the corporations and, ultimately, the laborers you're nominally trying to save.
"So in Reason’s view, corporations run the show by natural right and there’s nothing public tax policy can or should do about it."
No, because that is how the economics of a business works and there is nothing a tax policy can do about that. Just as there is nothing government can do about the fact that water runs downhill without a motive force behind it.
Telling middle class people struggling to pay exorbitant property taxes that they are rich and should not be able to deduct them is not good electoral strategy.
You pay 20k in property taxes?
I don't know where you lie but the SALT deduction affects between a third & a half of all homeowners in the NY & CA suburbs. Largely because of the high wages of police & educators. Now, I understand that the editors at Reason don't believe that police & educators should be paid so much as they consider it essentially unskilled labor but the facts are the facts.
Of course, there is some truth to the notion that both political parties are catering to the rich. Nothing in what the editors at Reason advocate would do anything to mitigate it. In fact, their policies would just lead to more monopoly/oligopoly (& the death of the "Free Market"). This would in turn further the demise of the middle class in the USA as realistically, the editors of Reason advocate a return to the policies of the Gilded Age of the 1890s which produced essentially a "3rd world" economy of 0.01% extremely wealthy, 10% middle class & 90% living paycheck to paycheck (or worse).
Why should you pay less federal taxes because you live in a state that chooses housing policies to limit supply and taxes you exorbitantly? Sounds like you should petition your state. Federal taxes are supposed to be consistent across the nation. Not have carve outs for favored states.
In fact, their policies would just lead to more monopoly/oligopoly (& the death of the “Free Market”).
Concern noted.
The SALT deduction is a reward to people and states who love high taxes on others.
There should be NO deduction.
NY and CA can pay whatever they want to police and educators. They voted for it.
Why should the Federal Government give you a break for paying the tax of your state? Last I checked there is state income tax and a federal.
"Inequality" isn't even something that should be targeted for demolition. Inequality is a sign that your society and economy are still somewhat free. People have different levels of ability, and are willing to face different levels of risk, and have different time horizons, and have different levels of effort they are willing to put in. Of course they will produce unequal results. Trying to stop that just discourages your most productive people and drags everyone down. The trick for a parasite is to not suck so much that it kills the host.
I think a stronger example is student loan forgiveness, which Biden watered down but most Democrats wanted a more robust version. That's a policy that heavily favors the wealthy over the poor.
It's all about appearances. Voters 'educated' in government schools are indoctrinated into zero-sum thinking and lack the critical skills necessary to see through the flummery.
Everything Demunists say is a lie, including their self-chosen label of "Liberals."
In the land of Democratic [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism]; mobs, gangs and groupies of "[WE] RULE!" and steal your wealth by a vote-collection equals wealth/status.....
Now explain how this prepubescent mentality isn't' the same as bullies on the playground stealing and committing the most evil acts humanity has ever seen?
Once upon a time the USA was built on honor, trust, justice and freedom where *EARNING* and/or *CREATING* things meant you own them instead of the Nazi-Ideology of gang versus gang and who can STEAL and commit evil acts of crime against another.
The biggest sh*ttiest stain on the USA right now is Democratic Nazi's packing gang-guns in politics without a single hesitation for Liberty or Justice (US Constitution).
Our betters, if they don’t always vote Democrat, bankroll their campaigns, which is why they will never actually do anything that might hit their wallets, despite all their lip service about “equity”. So:
Expensive EVs get huge tax breaks
Blue collar tobacco is taxed up the wazoo, but never alcohol because wine moms
They oppose a cap on state/local income tax deductions