https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-ta...e-the-rich

Dems desperate to repeal the SALT tax limit (10k on state and local taxes).

(05-02-2021 09:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-ta...e-the-rich

Dems desperate to repeal the SALT tax limit (10k on state and local taxes).

no fk'n shite.....

that's why they bought the '20 election.....

DJT was dickin' em like Tiger and the porn stars....

@carnegieRobinBarrons

Nanny is good at them tax breaks for the rich. Wonder how much this will save her and Big Top Joe? Some one should figure it out and let us know, but you know the MSM. Journalism is dead.

Wait, I thought mindless Joe was going to only tax the Rich. Why would he want to give back $70 billion a year? Unless like every Dem that has lied through their teeth about taxing the rich when in reality they tax the working class to pay corporate welfare as well as welfare and free healthcare for illegal aliens. Nope, that is the perpetual LIE Dems have told since I don’t know when. But, as long as dumb down sheople exist so will Dems.

Yea, they aren't publicising this while talking up "tax the rich" to pay for everything. I wonder why?

Same reason the 'tax the rich' Cadillac tax on the ACA NEVER went in to place.

Shell game - you will be paying, but [wink wink] we will give you your loopholes back so it nets to $Zero$ for you!

There are two basic philosophies of tax rate structures:

1) Higher rates, with lots of "loopholes"
2) Lower rates, with few or no "loopholes"

Both generate roughly the same effective rate. Back when the nominal rate was 91% or 70%, the proliferation of loopholes reduced the effective rate for the "wealthy" and corporations to basically what it is today. Politicians in general (and democrats in particular) like option 1) because they can claim to be taxing the "wealthy" while holding on to the power (and campaign contributions) that come with being able to grant special interest loopholes. The Reagan tax rate decrease of 1981 and the Bradley-Gephardt-Reagan tax rate decrease of 1986 moved us very much in the direction of option 2). Europe saw that and did us one better, helped out by the revenues that they raise from consumption taxes. Both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin basically recommended completing the journey to option 2) (both advocated lower tax rates to increase tax revenues).

We could have a 15% flat consumption tax, a 15% flat corporate tax, and a 15% flat individual income tax, and have the lowest tax rates in the developed world in all three areas (save Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax) and generate about a $1T annual surplus, enough to pay off the federal debt in ~20 years. And that would be with a UBI and universal health care following the Bismarck model (which really wouldn't cost much more than our current woefully inefficient welfare systems).