Steve Bannon: Republicans will have to "raise taxes on the wealthy" to fulfill Trump's campaign prom

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

https://thehill.com/business/5051716-steve-bannon-tax-increase-wealthy/

 

[cato potatoe]

This is the perverse end goal of populism.  Somehow the high income taxpayers are morally inferior to the “workers.”  As if the bartenders would ever put forth the effort it took to be super wealthy. 

[DB]

Steve Bannon wanted to raise tax rates on the "wealthy" his first dance with Trump. One of the reasons he's been on my blacklist. I already pay a large percentage of my income in taxes.

[DB]

I'll add, Trump's tax "reform" was deadly for small business that develop technology.

If you employ engineers and/or programmers that develop new products, it falls under R&D in the tax code. That made it so those payroll costs have to be amortized over 5 years. So if you pay a programmer $150,000 a year to develop a new product, the first year 80% of what was paid to the employee is counted as net income for the employer (1/5 of the 5 year amortization). So both the employee and employer pay income taxes on that same payroll money. Before that payroll expenses came off the top each year and didn't count as net income for the employer.

As a crude example, let's say a business pays the same programmer above $150,000 and the business' total income is $160,000 leaving $10,000 "profit", the employee pays his taxes on his $150,000 in income and the business pays 80% of that $150,000 plus the $10,000 in profit as total business net income of $130,000 even though it only has $10,000 left after payroll. So the business has a massive loss after paying its payroll and taxes. It is brutal.

And people wonder why business go overseas to do R&D... Unbelievably stupid, and Trump and the Republicans did that.

[cato potatoe]

And people wonder why business go overseas to do R&D... Unbelievably stupid, and Trump and the Republicans did that.

The excess business loss and interest expense limitations have also hit a lot of taxpayers hard.  Some of the revenue offsets are unpopular, and they are already discussing the return of the full SALT deduction.  Sure would be nice if they reined in spending instead of making the tax code more complex, but that isn't going to happen under a populist majority.   

[jmyrlefuller]

This is the perverse end goal of populism.  Somehow the high income taxpayers are morally inferior to the “workers.”  As if the bartenders would ever put forth the effort it took to be super wealthy.

Very few people who are super-wealthy put in disproportionate effort. It's luck. We don't want to admit it, but it's luck. That's what separates the rich from the poor... the rich had opportunity.

The big problem is that we tax income in this country and not wealth. And we only tax that income that comes in cash, meaning that people who make their money through appreciation of their own assets, as most of the super-rich do in this country, get richer. And those who work hard to move up in the world get taxed at every turn.

[DB]

Very few people who are super-wealthy put in disproportionate effort. It's luck. We don't want to admit it, but it's luck. That's what separates the rich from the poor... the rich had opportunity.

The big problem is that we tax income in this country and not wealth. And we only tax that income that comes in cash, meaning that people who make their money through appreciation of their own assets, as most of the super-rich do in this country, get richer. And those who work hard to move up in the world get taxed at every turn.

Musk was luck?

Steve Jobs was luck?

There are many more.

Assets people buy were purchased with taxed dollars. Taxing unrealized gains is Elizabeth Warren territory. You should really rethink that.

[jmyrlefuller]

Musk was luck?

Steve Jobs was luck?

There are many more.

Assets people buy were purchased with taxed dollars. Taxing unrealized gains is Elizabeth Warren territory. You should really rethink that.

About the only person who you could say was almost entirely his own effort was Jeff Bezos—most everything I've read about him is that he has always been supernaturally gifted as far as it goes with knowing how to make money. Which is still luck, but a different kind, one that policy really has no control over fixing.

But Warren Buffett? Son of a congressman.

Taylor Swift? Daughter of a stockbroker.

Bill Gates? Mother was already rich.

I don't even have to begin with Donald Trump.

The rest? Somewhere along the line, there was luck involved. Someone said yes, when they would otherwise say no, and there was no real reason to say yes—and that was all the difference. A loan. A big sale. Someone who knew someone noticed. Things that normally don't happen, but either they had the cushion and liquidity to take bigger risks and not be bankrupted so they could repeatedly fail until they got lucky through pure brute force, or they got lucky right off the bat. They've actually done studies on this and proved it. I know it's not a popular opinion in conservative circles but we have to acknowledge it.

Picture it this way:

Effort + lucky = success
Effort + unlucky = frustration and anger
Lack of effort will probably lead to lack of success no matter what.

It takes both... and the flexibility to be able to put in the effort.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not really a black or white issue no? Clearly it's a combination of several factors. But I do wonder if ol' Steve is on to something, I'm not sure further tax breaks and such will create much economic activity and may actually hurt Trump and impede his agenda.

[libertybele]

About the only person who you could say was almost entirely his own effort was Jeff Bezos—most everything I've read about him is that he has always been supernaturally gifted as far as it goes with knowing how to make money. Which is still luck, but a different kind, one that policy really has no control over fixing.

But Warren Buffett? Son of a congressman.

Taylor Swift? Daughter of a stockbroker.

Bill Gates? Mother was already rich.

I don't even have to begin with Donald Trump.

The rest? Somewhere along the line, there was luck involved. Someone said yes, when they would otherwise say no, and there was no real reason to say yes—and that was all the difference. A loan. A big sale. Someone who knew someone noticed. Things that normally don't happen, but either they had the cushion and liquidity to take bigger risks and not be bankrupted so they could repeatedly fail until they got lucky through pure brute force, or they got lucky right off the bat. They've actually done studies on this and proved it. I know it's not a popular opinion in conservative circles but we have to acknowledge it.

Picture it this way:

Effort + lucky = success
Effort + unlucky = frustration and anger
Lack of effort will probably lead to lack of success no matter what.

It takes both... and the flexibility to be able to put in the effort.

OR -- taking a leap, developing a product or starting a business = risk.  Obviously not all products sell nor do all businesses succeed.  If they succeed, I suppose you could call that luck; I call it having faith in yourself and having an inherit ability to market yourself by connecting with others.

Having the money to start out certainly helps, but not everyone who has succeeded started out with a lot of cash on hand.

[DB]

About the only person who you could say was almost entirely his own effort was Jeff Bezos—most everything I've read about him is that he has always been supernaturally gifted as far as it goes with knowing how to make money. Which is still luck, but a different kind, one that policy really has no control over fixing.

But Warren Buffett? Son of a congressman.

Taylor Swift? Daughter of a stockbroker.

Bill Gates? Mother was already rich.

I don't even have to begin with Donald Trump.

The rest? Somewhere along the line, there was luck involved. Someone said yes, when they would otherwise say no, and there was no real reason to say yes—and that was all the difference. A loan. A big sale. Someone who knew someone noticed. Things that normally don't happen, but either they had the cushion and liquidity to take bigger risks and not be bankrupted so they could repeatedly fail until they got lucky through pure brute force, or they got lucky right off the bat. They've actually done studies on this and proved it. I know it's not a popular opinion in conservative circles but we have to acknowledge it.

Picture it this way:

Effort + lucky = success
Effort + unlucky = frustration and anger
Lack of effort will probably lead to lack of success no matter what.

It takes both... and the flexibility to be able to put in the effort.

Very wrong. They all DID something that no one else was doing and took the risk and expense of pursuing it. That isn't luck.

[libertybele]

Not really a black or white issue no? Clearly it's a combination of several factors. But I do wonder if ol' Steve is on to something, I'm not sure further tax breaks and such will create much economic activity and may actually hurt Trump and impede his agenda.

How do you think  tax breaks creating economic activity will hurt?

Small businesses have made this country great; tax breaks and incentives will help.

[libertybele]

Very wrong. They all DID something that no one else was doing and took the risk and expense of pursuing it. That isn't luck.

Exactly. One has to be willing to take some risk and have a vision to succeed. The greater the risk you take, normally if successful, the greater the reward.

Not many people are willing to take on a lot of risk, nor do a lot of people come up with a vision for a product or company.

[Hoodat]

For the umpteenth time, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  Reduce spending to 19% of GDP, first.

[Kamaji]

Very few people who are super-wealthy put in disproportionate effort. It's luck. We don't want to admit it, but it's luck. That's what separates the rich from the poor... the rich had opportunity.

The big problem is that we tax income in this country and not wealth. And we only tax that income that comes in cash, meaning that people who make their money through appreciation of their own assets, as most of the super-rich do in this country, get richer. And those who work hard to move up in the world get taxed at every turn.

Auditioning for the DNC?

[jmyrlefuller]

Very wrong. They all DID something that no one else was doing and took the risk and expense of pursuing it. That isn't luck.

So have countless others—and failed. You only hear about the ones who win. And you mentioned expense—they had the money to begin with, and turned it into more money. To have that first seed, that's luck of who your parents are and where you're born. Do you think the sub-Saharans starving to death stand an equal chance of succeeding in the world?

Fred Smith (of FedEx fame) once gambled his entire cash on hand on a blackjack table and won, saving his business. It doesn't mean that gambling is going to make you rich.

[jmyrlefuller]

Auditioning for the DNC?

The DNC's ideas got us into this mess. Not that the RNC's borrow-and-spend magical thinking is much better.

[jmyrlefuller]

For the umpteenth time, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.  Reduce spending to 19% of GDP, first.

While that'd be nice, you'd have to slaughter a LOT of sacred cows to pull that off. Like Socialist Security.

[libertybele]

So have countless others—and failed. You only hear about the ones who win. And you mentioned expense—they had the money to begin with, and turned it into more money. To have that first seed, that's luck of who your parents are and where you're born. Do you think the sub-Saharans starving to death stand an equal chance of succeeding in the world?

Fred Smith (of FedEx fame) once gambled his entire cash on hand on a blackjack table and won. It doesn't mean that gambling is going to make you risk.

Ok, you're talking primarily of generational wealth; but someone had to start out from scratch to begin with. They had an idea and were willing to take risk or came across an opportunity and risked what they had to invest in it. All equates to risk. Not many are willing to risk the last couple of dollars that they have.

[jmyrlefuller]

Exactly. One has to be willing to take some risk and have a vision to succeed. The greater the risk you take, normally if successful, the greater the reward.

Not many people are willing to take on a lot of risk, nor do a lot of people come up with a vision for a product or company.

Because most of us aren't ABLE to take that risk. That's my point. If you're raised poor, you have no connections, you have a personality that isn't a pure sociopath, the money you need is not going to come unless you win a lottery—and it takes money to make money.

You look at the super-rich in this country. They're out of their minds. They have no qualms taking advantage of people for their mad fantasies.

[jmyrlefuller]

Ok, you're talking primarily of generational wealth; but someone had to start out from scratch to begin with. They had an idea and were willing to take risk or came across an opportunity and risked what they had to invest in it. All equates to risk. Not many are willing to risk the last couple of dollars that they have.

Those days, if they ever existed, are long gone. Most everyone who is super-successful today has some seed of generational wealth.

[jmyrlefuller]

I'll use another example, JD Vance, our upcoming vice president. Do you know what it took for him to break out of the cycle of poverty? He had to sell his freedom to the United States Marine Corps. Is that the risk we have to take to be successful, to sacrifice everything that is worthwhile in the hopes that the chips fall right?

It shouldn't be.

[libertybele]

I'll use another example, JD Vance, our upcoming vice president. Do you know what it took for him to break out of the cycle of poverty? He had to sell his freedom to the United States Marine Corps. Is that the risk we have to take to be successful, to sacrifice everything that is worthwhile in the hopes that the chips fall right?

It shouldn't be.

Work hard to succeed; some people are able to find better jobs than others or are more qualified for that job than others.  Risking everything to succeed happens.  Our forefathers risked a great deal of wealth; some more so than others and the reward was freedom!  Some risked their lives as well.  They risked their lives hoping that their families may end up with freedom.

I guess it all depends on what you feel the risk is worth.

It's called the game of life.

[MeganC]

Instead of raising taxes why not slash spending?

[rustynail]

Is Steve Bannon this years Kelly Anne Conway?