Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: Report: Steve Bannon wants to raise federal income taxes on the rich
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/ ... ise-federal-income-taxes-rich/
Published: Jul 3, 2017
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2017-07-03 18:33:54 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 7945
Comments: 30
A companion piece to Andrew’s post this morning about the diminishing appetite among Republicans for tax cuts unto death. The mystery in Bannon’s case is why he’s pushing this knowing that Paul Ryan’s going to vomit when he hears about it and the conservative, tax-cutting House Republicans caucus will quickly dismiss it out of hand. Maybe that’s the point. Bannon has told colleagues he wants the top income tax bracket to “have a 4 in front of it.” (The top bracket is currently 39.6% for Americans who earn more than $418,400.) That’s from Jonathan Swan at Axios, who’s had a pipeline to Bannon’s thoughts for months. I think it’s a smart play by Bannon in all sorts of ways, foremost by picking a fight with conservative orthodoxy on political ground that’s more favorable to Bannon’s own populist-nationalist position. The surest way to move House Republicans away from their traditional opposition to taxing and spending and towards a bigger-government vision for the GOP is to start with a populist proposal that will boost their popularity before the midterms. Taxing the rich would. Polls vary (as always), but hiking income taxes on the wealthy has lots of support among Democrats and independents and more support than you might expect among Republicans. From a Gallup poll taken last April: A majority of Republicans disagreed that the rich are paying too little in taxes, but that majority was narrow — and other polls have found majorities of GOPers solidly in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy. A GBA Strategies survey published in January 2015 found Republicans against the idea of a 50 percent tax rate on income over $1 million … until you remind them that that was the rate initially under Reagan, in which case support shifts to 55/33. A more recent poll from PRRI released last June found 54 percent of Republicans in favor of raising taxes on people who make $250,000 a year or more, an 18-point increase since 2012. (Support among Democrats and independents was 84 and 68 percent, respectively.) The common thread between those polls, I think, is the effect of “permission” from Republican authority figures on opinions among the rank-and-file on the right. Before Trump ran for president, party orthodoxy required opposing tax hikes; remind Republicans, though, that taxes were higher during St. Ronald’s presidency and suddenly they could tolerate the idea. Likewise, with the populist Trump having secured the GOP nomination last June, average Republicans suddenly felt freer to entertain previously forbidden thoughts about class warfare against the rich. Hence the majority in favor of tax hikes. Bannon wants to leverage that opportunity for populism by forcing a gut-check on congressional Republicans on taxing the rich. If Trump threw his weight behind the idea, if polls confirmed that it was popular even among Republican voters, if Democrats in the Senate cheered it and suddenly took an interest in compromise on tax reform, how fiercely would nervous House Republicans oppose it? It might not matter — tax hikes on the wealthy would be a mortal economic sin to Paul Ryan, who could block Trump’s bill from the floor, but Bannon’s always had it in for Ryan. He’d love to go to war with him on favorable terrain for populists. If he won, it would give Trump a boost in popularity and possibly break Ryan’s tenuous control over the caucus, reorienting dozens of Republicans towards populism. As Michael Warren says: Bannon likely believes he’s not a monster on Republican tax orthodoxy—he’s just ahead of the curve. An added benefit for Bannon: If his populist approach to tax reform gains traction in the White House and Congress, it might chase his nemesis Gary Cohn out of the administration. Per Axios, Cohn reportedly wants a tax reform package this year and will leave the White House the instant he concludes that all hope for one is dead. What if instead he gets a tax reform package but it looks more like Steve Bannon’s wishlist than his own? If Cohn bails out, that’s one less influential “globalist” with whom Bannon has to contend for power. Seems like there are many upsides and really no downside to him in pushing this. The question is only whether Trump is willing to get behind it or if he’s content as usual to sign virtually anything Ryan and McConnell send him. Nothing would recapture the populist spirit of his campaign more quickly than soaking the rich, particularly given his own status as America’s most famous rich guy. Poster Comment: The endgame isn't clear but Bannon is definitely making a play and is likely slashing at several rivals/enemies in his attack strategy. Steve Bannon is causing a stir inside the administration by pushing an idea that’s anathema to most Republicans: raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for steep middle and working-class tax cuts. (Some officials who’ve heard Bannon’s idea think it’s crazy, but the President’s chief strategist believes it’s a potent populist idea.) 
One possibility: Bannon is looking a little farther down the road, politically, at how the Republican party will be constituted, and who will constitute it. The more downscale voters the GOP has attracted in recent years, even before Trump’s presidency, may be less keen than Republicans of years past on keeping tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. In this view, there’s more than a little Bernie-ism among Trump voters on whether the rich are and should pay their “fair share.”
Bannon's only problem: Trump's mercurial policy ideas.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Tends to hurt small businesses with LLC structures. The owners of small businesses tend to spend their income, so not good for the economy. Might be the end of Bannon.
Bannon is a Bernie Bro working from within the system. He is a populist/nationalist. This is right out of the playbook. It did play a role in Trump's win of the WH, whether we like it or not. Of course, the very idea is anathema to the WSJ and most conservatives. Milton Freedman is spinning in his grave, etc. But this is a smart move for Bannon vs. his WH rivals. And it might actually be pretty good for Trump politically. Trump could play Santa Bernie for a while, even if the GOP won't go along with it. You recall Trump used to make remarks about "raise my taxes" back when he was still a Dem. So this isn't Trump's first rodeo on this issue.
On the positive side, Trump stated he wanted to lower the highest rate, and Steve Bannon is the Secretary of Nothing.
The rich should be the main taxpayers, because they are the main beneficiaries of the state that protects their wealth. People who are poor, ie those who do not have wealth, or even often are indebted to the rich and pay interest on loans and mortgages, should not be taxed. More, the poorest should be exempt from the military service, because they have nothing to defend.
Thank you for summing up so nicely why your head is stuck so far up your ass. When was the last time anyone poor created jobs that weren't within a welfare agency or law firm? Who would you go to if your welfare check stopped showing up to see about getting a job,someone homeless or someone running a business? This is NOT saying that all areas of wealth should remain tax-free. Trust Funds are the bastard children of the robber barons and their pocket politicians of the late 1800's to the mid-1900's as a way for THEM and their off-sprung to avoid paying any taxes on THEIR wealth while living tax-free like Indian Rajahs in ocean front and ski-country palaces and taxing the middle-classes and the upper middle-classes for the money to fund the government. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Luke 21:1-4King James Version (KJV) 21 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. 2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. 3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: 4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
More, the poorest should be exempt from the military service, because they have nothing to defend. That is essentially the way it was for the first millennium of Christendom. Except that the poor were taxed in that they worked on the estates, producing the wealth of which they only got a share.
>I used the tax calculator at www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/self-employed-business-tax- calculator.aspx to assemble this data. It is for single taxpayer self employed business owner. I don't have a means of posting graphics, but if you chart it, it's an eye opener.
That's a good start. Now instead calculate the taxes on somebody who has $10 million per year in unrealized capital gains on securities. (Note well that he can borrow against the collateral provided by these securities and that is not a realization event). Hint: the Tax Rate is 0%
The power of the super-rich is not found in their INCOME. They can turn off and on their income at will. It is found in their accumulated WEALTH. Taxing high INCOMES further entrenches the super- rich while ruling the upper precincts off to risers. Taxing WEALTH forces the super-rich to continue to be productive, to actually mobilize their money and risk it more. Once wealth is amassed and static, it becomes rather simple to live without paying any income tax at all, so no matter how high the INCOME tax is hiked, the wealth disparity is never addressed. The super-rich get richer, and new rivals are stifled from ever getting close. If you want a truly fair tax system, you have to stop disfavoring new wealth in favor of old wealth, which is what our tax system does, very strongly.
The biggest job creators are the middle and lower class in a mass consumption society triggered by FDR in the New Deal. How many gardeners, chauffeurs and maids can the rich hire?
You two would constitute the best argument that Bannon can make to Trump for raising the top rates. If he does, you guys will stick with him, no matter what. It's your whole social gospel fetish. OTOH, are the poor, working class, and middle class going to throw a fit and refuse to vote for Trump again if he does raise that top rate? No way. I think the smart political move for Trump is to go with Bannon on this one. Or in the case of a tycoon like Buffet, he is his own bank. He has some liquid assets, a few tens of millions, that will take care of his actual needs for the rest of his life. The vast fortune he holds is just used as a personal bank for himself and his businesses and to leverage further acquisitions in markets where he wants a monopoly stake, as Buffet did with hauling coal from Montana/Wyoming and shale oil from Canada via his BNSF railroad or by his cornering the entire market of mobile home manufacturing, sales and financing. And then he grabs headlines by whining to the press that his secretary pays more taxes than he does. Despicable asshole.
Like all communists,you have limited vision. Rich people own corporations,and corporations hire millions of people. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You missed the point completely. These "millions of people" make products for the rich or for the normal people?
They make products for both,as well as for the government,other governments,and other corporations. Anybody that wants to buy their product that has the money. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
If he raises the top rates, I will stick with him, but it will be a band aid. The only way to address the wealth disparity is to tax wealth, not income.
You're advocating that we treat wealth as the states treat property taxes. Well, not exactly but comparable. I don't see it as the panacea you are suggesting. I think the smart money will find ways to take advantage of such a system. Even more so if you don't do something serious about restricting the welfare-for-the-rich Federal Reserve Bank. You could do just as much if you reformed the Federal Reserve, tightened banking laws, did more to absolve working- and middle-class debt (including bankruptcy) than you could with your fancy schmancy new system of let's-tax-static-wealth with all its inevitable pitfalls. I can't even imagine the kind of pork and carveouts that would get tossed into a bill for your favored system of taxation, given the utterly corrupt operation of the Senate.
True,especially the wealth of alleged charities based in foreign countries. Like the Catholic Church,for example. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Like the Catholic Church,for example. I kinda think there's some static wealth that Vic won't want to tax. Like the loot of the Bishop of Rome. That's good loot, not bad loot.
All wealth, especially that held in "charitable organizations", must be taxed. No deductions. No exemptions. Of course, there shouldn't be any OTHER taxes or fees or tolls IN ADDITION to that. One tax, at a flat percentage rate should fund the government. OR simply print the money you need to pay government expenses and have no taxes at all. OR mine the gold and uranium and drill the oil and natural gas on federal land and sell it into the marketplace, with the profits to go into the treasury. Then you can substantially lower taxes.
I don't want to pile on, as I see you are fielding gratuitous insults from the frustrated who was just complaining about same, and a blowhard. Suffice to say, I would separate investment capital from fallow wealth. I think we would have a fruitful discussion of the element of Georgism (Henry George) that you appear to support. I look forward to the continuance of the Biblical economics thread you started.
I'm looking forward to it. Been out on vacation in Salt Lake City for a week at the US National Fencing Championship. My daughter won it.
You were supposed to keep me informed of this. :) Congrats to your daughter.
Heyyy! That's great fun!
Ooops! Sorry. Great way to end the season. Unfortunately, it means you begin the next season with nowhere to go but down!
En garde! It's a French thing. And being Basque too (and therefore, by the US Census definition, "Hispanic"), we also channel ourselves some Inigo Montoya. " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Yup,he is a good like comrade. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
If they are indeed charities dedicated to helping the needy,that tax rate should be set at "100 percent,minus reasonable operating expenses." In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#2. To: Tooconservative, work within the system (#0)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
Bannon is a Bernie Bro working from within the system.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#0)
The endgame isn't clear but Bannon is definitely making a play and is likely slashing at several rivals/enemies in his attack strategy.
#5. To: TooConservative, sneakypete, ConservingFreedom, Willie Green, Vicomte13 (#0)
(Edited)
#6. To: A Pole (#5)
The rich should be the main taxpayers, because they are the main beneficiaries of the state that protects their wealth.
#7. To: Tooconservative, A pole (#3)
#8. To: A Pole (#5)
The rich should be the main taxpayers, because they are the main beneficiaries of the state that protects their wealth.
People who are poor, ie those who do not have wealth, or even often are indebted to the rich and pay interest on loans and mortgages, should not be taxed.
#9. To: All (#8)
(Edited)
Net Income Tax Amount Tax % $5,000 $706.00 14.12% $7,500 $1,060.00 14.13% $10,000 $1,413.00 14.13% $25,000 $3,532.00 14.13% $50,000 $7,065.00 14.13% $100,000 $14,130.00 14.13% $150,000 $18,711.00 12.47% $200,000 $20,050.00 10.03% $300,000 $22,728.00 7.58% $400,000 $25,407.00 6.35% $500,000 $28,085.00 5.62% $1,000,000 $41,476.00 4.15% $2,000,000 $68,257.00 3.41% $10,000,000 $282,509.00 2.83%
#10. To: Anthem (#9)
#11. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#12. To: sneakypete (#6)
When was the last time anyone poor created jobs that weren't within a welfare agency or law firm?
#13. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#12)
The power of the super-rich is not found in their INCOME. They can turn off and on their income at will. It is found in their accumulated WEALTH. Taxing high INCOMES further entrenches the super- rich while ruling the upper precincts off to risers.
#14. To: A Pole (#12)
How many gardeners, chauffeurs and maids can the rich hire?
#15. To: sneakypete (#14)
Rich people own corporations,and corporations hire millions of people.
#16. To: A Pole (#15)
These "millions of people" make products for the rich or for the normal people?
#17. To: Tooconservative (#13)
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
The only way to address the wealth disparity is to tax wealth, not income.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
The only way to address the wealth disparity is to tax wealth
#20. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#19)
True,especially the wealth of alleged charities based in foreign countries.
#21. To: sneakypete (#6)
Who would you go to if your welfare check stopped showing up to see about getting a job,someone homeless or someone running a business?
#22. To: Tooconservative (#20)
I kinda think there's some static wealth that Vic won't want to tax.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
The only way to address the wealth disparity is to tax wealth, not income.
#24. To: Anthem (#23)
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
I'm looking forward to it. Been out on vacation in Salt Lake City for a week at the US National Fencing Championship. My daughter won it.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
#27. To: redleghunter (#25)
#28. To: Anthem (#26)
#29. To: Tooconservative (#20)
I kinda think there's some static wealth that Vic won't want to tax. Like the loot of the Bishop of Rome. That's good loot, not bad loot.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
All wealth, especially that held in "charitable organizations", must be taxed. No deductions. No exemptions.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]