Biden's Tax Plan

[TGHusker]

The Warren Affect on tax  policy.    I actually thought she would have a cabinet level position or high ranking economic advisor position in the admin.  But her influence is being felt throughout the Biden Admin and in his policy choices. 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/15/elizabeth-warren-aides-biden-administration-475653

 

 

Quote

 

Wall Street was relieved when Sen. Elizabeth Warren was passed over for the leadership of the Treasury Department. But now the financial industry faces another threat: President Joe Biden is enlisting a small army of her former aides and allies to run his government.

Warren's expanding network in the upper echelons of the administration includes protégés who helped execute her aggressive oversight of big banks and other corporations as well as friends who share her views of the risks looming on Wall Street. But it goes beyond finance, covering pivotal posts at the Department of Education and even the National Security Council.

The Warren recruits mark a victory for the progressive movement, which has supported her yearslong "personnel is policy" campaign to chip away at the dominance of corporate insiders in setting policy for Democrats. Those who took on the fight with Warren say they're pleasantly surprised it has produced so many results under Biden, reflecting a new emphasis on inequality and challenging corporate power. Industry lobbyists, in turn, warn that banks, private equity firms and consumer lenders should pay close attention

The appointments "confirm that Sen. Warren will be the most influential voice in the financial policy debate under the new administration," said Karolina Arias, a former Democratic Senate aide who is now a partner at Federal Hall Policy Advisors.

The growing list of Biden personnel backed by Warren and other progressives illustrates the leftward shift underway in the Democratic Party's approach to policy making, which was also seen in the $1.9 trillion aid package that Biden signed into law Thursday.

"No one should be surprised Sen. Warren has virtually hand-picked the financial and other regulatory nominations she cares deeply about," said Consumer Bankers Association President Richard Hunt, who represents banks that have faced withering criticism from Warren and her allies.

The Warren alumni at senior levels of the executive branch include banking and economic policy staffers who spent years leading her office's oversight of Wall Street. Bharat Ramamurti is now deputy director of the White House National Economic Council and Julie Siegel is Treasury deputy chief of staff.

Other former Warren aides in the administration include Julie Morgan, a senior adviser at the Education Department; Anne Reid, deputy chief of staff at the Department of Health and Human Services; and Sasha Baker, senior director of strategic planning at the National Security Council.

"Getting the right people in those slots is really important," Warren said in a December interview. "And it's not only the top slots, it's also the deputies and assistants. The people who do the hard work day in and day out to develop policies and then to execute them."

 

 

[JJ Husker]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Silly that they define $400,000 a year as wealthy.

 

it can you get you ahead in the game, but I don’t see it as wealthy, especially if you live in a high cost of living area 

Tell me, what percentage of US taxpayers earn $400k plus per year?

 

I know the answer but feel it would be good exercise for you to look it up and figure out why $400k plus can probably considered wealthy relative to the vast  majority of taxpayers.

 

And I agree that $400k may not necessarily be a great excess depending on the area a person lives but it's probably wise to consider it in the context of the larger picture. People are always free to move to a lower cost area (and make less dollars) if they just can't make ends meet on $400k.

[Archy1221]

21 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Tell me, what percentage of US taxpayers earn $400k plus per year?

 

I know the answer but feel it would be good exercise for you to look it up and figure out why $400k plus can probably considered wealthy relative to the vast  majority of taxpayers.

 

And I agree that $400k may not necessarily be a great excess depending on the area a person lives but it's probably wise to consider it in the context of the larger picture. People are always free to move to a lower cost area (and make less dollars) if they just can't make ends meet on $400k.

It’s the Top 2%.  I would have said too 5% before looking it up.  What was the exercise and what was I supposed to take from it besides your snide comment at the end? 
 

I stated before that the income would allow you to get ahead in life.  It’s not FU money, it’s not private jet, private plane money, it’s probably considered upper middle class in a large city based on the already high tax rates.  

Being considered “wealthy” is all relative anyway so it doesn’t really matter what you or I say.  My guess is that someone who makes $30,000 a year thinks those that make $150,000 are wealthy even though I would think people earning $150,000 don’t consider themselves wealthy. 
 

So, since I’m wrong in your view, what’s the cutoff to be not wealthy?
 

 

[Danny Bateman]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Silly that they define $400,000 a year as wealthy.

 

it can you get you ahead in the game, but I don’t see it as wealthy, especially if you live in a high cost of living area 

 

Republicans convincing themselves their ideology is totally consistent and they are the new party of the worker and $400K a year is not a lot of money. 

 

[Danny Bateman]

Seriously, based on what I read today, here is the broad outline of Biden's tax hikes:

 

• Increase corporate rate 
• Increase income tax on >$400K
• Increase estate tax
• Reduce tax benefits for pass-throughs and LLCs
• Increase capital gains tax

GOOD. If those are the priorities that make one a whacko tax-and-spend liberal out for wealth redistribution, well, I guess, count me in. 

[TGHusker]

3 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Seriously, based on what I read today, here is the broad outline of Biden's tax hikes:

 

• Increase corporate rate 
• Increase income tax on >$400K
• Increase estate tax
• Reduce tax benefits for pass-throughs and LLCs
• Increase capital gains tax

GOOD. If those are the priorities that make one a whacko tax-and-spend liberal out for wealth redistribution, well, I guess, count me in. 

Good summary. That was my take also. And no it isn’t the end of the world and we are not being overrun by socialism as conservative talk radio is saying now

[Archy1221]

33 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Republicans convincing themselves their ideology is totally consistent and they are the new party of the worker and $400K a year is not a lot of money. 

 

While that’s a funny picture, your strawman doesn’t work as you probably already know.  Who said $400,000 isnt a lot of money?  I said I don’t consider it to be wealthy.  I would also venture to guess that most of those making that kind of coin are “workers”. Otherwise they probably wouldn’t be making that kinda coin on the unemployment line.  

[JJ Husker]

11 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s the Top 2%.  I would have said too 5% before looking it up.  What was the exercise and what was I supposed to take from it besides your snide comment at the end? 
 

I stated before that the income would allow you to get ahead in life.  It’s not FU money, it’s not private jet, private plane money, it’s probably considered upper middle class in a large city based on the already high tax rates.  

Being considered “wealthy” is all relative anyway so it doesn’t really matter what you or I say.  My guess is that someone who makes $30,000 a year thinks those that make $150,000 are wealthy even though I would think people earning $150,000 don’t consider themselves wealthy. 
 

So, since I’m wrong in your view, what’s the cutoff to be not wealthy?
 

 

 

Hey, I basically agreed with you. But I guess my point was that, IMO, we need to draw a line somewhere and get the people making north of that number paying in a little more. $400-$500K seems like a pretty good line.

 

Of course it isn't just that simple either. The bigger issue is rewriting the tax code and eliminating the loop holes that allow the extremely wealthy to shelter it from the IRS lke we saw on Trump's taxes. He's not the only one paying a ridiculously low effective rate compared to the rest of us.

[JJ Husker]

11 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

Seriously, based on what I read today, here is the broad outline of Biden's tax hikes:

 

• Increase corporate rate 
• Increase income tax on >$400K
• Increase estate tax
• Reduce tax benefits for pass-throughs and LLCs
• Increase capital gains tax

GOOD. If those are the priorities that make one a whacko tax-and-spend liberal out for wealth redistribution, well, I guess, count me in. 

 

I would have to see the details on reducing tax benefits for pass throughs and LLC's. That is what my company (income) is classified as and I can state as fact there is no benefit, in my situation anyway. Maybe there is something going on in the upper echelons but we're paying plenty in the sub $300K range.

[BigRedBuster]

53 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

Hey, I basically agreed with you. But I guess my point was that, IMO, we need to draw a line somewhere and get the people making north of that number paying in a little more. $400-$500K seems like a pretty good line.

 

Of course it isn't just that simple either. The bigger issue is rewriting the tax code and eliminating the loop holes that allow the extremely wealthy to shelter it from the IRS lke we saw on Trump's taxes. He's not the only one paying a ridiculously low effective rate compared to the rest of us.

 

45 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

I would have to see the details on reducing tax benefits for pass throughs and LLC's. That is what my company (income) is classified as and I can state as fact there is no benefit, in my situation anyway. Maybe there is something going on in the upper echelons but we're paying plenty in the sub $300K range.

Here is where the Republicans need to wake up on taxes.  I'm right with them that people need to keep as much of their own money as possible.  But, when higher income people pay a lower effective tax rate than lower income people, that's just wrong.  Everyone needs to pay their fair share and being able to work the system as an upper income person, needs to stop.  Tax rates don't necessarily need to change that much. 

 

Where Republicans have excelled is convincing low income people to protect upper income people from having their income taxed similar to their own.

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Here is where the Republicans need to wake up on taxes.  I'm right with them that people need to keep as much of their own money as possible.  But, when higher income people pay a lower effective tax rate than lower income people, that's just wrong.  Everyone needs to pay their fair share and being able to work the system as an upper income person, needs to stop.  Tax rates don't necessarily need to change that much. 

 

Where Republicans have excelled is convincing low income people to protect upper income people from having their income taxed similar to their own.

 

Exactly 

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

But, when higher income people pay a lower effective tax rate than lower income people, that's just wrong. 

What is considered “lower income people”. 
 

Get rid of the loopholes.  Heck, get rid of all loopholes and have a flat tax if you want to ensure people pay a certain rate.  But keep in mind that roughly 50% of the population doesn’t even pay federal income taxes.  
 

this is an older article but I’ve always found it useful.  Numbers may have changed slightly over the past few years but not by much.

 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24

 

 

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Where Republicans have excelled is convincing low income people to protect upper income people from having their income taxed similar to their own.

I got to thinking about this kind of thing the other day.  Why do so many of us common, every day middle class people think we  have to protect the upper crust by voting GOP??  I don't want to be a part of class envy or identity politics but it seems to me, that most of our interests aren't being considered when most tax cuts benefit the wealthy and most spending cuts affect those of us not in the upper crust.   I've began think about what my sister told me before the election.  She is very much pro-life but she said she decided that being pro-life should not exclude her from voting for a party (the Dems) which is pro-life for the already living instead of voting for the GOP that often pushes policies that don't help the living only the rich and the corporations. 

[deedsker]

"But, when higher income people pay a lower effective tax rate than lower income people, that's just wrong. "

24 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

What is considered “lower income people”. 
 

 

Anybody making less than the comparable person? Not hard.

[Archy1221]

39 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

most tax cuts benefit the wealthy and most spending cuts affect those of us not in the upper crust. 

How do you give a tax cut to those who don’t pay federal income taxes?  That’s 45-47% of households right there.