Biden/Harris Legislative/Policy Discussions - Now with a Republican House starting 2023

[PokerPacker]

27 minutes ago, Hersh said:

I'm watching DC Lego Batman: Family Matters and it's literally about AI effectively taking over Wayne Enterprise. I'm pretty sure that's what this person was watching before writing about it.

Was the AI written by Steve Urkel?

[Captain Wiggles]

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[PeterMP]

Just wanted to make the point that forcing the wealthy to change practices to avoid taxes is an indirect tax on the rich, and it seems to me will help reduce wealth inequalities.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Just wanted to make the point that forcing the wealthy to change practices to avoid taxes is an indirect tax on the rich, and it seems to me will help reduce wealth inequalities.

“The bottom line is that before-tax income inequality has risen since the 1970s, despite an increase in government transfer payments. Because high-income people pay higher average tax rates than others, federal taxes reduce inequality. But the mitigating effect of taxes is about the same today as before 1980. Thus, after-tax income inequality has increased about as much as before-tax inequality. Taxes have not exacerbated increasing income inequality, but have not done much to offset it.”

 

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-taxes-affect-income-inequality

Edited May 1, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

“The bottom line is that before-tax income inequality has risen since the 1970s, despite an increase in government transfer payments. Because high-income people pay higher average tax rates than others, federal taxes reduce inequality. But the mitigating effect of taxes is about the same today as before 1980. Thus, after-tax income inequality has increased about as much as before-tax inequality. Taxes have not exacerbated increasing income inequality, but have not done much to offset it.”

 

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-taxes-affect-income-inequality

 

Read my post carefully again.  Then go back and ask how your post is relevant to mine (because it really isn't on a couple different levels).

 

(Or read these and then ask yourself how/why they are different than what you've posted:

 

https://equitablegrowth.org/restoring-the-federal-estate-tax-is-a-proven-way-to-raise-revenue-and-address-wealth-inequality/

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272718301257

 

And then think about how else my post might be different than yours.)

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

37 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Read my post carefully again.  Then go back and ask how your post is relevant to mine (because it really isn't on a couple different levels).

 

(Or read these and then ask yourself how/why they are different than what you've posted:

 

https://equitablegrowth.org/restoring-the-federal-estate-tax-is-a-proven-way-to-raise-revenue-and-address-wealth-inequality/

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272718301257

 

And then think about how else my post might be different than yours.)

 

As I said there are different opinions, and that is basically all anyone here has presented.
 

However, there is data to show that a progressive tax rate doesn’t lower income inequality that much.

 

And if what you say is true, that changes to the tax code (Eg, tax increases) forces the rich to change their behavior, and thus helps lower income inequality, that would show up in lower income inequality as the tax system has become more progressive. But it hasn’t.

The rich have changed their behavior, sure, but it isn’t resulting in better outcomes for the poor.

 

The first article you linked too just provesincome equality exists, and suggest what the author thinks is the solution, ie his opinion. He uses one paper to back up his opinion. There isn’t a lot of data in the article outside charts that show income inequality exists, and that he thinks it’s an issue, which I already agree with.

 

The second article is better, and I wouldn’t be opposed to a wealth tax necessarily.

 

But here is the issue with the second papers model, too my point:

 

“It does not account for any behavioral adjustments to inheritance taxation that donors or heirs may make over the longer run.”

 

I understand why they didn’t include that in their model, it’s very hard to predict the changes in behavior, but rest assured their will be changes. To me makes the conclusions of the study suspect.

Edited May 1, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

As I said there are different opinions, and that is basically all anyone here has presented.
 

However, there is data to show that a progressive tax rate doesn’t lower income inequality that much.

 

 

The tax policy center article has at least one major hole.

 

Quote

Federal taxes are more progressive than they were 35 years ago. 

 

This is a laughable assertion if meant to look at tax rate during the mid 1900s vs 1979 on.  That's not even factoring in the effective tax rate (we all know the famous story of Buffet paying a lower effective rate than his secretary).

 

You're also missing one of the critical assertion 

 

Quote

A more progressive tax system would reduce income inequality if nothing else changes. But while federal taxes have become more progressive, they also began shrinking in 2001 relative to before-tax income, thanks to tax cuts during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. A lower average tax rate offset the equalizing effect of increased tax progressivity, leaving the effect of federal taxes on income inequality little changed.

 

The article you yourself cited says the reason for little impact of the US tax system on income inequality is not some inherent limitation of a progressive tax system, but because lower average tax rate makes it insufficient to have a meaningful impact on income inequality.  

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Isn’t there a tax thread somewhere? 😆

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

However, there is data to show that a progressive tax rate doesn’t lower income inequality that much.

 

And if what you say is true, that changes to the tax code (Eg, tax increases) forces the rich to change their behavior, and thus helps lower income inequality, that would show up in lower income inequality as the tax system has become more progressive

 

Admiring your assertion that your quote comparing things now, vs the 70s, indicates what happens "as the tax system has become more progressive".  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

As I said there are different opinions, and that is basically all anyone here has presented.

 

You and I are not talking about the same thing.  They are related but not the same.

 

Forcing somebody to spend more money to avoid taxes does not affect their income but it will affect their wealth.  The estate tax has minimal impacts on income but it can have a large effect on wealth.

Edited May 1, 2021 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You and I are not talking about the same thing.  They are related but not the same.

well, why let the mystery be? You are talking about a wealth tax, I am talking about income tax. A tax is a tax.

[PeterMP]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

well, why let the mystery be? You are talking about a wealth tax, I am talking about income tax. A tax is a tax.

All taxes are not the same.  Avoiding death is not currently possible.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

All taxes are not the same.  Avoiding death is not 

 

 

but there will be a way to avoid this suing a death tax....

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

but there will be a way to avoid this suing a death tax....

 

Which relates back to my original point.

"Just wanted to make the point that forcing the wealthy to change practices to avoid taxes is an indirect tax on the rich, and it seems to me will help reduce wealth inequalities."

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Which relates back to my original point.

"Just wanted to make the point that forcing the wealthy to change practices to avoid taxes is an indirect tax on the rich, and it seems to me will help reduce wealth inequalities."

There is no data to back up your supposition that the wealthy changing how they avoid taxes will reduce wealth inequality.  In fact, the data I presented earlier indicates otherwise.

 

Maybe this time will be different. Maybe the wealthy will just accept that they are gonna be less wealthy for the good of everyone. I doubt it.

Edited May 1, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PeterMP]

15 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There is no data to back up your supposition that the wealthy changing how they avoid taxes will reduce wealth inequality.  In fact, the data I presented earlier indicates otherwise.

 

Maybe this time will be different. Maybe the wealthy will just accept that they are gonna be less wealthy for the good of everyone. I doubt it.

Except you did not post anything related to wealth inequality so you have not posted anything relevant to what I have said.

 

I am talking about oranges and you are talking about apples.  I do not think the tax code is likely a good way to address INCOME inequality.

 

The are better ways to do that.  I do suspect (and there is evidence to support it) that it could be used to reduce WEALTH inequality, and I suspect that even making the rich adjust their money management due to changes in the tax code affects their wealth and therefore wealth inequality.

 

(I will also point out, you ignored bearrock's post about using the tax code to address income inequality.  It isn't hard to see that the changes in the tax code for the most part over the last 30 years haven't been attempts to control income inequality or wealth inequality.  They've mostly been about decreasing the taxes the wealthy pay.  That they've failed to do so isn't surprising.  That's like saying changes in the policies related to fossil fuels haven't addressed the issue of climate change (which only makes sense because there really haven't been any changes to fossil fuel policy that anybody thought was going to address climate change.))

Edited May 2, 2021 by PeterMP

[visionary]

 

 

[China]

On 1/28/2021 at 10:08 AM, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

Plan for Space Force reserve component is ‘fairly close,’ National Guard boss says

 

Senior military officials are “fairly close” on a plan to add a reserve component to the Space Force, the head of the National Guard Bureau told lawmakers Tuesday.

 

Army Gen. Daniel Hokanson plans to meet on Wednesday with acting Air Force Secretary John Roth, as well as Space Force Chief of Space Operations Gen. Jay Raymond, to hash out the final details of pitching a two-part military service.

 

The idea would be to combine active-duty personnel and reservists into one group, which leaders hope will offer more job flexibility than is typical in full-time military service. It would also create a National Guard for space missions.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Manchin on collision course with Warren, Sanders

 

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is headed for a high-profile battle with the Senate’s leading progressives over whether to expand Medicare eligibility as part of President Biden’s human-focused infrastructure agenda.

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Thursday said she wants to lower the eligibility age, a priority shared by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), as part of Biden’s $1.8 trillion American Families Plan.

 

But the two progressives face a serious obstacle in Manchin, a key centrist in the 50-50 Senate who opposes making Medicare available to millions more Americans, citing concerns about the long-term solvency of the program.

 

Warren said during a Washington Post Live event that she has laid out a plan for “lowering the age of Medicare, which by the way is on table right now and something we’re all talking about.” 

 

“I would like to see us start out by lowering the age of Medicare down to 55,” she said.

 

The current age of eligibility is 65.

 

“I would also like to see us right now attack the cost of prescription drugs,” Warren added.

 

Sanders says he’s been talking directly to Biden about similar priorities.

 

“What I think needs to be done is that Medicare needs to be expanded to include dental, hearing aids and eyeglasses,” he told The Hill last week, adding that lowering the Medicare eligibility age is “very important.”

 

Manchin is squarely opposed to lowering the age. 

 

“No, I’m not for it, period,” he told The Washington Post last week.

 

The internal Democratic debate over expanded Medicare will only intensify as Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) plan for moving Biden’s infrastructure agenda comes into focus. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[LD0506]

[Cooked Crack]