Republicans call proposed middle class tax cut a tax hike

[ksen]

The windfall — about $1.2 trillion over a decade — would come directly from the pockets of Wall Street “high rollers” through a new fee on financial transactions, and from the top 1 percent of earners, who would lose billions of dollars in lucrative tax breaks.

A tax hike would actually raise taxes - meaning the amount owed before any tax breaks is increased.

So I guess this plan does not meet Axulus' definition of a tax hike either.

 

[ksen]

I am seriously discussing it using correct definitions

- you seem to have some emotional need to call it a tax cut, which I can't help you with.

I'm not being emotional about it at all. I'm fascinated watching your gyrations to make a reduction in tax liability not a tax cut.

 

[Jarhyn]

The windfall — about $1.2 trillion over a decade — would come directly from the pockets of Wall Street “high rollers” through a new fee on financial transactions, and from the top 1 percent of earners, who would lose billions of dollars in lucrative tax breaks.

A tax hike would actually raise taxes - meaning the amount owed before any tax breaks is increased.

So I guess this plan does not meet Axulus' definition of a tax hike either.

I don't think he really understands that calling something a tax hike in a press release is saying to everyone hearing it 'you will pay more in net, because of this. That is not true. Hence it is not a 'tax hike' in the sentiment of the phrase or context of the message.

 

[Axulus]

The windfall — about $1.2 trillion over a decade — would come directly from the pockets of Wall Street “high rollers” through a new fee on financial transactions, and from the top 1 percent of earners, who would lose billions of dollars in lucrative tax breaks.

A tax hike would actually raise taxes - meaning the amount owed before any tax breaks is increased.

So I guess this plan does not meet Axulus' definition of a tax hike either.

The transaction tax is definitely a tax increase. Whatever these tax breaks in question are would or would not be a a tax increase. They very well could be a spending reduction. We'd need the actual details, something which you don't seem very concerned about.

 

[Axulus]

A tax hike would actually raise taxes - meaning the amount owed before any tax breaks is increased.

So I guess this plan does not meet Axulus' definition of a tax hike either.

I don't think he really understands that calling something a tax hike in a press release is saying to everyone hearing it 'you will pay more in net, because of this. That is not true. Hence it is not a 'tax hike' in the sentiment of the phrase or context of the message.

Wealth redistribution, which is what is being proposed, is taxing group A and sending those funds to group B. If you don't like this basic reality because you think some people will be opposed to it when honestly described, I can't help you. I will grant that ksen brought up the point that part of this could be reducing the spending on group A and sending it to group B instead (it would depend on the details of the tax breaks in question).

If you think such wealth redistribution is a good thing (which it can be under some circumstances), then why are you trying to obfuscate it?

 

[Jarhyn]

A tax hike would actually raise taxes - meaning the amount owed before any tax breaks is increased.

So I guess this plan does not meet Axulus' definition of a tax hike either.

The transaction tax is definitely a tax increase. Whatever these tax breaks in question are would or would not be a a tax increase. They very well could be a spending reduction. We'd need the actual details, something which you don't seem very concerned about.

It is not a 'tax hike', though, in the context of a press release.

 

[ksen]

A tax hike would actually raise taxes - meaning the amount owed before any tax breaks is increased.

So I guess this plan does not meet Axulus' definition of a tax hike either.

I don't think he really understands that calling something a tax hike in a press release is saying to everyone hearing it 'you will pay more in net, because of this. That is not true. Hence it is not a 'tax hike' in the sentiment of the phrase or context of the message.

Well, the point of the OP was to discuss how when a plan is proposed that lowers the tax liability for millions of americans while simultaneously raising the tax liability on a few thousand the GOP decides to characterize it as a "massive tax increase" as if the only people that matter are those thousands instead of those millions.

 

[Axulus]

I don't think he really understands that calling something a tax hike in a press release is saying to everyone hearing it 'you will pay more in net, because of this. That is not true. Hence it is not a 'tax hike' in the sentiment of the phrase or context of the message.

Well, the point of the OP was to discuss how when a plan is proposed that lowers the tax liability for millions of americans while simultaneously raising the tax liability on a few thousand the GOP decides to characterize it as a "massive tax increase" as if the only people that matter are those thousands instead of those millions.

Just like social security benefits reduce the tax liability of retirees, am I right? Would increasing social security taxes and increasing the social security benefits be a tax cut for retirees? Would it be wrong to call such a proposal a "tax increase and spending increase" in the context of a press release? In ksen's world, it would be.

 

[ksen]

What spending increase?

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think he really understands that calling something a tax hike in a press release is saying to everyone hearing it 'you will pay more in net, because of this. That is not true. Hence it is not a 'tax hike' in the sentiment of the phrase or context of the message.

Wealth redistribution, which is what is being proposed, is taxing group A and spending it on group B. If you don't like this basic reality because you think some people will be opposed to it when honestly described, I can't help you.

I actually very much approve of power redistribution. Nothing gets done and the world stagnates without a sufficient amount of leakiness of assets in proportion to the assets held.

any dynamic system needs sinks and redistribution or it eventually stops being active. The economy is no different. i imagine the curve looks somewhat parabolic: at no distribution, stagnation happens. The more redistribution happens, the more people have to make things happen. At some point, the making of things to happen doesn't gratify because power can't concentrate at all. At either end of the scale wealth becomes useless. Somewhere in the middle, wealth makes things happen. We can directly control the amount of activity by moving the slider of how much redistribution happens. I would rather the slider be adjusted from the 'maybe too much' side, rather than the 'maybe not enough' side.

 

[Axulus]

Another concept that is foreign to people here: the United States doesn't make up the entire world. It would be trivially simple for the people in question to move their financial trades to London, Tokyo, or Hong Kong to avoid this ridiculous tax.

 

[ksen]

London and Hong Kong already have financial transaction taxes so what would be the point?

 

[Axulus]

I actually very much approve of power redistribution. Nothing gets done and the world stagnates without a sufficient amount of leakiness of assets in proportion to the assets held. any dynamic system needs sinks and redistribution or it eventually stops being active.

And I assume you can post a published research paper that concludes this?

 

[ksen]

I actually very much approve of power redistribution. Nothing gets done and the world stagnates without a sufficient amount of leakiness of assets in proportion to the assets held. any dynamic system needs sinks and redistribution or it eventually stops being active.

And I assume you can post a published research paper that concludes this?

Try keeping fish alive in an aquarium without redistribution and sinks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe I'm burned out today from work, but is this just accounting bullshit? Not you personally or what you have stated, just the entire argument in general.

One argument is that you are just reducing revenue.
Instead of collecting $8k from me, they get $6k. That didn't cost the Government a dime. To make up for the revenue shortfall, they tax some evil company who makes money by trading shares of stocks by tapping the main line to stock market and taking advantage of the lag in the speed of light to foresee a sale of stock and capitalize on it.

The other argument is that you are increasing spending.
They collected $8k. But increased their budget by $2k and paid me $2k. This spending increase is paid for by taxing evil companies that make a lot of money by adding no value to the nation's worth.

(8 - 2) + 2 = 8 - 2 + 2?

The argument seems to be about whether we include parentheses.

But the key point is that they amount received has no relation to the amount of taxes paid.

It does as long as the credit remains more than the total taxes paid.

You are taxing group A to give a check to group B. Taxing group A increases revenue and giving a check to group B is spending.

I think I've shown that this is a nonsensical issue of semantics. One could say they cut revenue from one source and increased it elsewhere to cover the shortfall. Cut the price of burgers but increase the price of fries in order to have the same final revenue.

Would you use the same argument for social security taxes and payments? That the payments really just reduce revenue and that the payments are a tax cut for retirees?

I'm having trouble seeing the parallel there. The payment is an actual outlay.

 

[Axulus]

Also another case of the left's failure to understand how capital markets function and how their liquidity and efficiency helps the real economy:

Based on the vast majority of the empirical work to date, HFT and automated, competing markets improve market liquidity, reduce trading costs, and make stock prices more efficient. Better liquidity lowers the cost of equity capital for firms, which is an important positive for the real economy. Minor regulatory tweaks may be in order, but those formulating policy should be especially careful not to reverse the liquidity improvements of the last twenty years.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~jhasbrou/Teaching/2014 Winter Markets/Readings/HFT0324.pdf

But we all know how much the left dismisses empirical evidence when it doesn't fit their political bias.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another concept that is foreign to people here: the United States doesn't make up the entire world. It would be trivially simple for the people in question to move their financial trades to London, Tokyo, or Hong Kong to avoid this ridiculous tax.

Ridiculous tax? High frequency trading is a parasite. People creating wealth out of literally the fraction of a fraction. They should consider themselves lucky that it is even allowed.

I keep hearing from right-wingers how I'm worthless and a scab on society because I'm left-wing and therefore musn't pay taxes and not work hard... while you have these parasites writing absurdly complicated code in order to game a stock market and make lots of money by billionth of penny trading normal stocks.

 

[Axulus]

It does as long as the credit remains more than the total taxes paid.

Did you mean to say as long as the credit remains less than the total taxes paid? Regardless, it isn't relevant since my understanding is that every household will get the credit no matter what their taxes are.

I think I've shown that this is a nonsensical issue of semantics. One could say they cut revenue from one source and increased it elsewhere to cover the shortfall. Cut the price of burgers but increase the price of fries in order to have the same final revenue.

I'm having trouble seeing the parallel there. The payment is an actual outlay.

If the $1,000 and $2,000 checks weren't issued by the IRS using the tax return, and instead sent out to households from a separate department and not reported on the tax return, would this change the way you view these amounts? Why or why not?

- - - Updated - - -

Another concept that is foreign to people here: the United States doesn't make up the entire world. It would be trivially simple for the people in question to move their financial trades to London, Tokyo, or Hong Kong to avoid this ridiculous tax.

Ridiculous tax? High frequency trading is a parasite. People creating wealth out of literally the fraction of a fraction. They should consider themselves lucky that it is even allowed.

I keep hearing from right-wingers how I'm worthless and a scab on society because I'm left-wing and therefore musn't pay taxes and not work hard... while you have these parasites writing absurdly complicated code in order to game a stock market and make lots of money by billionth of penny trading normal stocks.

Jimmy Higgins says parasite. The vast majority empirical evidence says it contributes to improvements in the real economy via the increase in liquidty. Am I going to go with some person's opinion on the internet who has a clear political bias, or am I going to go with the vast majority of the empirical evidence? Hmm, tough decision.

 

[ksen]

The vast majority empirical evidence says it contributes to improvements in the real economy via the increase in liquidty.

"vast" majority?

prove it.

are you also against broker and management fees on tax portfolios? Because a financial transaction tax is no different than those things that are already in place without destroying stock markets.

 

[Axulus]

The vast majority empirical evidence says it contributes to improvements in the real economy via the increase in liquidty.

"vast" majority?

prove it.

are you also against broker and management fees on tax portfolios? Because a financial transaction tax is no different than those things that are already in place without destroying stock markets.

Did you bother to look at the published paper I linked to that made the claim?