Changes to taxes can be done through reconciliation which only requires a majority. That's how Trump got his tax cuts passed without 60 votes.
why are so many people who have never had a job that pays more than 200K a year worth dozens of millions of dollars?
smart people realize that tax hikes on productive people ends up being tax hikes on the less productive ones
I don't know if we are talking past each other right now, but I made the claim that a strong progressive tax structure would help slow concentration of wealth in the upper classes. You then made the claim that politicians like the idea of a progressive tax system because it gives them wealth and power. Why would a progressive tax system make politicians more wealthy or powerful?
because a progressive tax system centralizes wealth in the hands of those politicians. The main purpose of a progressive income tax system-according to the proponents when it was passed over a century ago, was to give congress all sorts of power that a NST would not.
Got a link to support that nonsense?
Are book deals and speaking fees a mystery to you?
I sorry to hear that. Taking more money away from those who put in the effort and strive for the American dream is sad to say the least. Increasing labor rates around the world instead of increasing taxes is the real solution. Instead the left believe bringing in more cheap labor from other countries driving our labor rates down is the solution. Now instead of everyone paying their share too many are taking money out of the system leaving the successful to pay their way.
of course not, but its influence that is the stock in trade many rich politicians have. why do you think Harvard MBAs from places like Goldman-Sachs were paying Hillary 200K for a half hour speech and appearance at one of their meetings. Due you think Hillary has any expertise on investment advice that she could impart to some guy who does billion dollar deals before lunch each day?
How does it centralize power in the hands of politicians? I get that you are making claims but where is the substance?
Do you know how to research the legislative history and record behind a statute or an amendment?
where does the money go when taxes on the rich are increased?
Please. When it comes to politicians, speaking fees are nothing more than bribes. While they are in a position to grand political favors they can make 100's of millions of dollars like the Clintons did. Seems once they are no longer in a position to grant political favors nobody is willing to pay to hear what they have to say. Anyone with half a brain can see through this.
LOL Investing in your business and creating jobs IS a tax shelter. That is all tax deductible. That is why higher taxes on high incomes encourages that kind of behavior. Lowering taxes make hoarding cash more attractive. Like you said it is not rocket science.
You don't understand much about business expensing, do ya?
This is simply a misunderstanding of the economics of taxation. How much tax burden gets passed along is a function of the elasticity of demand. Generally, discretionary consumer products, such as those sold by Amazon, have higher elasticity of demand. This means that when owners shift the tax incidence to consumers in the form of higher prices, consumers buy less and owners actually lose more money than they would if they just bore most of the tax incidence. In these cases the producers/owners bear most of the tax incidence. On the other hand, there are other things that are insensitive to changes in price, such as gasoline, which can pass more of the tax incidence on to consumers.
So your argument is that a progressive tax system empowers congress because they decide the use of the tax revenue and it follows that they will enrich themselves? Isn't it also possible that they used their power to lower taxes to enrich themselves? If we saw less wealth in congress now than during the mid 20th century I would see your point, but we see the exact opposite instead. Congress is more wealthy now than when taxes were higher on the upper classes. I do think your power argument works fine, but the enriching argument doesn't track.
many members of congress-either personally-or through spouses (Pelosi, Feinstein etc) have dealings with the government on a large scale. One of my economics professors-long deceased-Raymond Powell, noted that those who deal with the government see the concentration of wealth in the government as increasing efficiency for them. Rather than engaging in numerous deals with private entities, it is more profitable and efficient to have a bigger deal with the government.
Quiz question: A: Dunning-Kruger effect, or B: Illusory superiority.
Being a libertarian, I see the progressive tax system as one that gives congress all sorts of extra-constitutional power. I oppose Congress having powers additional to the ones set forth in the Constitution.
What does that have to do with the economic impact of taxation?
what do you think Libertarian-Left means?
It is the same small government, free market thought with a focus on the demand side rather than the supply side. Governments should exist to guard against the game theory problems and protect consumer power. The consumer-producer signals will do the rest.