Trump Seeks Tax Hike on Wealthy Earning $2.5 Million or More

Chomsky said:

Given how many extremely wealthy we now have in the country, I'm not sure of how much income it would bring in. It might be substantial. I dunno'.

But Trump needs to do this increase to diffuse the traction the Dem talking-point has been getting.

And while Trump may not fear Bernie & AOC personally, I'm sure he sees the crowds they're bringing in.

Click to expand...

Considering the tax is on Profit/INCOME, likely very little more than they get now.

Too many ways to offset profit, and billionaires taking it as income is even less likely.

eohrnberger said:

Again, the fact remains that US federal government revenues increased after those tax cuts.
US federal government tax revenues have been going up since 2009.

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalancemoney.com

Nearly double in the time span shown.
Are you trying to tell me that the government's obligations have similarly grown?
If so, then it's time to start looking at those 'obligations', as I rather doubt that some of them really are obligations.
(Now waiting for the baseless sob story of 'it'll kill children' )


Everyone is entitled to their opinions.


Again, the fact remains that US federal government revenues increased after those tax cuts.

Further, since when government fraud, waste and abuse (that no one in DC wants to do anything about) any sort of justification for increasing taxes on those who work?

Sorry, but, no, the US federal government needs to get on a harsh and strict money diet to squeeze out the fraud, waste and abuse, and gross largess spending.

Click to expand...

You say “US federal government revenues increased after those tax cuts”, but offer no evidence that TCJA had any role in increased federal revenues.

Where’s the correlation between implementation of TCJA and increased federal revenue?

dmpi said:

Do the wealthy get rich because of the goverment or despite of the goverment?

Click to expand...

Well, the government is definitely on their side.

They pay (bribe) them a lot.

Politicians are cheaper than taxes.

RaleBulgarian said:

You say “US federal government revenues increased after those tax cuts”, but offer no evidence that TCJA had any role in increased federal revenues.

Where’s the correlation between implementation of TCJA and increased federal revenue?

Click to expand...

In my industry we need to keep our personal gear current. So I need a new laptop every few years.

trump took our itemization and a bunch of us paid thousands more than the year before.

So that probably accounts for some of it.

eohrnberger said:

Again, the fact remains that US federal government revenues increased after those tax cuts.
US federal government tax revenues have been going up since 2009.

​

Click to expand...

Drilling down into this data, as can be done here:


and here:


We see that the majority of the increase was due to personal income taxes paid.




Drilling down further, looking at where the increases are, the overwhelming majority comes from income taxes withheld--i.e. withheld by employers on their employees' pay. That means the majority of the increased revenue came from payments from working people, and while that can include the wealthy, it mostly includes the middle and lower classes.

For example, in 2012 income tax withheld was 1.038 trillion, while by 2022 that figure had risen to 1.769 trillion.

This makes a case that what I and others have been saying for a while--that our tax burden actually increased under the Trump tax "cuts"--which were really only cuts for the wealthy. On paper, I pay a slightly lower rate, but when I compare the total percentage of my own income paid by year, that percentage has been rising since 2018, as a direct result of the tax "cuts."

So yeah, it's not difficult to believe that the tax "cuts" increased revenue, because they were actually tax increases on the middle and lower classes. Now, some people are going to argue that it's the "wealthy" that are paying this tax increase. For example, taxfoundation.org says that the top 50% of earners paid 97% of income taxes in 2024:


Presumably, to make the case that the wealthy already pay too much in taxes. But when we look at the income floor to be included in that top 50%, as can be found here:


We see that the floor to be included in the top 50% of earners in 2022 was only $50,339. So, again, it looks like the increase in revenue (which peaked in 2022) came from the middle class having an increased tax burden.

eohrnberger said:

Are you trying to tell me that the government's obligations have similarly grown?
If so, then it's time to start looking at those 'obligations', as I rather doubt that some of them really are obligations.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what DOGE did--rather recklessly, one might add--and found that they could cut only a very small percentage?

RaleBulgarian said:

You say “US federal government revenues increased after those tax cuts”, but offer no evidence that TCJA had any role in increased federal revenues.

Click to expand...

No, that's what you are reading in.
I've correctly stated that "US federal government revenues increased after those tax cuts."
Can we at least agree that the revenue did increase?

RaleBulgarian said:

Where’s the correlation between implementation of TCJA and increased federal revenue?

Click to expand...

Didn't thwart increasing government revenues, apparently.

Further, I'm skeptical of the left's claims that those tax cuts 'for the rich'.


Citing the IRS data on the matter, as well as a number of different analyses.

eohrnberger said:

I see an assertion, but what I don't see is any support for it.

Click to expand...

There is TONS of it. Google for yourself. These are but a few in the current business.

For instance let’s take the last year. The U.S. took in $4.92T in Fed revenue in 2024. Yet only 49% of that, $2.4T, was income tax.

The rest was other stuff; fees, etc, but mostly tariffs. Tariffs Biden didn’t cut because once Trump established them and cut taxes it was baked into our cake. Biden couldn’t cut them without raising income taxes.

The way to reduce working and middle class taxation is to get rid of the stupid GD tariffs folks like me are paying and replace them with income taxation on the wealthy we CONSUMERS have been paying for since 2018. As the wealthy get wealthier still when working and middle class consumers started paying the taxes the wealthy use to pay.

Key Findings​

• • Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. Long-run GDP would be 1.1 percent higher, offsetting $710 billion, or 16 percent, of the revenue losses. Long-run GNP (a measure of American incomes) would only rise by 0.4 percent, as some of the benefits of the tax cuts and larger economy go to foreigners in the form of higher interest payments on the debt.

What if...? said:

In my industry we need to keep our personal gear current. So I need a new laptop every few years.

trump took our itemization and a bunch of us paid thousands more than the year before.

So that probably accounts for some of it.

Click to expand...

A good point. The TCJA gave in some ways, and took away in others.

I don't believe it. Yes, he may have said it, but Republicans would never allow it.

And if they do vote in favor of it, it's only because it has a bunch of loopholes.

ashurbanipal said:

Drilling down into this data, as can be done here:

SOI Tax Stats - IRS Data Book | Internal Revenue Service

Look here for the IRS Data Book (Publication 55B), with links to prior IRS Data Books. The tables shown in these publications contain statistics for IRS collections and refunds, as well as number of returns. There's also information on examination activities, taxpayer assistance, chief counsel...

www.irs.gov

and here:

SOI Tax Stats - Collections and refunds, by type of tax - IRS Data Book Table 1 | Internal Revenue Service

IRS Data Book Table 1 - Collections and Refunds, by Type of Tax

www.irs.gov

We see that the majority of the increase was due to personal income taxes paid.

View attachment 67569132


Drilling down further, looking at where the increases are, the overwhelming majority comes from income taxes withheld--i.e. withheld by employers on their employees' pay. That means the majority of the increased revenue came from payments from working people, and while that can include the wealthy, it mostly includes the middle and lower classes.

For example, in 2012 income tax withheld was 1.038 trillion, while by 2022 that figure had risen to 1.769 trillion.

Click to expand...

Such withholdings only come from earnings. So those same segments of the income spectrum had increased earnings. Everyone working in the private sector, so that'd be a good thing then.
Further, if withholdings increased the incomes from which they were withheld also went up. I'd call both positive indicators.

ashurbanipal said:

This makes a case that what I and others have been saying for a while--that our tax burden actually increased under the Trump tax "cuts"--which were really only cuts for the wealthy. On paper, I pay a slightly lower rate, but when I compare the total percentage of my own income paid by year, that percentage has been rising since 2018, as a direct result of the tax "cuts."

Click to expand...

These assertions doesn't match the graph you posted, which shows relatively flat collections prior to 2020 and a fairly sharp, and continuing, increase between 2020 & 2021.

ashurbanipal said:

So yeah, it's not difficult to believe that the tax "cuts" increased revenue, because they were actually tax increases on the middle and lower classes. Now, some people are going to argue that it's the "wealthy" that are paying this tax increase. For example, taxfoundation.org says that the top 50% of earners paid 97% of income taxes in 2024:

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2025 Update

New IRS data shows the US federal income tax system continues to be progressive as high-income taxpayers pay the highest average income tax rates. Average tax rates for all income groups remain lower after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

taxfoundation.org

Presumably, to make the case that the wealthy already pay too much in taxes. But when we look at the income floor to be included in that top 50%, as can be found here:

SOI Tax Stats - Individual statistical tables by tax rate and income percentile | Internal Revenue Service

Statistical tables classified by tax rate and income percentile.

www.irs.gov

We see that the floor to be included in the top 50% of earners in 2022 was only $50,339. So, again, it looks like the increase in revenue (which peaked in 2022) came from the middle class having an increased tax burden.

Click to expand...

I'm reading the above as an interpretation to support a demanded conclusion.

ashurbanipal said:

Isn't that what DOGE did--rather recklessly, one might add--and found that they could cut only a very small percentage?

Click to expand...

All that DOGE has made public is what was already known and reported in various Inspector General's reports, promptly buried by, and ignored by, Congress.
Now, having been made public, it pushes congress to actually act on the now made public fraud, waste and abuse.
Let's hope that congress does.

What if...? said:

In my industry we need to keep our personal gear current. So I need a new laptop every few years.

trump took our itemization and a bunch of us paid thousands more than the year before.

So that probably accounts for some of it.

Click to expand...

Overall. I rate this as false.

The standard deduction raise (imo) far outweighed what you were itemizing (as business expenses) unless you were paying rent monthly and/or had huge medical expenses.

I don't think the lap top was going to make or break the standard vs item.

eohrnberger said:

Such withholdings only come from earnings. So those same segments of the income spectrum had increased earnings.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what has happened. Wages for the top 1% have grown substantially over the last few decades, while wages for everyone else have stagnated:


But, again, referencing the tables at the links I provided, it is the middle class that is paying most of that increased revenue. That means the middle class is paying more from the same income, which is what explains the rise in revenue.

eohrnberger said:

Everyone working in the private sector, so that'd be a good thing then.
Further, if withholdings increased the incomes from which they were withheld also went up. I'd call both positive indicators.

Click to expand...

Again, this is obviously not the case. You're ignoring the possibility that a greater percent of income is withheld from those earners' paychecks, and more is kept at the end of the FY when middle class folks file their returns--and that's what the data indicate has happened. That's certainly what has happened to me since 2018, my colleagues who have talked about it say the same.

eohrnberger said:

These assertions doesn't match the graph you posted, which shows relatively flat collections prior to 2020 and a fairly sharp, and continuing, increase between 2020 & 2021.

Click to expand...

The 2017 bill did not affect 2017 taxes. It affected 2018 taxes, which would have been accounted for in 2019. As I recall, something pretty big happened early in 2020 that zapped a lot of people's income pretty hard, and there were a number of options to delay payment of taxes owed. We didn't return to normal until late 2021.

eohrnberger said:

I'm reading the above as an interpretation to support a demanded conclusion.

Click to expand...

If it is, then you should be able to say what is wrong with it and post facts that the interpretation cannot handle. Have at it, if you can. That said, there's not much interpretation going on in what I posted. It's a fact that to be included in the top 50%, you only need an income of about $50k. You can look at that table and calculate a difference in revenues paid in by income bracket and quickly see where the biggest increases were coming from--it's in the earners who are making between $50k to $90k. Back in the 70's and 80's, that'd have been upper middle class. Now, it's just middle class.

eohrnberger said:

All that DOGE has made public is what was already known and reported in various Inspector General's reports, promptly buried by, and ignored by, Congress.
Now, having been made public, it pushes congress to actually act on the now made public fraud, waste and abuse.
Let's hope that congress does.

Click to expand...

You miss the point--DOGE had an ostensible mission to investigate "waste, fraud, and abuse" in federal spending, and they seem to have--again, pretty recklessly--done just that. What they found that could be cut was pretty small in comparison to total federal spending. When you have a bunch of zealots for cutting spending try to cut spending and manage to do only a little, that's a really good indication that cuts aren't nearly as easy as advertised.

ncguy said:

you guys sure obsess about trans. odd.
dems have a lot of focus on economic matters.

but perhaps if trump wasn't such a flaming idiot he wouldn't have tanked his approval rating so soon, he's wasted a lot of political capital.

Click to expand...

Actually, a large part of why Dems lost was that They were focused on trans issues and other such trivia, rather than speaking to the economic issues the voters were interested in. Now: Has T.Rump drifted away from the things his voters were actually interested in? Absolutely. This gives Dems an opportunity, but only if they swear off their social issues fixation, and concentrate on what the voters want.

eohrnberger said:

Aren't those tax cuts the ones which are set to expire? Needing to be extended or made permanent?
If so, I'm inclined to support their being extended or made permanent.

Click to expand...

You got it. The left is carefully distorting that fact. This is just the required (because dems back then set a drop dead date) refused to make the cuts permanent. Yes they are "tax cuts for billionaires - all 565 of them - and for EVERYONE ELSE.

dobieg said:

It would be so amusing if Trump undercut Democrats and hiked taxes on the rich to pay for tax cuts for the middle class.

Perhaps if Demcorats weren't such flaming idiots they would get back to their roots of being for the working man and actually do something useful for the middle class on taxes. Instead they'll focus all their energy on letting hairy 40 year old men into the women's bathroom and telling little Johnny he's actually Sarah.

Click to expand...

I'm all for a tax I crease on the rich but is all for naught if he doesn't close the loopholes made for the rich. Their Effective Tax Rate is what matters.

Let me guess, now that the maga cult leader said it, all the maga's are for it. After shitting on the left for years about it while they played the ass kissing defenders of those poor rich people and how they needed even more tax cuts.

dobieg said:

Perhaps if Demcorats weren't such flaming idiots they would get back to their roots of being for the working man and actually do something useful for the middle class on taxes. Instead they'll focus all their energy on letting hairy 40 year old men into the women's bathroom and telling little Johnny he's actually Sarah.

Click to expand...

Awww, you're jealous of Sarah..
That's adorable.
If you ask nice, maybe she'll let you go with her for IPL treatment.

Cope said:

Overall. I rate this as false.

The standard deduction raise (imo) far outweighed what you were itemizing (as business expenses) unless you were paying rent monthly and/or had huge medical expenses.

I don't think the lap top was going to make or break the standard vs item.

Click to expand...

I had not reached the point where I felt the need to itemize. But a bunch of people I know took it up the ass. Real problem, not just a gripe. 3-5000k.

dobieg said:

So,........when was the last time Democrats put forward a bill cutting the tax rate for the middle class? I mean they talk about it all the time so what exactly are they doing up on Capitol Hill?

Click to expand...

dmpi said:

I'm against raising taxes for people who already pay more than their fair share, but I guess in the spirit of compromise Trump has to trade some bad in return for knocking down the deficit.

Click to expand...

Amazing how fast loyalists change their mind when the cult leader does a 180 isn't it?

Variant said:

It doesn't. Every time they float some idea like this they immediately change their mind the next day. So, it's hard to take them seriously.

Last time was all of a week or two ago? The proposal lasted a day.

Here's Sean Hannity on that occasion.

Click to expand...

Yep. Just like trump on his tariffs, he'll fold. He just wanted this in the headlines because polls show taxing the rich more is popular.

dobieg said:

That's the spirit. I'm counting you as a potential Trump convert.










Sorry, I've had a good day and feel a little mischievous.

Click to expand...

If he does this, which I highly doubt.
It won't convert me to over look his many, many, many many, many, many shortcomings a both a human and a leader.
I will, however, give him his credit should he do this.
Which again, for the record, I am not buying for a minute.

multivita-man said:

It's not really a flex. He still keeps a lower tax rate (37%) in place for people earning in the millions.

Click to expand...

Notice he's not raising capital gains tax which is where many many many of the mega rich hide their actual incomes.

NuffSaid said:

Typical MAGA response - the rich are such victims and the poor people are evil.

Click to expand...

Typical LW NAH-UH nonsense. True and facts are such inconvenient thinks to the left.

aociswundumho said:

The left will call Trump a fascist because of this.

Click to expand...

No. We won't.
But for now, it's a bullshit comment he made while his ****-sucker was flapping, so until it passes the house and senate and he signs it in obnoxious sharpie, I will remain skeptical.

Gimmesometruth said:

This was shot down a week ago when the admin said it would harm small business

Click to expand...

But he got it in the headlines which is all that he wanted out of it