Trump Plans $100 Billion Middle Finger To Middle Class With Possibly Illegal Tax Break For The Rich

Trump Plans $100 Billion Middle Finger To Middle Class With Possibly Illegal Tax Break For The Rich

Last summer, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration was considering using executive authority to deliver what amounts to an across-the-board tax cut for the wealthy. Specifically, the plan involved Trump bypassing Congress to deliver a $100 billion windfall for the rich by indexing capital gains to inflation. As we said unequivocally at the time, the plan, were the White House to go ahead with it, would be a flagrant slap in the face to the very same everyday Americans Trump
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

18 thoughts on “Trump Plans $100 Billion Middle Finger To Middle Class With Possibly Illegal Tax Break For The Rich

  1. I don’t suppose the next administration can undo the Trump tax breaks to benefit the other 99.9% of the voting population. Gosh, if they could make the other 99.9% see that they’re actually trying to help them…

    1. So, you think that the Trump tax breaks benefited just 0.1% of the population? Mind sharing the source of this interesting statistic?

      1. here is the full breakdown:

        you’re encouraged to remember that the US government itself put out the numbers on this ahead of the actual passage. Republicans knew who it would benefit and they came out and lied to the public about it. then, when asked about the actual projections from the government itself, the GOP simply said they didn’t agree with the projections.

        these tax cuts are always a scam. and really, it’s not even clear “scam” is the right word. i mean, look who their constituency is. who do you imagine Republicans will design a tax cut to benefit? well, corporations and the wealthy, of course.

        the sad thing is that with Trump, you got this bizarre intersection of his base (not wealthy) and a republican tax cut. which meant that the sales pitch had to be extra aggressive.

        it’s unfortunate that trump thinks so little of his base that he wouldn’t even try to make his tax cut work for them

        1. Yes, they got it over the line (although it took longer than envisaged) AND yes it did create an initial boost for various data (longer lasting than envisaged) but we’re now paying the price for Trump Tax deformity –

          Not even debatable any more

          1. I’m not sure what exactly is not debatable in your mind (I hope not the serfdom BS) but I’ll tell you what is not debatable in mine. Instead of falling as predicted in the second article, the GDP continued to grow:
            Therefore the value of this “analysis” can be fairly assessed as zero and that’s not debatable either.

        2. Here’s the reality :

          In two of the years studied, 1 percenters – in 2018, those with income of more than $733,000 per year – got an estimated 20.5 percent of the tax law’s benefits in 2018 and will get 25.3 percent of the benefits in 2025, according to the analysis.

          Only in 2027 would an estimated 82.8 percent of the tax cuts go to the top 1 percent of tax filers.

          SALT elimination was a mean tactic of tax warfare, no doubt, but every single person I know who lives in flyover states benefited from this. They noticed, his whole base noticed. Continue ignoring reality and you will have an encore next November. Well, with this crop of candidates you’ll probably have it anyway.

          If tax cuts are always a scam then tax hikes must be always a great idea, right?

          1. For one thing, you’re looking at just the 1%. But more importantly, you clearly did not read the article I linked to, because if you had, you’d know it contains a chart showing the actual breakdown you’re talking about. but what’s really hilarious is that you apparently didn’t even read your own link, because it contains the following rather inconvenient factoid: “When PolitiFact evaluated the bill just before Trump signed it, we found that every income group would pay less in taxes in 2019, but that the benefits would flow disproportionately to wealthier taxpayers.
            And by 2027, every income group below $75,000 would see a tax increase, while only those income ranges above $75,000 would still see a cut.”

            here’s the thing: a narcissistic billionaire with a long history of pissing on the poor by rubbing his (inherited) wealth in everyone’s face and a Treasury Secretary whose wife enjoys spending her spare time trolling working moms on Instagram by reminding those working moms how poor they really are, does not care about flyover America. that is a joke. Donald Trump played/duped undereducated voters in 2016 into believing a ridiculous narrative and, let’s face it, you are lying when you say “every single person I know who lives in flyover states benefited from this. They noticed, his whole base noticed.” You and I and everyone reading this knows you do not work for a polling company. At best you might either live in flyover country and discussed this at the local diner where people are still buying Trump’s narrative. At worst (and far more likely) you’re simply making it up. Stop doing this to yourself. If you’re any semblance of intelligent you probably know, deep down, that you were sold a lie. If you want to keep buying that lie, feel free, but just know that everybody who has ever bought Trump’s lies has been burned. From the investors in Trump Steaks, to the thousands of “students” at Trump U. who Trump was forced to pay $25 million to for defrauding them, to the banks that Trump defaulted on loans to. He’s a con man and a charlatan. period.

          2. Here’s what GOP tax cuts do to inequality:

            What percentage of Trump’s base do you thing benefits from that?

            Oh, and note the year this line started sloping up again:

            Do you think that’s a coincidence?

            Here’s the reality: If you do not make more than $175k a year (and maybe you do, in which case great, carry on), then you are a moron for voting Republican. Any honest economist (hell, any sociologist) will tell you that.

        3. You actually think that accusing the opponent of lying and then freezing the replies is an honorable way of conducting a debate?

          No, I’m not lying, I never do. “every single person I know” means all 25 people I know. I need not work for polling company to say this with full honesty. You could dispute the statistical significance of this statement, that’s another matter, but statistics is not your strong suite, is it? And no, I live in a blue coastal state. I lost money on tax reform – but less than I expected to lose, TBH.

          Yes, I’ve read the article that I linked including the sentence that you think I didn’t. I don’t know by what logic you concluded otherwise. Perhaps the same that led comrade of Lourdes to lament about 0.1%.

          You need not write long paragraphs to convince me that Trump is a mega-asshole. You’re barking at a wrong tree. Our only disagreement about him is that you think that he’s also an idiot and I don’t. And I absolutely don’t give a flying fuhk about what wives of the administration officials do.

          1. I think (growing) inequality is a problem but not THE problem. Socialists push it up to play on people’s primitive instincts to achieve higher (and higher, and even higher) taxation to make everyone equal – in misery. The problem is poverty and lack of opportunity.

            Maybe (or maybe not) I’d be a moron for voting republican but you’re a moron for concluding that I did. In fact, I never did. That’s another thing about TDS: you’re a smart guy but you keep making silly logical mistakes as if you are in middle school. Chill out.

          2. wtf are you talking about “freeze replies”?

            And on this: “Statistics is not your strong suite, [sic] is it?” Actually, yes. I taught prob and stats, which is something you’d know if you weren’t a newbie to Heisenberg Report.

            Finally, I don’t know why you keep lying about flyover county. At least make it convincing. Like, try this: “I’m talking about Aunt Janie, Uncle Jim and everyone who lives in their neighborhood”. Or hell, say 31 people. Or 17 people. Don’t use 25. That makes it seem even more unbelievable.

          3. I’m talking about the magically disappeared Reply button.

            25 was a figure of speech of course, I didn’t count, it’s a number between 15 and 30 but it’s every single person I know.

            Thanks for grammarizing me.

  2. The irony is it will probably cause more selling to lock in the benefit which will surely be undone in Jan 2021 when a new prez will be in office.

  3. What’s a rich guy to do??? Support Republicans and risk that Trump burns down the nation. Support democrats and get a big tax increase. Choices, choices…

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints