Trump, Economic Team To Meet On Capital Gains Tax Cut, Which Would Hand $100 Billion To The Rich

Trump, Economic Team To Meet On Capital Gains Tax Cut, Which Would Hand $100 Billion To The Rich

Donald Trump will meet with his economic team on Wednesday to again discuss the prospect of indexing capital gains to inflation, the Wall Street Journal says, citing three people familiar with the situation. This is a topic that's come up again and again over the past two years. It has the support of Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore and, really, anybody who owns a lot of stock (so, rich people). According to estimates from Penn-Wharton, "such a policy would reduce individual tax revenues by $102 bi
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

9 thoughts on “Trump, Economic Team To Meet On Capital Gains Tax Cut, Which Would Hand $100 Billion To The Rich

  1. Take this as confirmation that our Fair Orange Leader is manipulating the stock market for his and his corrupt friends and family’s benefit. Why wouldn’t our grifter in chief square the circle by cutting capital gains taxes on his manipulated gains??

  2. It has the support of Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore and, really, anybody who owns a lot of stock (so, rich people).
    Walt, you should’ve added “anybody who owns a lot of stock and commercial real estate……”
    A cap gains tax cut will STUFF Trump’s and Pretty Boy Kirshner’s pockets full of cash.
    And we should always raise eyebrows at anything supported by Kudlow, Moore, and Cruz

  3. No question where the benefits would go, but it seems to be a rational argument: Why pay taxes on nominal gains that were eroded by inflation? That said, inflation has been pretty low the last couple decades. The impact would have been much larger for the 70’s and 80’s.

  4. One main issue is in understanding what inflation is and isn’t and to understand how flawed data collection is as it relates to inflation, i.e., few people understand inflation and thus defining what it is, is an essential first step in understanding how it will impact taxation. This is far from simple and there is no doubt that the trump people are looking at ways to abuse their powers to enrich themselves, versus propose a policy to help all Americans.

    In regard to definitions of words, a recent case dances around this very issue of how to define terms:

    ==> Kagan explained that “[a] court must carefully consider the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation before resorting to deference,” and courts should exhaust all the tools of statutory interpretation before deciding a regulation is truly ambiguous and deserving of deference. This condition is meant to keep agencies from altering meaning that was actually intended to be otherwise.

    Secondly, to qualify for Auer, the agency’s reading of the rule must be reasonable. So a court does actually get to review the agency’s interpretation for reasonableness.

    And finally, before an agency interpretation qualifies for Auer, the court must review the legitimacy of the agency’s interpretation. Does the interpretation deserve controlling weight? To explain further: was it an “official” agency view? Does it implicate the agency’s substantive expertise? Was it “fair and considered judgement” on the part of the agency?

    https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/kisor-v-wilkie

Speak your mind

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

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints