Jamie Dimon says lower-income people need more help and he’d ‘pay for it by taxing the wealthy a little bit more’ Fortune Taxing the Rich? If he really wants to help the poor? Allow the tax breaks for individuals in the upper 20% sunset. reverse the tax breaks, and tax income from foreign enterprises. A little bit more below. Didn’t we just have a conversation about Jamie’s beliefs on taxes here at Angry Bear? If you forgot, you can find it here: In Defense of Trump’s Economics by a Billionaire. Jamie is defending trumps economic policies. Such things as leaving the reconciliation tax rate alone for those whose income is 80 percent and below. Allow the taxes under reconciliation sunset for those whose income is in the top 20%. A quick and
Topics:
Bill Haskell considers the following as important: jamie dimon, Taxes/regulation, US EConomics
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes The bifurcation of the new vs. existing home markets continues
NewDealdemocrat writes Initial jobless claim Zzzzzzzzzz . . . .
Bill Haskell writes Where the 2024 Presidential Election Voting Integrity Will Be Fought
NewDealdemocrat writes Industrial production for March is positive, but the overall trend remains flat
Jamie Dimon says lower-income people need more help and he’d ‘pay for it by taxing the wealthy a little bit more’ Fortune
Taxing the Rich?
If he really wants to help the poor? Allow the tax breaks for individuals in the upper 20% sunset. reverse the tax breaks, and tax income from foreign enterprises. A little bit more below.
Didn’t we just have a conversation about Jamie’s beliefs on taxes here at Angry Bear? If you forgot, you can find it here: In Defense of Trump’s Economics by a Billionaire. Jamie is defending trumps economic policies. Such things as leaving the reconciliation tax rate alone for those whose income is 80 percent and below. Allow the taxes under reconciliation sunset for those whose income is in the top 20%. A quick and rough number emerges of the upper 20% paying $200 billion more in taxes.
The other side of this is to also allow the Corporate tax breaks to sunset. Reverse trumps extra tax allowance to corporations. Those tax breaks enacted in 2017 under President Trump also gave windfall tax cuts to households in the top 1 percent and large corporations, exacerbating income and wealth inequality. These tax cuts cost significant federal revenue, adding to the federal debt and limiting our ability to invest in policies that broaden opportunity and contribute to shared prosperity. Some quick and incomplete numbers.
Individual Taxes: Like the Bush tax cuts, the tax cuts enacted in 2017 under President Trump benefited high-income households far more than households with low and moderate incomes. The 2017 tax law will boost the after-tax incomes of households in the top 1 percent by 2.9 percent in 2025, roughly three times the 0.9 percent gain for households in the bottom 60 percent, TPC estimates. The tax cuts that year will average $54,220 for the top 1 percent — and $220,310 for the top one-tenth of 1 percent. The 2017 tax law also widens racial disparities in after-tax income.
The law cut the top individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent for married couples with over $600,000 in taxable income. By itself, this provided a couple with $2 million in taxable income a $36,400 tax cut. The law also weakened the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which is designed to ensure that higher-income people who take large amounts of deductions and other tax breaks pay at least a minimum level of tax. The law raised both the AMT’s exemption threshold and its phaseout, delivering another tax cut to affluent households.
Corporate Taxes: Instead of doubling down on the failed trickle-down path of the Bush and Trump tax cuts, policymakers should set a new course by partially reversing the 2017 law’s flawed corporate tax cut, strengthening its international tax provisions, and reconsidering the tax code’s large tax breaks for high-income and high-wealth households. Doing so would make the tax code more progressive and raise substantial revenues that could be used to address the nation’s long-term fiscal challenges and pay for important policy priorities.
The centerpiece of the 2017 tax law was a deep, permanent cut in the corporate tax rate — from 35 percent to 21 percent — and a shift toward a territorial tax system, which exempts certain foreign income of multinational corporations from U.S. tax. At a cost of $1.3 trillion over ten years, the deep cut in the corporate tax rate was the most expensive provision of the 2017 tax law, largely benefiting the most well-off. TPC estimates that over a third of the benefits from corporate rate cuts flows to the top 1 percent of households. Proponents of these regressive corporate rate cuts argued that the benefits would trickle down in the form of broadly shared economic growth.
A careful new study from researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) finds that none of the earnings gains from the 2017 corporate rate cuts accrued to the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution, and this group received just a small fraction of the overall economic gains.
There is more to this story than what I have shown here today. More on it later.
Jamie Dimon’s MAGA warning to Dems is right on target, NYP.
After Decades of Costly, Regressive, and Ineffective Tax Cuts, a New Course Is Needed, cbpp.org