Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ross Kaminsky's avatar

well, it depends on whether you're looking at absolute dollars versus percentage benefit. Every major tax reform from Republicans during my lifetime (as far as I know) has cut taxes for lower incomes a bigger percentage than for higher incomes.

So if rich person got a 2% total income tax cut, a less-rich person probably got 3% or 4%.

I don't like that at all even though I'm far from the top 1% of earners.

Tax cuts should go to people who pay taxes in proportion that they pay taxes, and really the income tax should be at a flat rate, not "progressive."

People who use the term "trickle-down economics" these days tend to be people who don't understand economics but I'll just note that it's just a synonym for "people keeping more of what they earn" and "people getting less of what other people earned."

You can go check CBO scoring of the no tax on tips thing, but my primary objection isn't fiscal. It's political and moral.

Expand full comment
Chip Roehrig's avatar

Can we be clear on which way he redistributes wealth? You can’t be saying this bill is better for lower income people than the top 1%? Do you really think taxing tips is protecting the deficit? When tips were cash nobody paid them and now that most tips go through payroll it is an increased burden on often young citizens who have the deck stacked against them right now. Do you really still believe in trickle down economics?

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts