Trump backs tax hike on rich but says GOP probably shouldn't do it

Is this the slow trend of saying the GOP can't come up an agreement and they let the tax cuts expire

My support or opposition depends largely on how “rich” is defined.

I agree.

We shouldn't keep raising taxes on W2 earners making around $400K while billionaires and large corporations use loopholes to avoid paying more.

If there is going to be a tax increase, it should be aimed at those making $10 million or more a year.

Of course, before raising any taxes, the government needs to cut waste, be fully transparent, and prove it can manage money responsibly.

So, I guess, no tax increases since we know these things likely will never happen.

Agreed. People making over 400k a year are paying over 43% in taxes after federal, state, and all the other bs. That in itself is a joke. Raising these rates further would be a scandal. Individuals who have climbed the ladder of success are being punished for it through taxation.

Can’t tell if that was sarcasm or not

quote:

---

but they will need to go to a much lower income threshold to make all of his proposed tax cuts to work

---

This is the problem. Like so many things this administration releases it's just short on details.Would very much like to see the carried interest loophole eliminated

Just don't see how you can exempt tip income, OT and SS from taxes and just raise taxes a couple of points on the extremely wealthy unless you have massive spending cuts.

quote:

---

Billionaires should be paying an ungodly tax on every dollar they make over $1B/year. Like 90% kind of ungodly. Those people at that level don't give a single frick about the money itself, it's nothing more than a game at that point. frick 'em

---

Exactly this. It’s obscene how much money this is. As of Q1 of 2024 1% of the country held 30% of the wealth and the bottom 50% held less then 2%….if you want to generate meaningful revenue in this country with the least impact to the individual you need to go after the ultra wealthy. And you need to base it off wealth not income.

An annual 3% tax based on the value of total assets owned over say 50 million. Would not affect the quality of life of those individuals at all, and something like real estate or equities would almost certainly appreciate greater then that 3% in a given year. Or increase long term capital gains tax for people with say 50 million in assets to be taxed at ordinary income levels or to be some much higher number the more wealth you have.

If you have over $50 million in assets and you take a loan against assets you have to recognize any gains in those assets at that point up to the amount of the loan.

Plenty of ways to collect and those folks wouldn’t have to change how they live their lives at all. Not sure why we’re hellbent on making people who already have very little give up their healthcare to make up for a deficit, rather then go after revenue from people whose lives won’t be impacted at all.

Seems like the easiest way to raise significant amounts of revenue while having literally zero impact on the target demos lives. Do you have a meaningful objection other than naming a politician you don’t like?

Doesn’t mean this can’t be done in conjunction with more efficient/reduced spending either. Just seems so obvious as a method to help alleviate the budget deficits that were in part responsible for the market gains of the past decade and a half which created a significant portion of that wealth in the first place. How big does the wealth gap have to get before you think there’s a systematic imbalance? Should 1% own 40% of the nations wealth? 50%?

quote:

---

Billionaires should be paying an ungodly tax on every dollar they make over $1B/year. Like 90% kind of ungodly. Those people at that level don't give a single frick about the money itself, it's nothing more than a game at that point. frick 'em.

---

So the government deserves 90% of an earned dollar? GTFO with this nonsense.