Trump Wants to Give The Rich Another $100 Billion Tax Cut – Without Congress

While ordinary Americans are still figuring out just how screwed they are by last year’s GOP tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, the White House is already floating another tax cut for the nation’s richest people – and it’s so desperate to get it done, it’s exploring ways to do it without the help of Congress.

The latest $100 billion tax cut proposal deals with capital gains. As it stands, assets that appreciate in value over time are taxed on the gained value when they are eventually sold. However, the Trump administration wants to see the tax rate account for inflation, which would decrease the amount of taxes people pay on such investments.

If that sounds particularly exciting to you, odds are that you’re filthy rich. The bottom line is that this rule change does nothing for the average American. For people with million dollar investments though, this change would alter the amount they are taxed on significantly.

The independent data on this modification demonstrates precisely who would save money from these tax cuts over the next decade: 97.5 percent would go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. More significantly, 86 percent of the savings would go to the top 1 percent of Americans. And, yes, 63 percent would be passed along to the top 0.1 percent richest Americans.

Republicans in Congress love giving money back to the wealthy, but even they don’t want to touch this issue just before a contentious midterm election – the optics are terrible. That’s why President Donald Trump, who rarely seems concerned with optics, is exploring methods where he can push this change through without legislation.

The operating plan is for the Treasury Department to do the dirty work by more explicitly defining the word “cost” to suit its own purposes. It’d be quite a stunt, and not one that the Trump administration should count on getting away with. Back in the 1990s, the George H.W. Bush administration explored a similar move, only to decide that the courts wouldn’t consider it legal. Again, though, Trump’s team probably isn’t afraid to try it anyway – what’s another loss in court for these folks?

As the New York Times points out, conservatives ultimately wouldn’t need it to stand up in court to take advantage of the Treasury Department’s manipulation. In the immediate aftermath of the rule change, you’re bound to see a “wave of asset sales” by wealthy Americans in order to get a tax before the courts have a chance to weigh in.

All of this begs the question – why is the Trump administration looking for ways to give the rich more tax cuts anyway? The latest news is that the U.S. is on track to borrow more money to float the government than anytime in the past decade, and the national deficit is booming. We need more tax revenues right now, not less, but sure, let’s give the rich more money just because we can!

55 comments

Susanne R
Susanne R5 months ago

David F. - His name appears above the title, and there are ads featuring his name and his face all over the page! Maybe you should take another look...

SEND
David F
David F5 months ago

Susanne R, yes there is his name and fine print, never heard of him before, he is a nothing in a conservative radio talk shows, never heard of him on conservative television either, couldn't even find him on Iheart radio. Don't know anything about him, not going to defend or attack him.
One thing is certain, information about him with Care2 political authors would be highly suspect.

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R5 months ago

David - If you don't know who Alex Jones is and don't follow him on social media, why have you used Inforwars.com as a source in previous comments? In case you need a reminder...

David F - about a month ago. - One year ago a Socialist liberal Distraught over Fake News negative coverage of President Trump's election, opened fire on members of the Republican congressional baseball team at a practice field in an attempt to kill them all.
Anti-Trump Leftist Tries to Shoot Up Trump Golf Resort in Florida.

https://www.prisonplanet.com/anti-trump-leftist-tries-to-shoot-up-trump-golf-resort-in-florida.html

Susanne R - about a month ago - David: When I clicked on the link you provided about the shooting of Stephen Scalise, it took me to "Alex Jones Prison Planet"! You are an ALEX JONES follower! I wouldn't admit that either! And the article wasn't even about Stephen Scalise! It was pure garbage and propaganda!

https://www.care2.com/causes/working-for-trump-is-hard-on-your-social-life-white-house-staffers-complain.html

Is someone filling in for you today? What's the story?

SEND
David F
David F5 months ago

Susanne, I don’t listen to Alex Jones, don’t know who he is or what he stands for, so he is a nothing in a conservative movement.

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R5 months ago

David F. - When did I ever say that women who run large companies do not pay women equitably? I don't know the number of women who are in that rare position or how that number affected the statistics. Once again, you're repeating "your" version of what I said, and it never has anything to do with what I actually said. Why is that?

You're back to the conspiracy theories. Did you read my comment about Alex Jones' official job title being "journalistic entertainer"? I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I hope you'll learm to take his show with a grain of salt. Or in my case, a pint of Pepto-Bismol.

It's not my fault that the only knowledge you have of "good ole" boys comes from the Dukes of Hazzard theme song.

SEND
David F
David F5 months ago

Susanne R, "good old boy network" is a conspiracy that is really WAY out there. So you are saying half of the entire planet is being held down by a "good old boy network."

Okay, many women run and own very large powerful companies. Why do not they pay equitably as you claim?
Why don't women start their own companies to compete with these male companies that have a 20% higher overhead?

SEND
Susanne R
Susanne R5 months ago

David F. - That's a very specific question --and a good one. I didn't create the statistics; I just quoted them. I think you're supposed to prove that the information I provided is wrong, not expect me to answer the questions meant for the statisticians who provided the information. Personally, I always believed in the "good ole boys" network. Here's an excerpt from Psychology Today: "Women and the Good Ole Boys Club: Is it right? Is it fair? Of course not, but it exists."

The :old boy network" refers to an informal system of friendships and connections through which men use their positions of influence by providing favors and information to help other men. Often men are connected because they belong to the same country club, fraternity, college, or share a similar social background. Many people believe it had its origins in the South, but these networks can be found all over the United States and internationally. Most important, many good ole' boys networks within companies are informal. They exist in any setting, from corporate to religious, to social and political associations among white males. Connections and concessions are made at power lunches, at the sports bar, at the country club, or on the golf course."
For more, here's the link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/he-speaks-she-speaks/201703/women-and-the-good-ole-boys-club

Maybe it's a matter of pride over profit. You exhaust me, David.

SEND
Celine R
Celine Russo5 months ago

That's no way to "rule" a country... is it so difficult to understand that to get a country going you NEED the taxes that will apply on the richest of it's members? Do they expect the poor to pay perhaps???

SEND
David C
David C5 months ago

please remember to ignore David F...…..never happy, always angry

SEND
David C
David C5 months ago

and he criticized Mr. Obama for too much "executive over-reach", of course, wouldn't this have to go through Congress due to its effects on the budget????

SEND