Trump's Tax Plan

[Avorysuds]

He's going to add more people to that group the RW'ers profess to loathe, those who pay zero in federal income taxes.
But the RW'ers are going to support him anyway, apparently.

Lower taxes are good. Overspending is bad.

 

[Eaglewings]

Not sure how he will tax free trade

He was talking about old school protectionism. Tariffs on countries he doesn't like.

It would result in retaliatory tariffs on American exports.

Because the US has such high exports? Or because other countries don't tax American exports already?

If we raise tariffs on Chinese goods, the Chinese will retaliate by raising tariffs on American goods imported into their country.

The next thing you know, the CEO of General Motors will kick Donald Trump in the balls.

As Trump said , they are already screwing us. There poison crap shouldn't even be allowed here, everyday you hear about something else that they got into the US to poison our animals, children, and adults. Our homes, food , and water are sent over there to be processed and brought back with who knows what in them.

 

[Avorysuds]

I think the increments should be 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%. Everyone should be a taxpayer. And the rich should pay higher than 25% there should be no deductions or itemizing. One page. Put your adjusted gross income, apply the tax paid , the percentage where you are at and subtract accordingly.

Im not attacking your plan but your numbers seem incredibly arbitrary. 10% to 30%, based on what? Just because?

 

[auditor0007]

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition.

I hate it when specifics are not given. What deductions and "loopholes" would be eliminated? This is the most important thing to know about any tax plan in order to determine the total effect on taxpayers and revenues.

Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

Eliminating the carried interest tax break will probably only bring in an extra two billion dollars a year.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money

A one-time gain.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred.

All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

Discuss.

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works. It worked to an extent with Reagan's tax cuts because the top tax rates were so high to begin with. We don't have that problem today. The top tax rate is not at all unreasonable. In the end, this plan would further cut revenue which is not workable due to the fact that SS and Medicare alone are increasing the amount of revenue necessary just to balance the budget.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's a great, forward thinking Plan.

It's a very liberal plan. The scheme is designed to shift the tax burden even more toward the wealthy. You suddenly approve of this?

Fuck no! I agree with parts of it, like getting a tax reducation

But that's not the plan. His plan is to eliminate taxes on lower income individuals, keep them the same on the middle class, and then to raise taxes on higher income levels. So, unless you're low income, nothing about Trump's plan amounts to a tax reduction for you.

 

[g5000]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

It works if the reason you were able to cut tax rates is because you eliminated tax expenditures.

Our tax rates are as high as they are, and should be higher, because of tax expenditures.

Deductions are Other People's Money. Eliminate them, and you can lower everyone's tax rates.

 

[Avorysuds]

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition.

I hate it when specifics are not given. What deductions and "loopholes" would be eliminated? This is the most important thing to know about any tax plan in order to determine the total effect on taxpayers and revenues.

Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

Eliminating the carried interest tax break will probably only bring in an extra two billion dollars a year.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money

A one-time gain.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred.

All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

Discuss.

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works. It worked to an extent with Reagan's tax cuts because the top tax rates were so high to begin with. We don't have that problem today. The top tax rate is not at all unreasonable. In the end, this plan would further cut revenue which is not workable due to the fact that SS and Medicare alone are increasing the amount of revenue necessary just to balance the budget.

Raising taxes is like the federal reserve raising interest rates, you will see a dramatic cooling of the economy (not suggesting the economy is hot currently). The problem is welfare programs like SS and MC should have never been created as they are now the bulk of our expenditures and rising.

 

[SwimExpert]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

Trump's plan isn't to increase revenues through lower rates. His plan is to lower rates by eliminating deductions and loopholes thus resulting in higher revenues per bracket. The "lower rate" is a superficial smoke screen. Sure, the rate itself is lower. But the total tax liability will be equal to or greater than what you previously owed, due to the elimination of deductions and loopholes. The only people who really come out of this with lowered taxes are low income people, and lower middle class people. The higher your income, the more likely you are to encounter higher total taxes.

 

[boedicca]

More details here:

Tax Reform

I suspect that the deductions being eliminated for higher income earners are state and property taxes. But with AMT, those are hammered anyway.

 

[Care4all]

I think the increments should be 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%. Everyone should be a taxpayer. And the rich should pay higher than 25% there should be no deductions or itemizing. One page. Put your adjusted gross income, apply the tax paid , the percentage where you are at and subtract accordingly.

I agree with your tax plan, with the exception of still needing a standard deduction.

right now it is about $17000 for a married couple.

There are several reasons why there has to be a standard deduction/personal exemption...

But most importantly, because income tax, ruled by a Supreme Court case, is the tax on one's earnings/profit, just like the corporate income tax, is a tax on the business's earnings/profit.

So, with a standard deduction, that covers the basic costs of feeding and housing oneself per year, same amount for everyone one, this would cover the interpretation of the SC on what income taxes have to be paid on....what the taxable income is...

yet still being able to kill all the other deductions, so it remains a progressive income tax, but without all the deduction loopholes given to the politicians highest or most valuable bidders.

 

[Avorysuds]

I think the increments should be 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%. Everyone should be a taxpayer. And the rich should pay higher than 25% there should be no deductions or itemizing. One page. Put your adjusted gross income, apply the tax paid , the percentage where you are at and subtract accordingly.

I agree with your tax plan, with the exception of still needing a standard deduction.

right now it is about $17000 for a married couple.

There are several reasons why there has to be a standard deduction/personal exemption...

But most importantly, because income tax, ruled by a Supreme Court case, is the tax on one's earnings/profit, just like the corporate income tax, is a tax on the business's earnings/profit.

So, with a standard deduction, that covers the basic costs of feeding and housing oneself per year, same amount for everyone one, this would cover the interpretation of the SC on what income taxes have to be paid on....what the taxable income is...

yet still being able to kill all the other deductions, so it remains a progressive income tax, but without all the deduction loopholes given to the politicians highest bidders.

Once you introduce one deduction you get interpretations of what should be a deduction... A real life example would be the constitution that clearly limits federal powers now means we can force people to buy things.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think the increments should be 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%. Everyone should be a taxpayer. And the rich should pay higher than 25% there should be no deductions or itemizing. One page. Put your adjusted gross income, apply the tax paid , the percentage where you are at and subtract accordingly.

Politicians can't steal from us & line their pockets with contributions with a plan like that.

 

[Eaglewings]

It's a great, forward thinking Plan.

It's a very liberal plan. The scheme is designed to shift the tax burden even more toward the wealthy. You suddenly approve of this?

Fuck no! I agree with parts of it, like getting a tax reducation

But that's not the plan. His plan is to eliminate taxes on lower income individuals, keep them the same on the middle class, and then to raise taxes on higher income levels. So, unless you're low income, nothing about Trump's plan amounts to a tax reduction for you.

He wants tax cuts for the middle class , he said all of this last night on 60 minutes.

 

[Mac1958]

any candidates plans will change approximately 3 times between now and the Convention.and be thrown out the window 5 minutes after they remove their hand from the Bible

Bingo. Campaign catnip only.
.

 

[Avorysuds]

I think the US should not be allowed to run deficits. All taxes should be applied equally and any "extra" revenues are returned at the end of the year.

 

[SwimExpert]

He wants tax cuts for the middle class , he said all of this last night on 60 minutes.

OMG, you mean if a politician says something it must be true!?! When did that happen?!?

 

[Avorysuds]

any candidates plans will change approximately 3 times between now and the Convention.and be thrown out the window 5 minutes after they remove their hand from the Bible

Bingo. Campaign catnip only.
.

A great example of that is Bush and Obama, good point guys.

 

[auditor0007]

As always, the call for lower tax rates to boost tax revenues rarely works.

It works if the reason you were able to cut tax rates is because you eliminated tax expenditures.

Our tax rates are as high as they are, and should be higher, because of tax expenditures.

Deductions are Other People's Money. Eliminate them, and you can lower everyone's tax rates.

Unless we gut SS and Medicare, we are not going to cut expenditures. Discretionary spending only accounts for 30% (approx) of expenditures.

 

[Auld Phart]

He wants tax cuts for the middle class , he said all of this last night on 60 minutes.

OMG, you mean if a politician says something it must be true!?! When did that happen?!?

In this country, or worldwide?

 

[Care4all]

I think the increments should be 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%. Everyone should be a taxpayer. And the rich should pay higher than 25% there should be no deductions or itemizing. One page. Put your adjusted gross income, apply the tax paid , the percentage where you are at and subtract accordingly.

I agree with your tax plan, with the exception of still needing a standard deduction.

right now it is about $17000 for a married couple.

There are several reasons why there has to be a standard deduction/personal exemption...

But most importantly, because income tax, ruled by a Supreme Court case, is the tax on one's earnings/profit, just like the corporate income tax, is a tax on the business's earnings/profit.

So, with a standard deduction, that covers the basic costs of feeding and housing oneself per year, same amount for everyone one, this would cover the interpretation of the SC on what income taxes have to be paid on....what the taxable income is...

yet still being able to kill all the other deductions, so it remains a progressive income tax, but without all the deduction loopholes given to the politicians highest bidders.

Once you introduce one deduction you get interpretations of what should be a deduction... A real life example would be the constitution that clearly limits federal powers now means we can force people to buy things.

The Standard Deduction/Personal Exemption is not like any of those Long Form/schedule Irs, deductions for the favored.

the only manipulation that can be done is a higher or lower or staying the same Standardized deduction.... and whatever happens with it, applies to everyone, equally.

So, even though they in congress do have some control over it, if it was just tied in to the cost of living automatically, then congress wouldn't have their hands tied to it?