Trump's Income Tax

The Bush era tax cuts, that were due to expire, were extended during the Recession after Obama took office. Taxes were not increased until 2013 that followed the 2010 elections when the GOP gained control of the House (proving the GOP is better at gerrymandering Congressional districts than Democrats because more votes were for Democrats than Republicans that year).



LOL, that is a "fact" to you?

No, the "fact" is that you completely ignored the facts I presented to try to maintain your silly false equivalency. The fact is you failed to name even one law or policy over the past 30 years the Republicans have passed or promoted that helps middle/lower class folk at the expense of the richest.

That tells me all I need to know. Others can decide for themselves.[/QUOTE]

 

This is the second or third time you've claimed this bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Prove that my charts are "union label" charts.

You just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along. It shows.

Baseless blather without support as typical from you.

The 1993 tax increase was not middle tax class tax increase. The bulk of the increase was on higher incomes. If your own admission that the top rate went from 31% to 39.6% (which is a 28% increase on top incomes) isn't enough, here's a more detailed discussion:



The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers. ... The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax.

http://www.cbpp.org/archives/HITX85.HTM

They said that for households earning $250,000 a year, the new package would raise taxes from all sources by about $10,000. For households earning $80,000, taxes would go up by about $560 and for a family earning $45,000 taxes would rise about $225. For a family earning $25,000, taxes would remain essentially unchanged, inching up about $25.

Mr. Clinton would hit the rich hardest by increasing the top personal income tax rate to 36 percent from 31 percent for couples with adjusted gross incomes of $180,000 or more and single people with adjusted gross incomes of $140,000 or more. Income taxes for families earning less than $180,000 are to remain unchanged.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/u...uals-middle-class-wealthy-bear-brunt-new.html

And once again you've totally failed to adress, much less rebut, the several other examples demonstrating it is Republicans who promote cut taxes for the richest, not Democrats.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Why to you ignore all the other taxes people pay and focus only on the income taxes which are the most progressive? Why didn't you look at who pays FICA taxes? Or state and local taxes?

2. How does this excuse Donald for not paying any taxes and concealing his tax records?

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but the taxes did not increase in 2013 because of anything the Republicans did, to the contrary. The Bush tax cuts were expiring on their own terms, and Republicans did everything they could to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, including the coercion of holding unemployment benefits that millions desperately needed for ransom. Obama compromised to get those benefits back for the people who needed them, and agreed to repeal the tax cuts for income below $400,000.

I acknowledge that Obama extended the cuts to 2013. Those extensions were also compromises with Republicans, though early in the administration there was concern about raising taxes in the midst of a recession. Unwarranted, IMO.

 

Two different standards are being applied. Hillary Clinton is held to the standards of a politician and member of government. Donald Trump is held to the standards of a TV reality show celebrity, con artists, and crooks. Trump doesn't have to be honest or know anything about our government or the issues, or to be honest or to pay his taxes because that's not expected of a TV celebrity, a con artist or crook. The "bar" has been set so low for Donald Trump because Trump can't pass any rational level of scrutiny.

On the flip side the Republicans have placed the bar so high for Hillary Clinton that no one even in their own party could even meet it. For example they condemn her for her use of private email server related to about 30,000 personal emails that were deleted while ignoring that there about 22 million Bush Administration "private emails" that used the RNC server and they were deleted to avoid public disclosure (required by the law). Carl Rove alone admitted to being personally responsible for the deleting of over 5 million of these emails.

 

I think you are right when it comes to the pundits holding Clinton to a different standard politically than Trump. I'm not sure the voters are going to allow him leeway though. After the last debate, I think the people saw he wasn't even trying.

 

Not exactly true. The 97% only refers to personal income taxes and for 2015 that only related to about $1.5 trillion out of the almost $3 trillion that the federal government received in ALL forms of income taxes that include the personal income tax, the corporate income tax and the Social Security and other payroll taxes.

Social Security alone accounts for about 30% of the US government revenue and it's almost exclusively funded by the bottom 80% of income households because the tax is imposed on the very first dollar of gross "earned" income with a cap at about $120,000 and investors don't pay even one dime of this tax.

Of course the bottom 70% would love to pay more in income taxes but they have a serious problem. About 50% of working American households don't earn enough from their jobs even fund they daily expenses. If we address the fact that person income taxes are only imposed upon the "disposable household income (i.e. income above the minimum-mandatory cost of living) then we can remove 50% of American households from consideration completely.

Now we're down to why 20% don't pay more than 3% of the personal income taxes and once again we can point to the fact that they can't afford to pay more than that amount.

Now for the final fact. The top 1% receive 20% of all the personal income in the United States and they could easily afford to pay twice the personal income taxes and it wouldn't diminish their lifestyle one iota because they're not spending that income to fund their lavish lifestyle. All they're doing with the money is re-investing it and that doesn't improve their lifestyle or improve the US economy.

 

It's certainly going to depend on the voters but there are voters that actually don't want someone that's qualified to be president and there were enough of them in the Republican Party alone to get Trump the nomination. We've known since Day One that Donald Trump was unqualified. As a self-appointed CEO he was personally responsible for four corporate bankruptcies that cost investors hundreds or billions of dollars. There isn't a single independent Board of Directors in the United States that would appoint Donald Trump as a corporate executive because he's proven he lacks the abilities necessary to be good executive. We know that since day one. We also know that Donald Trump: has no clue when it comes to the US Constitution, US law, or Treaties; the roles, responsibilities, and limitations of the Office of President; foreign trade (that he's never been involved in); the US economy; or the problems facing the average American today. We've know all of that for months and it didn't take the Presidential Debate to bring that to the public's attention.

So the question in November is whether the voters want someone that can be President or someone that lacks any ability to be President sitting in the Oval Office. No matter what Hillary Clinton's short-comings may be she's qualified to be President and Donald Trump is not. Everyone on this forum and every voter in America knows that is the truth.

 

If there's nothing there, he should release them. Just like his birther conspiracy, what does he have to lose? Seriously, if his taxes are squeaky clean, the democrats will look like morons. Why would he pass up such an opportunity if he has nothing to hide.

Trumpbots are absolutely pathetic and hypocritical to defend his hiding of taxes. If Hillary refused to release hers, I could only imagine the right wing outrage and conspiracy theories that would pop up.

 

You missed my point. You must be a female because you veered off to talk about another subject. I was showing who pays most of the income tax and who pays little or nothing.

 

Obama refused to show his birth certificate until after he was president. So maybe Trump will show his income tax records when he becomes president. Fair is fair.

 

There is no history of candidates having to produce their birth certificates, at least not to the public. Demanding Obama produce one was a ploy that smacked of racist motivation.

Every candidate for the past 5 decades has produced their tax records. Except Donald.

Who's obviously hiding something.

 

Uh, Obama showed his birth certificate in June of 2008.

 

Actually, I didn't miss your point at all. I simply put raw dollars and cents to your percentage. Of course the top 20% pay 80% of income tax. Surely you're not implying that the 80% of Americans that make less than $80K a year should carry 80% of the $3,800,000,000,000.00 budget on their backs, are you?

Let this sink in… half of the country makes less than $50K a year. That significantly skews the percentages down. The problem is $79K a year isn't rich. It isn't close to rich, but that amount puts you in the top 20% and paying a 20% tax rate. The top 1% can manage to get their percentages down to 15% in Romney's case, and perhaps even 0% in Trump's case. When they pay less, those making less have to pay more.

 

I don't think anyone missed the point of this misogynistic statement.

 

That would only be true if the government collected enough in tax revenue to fund the Congressionally authorized expenditures but Republicans effectively prevent the federal government from collecting enough revenue to fund expenditures which requires the government to borrow the money instead.

That's been the problem with the Tea Party Movement. They complain about taxation that they're not being subjected to because Republicans would rather borrow money to fund Congressionally authorized expenditures than collect the taxes necessary to fund the expenditures.

At least Democrats want to increase the federal tax revenues to fund the expenditures to eliminate deficit spending.

Donald Trump wants to cut federal tax revenues by over $10 trillion, ballooning the national debt, by giving huge tax breaks to the highest income households that don't need a tax cut and can easily pay double the federal taxes they do today without diminishing their luxurious lifestyles one iota.

 

Another straw man, this one a petulant foot-stamping one (guess you told me!), and of course you can post whatever unresponsive gibberish and slanted nonsense you like on a political discussion board... with a written record of it for all to see. Respond meaningfully to poster's points or post a sonnet if you like, again with a written record.

FEC disclosures already do what you are claiming you want, still no comment on those, and "tradition" is the weakest of arguments for anything, let alone disclosure of sensitive information to a hostile media that has proven itself more and more dishonest daily. Of course you haven't read or reviewed that at all, just parroted the Trump Tax Hysteria LW talking point.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22/inside-trumps-finances-read-the-full-fec-report.html

Your Russian claim is beyond absurd... and would be in the FEC disclosure but NOT on a 1040. Still waiting for your expert statement of exactly -where- you would look in a 1040 and -what- you would expect to find specifically. Of course you won't be answering that.

"Since Trump lies often... there is probably something bad in his 1040" THAT kind of 4th grade logic and irrationality is why I defend Trump here.

 

You think?

So what is the real reason Donald hiding his taxes? Not this "audit" or "my lawyer told me" bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Your opinion is noted. Defend Trump as you will. I'll criticize him as much as I want.

You can claim anything is absurd, as can I. I think it is wise to treat Trump just as Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify." Producing his taxes would verify his claims. He hasn't produced them. Therefore, I do not trust him. You're absolutely free to disagree.

 

The 2008 shorter "live birth" certificate didn't cut it in 2008. That's why he had to follow up in 2011 with the real McCoy.

By Alan Silverleib, CNN
April 27, 2011 10:02 p.m. EDT
Washington (CNN) -- The White House released copies of President Barack Obama's original long-form birth certificate Wednesday, seeking to put an end to persistent rumors that he was not born in the United States.
Obama released a shorter, legally binding "certification of live birth" in 2008, but failed to persuade members of the "birther" movement.

 

Social Security and payroll taxes generally, because as we are told constantly, they represent a trust fund, not general revenue, and are eventually paid back, do not count for these purposes in any rational accounting of "who pays how much in income tax," but it's a common attempted canard to deflect from the very high % of taxes the top pay, so it's not surprising you or other leftists attempt it. So will modify my claim to "the top 30%... and corporations... pay 97% of federal income taxes."

Dealt with, and yet another narrowly tailored union label type slant ala "almost exclusively funded by the bottom 80%" (who get far -more than- 80% of the benefit when it's paid back... but you weren't going to mention that) as if it's just the same as all other revenue. It isn't, as any HS Civics class graduate will tell you. But I understand, again, why you and yours are so desperate to lump it in with general revenue to deflect from the fact that the top 30% of taxpayers and corporations pay 97% of federal income taxes.

Another laughable typical statist/redistribution structure you engage in is "investors don't pay even one dime of this tax" a bald -lie- in one sense, because most middle and up earners are in fact "investors" via numerous vehicles from life insurance to 401ks and a distortion in the sense that you are twisting language to avoid making a clear and direct statement such as "payroll taxes do not apply to investment income" that would spoil the resentment narrative and the deflection. The whole notion of SS and medicare is that the government "saves for" as custodian, for people who otherwise wouldn't.

No they wouldn't, and those who manage to make it to the polls and vote generally vote Democrat so they get to -take- more from the productive in this country, at the end of a government gun barrel, as opposed to pay more.

Yet another rank and obvious distortion we have all seen before from statists such as yourself. It doesn't matter one iota whether someone can fund whatever nebulous, incalculable amount is meant by "daily expenses," what matters is the extent to which people are able to afford to keep themselves alive... sheltered, clothed and fed, and what actual QOL enhancing concrete wealth they possess on the cheap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkebmhTQN-4

Moreover, any such calculus will factor in necessary context like the propensity of bad actors to have children that neither they nor society, nor our ecosystem can afford, or engage in other irrational behaviors... of course it never does.

The top 30% of incomes and corporations pay 97% of federal income taxes, spin, deflect, waffle, rationalize around that however you like with whatever. Readers can decide for themselves.

No we aren't.

You mean the final distortion... it just chaps you and yours to use that awful "e" word doesn't it? I can't recall many LW posts to this forum that contain the word "EARN." That's right, disparities in income in the US are generally and accurately explained by people who work harder, longer and smarter to EARN, not "receive" (ROFLMAO) more income. Like the doctor who lives next to me who is gone to the office at 6AM while I'm lounging around the house, who sees 50 patients or more a day while I post here, and who doesn't come home until 9 most nights. He spent his time in drudgery in school while I partied and slept in, went through a grueling residency, and is now responsible for the income and welfare of his 15 or so employees. Let's do take more from him (and the other 30 million hard working, productive private sector business owners) at the end of a government gun barrel to fund the bad decisions and unwise children of morons. He's already paying at least 30% of his income in taxes at all levels, probably $150,000 a year in all taxes. How much more do you think we can soak him for to pay for low work, easy govjobs, contractors, grants, redistribution for MSM clients, booze, cigs, illegitimate children, lottery tickets, drugs and all the other things that transfer payments end up funding? How much can we steal from him before he throws up his hands, says "f it!" retires on the 2 mill he has in the bank, shuts down his office, and unemploys those 15 people? How many of those 15 will you and yours hire?

This scenario is playing out all over the country, and is a big reason for our extended economic malaise. Let's see just how much -worse- we can make it by raising taxes on the 30 million business owners in the country who pay for most of the whole thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Dealt with, repetitive trolling noted.

 

It's not an opinion, but facts, that Trump has made and updated his FEC disclosures, that you and the other Trump Tax Hystericists never acknowledge that, comment on that disclosure, or analyze it, choosing instead to parrot the same LW soundbites ad infinitum.

This makes -your- opinions on this topic mostly hot air.

 

So, I'm a hysteric because I think Trump should release his tax return, just like every other Presidential candidate has done for more than 40 years, and just like Trump chided Romney to do?

Ok, then.

Even 62% of Republicans think he should release his taxes.

Have a nice day.

 

No, you're a hysteric because you are repeating talking points instead of forming a rational, adult argument, obviously towards a smear as opposed to any honest desire towards learning any actual financial information. Here, I'll set out the framework.

1. I believe that we need to know, to the fullest extent possible, the financial state and involvements of candidates for POTUS. This includes Donald Trump.
2. The FEC requires candidates to disclose much financial detail. Trump has made a 100 page FEC disclosure that anyone can review online, and I have done that. Here's a summary of what that disclosure reveals...
3. In addition to the extensive FEC disclosure, Trump should also disclose his tax returns, because in X part of the 1040 and schedules, Y information that is very important due to the following reasons... exists, and it that information is not included in FEC disclosures.

This is how a rational adult, say a productive person in the private sector, would frame such an argument.

Here's your (and the other hystericists') argument in essence "Trump should disclose his 1040s because media says he should and everyone else did... oh and there could be some Russian stuff in there."

Welcome to the 9th grade!

 

Even a 9th grader can figure out Donald's hiding (*)(*)(*)(*) by concealing his tax returns, which is why the apologists try so hard to come up with these lame excuses for him. And all they can do in the end is insult anyone who thinks Donald should release his tax returns like every other candidates has, including Clinton.

If it were Hillary that didn't release her tax records they'd be after her about it like a school of piranhas.

Hypocrisy on a massive scale. But can't say I'm surprised.

 

Trump CAN'T release his taxes because then we'd see what's in them and that would NOT be good.