Trump tax plan = big cuts for rich, even hedge fund managers

There are many people in this country that qualify for government assistance and still work a full time job. I think that was the point.

Look, I agree that there are many that are poor because of decisions they make. Whether those decisions are professional or financial, those decisions are still thiers. But what is happening in this country is that wages are not keeping up with costs, which changes the factors when making those decisions.There was a study done last year that said that the average american wage, when adjusted for inflation, makes less money than workers in 1945. So while productivity has risen, wages have not.

The biggest driver of government spending right now is social programs. But whats hidden in that is that those social programs are being used more and more by the working poor. These are people who are working, but not making enough money to live. This is directly related to wage stagnation. So until we change the way we distribute the profits of the productivity, we will continue down the same path.

 

I think the total tax dollars paid would be higher, as the amount of carried interest compensation, based on the 20%, is typically much larger than the salary compensation.

There is no excuse for the tax treatment of carried interest, imo.

 

<yawn> Just another attempt at a distraction by the right wingers at AEI. Who really cares about considering ONLY income taxes paid. What about SS and Medicare taxes, which are substantial? all of the other various taxes paid by everyone? Add them in and the top 1% may pay a bit more, but it's a damn sight closer than your b.s. charts would suggest. Then again considering that the top 1% walks off with about 90% of the money, perhaps they should be paying 90% of our taxes. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

 

Look man, I don't mean to be rude but when you note "Income Tax" was never supposed to be a permanent at all, your entire argument is invalid. Warmongers made it to provide money for wars and it stayed.

Big Corp today gets away with less taxes than the average person by donations to "charities". Yes, your "friendly" Corporation doesn't donate out of heart even though they get their name plastered on the wall. And the biggest charity by far is the Church. Yes, the Church is a considered a Charity.

So what will happen to all the charity organizations after the "loopholes" are closed? It's why the Fair Tax plan doesn't work.

Change is needed. You shouldn't get taxed more for working more hours, PERIOD. I would say no income taxes after 40 hours of work. I'll make a post for fun.

 

That is done by using Tax Statistics for individuals from the past and applying the proposed tax brackets that Trump is putting forth.

Basically, he is reducing the top bracket from 39.6% to 25%. In any type of tax return with income above $100k, that will be a huge windfall. According to the Tax Foundation, it would cost the economy $12 trillion dollars over a ten year period compared to today's current revenue projections. If you reduce government spending by $12 trillion dollars, all those positive economic gains would be wiped away because you will have contrasting policies working against each other. Although tax cuts are positive fiscal policy, decreasing government spending at the same time is a negative fiscal policy that will, in the early years, destabilize growth while increasing the income inequality ratio significantly.

 

For corporations, you can think the Dodge brothers for that one, See Dodge v Ford Motor Company. It was a famous case in the early 20th century. On top of that, corporations are limited to 10% of their net income to donate to Charity, yet corporations, through their CEO's and other chief executive officers, create and maintain large, significant charitable organizations. One of the most notable are Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and others. All were started by the founders of American MNC. Although control is separate under IRS rules, the founders and the corporations they have founded still yield great influence over the charitable organization.

BTW, when the 16th amendment was passed in 1913, the "temporary" income tax became permeant.

 

No, top bracket is 35%. And corps pay taxes. And loopholes closed.

 

Top personal income tax bracket is 39.6%, not 35%. And yes, corporations do pay taxes, but not all loopholes are closed. I can think of loopholes dealing with passive activity losses, sub part F income, DPAD, and dividend received deductions. But Trump Plan is not specific enough to determine how and to what extent capital gains and losses are to be utilized as well as other incomes that are subject to special taxation rules.

 

Tax revenues have to come from somewhere to run our governments, so rather than some whacked out tax like the "Fair Tax" (which isn't fair at all), we have graduated income taxes for both people and corporations (then again, corporations are people, too). As noted above, the tax on incomes was found to be successful and made permanent via the 16th amendment.

Suppose you're an exempt employee? Then what?

 

the Tax Foundation ( which has been discredited by many economist I might add) has made the dubious claim that Trumps tax plan would only raise the GDP by 11% and based their results on that very under rated 11% GDP growth last time we had as big of a tax cut was under Reagan and before the JFK and both had GDP jump by 50% and more for many years following

 

The GDP would be raised 11% over a ten year period, not the 6% per annum that Trump is claiming.

As for the Tax Foundation, it has a solid reputation for analyzing tax proposals fairly and honestly. It does not make political statements like some "non profit" organizations do. I can think of Tax Policy and Tax Foundation as the two most credible sources when it comes to analyzing tax proposals.

 

when you progressively punish success what will you get less of?
why is that basic simple concept so hard for liberals to understand

 

why wont it? it did under Reagan and JFK after their Tax cuts

and for the Tax foundation creditability and reliablity

 

Sure sounds like you're talking about Obamacare. *shrug*




​

 

Same reason a drowning man tries to climb on top of the guy swimming next to him: desperation.

Most people in this country are incapable of producing the lifestyle they believe they need. That desperation drives them to ask for unreasonable and unfair things from their neighbors.




​

 

lol. Trump explained it so clearly, so plainly, that even a 3 year old can understand it.

Sure makes ya wonder about the mentality of some folks, doesn't it!

 

Beats me. What do you get? I mean, everyone that I've ever know has wanted to make more money, even though they might have to pay a higher tax rate on a portion of it. I can't help it if you hang around with a bunch of slackers.

Probably because it's so damn dumb and the product of shoddy thinking (or lack thereof). Now, go read about why a progressive tax system is better than a flat tax.

 

Thank you for admitting I was 100% correct.

The top 1% pay alot more than a bit, and the rest of us would appreciate it if you would be more honest and forthright in the future. Thanks.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

 

Trumps top bracket is 35%. A reduction of a mere 4.6%... and loopholes closed.
Under 50k you don't pay taxes.
The middle class drop upwards of 15%.

Not to mention reigning in the obscene spending. Cry all you want, America needs this.

 

BFD. I can make true statements all day long, but without context, they do nothing but mislead the ignorant listener. And I assure you, I'm a long way from ignorant on a lot of issues, particularly the distortions of the right.

People with incomes above $250K paid about 23% of federal revenues with those below $250K paying the other 23%. But, not so fast - about 34% of federal revenues came from payroll taxes, almost all of which was paid by those well down the income scale from the top. So stop trying to make a case for the poor, overtaxed rich. It's a pile of crap.

 

For starters, the US real GDP growth rate has never gone above 6% except for a rare occassion or two. In addition, neither Reagan nor Kennedy severly reduced government spending. Reagan in fact doubled the debt during his eight years in office when he enacted two broad based tax cuts. And today, massive broad based tax cuts will create huge deficits if you assume government expenditures remain relatively the same. But with an emphasis on deficit reduction, any significant decrease in government expenditures will offset any possible tax cut that may be generated while at the same time refucing federal revenues significantly where the government will not even have the money to perform even its most basic function.

But none of that is about their analysis of tax plans by Presidents. Even your own links states that the Tax Foundation and CBPP have worked together and share some of the same goals.

 

blah blah blah the poor receive all kindsa handouts that actually make their tax burden a negative number.

 

Really? Seems to work in China, Japan, Western Europe, and other places that I know of. In China for instance, the top marginal tax bracket is 45%, yet the rich Chinese will still save 30% of their income despite the fact they have socialism for health care, transportation, and other infrastructures, and at the same time, still be successful, run a successful company, and increase their wealth.

The probme is that success can come with any type of tax system, but the problem with flat and regressive tax systems is that it does not allow upward mobility between the various tax brackets. Progressive tax policy allows income mobility to be achieved better than any other tax system.

 

I have no idea where you are getting the numbers for personal income tax, but the top bracket for individuals will be 25% for ordinary income. The current top mariginal top bracket is 39.6%. However you look at it, it is still a huge windfall for the upper income tax bracket. The cost is about $12 trillion and he is shifting expenditures. If you take his proposals for illegal immigration, increased ICE agents, and increasing military ship building from 7 ships per year to 15, there will not be any signficant decreases in spending PERIOD. this is simply a deficit induced tax plan under a false populist agenda.

America can do better. Give me 25 CPA's and Tax Attorneys and we will solve the problem fairly and efficienty.

 

I can't help that you don't know what you're talking about.