Why shouldnt Trump reduce taxes.

IMO Trump should reduce business taxes because it will grow businesses, and they will hire more people.

Then-----------why not reduce personal taxes. Who here thinks the government is entitled to my hard earned money, and thinks a huge government knows better where my money should be spent.

Only huge government liberals think that the government should take more tax money so they can spend it in a way that will buy more votes for democrats.

 

Gee cant one lib on the forum come with at least one lame reason why taxes shouldnt be cut?

 

tax cuts for rich people simply means they will buy more stocks, mutual funds and ETFs.

they aren't likely to invest in more jobs.

however, even Liberals agree that Corporate taxes should be cut, thats how we will compete better with foreign companies.

 

I would love tax cuts if they're aligned with cuts in spending.

As it is now, the Democrats are the tax and spend party and the Republicans are the borrow and spend party.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad you agree on corporate taxes. But how do managers utilize stock money? Don't they usually invest it in capital?

 

If Trump doesn't cut spending at the same time (and cutting money to Planned Parenthood and NPR WHILE you raise Defense spending by billions is NOT cutting spending) then all he's doing is kicking the can down the road to the next President - might as well have let Obama have a third term if he's going to do that.

 

It never had that effect in the past...but that never stopped Republicans from supporting a failed economic idea before so...

Oh by the way?

It'll raise the debt if you care about that

 

Higher taxes mean more federal workers can be hired. Doesn't matter now that Trump is in power even the baddest Russian hackers can't hack Trump's twitter account.

 

Sorry, but this is nearly meaningless to me. Not sure if you're being serious or just going about as usual.

 

Why shouldn't he raise taxes and spend that money buying stuff from companies so they can afford to hire more people? Same logic.

 

Corporations typically use more revenue to invest in more personnel, more plants, more stores, etc. That means more jobs.

Thats why we need to reduce our corporate tax rate to 20% or lower.

 

I like that, we're in complete agreement.

Though I'm curious as to why you're opposed to lowering corporate taxes. I get you like lowering corporate taxes, but you're against lowering corporate taxes.

 

You and I usually agree on things, so I will take you on on this one. Let's just have a good discussion without all the partisan bs.

I agree with you about business taxes. I believe that all business income taxes ought to be eliminated entirely. Philosophically, I think of a business as nothing more than a group of individuals working cooperatively to make a living. I see the business as just a vehicle to that end, and so I fail to see why we would want to impair that vehicle in any way. It's as if you've got an 8-cylinder motor, but the government only lets you have 7 spark plugs. You have to give one of your spark plugs to the government, and the government keeps some of its value for itself and gives the rest to someone else. We can tax the individuals who derive personal income from the business, but why tax the business itself? Now if the business sits on real property, it's fine for the business to pay property taxes because it uses services like fire and police and roads. But it's income should be left alone, imo.

Now, as far as an income tax cut goes .... First, I just did my taxes, and there is a state income tax in my state. Between the state and federal income taxes, I paid $20,000 of my wife's and my money. Would I like to have an income tax cut? Well, it would appear that I would, wouldn't I?

My problem, though, is that I am an American patriot first, and a self-serving individual second. And our Country has a problem.... a big problem. And this problem is looming right around the corner. What is happening is that the interest on the federal debt is starting to balloon. The projections for the next 10 years are truly startling. You can google "interest on the federal debt projection" and you will see that my concern arises from reliable sources, not some tinfoil hatters. You can read all about it.

Here is one chart ...



Here is another ...



This one item has been around 6-7% of federal spending in recent years, but it is going to balloon up and surpass the entire defense budget (17% of the federal budget) in the next few years with no sign of leveling off. It's just going to go up and up.

We have been kicking the can down the road for years, but we have finally run out of road.

Why isn't anyone talking about this? Because no one wants to, that's why. The public and especially our politicians are ostriches with their heads in the sand, trying to hide from it. (You can add this topic to the list of reasons why I hate our politicians so much.)

Now, in order to prevent financial disaster, we must cut spending where we can, and we must prepare ourselves to accept tax increases. We must right the ship while we still have a little time left. Once we have a balanced budget, and we get these interest payments under control, then we can talk about income tax cuts. But I am very concerned that if we cut personal income taxes now, we are going to hasten the onset of our financial crisis.

Getting out of Obamacare will help the federal government towards a balanced budget, but only if it is replaced by something that is completely revenue neutral to the government. (This means the public pays for its health care, not the government.) It would be a good idea to very gradually reduce the cost of government with a "one penny" rule. This means that the actual spending is reduced by 1% a year until the budget balances. This would provide for a gradual contraction, rather than a sudden slashing. Everybody will be effected. Federal employees won't get raises for a while. Medicare will pay less for medical care, etc, etc. But the pinch will be gradual giving people time to adjust.

The tax increases should be directed at the upper 5%. I would remind you that in the boom times of the 1950s, the income tax rate on personal income above $400k was 90%. And these were boom times! This narrative that if we take personal income away from the very rich, the economy will suffer, is utter bunk. The economy will suffer if we take money from the businesses themselves, but not if we take personal income from very, very rich people. This is a lie that has been foisted on us all by ...... well, guess who. The answer is the very, very rich and the politicians they control, as well as the media which is married to them all.

I have been saying this on this board over and over, and everybody on both sides of the political divide hates to hear it. But here it is ....

If we want the federal government to do something ... like have the best military in the world, secure the border, build infrastructure, feed and clothe the truly needy, pay for medical care ... then we have to be willing to pay for it. If we aren't willing to pay for it, we can't have it. Let's see one of our gutless politicians take that as a campaign slogan. "You can't have it!"

For too long now we have been seduced by deficit spending which teaches us all - Republican and Democrat - that we don't have to pay for it. Well, it's just about over. The delusion is about to be exploded by reality. I just hope there isn't too much damage. I hope we can prevent a major calamity while we still can.

But all this is why I disagree with Trump on taxes, and I voted for him. I say, let's fix ourselves first, then talk about cutting taxes.

 

I'm one Conservative that agrees with you on this.

I made a decent living, but nothing to brag about, but I can certainly handle contributing more (and i'm sure i'm well out of the 5%).

If it was up to me, i'd increase taxes across the board from top to bottom, but I absolutely would hit the top 1% and top 5% pretty hard, they will be just fine, they will (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan but they will figure it out being the resourceful peep's that they are.

I'd hit SS & Medicare with an extra 1% (+1% for employers) right off the bat, remove caps as well.

Then i'd hit the rich with 5% across the board, and the non rich with 2.5% across the board, i'd also tax everything including welfare.

Granted yes i'd also push hard for cuts along with this, and hammer the politicians for pissing away our money from benefits, cars, plane tickets, etc.... and fly coach !!!!

 

Damn! Thank you! I think you may be the first conservative to ever come out and say that, and I have been expressing these opinions multiple times on this board for a year. One of the main reasons I am an Independent is because I hate how the Republicans define fiscal conservatism. I would love to ask any of them, "Since when is it conservative to not pay for our spending?" "Since when is it conservative to run up such a high debt that the interest on the debt is threatening to engulf the whole federal budget?" I count myself as a conservative, by my definition, because I believe we must pay for our spending. And yes, "paying for it" means that if we want to spend as much as we're spending, then government revenues must support that level of spending, and that means taxation that pays for it. When I hear Republicans promising "No new taxes!", do you know what I think of? I think they're just going to continue driving the government into bankruptcy by borrowing. Well, they've just about got it there.

I also made a decent living, although I am far from "rich". But I'm comfortable.

Of course they would. 41% of the nation's wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. Any whining from the top 5%, and especially the top 1% is just shameful.

I, too, would keep those two programs fully funded. I see SS and Medicare as programs that are entirely consistent with conservative values. With those two programs, we are taking care of our grandparents and our parents, and, inevitably someday, ourselves. What value could be more conservative than taking care of our elderly?

Minor disagreement with you here. I'd like to return tax rates to what they were post-WW2, which were very high for the very rich. I think I'd leave the middle class alone. And I don't think it makes sense to give welfare to someone and then tax them for it.

Here is a link on income tax rates by year. You have to pull down about 2 thirds of the way to get to the chart. Look at the top bracket rates from about 1932 to 1981. I think we have a looming crisis, and it is time for a return to top bracket rates like those until we get our ship righted. Nothing will make our politicians and their owners want to right the ship more than some high rates on their personal income, that's for sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Ha! Agree. It's good to see Trump impose a non-military hiring freeze, and I think he is going to propose cuts in non-defense discretionary spending. I remain concerned, though, that he doesn't yet realize that we must stop this deficit spending. This interest crisis is going to go down on his watch, so perhaps that will change.

 

Well, you have to ask yourself, do you want that southern border or don't you? Yes, you're the one getting the bill, not Mexico. Additionally, are you willing to pay to "rebuild the military?," which is really just a nice way of saying we're sending and killing our own. When government sets a regulation -- for instance, with the education system, it keeps our society in check. Reason why states retaining power is a recipe for disaster hands down.

So, no. Unless you're willing to forfeit an increased military presence and the border, you're getting taxed.

 

I am perfectly OK with all that as long as they cut things like the EPA to the bone.

 

So, you're perfectly okay without environmental regulations that clean the air you breathe, and keep active volcanoes from blowing chow?

Okay then.

 

Do you understand that when people buy stocks the companies use that money to expand and hire more people?????????????

 

Actually, no, unless the company is making a new offering. Otherwise it is just the previous owner who pockets the money to do with as he pleases.

 

We should jack your tax rate to the top rate so you can do your part to help

 

Yeah, and people buy the stuff these companies make. That's why we need to lower the personal tax rate to 15% max. More to spend, more jobs created

 

Why don't you pay the highest rate since you care so much?

 

Basically I have no issues with increasing taxes/revenue and i'm far from an economic's wiz but I understand that a stronger economy increases revenue as well. But generally yes I feel that we need to step up to the plate individually and ALL of us need to contribute more and get a good return on our investment, I think we are falling short on the good return portion.

If we increase revenue and then just (*)(*)(*)(*) most of it away then I do take issue. When I see waste on so many levels from local to federal on the taxpayers dime, some examples are in the millions, some in the billions but they add up very quickly. If I was using one word to describe the federal government the last word that comes to mind is "efficient"

I have plenty more to say but works gets in the way but my last comment would be that I think a many conservatives would agree as long as they felt that we were closer to "efficient" than we are to "wasteful". I'm not that confident that either political party is up to the task.

 

Right. I wouldn't support a tax increase just to spend more money. I would support it to simply pay for what we're spending, with no spending increase.

Me neither. I don't know if Trump can reshape the bureaucracy to make it more efficient, but I knew Hillary had no interest in doing that. So I voted for Trump because he seems more likely to want to try to do that. Cheers!

 

Prove reduction of business taxes will grow businesses and they will hire more people.

"Logic" doesn't suffice. Prove it.

Studies have long shown that taxes doesn't determine business activity nor employment. If there is insufficient demand for goods or services, a business will not produce and try to sell where the demand won't support it. OTOH, if demand is there, tax law will not stop a business from exploiting that opportunity.

So I don't buy your claim. Prove it so I can change my opinion.