Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Donald Trump unveils plan to slash taxes for the poor -- and the wealthy

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    That's not true! He hasn't come out with his plan yet. He mentioned in his 60 Minutes Interview that he was working on a plan that would repeal ObamaCare and be replaced with a different plan, and that he would have as part of it, a plan for poor people who aren't eligible for Medicaid, so everyone can be taken care of through a deal between the government and hospitals. Everyone else would buy their own insurance through private insurance companies. There were no details provided, he's not completed the plan yet.

    It better not be mandatory that's all I can say about it.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #22
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...e-ly-expensive

    Donald Trump's Tax Plan Could Be Huge(ly Expensive)

    September 28, 2015 5:08 PM ET
    Danielle Kurtzleben

    Amazing, simple, easy, fair.

    Those are just four of the words Donald Trump used on Monday to describe his new tax plan. It sounds like a standard GOP tax plan, with cuts and limits on deductions. But when you look closer, it takes those ideas much further than his GOP rivals do — to the extent that it could cost the federal government trillions of dollars.

    So what is he proposing? Here's what you need to know about it:

    What does it do?

    Here are the highlights from Trump's plan:

    It would reduce the number of tax brackets from seven — with marginal tax rates ranging from 10 to 39.6 percent — to four — ranging from zero to 25 percent.

    ... meaning Trump would be introducing a zero percent tax bracket for all single people earning less than $25,000, as well as all jointly filing married couples earning less than $50,000. The campaign estimates that this would "remove nearly 75 million households ... from the federal income tax rolls."

    (Those who would now owe zero percent would get a fun new tax form: "They get a new one-page form to send the IRS saying, 'I win,' " Trump's tax plan says.)

    The plan would also cut deductions and loopholes increasingly for higher-income households. People in the 10 percent bracket would keep "all or most of their current deductions," but richer people would get fewer deductions.

    However, the charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions would stay the way they are now.

    The top capital-gains rate would fall from 23.8 to 20 percent.

    The estate tax would be eliminated.

    The plan would eliminate the carried-interest deduction that allows some Wall Street fund managers to pay lower taxes.

    The plan would also cut corporate taxes. Currently the federal corporate tax rate is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world (though many companies have a much lower effective rate). Trump's plan would cut the rate to 15 percent and also apply that rate to small businesses and freelancers, as well as corporations.

    How does it compare with other GOP tax plans?

    Trump's plan is pretty standard conservative fare conceptually: Cut the number of tax brackets, lower taxes for individuals and corporations alike, and make up for it by cutting deductions and loopholes. That all makes sense from a GOP candidate.

    "There are lots of things in here that a tax-policy person would find attractive: low marginal rates are important, [and] an international competitive corporate ratesof 15 percent looks quite good," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and director of the American Action Forum, a right-leaning think tank.

    In that sense, Trump's plan isn't all that far philosophically from his fellow candidates' plans. Bush and Rubio have proposed tax plans that likewise slash rates and cut deductions to some degree. Meanwhile, other candidates have proposed more extreme changes. Rand Paul, R-Ky., would "blow up the tax code and start over" with, among other things, a 14.5 percent flat tax. Ben Carson is proposing a 10 percent flat tax and Mike Huckabee wants a national consumption tax.

    "[Trump's] is a very conventional, very typical Republican cut-the-rates, close-the-loopholes tax proposal, in that sense not unlike what Jeb Bush proposed a couple of weeks ago," said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, an organization run by the left-leaning Brookings Institution. But when it comes to the scale of the tax cuts, Trump's plan is on a much different scale than Bush's. "What's different on this one [compared with Bush's] is it's much bigger."

    Isn't it expensive?

    Trump says that his plan is revenue-neutral, but not everyone buys that.

    "Bush's was a large tax cut aimed at high-income people. This is an even bigger tax cut aimed at high-income people," Gleckman said. Bush's plan put the highest rate at 28 percent. Trump's is 25 percent. "The offsets that he's got in there, the proposed offsetting tax increase in here, would not come remotely close to paying for it."

    Think of it this way: Many GOP plans aim to cut rates and broaden the base. Trump's plan would cut rates and in many ways shrink the tax base. In Gleckman's estimation, the Trump plan would add "many trillions of dollars" to the debt.

    Consider that Rubio's and Bush's tax plans — both of which feature higher top marginal rates than Trump's — also would cost trillions over the next decade, by some estimates.

    Of course, it's hard to ballpark how much the plan would cost; part of the problem is that the plan isn't entirely specific on exactly which loopholes would be closed or how much deductions would be restricted for the highest earners. But, Holtz-Eakin said, it would be a struggle to make up for its lost revenue.

    "It's pretty aggressive," he said. "To get the top rate to 25 percent is a lot of work." Then to stack on top of that slashing the number of people paying income taxes and a lower corporate tax rate, Holtz-Eakin added, makes the plan all the more expensive.

    In an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday, Trump also seemed to say that his plan would pay for itself by growing the economy rapidly. But that also doesn't seem likely. In a paper late last year, the Brookings Institution's William Gale and Andrew Samwick found that tax cuts have a minimal effect on economic growth.

    So who wins and who loses?

    Wealthy Americans could stand to gain a lot. For example, the estate tax (which Trump's plan would eliminate) is overwhelmingly paid by the very richest Americans — the top 10 percent of earners paid 98 percent of it as of 2011.

    And while it's true that Trump would limit deductions increasingly for higher- and higher-earning households, it doesn't look likely that those limits would make up for the lower tax rates. As the New York Times' Josh Barro pointed out on Monday, even cutting deductions entirely for the richest people doesn't look like it would make up for cutting the top tax rate by 15 points, as many high-income households already deduct 15 percent or more.

    But the price tag of Trump's tax plan could go beyond even that, because then there's the possibility of even lower taxes than 25 percent for some of those high earners. That's because of Trump's plan to extend the 15 percent corporate rate to small businesses, pass-through entities, and freelancers.

    Holtz-Eakin fears this could lead to enforcement problems, as some high-earning Americans to try to claim some earnings as business income, thus allowing them to take the 15 percent rate, when really they should be paying 25 percent.

    Either that, or it could be incentive for some high earners to become contract workers. But either way, it potentially means even less tax revenue.

    Trump's would definitely also benefit some middle-class and lower-class Americans. Right now, many lower-income Americans pay a zero or negative effective tax rate, thanks to tax credits like the EITC. This plan would boost the share of taxpayers paying nothing from 36 to 50 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Trump's team says his plan won't change the EITC at all — that means those who currently qualify for it will still get it, but it wouldn't change a lot more at the bottom of the income distribution, Gleckman notes.

    So what's the bottom line? What's Trump trying to do with this proposal?

    Here's what Trump himself told the Wall Street Journal: "My plan will bring sanity, common sense, and simplification to our country's catastrophic tax code. ... It will create jobs and incentives of all kinds while simultaneously growing the economy."

    That's a heavy lift for one tax reform plan. And while he believes his plan will do all those things, one thing missing from Trump's proposal is a clear central point.

    "When I look at Jeb Bush's tax plan, I know what he's trying to say," said Holtz-Eakin, citing Bush's aims to spur economic growth and boost business activity. "With Marco Rubio, it's about growth and families. What is Donald Trump trying to say with this tax code? I don't know."

    For example, as the WSJ points out, the plan combines populist touches (like the zero percent bracket) with big cuts for the rich.

    It's a plan that tries to please a lot of people at once. But when it comes to tax reform, you can't make everyone happy. And in Trump's case, the plan could please people who both want to cut taxes and who aren't that worried about what the plan would cost — which is to say, it could have a hard time finding many supporters in Washington.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #23
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    I think NPR has a point, because if you stick with the income tax system, lowering rates is all you can do to try to fix the economy which requires cutting spending to keep the budget balanced.

    I think everyone will soon realize that no matter how you cut the income tax system, no matter how many times and in how many ways you want to tweek it, it doesn't work. It never has, not once in 102 years. You raise the rates high enough to pay the bills and our employers and manufacturers leave the country, and you can't blame them. You lower the rates enough to keep them here and maybe lure a few back, then you don't have enough money to pay all the bills.

    That's why the Constitution forbid such a system and why it had to be amended to even allow it. Mandated income taxes simply do not work in a free society. They are born from a Communist, Socialist, Authoritarian System of Government, the income tax in its entirety is a Marxist based notion, originating in the feudal system. It's why Republicans along with our founders have always been repulsed by it and only those of a Marxist style thinking want anything to do with it.

    Trump was going with the FairTax and then he stopped and changed, probably because he consulted with "tax experts" who would be put out of business by it, and "economists" who are largely responsible for the disaster we have. You can't mix those two worlds and ever get it right. Asking an income tax expert their opinion of the FairTax is like asking a horse and buggy company what you do you think about a horseless carriage or Block Buster Video, what do you think about Red Box?

    Well, it's a long way to the election and a first term, and Trump readily changes gears when he sees it's not right yet, he did this on immigration, strengthening the platform as aspects became more apparent, so perhaps the same realization will occur with taxation.

    Does he remember that Bush II told all the investors with their money offshore they could bring it back with no tax, but no one did? Why? Because they left to avoid the burden and expense of the income tax. As long as you have an income tax, they will flee it, even when you reduce rates, because they know it's temporary and non-sustainable.

    Say Trump wins, he reduces the rates, wonderful, everyone is happy and maybe no one leaves for awhile, but then there will be a new Congress and if spending stays in or near the same neighborhood, they know they'll raise the rates or continue to run deficits. That's why they don't come home even when they can re-enter with their investment free of taxation, let alone pay 10% to re-enter for the privilege of paying 15% and then someone else becomes President and a new Congress is elected and the rates go up again.

    Manufacturers build plants and make investments they intend to use for decades and as the plant ages, new technology threatens it, requiring re-tooling and new investment to update to keep pace. Huge risks. With all that they have to contend with in the market, they just don't have the energy or will to deal with it in their government stealing their profits.

    Only the FairTax will bring them home and keep them. It's a shame Trump didn't understand that or if he did, didn't want to take on the challenge of explaining it to voters during a campaign.

    I guess we'll see what happens. Who knows, maybe the media will hate Trump enough to start promoting the FairTax just to give him a hard-time. Oddly enough, I heard at least 3 commentators mention the FairTax today as the "populist tax".

    Wouldn't that be funny?!!

    Only in America.

    FairTax Act of 2015: HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.
    Last edited by Judy; 09-29-2015 at 05:04 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #24
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    There is no 23% tax on labor in the FairTax, only new retail goods and services, the same as a tariff.

    No, the FairTax doesn't use your wording, it repeals all income based taxes, based on income, profits, earnings, payrolls, estates, capital gains, gifts, interest and dividends, covered by the Internal Revenue Code:
    Judy,

    There is a 23 percent tax upon articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor. The sale of labor is what is being taxed under the "fairtax" when a person comes to your home and cuts your lawn. In fact, the tax upon "service" is really a tax upon the property a person has in their own labor! If a local handyman comes to your home and clears a stoppage in you kitchen sink drain his labor is what is taxed and that handyman must collect the tax from you, he must also register with the federal government to sell the property he has in his labor, and he will have to send in a tax return 12 times a year and be under the penalty of perjury just as he now is under our existing system.

    The fairtax cannot "repeal" Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes. A constitutional amendment is necessary in order to accomplish that goal. If the "fairtax" were adopted the two 23 percent taxes would go into effect immediately while Congress' power to lay and collected taxes calculated from profits gains and other incomes would not be repealed. See the sunset provision contained in the language of H.R. 25.

    What we probably agree upon is our federal government ought to raise its primary revenue from taxes laid upon consumption. Where we disagree is, I support our founders method of taxing consumption while you do not.


    JWK

  5. #25
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484

    The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment

    If Donald Trump really wanted to make American great again he would tell Steve Forbes and Art Laffer their Establishment tax plan is crap and he would start promoting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


    The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


    “SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


    NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

    "SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


    NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


    "SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


    NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

    States’ population

    ---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

    Total U.S. Population


    The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!



    Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


    State`s Pop.
    ------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
    U.S. Pop.



    "SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


    NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


    "SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


    JWK


    “…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

  6. #26
    Senior Member southBronx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,758
    judy
    I like your post
    trump is very good . when it come to money . & tax .he know what he is doing
    obama did not know his ass from 3 base. when it come down to our country obama is not trying to get our country back at all & every one know this .he has our country one hell,of a mess
    I have seen the rest of them who want to be President that a good one they all look like they are in another world .& what question will i get ? trump did very well .i like the one about health care. all of the lady need help .* so do the vets . but i will say he good at the tax .
    our friend from fl & nj & the bx say he know what he doing more then any one .
    so good luck trump
    help get our country back & fast

  7. #27
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Judy,

    There is a 23 percent tax upon articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor. The sale of labor is what is being taxed under the "fairtax" when a person comes to your home and cuts your lawn. In fact, the tax upon "service" is really a tax upon the property a person has in their own labor! If a local handyman comes to your home and clears a stoppage in you kitchen sink drain his labor is what is taxed and that handyman must collect the tax from you, he must also register with the federal government to sell the property he has in his labor, and he will have to send in a tax return 12 times a year and be under the penalty of perjury just as he now is under our existing system.

    The fairtax cannot "repeal" Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes. A constitutional amendment is necessary in order to accomplish that goal. If the "fairtax" were adopted the two 23 percent taxes would go into effect immediately while Congress' power to lay and collected taxes calculated from profits gains and other incomes would not be repealed. See the sunset provision contained in the language of H.R. 25.

    What we probably agree upon is our federal government ought to raise its primary revenue from taxes laid upon consumption. Where we disagree is, I support our founders method of taxing consumption while you do not.


    JWK
    Oh, oh, I understand now what you're saying. That's the tax on services. It's not a tax on labor, it's a tax on the service which labor is just a part of, the same as labor that is part of the production of goods. A tax on labor is the income tax, not the FairTax. Come on, you know the difference. Yes of course the "handyman" who provides a service has to be retail tax collector, collect the tax, and send it in once a month to the states, same as someone who rents a house. He is also compensated for the service he provides so he makes money by collecting the tax, filling out the form and sending it to the State. So its not a tax on his labor, it's a consumption tax on his service, ad he's compensated for the minor paperwork involved.

    Yes, I understand that the FairTax does not repeal the 16th Amendment, the FairTax repeals the Internal Revenue Acts that enact the various income taxes. Congress can't repeal the 16th Amendment, it can pass separate legislation to ask the states to repeal the 16th Amendment and that is most certainly the plan and a requirement of the Sunset Provision. But the nation need not languish and continue to sink waiting for the states to do that first. That's impossible. We have to pass the FairTax first, implement it, and then the states can review and respond to repeal legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment. There may be enough to achieve it, there may not, even if they don't, we still enjoy the benefits of the FairTax.

    As a woman who has been waiting most of her lifetime for the states to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, something as simple as that, I'm not hanging my hat or the future of our country on states passing any worthwhile amendment to the US Constitution. However, I do believe the way the FairTax is structured with the States collecting the FairTax and being fairly compensated for the service that they'll not only enjoy the benefits of the FairTax they'll actually make some state money from it which I believe will encourage them to make it permanent and support the Repeal of the 16th Amendment.

    What we probably agree upon is our federal government ought to raise its primary revenue from taxes laid upon consumption. Where we disagree is, I support our founders method of taxing consumption while you do not.
    Actually, I believe we do agree. You just don't consider a Plumbing or Landscape company a service company, you think they're a labor company. Well, I've paid enough plumbing and landscape contractors to know there is no reason at all to whine for them. Their customers pay for their vehicles, their equipment, their parts, their cellphones, their expenses, their advertising, their earnings, their parts and materials, and all the other costs, earnings and profits of their enterprise, and they're doing very well. They will do even better when the FairTax is passed, because people will have much more expendable income to spend with them to upgrade their homes and landscape their yards. The form they have to send in is the same state sales tax form they're sending in now in 45 states, and with the FairTax, they're paid well for the service of doing so, $200, not to exceed 20% of their collections or 1/4% of their FairTax collections, whichever is greater.

    JohnWK, dear friend, there is a point in time when it's time to act to solve problems that are destroying our country. Most of US know that the greatest single culprit doing that is the failed, futile and evil income tax. The FairTax has been sitting in committees of the US Congress since 1999, lied about and ignored now for 17 years, during which our debt has grown to $19 trillion, millions of illegal aliens have invaded, thousands and thousands of companies have left our nation, tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs, savings, homes, freedom, dreams, hope and dignity.

    The FairTax offers a Rebate to exempt essentials for every citizen or legal resident, illegal aliens are excluded which puts them at a 23% disadvantage against our American Workers, making it very difficult for them to undercut our workers. The FairTax taxes all new retail goods and services the same, whether domestic or foreign, which levels the playing field for our companies as they struggle to compete with free trade treason. The FairTax relieves all of the burden of income tax compliance. The FairTax restores liberty and privacy to our citizens. The FairTax stops the theft of one's income, earnings and profits against our will.

    Your plan to assess real property to support the federal government is as wrong as it can be. Not only do we need to get rid of all income taxes, we need to get rid of all property taxes, because they are as much a useless tyranny as the income tax. I believe when we pass the FairTax, states and counties will eliminate their property taxes, seeing the wisdom and success of the FairTax and raise all their revenue through State and Local FairTaxes, the way it should be.

    It's time to act. It's time to say, maybe it's not perfect, but the FairTax is as perfect a piece of legislation as we'll ever see. It's time to pass it and set our people and businesses free to soar.

    FairTax Act of 2015: HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.
    Last edited by Judy; 09-29-2015 at 02:24 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #28
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-mat...-finance.html#

    FACT CHECK: Math in Trump's tax plan doesn't always add up
    Associated Press By JEFF HORWITZ
    1 hour ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump touts his tax overhaul plan as a boon for middle-income Americans, but it would also be likely to help the wealthy — including people like himself.
    Related Stories

    Republican front-runner Trump proposes tax cuts for all Associated Press
    Trump Set To Unveil His Tax Plan CBS Dallas Fort Worth (RSS)
    Trump's Tax Plan MarketWatch
    Trump wants to lower taxes, except for very rich AFP
    In 2011, Donald Trump wanted to eliminate taxes on corporations and slash rates for the rich Vox.com
    19 Celebs Who Took Plastic Surgery To Far LifeDaily Sponsored 

    A closer look at some of the claims Trump made Monday in unveiling his tax proposal:

    ___

    TRUMP: "It reduces or eliminates most of the deductions and loopholes available to special interests and to the very rich. In other words, it's going to cost me a fortune."

    THE FACTS: Only Trump and his accountant can be sure, since he doesn't specify which deductions and loopholes he plans to eliminate and has yet to release any of his tax returns.

    But it appears likely that Trump's plan would be a financial boon for someone of his wealth. Trump and his wife would pay 25 percent, instead of the current 39.6 percent, on any income above $300,001. An income statement he released alongside his personal financial disclosure report this past summer reported his 2014 income as $362 million.

    His proposal to eliminate the 40 percent tax on inheritances of more than $5.4 million would allow him to pass his estate to heirs tax-free, a savings worth billions given his self-estimated net worth of more than $10 billion.
    View gallery
    People holds signs as U.S. Republican presidential …
    People holds signs as U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a news confe …

    And by cutting 10 percentage points from the current corporate tax rate of 35 percent, the Trump Organization and its hundreds of subsidiaries would pay less — assuming they don't already use tax strategies to reduce their effective rate below 15 percent.

    ___

    TRUMP: "It will provide major tax relief for middle income, and for most other Americans, there will be a major reduction."

    THE FACTS: Trump's plan will undoubtedly reduce the amount Americans pay in income taxes. The Tax Foundation, which advocates for lower tax rates, said Tuesday its estimates the cost of Trump's tax cuts at nearly $12 trillion over the next decade.

    For single people making less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000 a year, Trump would get rid of federal income taxes entirely. He also keeps the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit low-income Americans can claim even if they pay no taxes under the current system.

    Trump would reduce the number of tax brackets from the current seven to four: 0 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent and 25 percent. While such a change would reduce taxes for middle-income earners, the "most other Americans" who would benefit the most would be those who make enough to fall into the current top tax bracket and pay 39.6 percent on income above $413,000.
    View gallery
    A woman holds a sign as U.S. Republican presidential …
    A woman holds a sign as U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a news con …

    Steve Gill, a tax and accounting professor at San Diego State University, said that as a group, Americans who are making more than $200,000 a year would pay $400 billion to $500 billion less in taxes annually under Trump's plan than under the current system.

    ___

    TRUMP: "And all of this does not add to our debt or our deficit."

    THE FACTS: In order for Trump's tax rate reductions to be what's known in Washington parlance as "revenue neutral," he would have to offset them in some way. Several tax experts, even those who like Trump's reduction in rates, said his plan appears unable to do so.

    Trump proposes making up some of the lost revenue by eliminating some deductions. But he's ruled out a couple of the biggest ones, for home mortgage interest and charitable gifts, which are worth more than $120 billion a year.

    Martin Sullivan, chief economist at a nonprofit tax analysis group and a former expert at the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, said adopting Trump's plan without increasing the deficit "doesn't look possible if you take the mortgage interest and charitable off the table."

    To get anywhere near breaking even, Sullivan said, Trump would have to eliminate deductions for state and local taxes and perhaps begin taxing retirement savings in pensions and 401(k)s.

    Many advocates of tax cuts argue they pay for themselves by boosting economic growth. But Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform, a low-tax advocacy group that Trump consulted as he developed his proposal, said Trump's cuts are so large that won't happen even under the most optimistic scenarios. "It just doesn't square up," he said.

    The Tax Foundation said the plan's $12 trillion estimated cost over the next decade could come down to $10 trillion when the economic growth the cuts may spur is taken into account.

    ___

    TRUMP: "We are reducing taxes, but at the same time if I win, if I become president, we will be able to cut so much money and have a better country. We won't be losing anything other than we will be balancing budgets and getting them where they should be."

    THE FACTS: Even if Trump's tax plan wound up being revenue neutral, it wouldn't bring in enough money to balance the budget.

    At the end of the current fiscal year on Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be $426 billion. That means Trump would have to find that much in spending cuts to balance the nation's books.

    Trump pledged Monday to start by going after waste, citing the example of "hammers that cost $800 that you can buy in a store for a tiny amount of money" — a musty reference that dates to a 1980s Pentagon scandal. He also poked fun at a government-funded soccer field that cost $1 million.

    To make up the deficit, Trump would need to eliminate all improper or insufficiently documented payments made by the federal government — estimated by the Government Accountability Office at $124 billion in 2014 — more than three times over.

    Associated Press writers Nicholas Riccardi in Denver, Colorado, and Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

    ________________________________

    So some of the negativity is setting in, but that is to be expected. Most of these think tank, advocacy and policy institutes, are all baised tax fraud "charities", sucking our government dry of revenue through their "charity" that isn't. And while I do believe at these rates, there will be revenue shortages, they can be balanced through economic growth, deportation of illegal aliens, which alone will save at least $200 billion a year in federal savings, and stopping the wasteful spending by our government which I believe Trump better than anyone else will be able to identify and eradicate without impacting important programs and needed and worthwhile functions.

    That all said, the only revenue neutral tax alternative is the FairTax whose 23% inclusive rate is based on the revenue generated by income rates in effect in 1999 before the Bush Tax Cuts. The 23% rate includes 8.09% earmarked to robustly fund Social Security and Medicare and 14.91% to fund general revenue.

    Trump should have gone with the FairTax, but, his plan is still a good plan as far as income tax plans go.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #29
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    judy wrote:

    Well, it's a long way to the election and a first term, and Trump readily changes gears when he sees it's not right yet, he did this on immigration, strengthening the platform as aspects became more apparent, so perhaps the same realization will occur with taxation.
    I would say the comment "strengthening the platform" is debatable. You're right though, Trump is inconsistent. At first Trump promised to deport all illegal immigrants with no mention of a return ticket. After receiving pressure from illegal immigrant advocates he then changed his mind from a one-way ticket to a round-trip ticket for the so-called good ones. Same thing on the wall. At first he was going to build this "really" huge wall across our entire Southern border. Of course after again receiving a little pressure he added a caveat. That caveat being a "big, beautiful door" so illegals can return legally. Trump, like many of the other candidates, does have a tendency to "change gears" as you say under pressure from illegals and their advocates. It's sad and unfortunately true.

    Fortunately for us the so-called fair tax plan does not really have enough support to gain his favor at this time.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #30
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    https://fairtax.org/articles/trump-f...y-the-tax-code

    Trump said then go to a flat tax, FairTax, at minimum simplify the tax code. I guess he chose to do the minimum.

    I'm still very disappointed. FairTax supporters, keep the pressure on Trump. He's the one to get it passed and implemented. Call his campaign office at:

    646-736-1779
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-31-2015, 05:44 PM
  2. Republicans Wary of Donald Trump’s Populist Tone on Taxes
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-31-2015, 05:44 PM
  3. Donald Trump Unveils His Immigration Plan, Calls for End to Birthright Citizenship, W
    By Newmexican in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-17-2015, 08:05 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-13-2015, 02:07 PM
  5. Romney's tax plan would slash revenue, reward the wealthy
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2012, 10:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •