Donald Trump: TAX THE RICH MORE

Donald Trump: Tax the rich more

By Heather Long @byHeatherLong

Donald Trump: I'll take jobs from China, Mexico

Donald Trump is finally showing us more of his economic plan beyond the "Make America Great Again" slogan on his red hat.

America has now learned:
-- He wants to tax the rich more and the middle class less.
-- He wants to lower corporate taxes.
-- He wants to cut government spending and stop raising the debt ceiling.

"The hedge fund people make a lot of money and they pay very little tax," Trump said in an interview Wednesday with Bloomberg. "I want to lower taxes for the middle class."
In short, Trump is willing to raise taxes on himself and those like him.

Many hedge fund managers and real estate investors are able to list their earnings as "carried interest" because of an IRS tax rule. They are able to cast their earnings as investment gains instead of income, which allows them to be taxed at a lower rate.

"You've seen my statements. I do very well. I don't mind paying a little more in taxes. The middle class is getting clobbered in this country," he said.

Related: Donald Trump trounces GOP field

Eliminate "inheritance" tax or worry about inequality

Trump has been all over the place on taxes over the years. He criticized President Obama for not wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts in place on the wealthiest Americans. He has also proposed eliminating the so-called "estate tax" on people that inherit money, gifts and property from their parents. Both moves would be a major gain for the rich.

Now Trump is starting to sound more populist.

"The middle class built this country, not the hedge fund guys," he said Wednesday.

"One of the reasons he is winning votes is he's talking about the macro issues that so frustrate many Americans and seem so blatantly unfair," says Peter Morici, a professor of economics at University of Maryland's Robert Smith school of business.

Lower corporate taxes and bring $2.5 trillion home

Trump also wants to even the playing field on taxes that businesses pay. He believes that lowering the corporate tax rate will stop American companies from trying to move their headquarters -- and possibly jobs -- overseas in an effort to dodge taxes in the U.S.
Many U.S. companies such as Apple (AAPL, Tech30) have huge cash reserves that they could spend on growing their businesses, but that money is mostly held overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. Trump estimates as much as $2.5 trillion could return to America if taxes were lower.

"This is money that could be spent in this country," he said. "We have companies with thousands of jobs that re leaving this country."

Related: U.S. companies hoard record amounts of cash

Washington is full of "scandalous" waste

Trump was also asked about whether he would continue to raise America's debt ceiling.

The standoff between President Obama and Republicans in Congress over whether to raise the ceiling in 2011 caused U.S. debt to lose its AAA rating.

Republicans should fight Obama again over the issue, Trump argues, even if it causes pain in financial markets.

"I think there's so much waste, so much scandalous waste in Washington that we shouldn't have to [raise the debt ceiling]," he said.

Trump continues to lead the GOP field solidly. Rivals accuse him of not having real plans.

"The big issues he talks about do make some sense," says Morici. "The question is...is there really much substance there or is this just a few phrases?"

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/27/news/economy/donald-trump-economy-tax-plan/

Morning Plum: Donald Trump wants to tax the rich. Will Republican voters agree with him?

By Greg Sargent August 28 at 9:37 AM

The chatter continues this morning about Donald Trump’s call for raising taxes on the rich. Justin Green, the political editor of IJ Review, tweets:

It might frighten the donor class, but the bulk of conservative voters aren’t especially worried about protecting low taxes for rich people.

Is that correct? I dug up a few polls and found that majorities of Republican and conservative voters oppose raising taxes on the rich.

A Gallup poll this spring found that while a majority of Americans overall favors redistributing wealth with higher taxes on the rich, only 29 percent of Republicans agree, while 70 percent disagrees. Among conservatives it’s 32-66. A Pew poll in 2014 found that while a majority of Americans favors raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations to expand programs for the poor, only 29 percent of Republicans agree, while 59 percent of Republicans favor lowering taxes on the wealthy to encourage investment and growth.

Of course, these polls don’t measure precisely what Trump is calling for. And it’s here, I think, that Trump’s comments about this have real value. Here’swhat Trump said:

“I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars-a-year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it’s outrageous,” Trump said. “I want to lower taxes for the middle class.”…“The middle class is getting clobbered in this country. You know the middle class built this country, not the hedge fund guys, but I know people in hedge funds that pay almost nothing and it’s ridiculous, okay?”

Taken all together, what this means (I think) is that Trump would raise taxes on investment income precisely because that would pay for middle class tax relief; that lower tax rates on investments are fundamentally unfair; and that hiking taxes on investments would not dampen economic growth. That seems very much like a broad rejection of trickle down dogma. (The necessary caveats: We don’t know whether Trump’s overall approach would raise or lower the tax burden on the rich; we don’t know whether Trump believes any of this; and he could suddenly reverse course on it at any moment.)

Trump does seem to have broken with GOP dogma here, and to my knowledge, none of his Republican rivals have responded directly to it. But Marco Rubio is justifying his call for eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends by arguing that investment creates jobs for people like his bartender father. It’s an interesting contrast.

One of the odd paradoxes of Trump’s rise has been that even as he is little more than an entertainer, his willingness to say what other Republicans won’t has forced out into the open genuine policy debates among Republicans that had previously been shrouded in vagueness or imprisoned within party orthodoxy.

His call for mass deportations has unmasked GOP evasions over what to do about the 11 million, forcing something close to a real debate on that question. His vow not to cut Social Security benefits has led some to ask whether GOP voters might actually disagree with party dogma on the need to cut them.

If Republicans respond to Trump’s (apparent) apostasy on taxes, the debate would be useful, not to mention fascinating, and could shed more light on whether Republican voters really agree with GOP orthodoxy on “protecting low taxes for rich people,” as Green puts it, in the name of job creation.
************************************************** *********************
* BATTLE OVER IRAN DEAL MAY BE OVER: Eli Lake and Josh Rogin report that opponents have all but given up on overriding a veto of a resolution disapproving of the Iran deal. The fight is now over whether Dems will succeed in filibustering the resolution, avoiding a veto-override fight. Note:

According to one whip count from a prominent Republican Senate office, there are now only 12 truly undecided votes among the Senate Democrats.

If true, that means 34 Dem-aligned Senators are now backing the deal or leaning towards it. If backers can get seven of the remaining 12, that’s 41 — meaning no veto necessary.
* ANOTHER DEM BACKS IRAN DEAL: Senator Tom Carper of Delaware comes out for it. That brings the total of declared supporters to 30. Four more and the veto is sustained.
* CLINTON QUIETLY DISCOURAGING BIDEN RUN? The Associated Press has an interesting look at the ways the Hillary campaign may be quietly trying to dissuade Biden from entering the race. The campaign is reportedly expressing disappointment to donors who seem open to a Biden bid, and is unleashing well-timed demonstrations of Clinton’s depth of organizing in early states, to show that Biden can’t catch up.
Of course, it would be surprising if the Clinton camp weren’t doing this; and it also happens to be true that Biden probably would not be able to catch up with her campaign’s organizing.
* DEM INSIDERS DOUBT BIDEN WILL TAKE PLUNGE: Politico surveys Democratic activists and other inside-game types in Iowa and New Hampshire and finds eight in 10 of them don’t think Biden will run:

They say it’s too late in the game for Biden to mount a serious bid unless Clinton implodes — a prospect that most saw as unlikely — after months of scrutiny of her email practices while she was secretary of state, an issue that has triggered the attention of the FBI.

Dem insiders seem to think Clinton will probably weather email-gate, though there will be plenty of public hand-wringing along the way.
* WALKER TO VOW UNLIMITED FOREIGN POLICY STRENGTH AND TOUGHNESS: Scott Walker today will deliver a speech in which he’ll lay out his vision for combating radical terrorism:

According to excerpts released by his campaign, Walker will accuse President Barack Obama of wide-ranging weakness on the world stage, from his proposed nuclear deal with Iran to his handling of relations with China and Russia. “As president, I will send the following message: the retreat is over,” Walker says.

No word yet on whether Walker will cite his crushing of municipal employees in Wisconsin and his heroic confrontation with a heckler as templates for his handling of the terrorists.
* WHAT DO EXPERTS THINK OF THE HILLARY EMAIL ‘SCANDAL’? David Ignatius takes the preposterous step of talking to actual experts about Clinton’s handling of her emails, and finds:

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.

Ignatius’ conclusion: “Are these channels misused sometimes? Most definitely. Is there a crime here? Almost certainly not.”
* AND GOP CANDIDATES DEMAGOGUE ON CHINA: Paul Krugman looks at how the GOP presidential candidates are using the market slide to accuse Obama of being soft on China, and notes that this is emblematic of the GOP’s general approach to economics, particularly the wrong-headed obsession with cutting spending amid crisis:

“Obama is endangering America by borrowing from China” is a perfect political line, playing into deficit fetishism, xenophobia and the perennial claim that Democrats don’t stand up for America! America! America! It’s also complete nonsense, but that doesn’t seem to matter…The point is that one side of the political aisle has been utterly determined to learn nothing from the economic experiences of recent years.

The key point Krugman makes is that it isn’t just Trump. The more “responsible” GOP candidates are getting in on the China-demagoguing fun, too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gree-with-him/

Most Republicans despise the income tax system, want to get rid of it and replace it with something else, many like me prefer the FairTax Act of 2015 which is why HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 has so many bill sponsors.

AS TRUMP WOULD SAY IT CALL MANAGEMENT & HE KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING TO GET OUR COUNTRY BACK

In my reasoning Corporate tax amounts to nothing more than a value added tax, as the taxes paid will be a business expense passed to the consumer. Hence as a tax on income, it is an indirect tax on consumers.

In a family who pays expenses if one of 2 or three adults is the only one employed. Of course the only one with money pays for the benefit of the family. It is a family value. When a nation is in dire financial straits who can pay? Like it is in the family, only the one(s) with money CAN pay. That does not seem difficult to arrive at. The only other solution is to expel the freeloader(s) from the home. In the problem of a nation, that will require choices being made. Aliens first, of curse (except in America very possibly), then who ? The elderly, the disabled, pensioned veterans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

In my reasoning Corporate tax amounts to nothing more than a value added tax, as the taxes paid will be a business expense passed to the consumer. Hence as a tax on income, it is an indirect tax on consumers.

In a family who pays expenses if one of 2 or three adults is the only one employed. Of course the only one with money pays for the benefit of the family. It is a family value. When a nation is in dire financial straits who can pay? Like it is in the family, only the one(s) with money CAN pay. That does not seem difficult to arrive at. The only other solution is to expel the freeloader(s) from the home. In the problem of a nation, that will require choices being made. Aliens first, of curse (except in America very possibly), then who ? The elderly, the disabled, pensioned veterans?

---

Exactly! In fact, all income tax is passed on to the consumer. All. Income-based payroll taxes are passed on to the consumer, capital gains taxes are passed on to the consumer, personal income tax is passed on to the consumer, dividend taxes are passed on to the consumer, as are interest and gift taxes and estate taxes, all passed on to the consumer, some directly as direct business expenses and others as part of the extra-curricular but direct process of investing and saving.

That's how the 23% rate was determined for the FairTax, it took the total income tax stream from all sources and divided into the GDP, that's how the rate was arrived at. The rate consists of 8.09% dedicated or ear-marked to robustly fund Social Security and Medicare and the balance of 14.91% to fund general revenue.

So the non-payroll portion of the FairTax is 14.91%, less than the equivalent of a 15% income tax rate, but one that is voluntary instead of mandated, based on your own day to day spending choices on new goods and services. Exempt are all business to business transactions, all used goods (homes, cars, etc.), college tuition and true charity (something actually given away for free, not something sold at a discount by 501 C3 money schemes.

The FairTax also has a Rebate based on number of adults and children in the household that anyone who is a US citizen or legal resident can apply for, illegal aliens are not eligible, it's voluntary, you can sign up or not, the form is simple, name, birth-date and social security number is all you need under the statute, and Social Security Administration handles all of the Rebate matters, approving the applications and sending out the Rebates through debts to accounts or cards, no checks,something they're already more than qualified and best equipped to do.

The FairTax is a SmartTax.

http://www.alipac.us/f12/republicans...-taxes-322731/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

http://www.alipac.us/f12/republicans...-taxes-322731/

---

And rightly so. Donald Trump needs to study the FairTax Act of 2015, HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate, because it does everything he says he wants to do with regards to taxes.

Instead of Donald Trump listing the countless reasons why income taxation ought to be ended, he appears to be leaning toward perpetuating this evil form of taxation by attacking hedge fund managers and promising to help the middle class by making hedge fund managers pay the fair share. Of course, carrying out his plan to tax Hedge fund managers would keep the evil income tax alive and the Washington Establishment very happy.

Trump has recently stated: “The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. They’re making a tremendous amount of money. They have to pay taxes. I want to lower the rates for the middle class. The middle class is the one, they’re getting absolutely destroyed. This country doesn’t have—won’t have a middle class very soon,” See: Donald Trump: "The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder"

Trump’s approach invokes class warfare to woo the “middle class” rather than attacking the worm at the root of the tree which is in fact America’s experiment with the socialist inspired federal tax calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages and other lawfully earned “incomes”. If Trump was sincere and knowledgeable about federal taxation and how it is destroying not only the “middle class” but America’s entire economic engine, he would be advocating an end to Congress’ power to lay and collect all federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances and any other lawfully realized money, and start defending a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders.

Unfortunately, it seems that Trump is relying upon Establishment types for tax reform ideas like Steve Forbes and Art Laffer, both of whom promote keeping income taxation alive, which in turn keeps this patently dishonest, corruptible and manipulative system of taxation available to Congress who has used it for decades to carry out nefarious purposes while destroying America’s economic engine in the process.

If Donald Trump is sincere about making America great again, he should entertain the wisdom and brilliance of our Founder’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world when it was followed.

JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”,no longer in print.