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

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/op...ious.html?_r=0

Is Donald Trump Serious?

SEPT. 29, 2015

Joe Nocera

As part of his ongoing effort to make a mockery of the American political process, Donald Trump released his tax plan on Monday morning. This is the third official policy position he has laid out in the three and a half months he’s been running for president.

His opening salvo, of course, was his absurd proposal to round up the 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country and deport them, en masse, while also building an impenetrable wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. “It’ll actually be a wall that will look good,” he actually told Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” on Sunday night.

His second position paper, which hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it deserves, is a no-holds-barred defense of the Second Amendment that the National Rifle Association could have written. Among other things, Trump says that we don’t need expanded background checks, and that concealed carry permits — he has one himself, in case you were wondering — should be valid in all 50 states, just like a driver’s license.

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

His tax plan, at least, is not completely irrational. Then again, “a broken clock is right twice a day,” as Edward Kleinbard, a law professor and tax expert at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, puts it.

Kleinbard told me he likes the fact that Trump wants to tax profits that companies earn abroad at the time they are earned, just like domestic profits. That would help end the practice of American companies parking their profits overseas, because they are now taxed only upon repatriation. (Trump also wants to impose a one-time tax on those overseas profits, which would raise some $200 billion.)

A second tax expert I spoke to, Robert Willens, noted that Trump’s plan would end corporate “inversions,” whereby companies list an overseas “headquarters” to take advantage of another country’s lower tax rate. The reason, though, is that Trump’s proposed 15 percent corporate tax rate is so low that companies wouldn’t need to leave to enjoy drastically lower taxes.

Trump says his plan will also prevent American companies from moving jobs overseas. But it won’t. Companies might move their headquarters back to the U.S., but the main job sources — factories — will remain in countries that have lower labor costs, not lower taxes. And neither Trump nor anyone else running for president can fix that.

What is irrational is Trump’s belief that he can cut corporate taxes from 35 to 15 percent, can cut the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 25 percent, can allow millions of additional Americans to go untaxed completely (they’ll be able to fill out a form that says “I win”), can abolish the estate tax and can lower the maximum capital gains tax from 23.8 percent to 20 percent, and still be “revenue neutral.”

Where will the revenue come from to make up for those tax cuts? It’s not going to come from whacking the “hedge fund guys,” as he likes to call them. Though Trump proposes to end their “carried interest” tax break, his new maximum individual rate of 25 percent means their tax burden would barely budge. And though he claims he will get rid of various unspecified deductions, he didn’t dare touch the one individual deduction that matters: the mortgage interest deduction. Somebody must have told him that that would cost him in the polls.

Like almost everything else about the Trump campaign, his tax plan is hard to take seriously. (To be fair, most of the tax plans put forth by his Republican rivals are hard to take seriously.) During the “60 Minutes” interview, Trump told Pelley that he would force the Chinese to “do something” about North Korea’s nuclear program — while also preventing them from devaluing their currency! — that he would get rid of Obamacare — while instituting universal coverage! — and that he was on more magazine covers than “almost any supermodel.”

You could see Pelley struggling to keep a straight face.

I wonder, in fact, whether even now Trump is a serious candidate, or whether this is all a giant publicity ploy. Once a real developer, Trump is largely a licenser today; the more famous he becomes, the more he can charge to slap his name on buildings or perfume or men’s suits.

I’m not alone in wondering this, of course. Several Republican consultants I spoke to openly questioned whether Trump is in it for the long haul. “You would see him spending a lot more money if he were putting together a true national infrastructure,” said Rick Wilson, a Republican strategist.

There’s one other thing. All his life, Trump has had a deep need to be perceived as a “winner.” He always has to be perceived coming out on top. That’s why, ultimately, I don’t think he’ll ever put himself at the mercy of actual voters in a primary. To do so is to risk losing. And everyone will know it.

He’ll be out before Iowa. You read it here first.

____________________________

Joe Nocera and his buddies he quotes are the reason we're flooded with 20 million or more illegal aliens and have $19 trillion in national debt. I don't like Trump's tax plan because I'm a FairTax supporter, but as failed income tax plans go, his is as good or better than anyone else's.

Originally Posted by Judy

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. .

I know what is written in H.R. 25 and what is written is :

SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OFSALES TAX.

`(a) In General- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.

TAXABLE PROPERTY OR SERVICE-

`(A) GENERAL RULE- The term `taxable property or service' means--
`(i) any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property) but excluding--
`(I) intangible property, and
`(II) used property, and
`(ii) any service (including any financial intermediation services as determined by section 801).


`(d) Liability for Tax-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.


`(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER-A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 510.

`(f) Barter Transactions- If gross payment for taxable property or services is made in other than money, then the person responsible for collecting and remitting the tax shall remit the tax to the sales tax administering authority in money as if gross payment had been made in money at the tax inclusive fair market value of the taxable property or services purchased

`(a) In General- Any person liable to collect and remit taxes pursuant to section 103(a) who is engaged in a trade or business shall register as a seller with the sales tax administering authority administering the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

Now let us examine how this tax upon “property” would affect Mary and JoeSixpack, ordinary working people. Mary and Joe have two children and find it necessary to earn extra money to pay their bills. Mary baby sits for neighbors in the community and cleans homes on weekends to raise extra money while Joe,who works for a pluming company as a full-time job, also provides the same plumbing service on his own time to people living in his community to raise extra cash.

Under the alleged fair tax Mary and Joe Sixpack’s inalienable right to sell the property they have in their labor becomes a taxable event, and, they must first register with government to sell the property they have in their labor, collect a federal tax for Congress, file federal sales tax returns under the penalty of perjury, 12 times a year and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them if they dare to sell the property they have in their labor.

Funny thing is, our founding fathers, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, were fully aware of the oppressive nature of taxes imposed upon property and this is the very reason for our founding fathers demanding in our Constitution that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


JWK
"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poorman lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property."___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 U.S. 746 (1884)

http://www.businessinsider.com/jeb-b...trump-tax-plan

Jeb Bush to Donald Trump: I'm 'flattered' that you stole my tax plan

Colin Campbell
5 hrs ago September 29, 2015

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) suggested on Tuesday that presidential rival Donald Trump had ripped off his tax-policy ideas.

"Finally saw Donald's 'tax plan.' Looks familiar! I'm flattered," Bush wrote on Twitter. "But he should've stuck with growth & fiscal responsibility."

Bush campaign spokesman Tim Miller further suggested that Trump might also crib from the former governor's energy-reform plan, which is being announced in a Tuesday afternoon speech.

"We assume Donald will be watching our energy policy rollout today looking for ideas," Miller told Business Insider.

In a much-anticipated event the day before, Trump revealed his wide-ranging tax proposals, which included slashing rates, reducing the number of income brackets, and eliminating the so-called carried-interest loophole that benefits hedge fund managers.

However, some observers noted that there were a number of similarities to Bush's plan unveiled earlier in the month — except Trump's specific proposals generally went even further than Bush's.

"You could call Mr. Trump's plan a higher-energy version of the tax plan Jeb Bush announced earlier this month, similar in structure, but with lower rates and wider tax brackets, meaning individual taxpayers would pay even less than under Mr. Bush, and the government would lose even more tax revenue," The New York Times' Josh Barro wrote.

Slate's Jordan Weissmann was even more direct and wrote a piece titled: "Donald Trump Steals Jeb Bush's Tax Plan, Makes It Classier, More Luxurious."

"In fact, it almost looks as if Trump simply looked at Bush's plan, then slashed all the rates a little further—or, you know, classed it up a bit," Weissmann wrote, including a side-by-side comparison of their specific ideas.

Trump's tax plan did have some indisputably original content, however. For the people who would pay 0% in federal taxes under his proposal, Trump suggested they would instead file a one-page form to the IRS simply saying, "I win."

His campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Bush's criticism.

_________________________

Oh that's so funny! Jeb wants to fight over whose latest "tweek" of the futile, failed and evil income tax is whose!! There's only so much oe can do to "tweek" it, you raise or lower rates, decrease or increase the number of brackets, change depreciation schedules, exempt one thing or another, and mess around with the deductions and loopholes. There is no originality or creativity involved in this. You change it for one to benefit another. You rob Peter to pay Paul. You cheat Suzy to give Mary a break.

Judyism: You can't fix something that was never right to begin with.

FACE IT! Everyone "tweeking" the income tax code is failing Americans. So the issue is really, who is losing the best??!!. Jeb? You want that one? I'm sure Trump will hand it to you on a silver platter so you can get all the negative press for yet another stupid tweek of the futile, failed income tax code.

I mean, when is someone going to remember that doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is a form of insanity?

To fix our country we have to REVERSE the policies that caused this disaster, chief among them repeal the income tax code, that's right, put it on a bonfire, celebrate the end of a failed century, and pass the FairTax so we can start winning again.

FairTax Act of 2015: HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...ut-bushes-bush

Donald Trump's Tax Plan 'Out-Bushes Bush'

Though pundits have slammed Trump's new tax plan, many argue The Donald knows best when it comes to tax reform.

y Andrew Soergel
Sept. 29, 2015 | 1:05 p.m. EDT

Critics were quick to jump on the new tax proposal unveiled Monday by GOP front-runner, real estate mogul and reality TV star Donald Trump – a plan that "removes nearly 75 million households" from paying income taxes, restructures domestic tax brackets, removes certain deductions and loopholes and scraps the so-called "death tax" associated with inheritance.

"It is a fraud – a total fraud," Al Hunt, columnist and commentator at Bloomberg, said in response to the tax proposal on Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect" Monday. "He's going to massively increase defense spending, and then he's going to have a huge revenue-losing tax plan. Guess what? There's a lot of debt there."

The primary criticism: Despite Trump's claims that the plan is "revenue neutral," few see how that could be a realistic possibility given the extent of the tax cuts.

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump announces his tax plan during a press conference at Trump Tower in New York on Sept. 28, 2015.

"He said he would eliminate deductions, but there aren't enough deductions around to reduce the rates that low without making a huge increase in the deficit," John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC and a writer for The New York Times, said in an interview Monday on CNBC. "No one can look at this tax plan and think that it would be revenue neutral."

Trump's plan will allow single workers who earn less than $25,000 annually, and married couples with joint incomes of up to $50,000, to bypass income taxes altogether. The seven current tax brackets would be consolidated into four, with the highest earners paying only 25 percent in income taxes, down from the current rate of nearly 40 percent.

"We have an amazing code. It will be simple. It will be easy. It will be fair," Trump said Monday as he announced his new proposal. "I did the plan with some of the leading scholars and economists and tax experts that there are in this country. They love it. They say, 'Why hasn't this been done before?'"

Corporate taxation would also be tweaked, and Trump maintains that workers across the board would generally pay less in income taxes than they do now.

But such a tax break doesn't come without a cost to the U.S. budget, considering the government's overall reliance on tax revenues. An analysis released Monday by the Citizens for Tax Justice organization noted that the plan "is missing some details" but would ultimately "cost more than $10 trillion in its first decade."

"Trump claims the plan will be revenue neutral, but he has made bombastic exaggerations before, and this time is no different. In fact, there is no possibility that this plan would not be a gigantic tax cut for the rich and a gigantic revenue loser for the government," Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, said in a statement Monday. "The most widely promoted tax hike in Trump's plan, closing the carried interest loophole, would barely amount to a slap on the wrist for hedge fund millionaires Trump says should pay more."

Trump in the past has vowed to take on the national deficit, which he has said is comparable to "Greece on steroids." And while his plan could potentially amount to trillions of dollars in losses if implemented without any other governmental changes, Trump says the spending cuts he'll implement, in conjunction with the elimination of certain deductions from the U.S. tax code, will more than make up for the country's reduced pool of tax revenue.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talks about his tax plan during a news conference, Monday, Sept. 28, 2015, in New York. The Republican front-runner is calling for an overhaul of the tax code that would eliminate income taxes for millions of Americans, while lowering them for the highest-income earners and business.(AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)

"We have to cut the costs of what's going on in this country," he said Monday. "We will run this country properly. There is so much money to be saved. We're 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 cut. We won't be losing anything."

And while many are skeptical about his math, The Donald is not without allies. Grover Norquist, founder of the Americans for Tax Reform nonprofit, called the plan "Republican orthodoxy, with a little twist here and there." Conservative radio host Mark Levin called it a "hell of a plan." Fox television personality Eric Bolling, whose employer has had a less than amicable relationship with Trump in recent weeks, gave the plan "an A-plus."

"I really wanted to not love this tax plan," he said. "But it's fantastic."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...illion-n435666

Tax Group: Trump Tax Plan Would Cost $12 Trillion

by Benjy Sarlin

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's tax plan would cost an eye-popping $12 trillion over 10 years, according a new estimate that runs directly counter to the billionaire's pledge not to increase the deficit with the proposal.

The conservative Tax Foundation, which has been scoring candidates' tax proposals throughout the race, found that Trump's changes to the individual tax code would add $10.2 trillion to the deficit using traditional scoring methods, his corporate tax cuts would add $1.54 trillion and his proposal to eliminate the estate tax would add another $238 billion.

In addition, the gains from the cuts would disproportionately benefit ultra-wealthy Americans like Trump, whose personal income, business earnings and inheritors all stand to gain from a number of its provisions. According to the analysis, the wealthiest 1% of Americans would see their after-tax incomes increase by 21.6% versus just 1.4% for the poorest 10%.

RELATED: Trump defends tax plan: 'This will be a rocket ship for the economy'

For perspective, the same group pegged the cost of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's tax plan at $3.66 trillion, Sen. Marco Rubio's at over $4 trillion and Sen. Rand Paul's flat tax proposal at roughly $3 trillion.

The analysis acknowledged that details of Trump's plan were still vague, requiring them to make some approximate guesses, but added that the overall size was largely driven by the deep cuts in rates. Trump's plan would lower the top tax bracket for wealthier Americans to 25% from 39.5% today and the top corporate tax rate to 15% from 35% today, which it would partially offset with some changes to deductions. Trump has also claimed his plan would add some 31 million households to the substantial number of Americans who pay no money - or gain money through credits - in income tax, bringing the total to 75 million filers.

A white paper by Trump outlining his tax plan on Monday claimed that it "doesn't add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large," a claim that conservative and progressive economists alike cast doubt on.

Trump, like other Republican candidates, claimed that his plan would offset its cost by encouraging further growth. The Tax Foundation also scored it using a model that assumes supply side conservative theories of economic growth are correct and found it still would add $10.14 trillion to the deficit.

Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Shortly after the estimate dropped, Bush jabbed Trump on Twitter for the proposal's cost, but also for employing a similar structure to his own reform plan.

"Finally saw Donald's 'tax plan,'" Bush wrote. "Looks familiar! I'm flattered. But he should've stuck with growth & fiscal responsibility."

This story first appeared on msnbc.com.

SEE: Mark Levin Gives Thumbs-Up on Donald Trump Tax Proposal: ‘A Hell of a Plan!’

“This is a hell of a plan,” conservative radio host Mark Levin said Monday night about Donald Trump’s tax proposal, while admitting he disagrees with the GOP candidate in several areas.

“Let me tell you the strong things in this,” he continued. “And he’s very specific for those who want specifics.”

It is absolutely stunning that Mark Levin, who is often referred to as a constitutional scholar and “conservative”, has given “thumbs-up” to Donald Trump’s tax plan.

One of the sinister parts of Trump’s plan is, it removes millions of voters from the burden of federal income taxation which obviously gives these voters an incentive to vote for politicians who offer big, expensive government programs for the “poor”, but will not increase their burden of taxation. Now, if part of Trump’s plan was a voluntary condition to disallow the right to vote in federal elections to this particular group in return for their tax free status that would be an entirely different ball game.

But Trump’s plan does not do this. Instead, it creates a privileged class with an incentive to vote for “free government cheese” and yet, Mark Levin gives thumbs-up to Trump’s socialist friendly tax scheme. Why does Mark Levin ignore our Founder’s rule of one man one vote and one vote one dollar which is what the rule of apportionment was all about?

Another shameful part of Trump’s tax plan which Mark Levin seems to close his eyes to is, hardworking citizens living in our nation’s inner cities who may work two and sometimes three jobs to extricate themselves and their families from undesirable living conditions will have their wages taken by the federal government and are punished under Trump’s plan for being productive citizens.

Perhaps someday Mark Levin will take the time to discuss the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which is real tax reform ___ the reforms which our Founders agreed to.



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 a 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



Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

I'm great with it. I wish it were 100%. Then they've have to pass the FairTax to get their revenue.