The Proposed New Tax Reform

Doubling the standard deduction, no more itemization except for mortgages and charitable donations, from 7 to 3 tax brackets.

No link, dawg?

Oh.....

Just had to be patient and wait for it to load (I must be on dial up).

Links, who needs links when you can have a big ass pic?

Floyd Robertson wrote:Links, who needs links when you can have a big ass pic?

I definitely stand corrected.

Thank God Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies are looking out for the little guy.

If he can get the standard deduction doubled and those brackets are spread out in an equitable way, he'll get popular support.

The defunding of everything related to the ACA to make it fail is bullshit that the Rs have been doing since 2014.  Hi Rubio.

Also, I love the "death tax" boogie man. It doesn't even kick in until 5 and a half million bucks. Oh, the POOR little MILLIONAIRES. WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE MILLIONAIRES!!!

And Trump will not be releasing his tax returns.

The best part of the proposed "reform" is those at the top and professionals like doctors, lawyers and business owners could restructure their earnings to corporate earnings and reduce their effective rate from 36% to 15%.

You can put toll booths up on every Federal highway and add all kinds of use fees and not make up the losses to Federal revenue.

At the end of the due Trump's biggest goal is to reduce his family's tax load while wanting to spend more on defense. Guess its paid for by eliminating all safety net programs.

More I got mine. The rest of ou are SOL.

I'd like to see an analysis of how these proposals would shift the tax burden. For me, that's ultimately all that really matters. The specifics are just window dressing.

I have bad feeling about all of this, Cam. Like the little man getting hosed and another $7 trillion added to the deficit over 10 years.

Floyd Robertson wrote:I have bad feeling about all of this, Cam. Like the little man getting hosed and another $7 trillion added to the deficit over 10 years.

I'm 65 in ten years. I'm this side of not giving a fuck anymore. Obama gets 400K for 40 minutes Trump gets double for his Florida resort Clinton became a billionaire Sanders has a couple mansions and we argue with each other about hippies and nazis at Berkeley from our average homes in our average towns on our average phones and computers. The revolution isn't coming brother. Take what you can, do your best, help each other, move on.

The revolution is the status quo.

Trumps plan has us running head long Into the 21st Century Golded Age.

Maybe

DWags wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:I have bad feeling about all of this, Cam. Like the little man getting hosed and another $7 trillion added to the deficit over 10 years.

I'm 65 in ten years. I'm this side of not giving a fuck anymore. Obama gets 400K for 40 minutes Trump gets double for his Florida resort Clinton became a billionaire Sanders has a couple mansions and we argue with each other about hippies and nazis at Berkeley from our average homes in our average towns on our average phones and computers. The revolution isn't coming brother. Take what you can, do your best, help each other, move on.

Floyd Robertson wrote:I have bad feeling about all of this, Cam. Like the little man getting hosed and another $7 trillion added to the deficit over 10 years.

I'm assuming something along those lines as well, but that's based on nothing other than my preconceived notions.

Floyd Robertson wrote:I have bad feeling about all of this, Cam. Like the little man getting hosed and another $7 trillion added to the deficit over 10 years.

What else is new.

Old brackets:
10%, 15, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, 39.6%

New brackets:

10%, 25%, 35%

The lowest earners in this country get what kind of break? The peeps from Appalachia who voted for Trump are going to get what? A double standard deduction? Seriously? And ACA is being slowly defunded and they're being told it's collapsing. But hey, coal jobs are coming. Oh and we're building a wall 1200 miles from your home to keep out people who don't come there anyway. "Lock her up"

I know, we all think we're going to be relieved from that 39.6% we all pay, somehow we're on that side.

This is great.

DWags wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:I have bad feeling about all of this, Cam. Like the little man getting hosed and another $7 trillion added to the deficit over 10 years.

I'm 65 in ten years.  I'm this side of not giving a fuck anymore.  Obama gets 400K for 40 minutes Trump gets double for his Florida resort Clinton became a billionaire Sanders has a couple mansions and we argue with each other about hippies and nazis at Berkeley from our average homes in our average towns on our average phones and computers.  The revolution isn't coming brother. Take what you can, do your best, help each other, move on.

Yep.  All of this.

lolz

Rick Klein‏Verified account @rickklein 26m26 minutes ago
Mnuchin says it's "our objective" that no middle-class families will pay more in taxes. But "I can't make any guarantee." @GMA

I bet he can guarantee the top 1% won't pay any more in taxes.

Wake up pubs. Wake thew fuck up.

Spoiler alert, it's a massive shift of tax burden from Corporations and the Wealthy onto the middle class, and will increase the national debt.

AnomanderRake wrote:Spoiler alert, it's a massive shift of tax burden from Corporations and the Wealthy onto the middle class, and will increase the national debt.

But the wall.

Why don't deficits matter to the Republicans after 20 JAN '17?

GRR Spartan wrote:Why don't deficits matter to the Republicans after 20 JAN '17?

But the wall.

What does Chance the Gardner err, Jared Kushner think?

Notice this is from the CBO not a partisan group.

When reality meets this thread:

PoliMath‏ @politicalmath 15 Sep 2015
When discussing income, taxes, and fair shares, I've found this to be a useful chart

LooseGoose wrote:Notice this is from the CBO not a partisan group.

When reality meets this thread:

PoliMath‏ @politicalmath 15 Sep 2015
When discussing income, taxes, and fair shares, I've found this to be a useful chart

Does that graph reflect Trump's proposal, or is that based on old data?

Goosechev is always looking out for the oligarchs.

Of course the wealthiest pay more taxes per capita than the poorest. Its a progressive tax system.

Trump's proposal will fuck those in the middle 3 quintiles even more than those in the bottom quintile.

However it certainly looks out for the wealthiest among us. It cuts their rates by more than 10% on the personal income side. With good accounting and financial engineering wealthy individuals would be able to use the proposed drop in corporate rate(15%) and shield their assests from the 35% proposed rate.

Notice the authoritairian oligarch's cheerleader isn't complaining about deficts anymore either. What a difference 100 days make.

Fuck it. Just figure out a strategic bankruptcy strategy every 7-10 years. Live the high life. Like a corporation or trump.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Notice this is from the CBO not a partisan group.

When reality meets this thread:

PoliMath‏ @politicalmath 15 Sep 2015
When discussing income, taxes, and fair shares, I've found this to be a useful chart

Does that graph reflect Trump's proposal, or is that based on old data?

That's the current split.

The point being that most people don't even have a clue to 2 things:

The top 10% of earners pay over 55% of total taxes.

The bottom 40% of wage earners pay 5% of total taxes.

Under Trump's proposal I don't think much moves on that. I'll look for an estimate.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Does that graph reflect Trump's proposal, or is that based on old data?

That's the current split.  

The point being that most people don't even have a clue to 2 things:

The top 10% of earners pay over 55% of total taxes.

The bottom 40% of wage earners pay 5% of total taxes.

Under Trump's proposal I don't think much moves on that.  I'll look for an estimate.

Perhaps the percentages don't move, perhaps they do, but it doesn't really matter. The problem is that the kind of tax cut he proposed would massively explode the deficit without huge cuts to expensive things like bombs and other stuff that are like super popular to people that vote for republicans. But, since it's a republican government, things like deficits aren't something that you'd be particularly concerned about, at least until the other side takes control again.

Based on the current tax rules in 2017 the exception for the Estate Tax is $5.49M for an individual / $11.98M for a married couple. Hardly onerous for 99.5% of the population.

We could get rid of the Estate Tax. They don't have the one in Canada. When you die in Canada the heirs pay capital gains tax for what they inherit.

I'm guessing neither Trump nor the GOP want to get rid of the Estate Tax and treat the inheritances as capital gains, even at their proposed new lower rate.

Seems to be a fairly complete rundown..........

Trump’s Prudent Tax Proposals

LooseGoose wrote:Seems to be a fairly complete rundown..........

Trump’s Prudent Tax Proposals

Here's my takeaway from that article: the rich will pay less and revenue will decrease (but not as much as you might think!). I'm not encouraged by that.

LooseGoose wrote:Seems to be a fairly complete rundown..........

Trump’s Prudent Tax Proposals

Sorry, I can't put much stock in an article that starts with this.

Only the brain dead could see Trump's tax plan as a negative for the economy.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Seems to be a fairly complete rundown..........

Trump’s Prudent Tax Proposals

Sorry, I can't put much stock in an article that starts with this.

Only the brain dead could see Trump's tax plan as a negative for the economy.

So you saw the article as a negative?

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-28/trump-plan-seen-turning-everyone-and-their-dog-into-an-llc

I need to start a LLC.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Sorry, I can't put much stock in an article that starts with this.

So you saw the article as a negative?

Not particularly. I find it jumping to a lot of conclusions and condescending.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So you saw the article as a negative?

Not particularly. I find it jumping to a lot of conclusions and condescending.

Hmmm....I don't think a Dem wrote it.

'Tax Cuts for the Rich'?

One of the painful realities of our times is how long a political lie can survive, even after having been disproved years ago, or even generations ago.

A classic example is the phrase "tax cuts for the rich," which is loudly proclaimed by opponents, whenever there is a proposal to reduce tax rates. The current proposal to reduce federal tax rates has revived this phrase, which was disproved by facts, as far back as the 1920s -- and by now should be called "tax lies for the gullible."

One of the key arguments of those who oppose what they call "tax cuts for the rich" is that the Reagan administration tax cuts led to huge federal government deficits, contrary to "supply side economics" which said that lower tax rates would lead to higher tax revenues.

This reduces the whole issue to a question about facts -- and the hard facts are available in many places, including a local public library or on the Internet.

The hardest of these hard facts is that the revenues collected from federal income taxes during every year of the Reagan administration were higher than the revenues collected from federal income taxes during any year of any previous administration.

How can that be? Because tax RATES and tax REVENUES are two different things. Tax rates and tax revenues can move in either the same direction or in opposite directions, depending on how the economy responds.

As for "the rich," higher-income taxpayers paid more -- repeat, MORE tax revenues into the federal treasury under the lower tax rates than they had under the previous higher tax rates.

That happened not only during the Reagan administration, but also during the Coolidge administration and the Kennedy administration before Reagan, and under the G.W. Bush administration after Reagan. All these administrations cut tax rates and received higher tax revenues than before.

More than that, "the rich" not only paid higher total tax revenues after the so-called "tax cuts for the rich," they also paid a higher percentage of all tax revenues afterwards. Data on this can be found in a number of places, including documented sources listed in my monograph titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'Tax Cuts for the Rich.'"

I'm confused by these conservatives and their need to cut the deficit. If they have the purse strings and the White House I'm guessing the budget gets balanced. But who knows.

DWags wrote:I'm confused by these conservatives and their need to cut the deficit. If they have the purse strings and the White House I'm guessing the budget gets balanced. But who knows.

Yeah, come over here and be snide about this while squealing along with other liberals over every proposed spending cut.