Trump's tax plan

[Ghostpanther]

No, it absolutely doesn't.

Sometimes it gives you president Trump.

Which, depending on your personal wishes for the country, is ether a bad thing or a good thing. I happen to think it was a good thing.

- - - Updated - - -

So a policy that was started by Reagan, which has been proven not to work, is magically going to start working. Yeah, ok. Keep telling yourself that.

I will.

[Kaleredar]

Which, depending on your personal wishes for the country, is ether a bad thing or a good thing. I happen to think it was a good thing.

Seeing as I want to see this country progress and get better instead of devolving into scape-goated fear augmented with token gestures while the country is sold wholesale to the highest bidder, I feel it's a bad thing.

Case in point: vague tax plan never previously discussed that we're sure will be the greatest

[Ghostpanther]

Seeing as I want to see this country progress and get better instead of devolving into scape-goated fear augmented with token gestures while the country is sold wholesale to the highest bidder, I feel it's a bad thing.

Case in point: vague tax plan never previously discussed that we're sure will be the greatest

I will wait and see what it is first before passing judgement. The first health care plan the GOP came up with, I did not like and I posted here on this forum that it sucked. And seriously, I respect your concern for your country's future. Even if we do not share the same vision. At least you seem to come across as genuine.

[Lenonis]

People who clearly have never taken an economics or business class spouting off on this topic makes my head hurt.

No one with a clue still thinks trickle down is viable in the American economic system.

What I want to know is how exactly is Trump going to pay for these tax breaks?

[Fahrenheit]

People who clearly have never taken an economics or business class spouting off on this topic makes my head hurt.

No one with a clue still thinks trickle down is viable in the American economic system.

What I want to know is how exactly is Trump going to pay for these tax breaks?

He's not. The deficit will go up. The only way to make significant room is to go after Medicare/Medicaid/SS with a hatchet. When the GOP does they'll get beat down by old white people just like every other time they've tried it.

[Felya]

Which, depending on your personal wishes for the country, is ether a bad thing or a good thing. I happen to think it was a good thing.

No, you don't. You just think any republican is more important to be elected than a person you admitted to being a horrible choice before he won. Let's make that clear... you voted for Trump just to stop Hillary and would have voted and been saying the same thing if it was Satan with an R next to his name. You put party before country...

[Acidbaron]

If the intend was to give tax breaks to generate jobs, you could do like other countries do and tie tax breaks with actual job creation together, called plans to activate unemployed again in the job market. You know that health care problem for small businesses? How about you add benefits there on that front and solve two problems at once? But nah that's socialism man i guess.

And not give them a tax break and hope it will work out, since it's essentially the same if the government gave you a tax break on your income and they asked you nicely to come in and work another day for free, since you would get the tax break regardless if you did that work or not.

Also remember that a tax break will probably be paid with an increase in taxes elsewhere or other programs cut.

[Dalistar]

Except it has been proven not to work. George Bush Sr called it voodoo economics in 1980 and predicted it would create a massive recession. Instead of sticking to his guns he accepted the vp job and 9 years later as he began his administration the country was slammed with a massive recession. Fast forward to 2000, Bush Jr does the same exact thing as Reagan, cuts taxes does not cut government spending at all and we get a massive recession by 2007.

Problem with the idea of trickle down economics is companies have to actually hire people at a good wage. I work for a fortune 500 company in management and when we see a chance for more profit we go for it by reducing worker hours. We do our best not to hire and just tell employees who are already there to do more work or find another job. It works very well and helps us get nice bonus checks.

[Priestiality]

So the old riddle, which came first? The chicken or the egg? lol. There can not be a demand for more services and goods if there are not enough people making a good enough wage to afford to buy them. Correct? And if a company can not make enough of a profit to hire more people, then the jobs for those folks will not be available.

Are you just being willfully ignorant? CEOs and shareholders are making millions of dollars a year, that money comes from profits. You seem to have this idea that corporations are struggling, they aren't. They're seeing record profits in many cases and that money is not going back into the economy. Trickle-down policies are directly responsible for that. Prior to corporations supposedly needing massive tax breaks and loopholes allowing them to off-shore profits, the best way to keep their corporate taxes low was to reinvest.

Example using arbitrary numbers: Company A profits $1.2m. They re-invest $350k on a new production facility, and another $200k toward hiring and training workers for the facility. Under the old rules, they would only be taxed on $650k profits instead of the $1.2m.

Now, we're lucky if they pay any tax on profits at all.

[minteK917]

Yeah. If you accept that as a realistic effect. Which I do. Cutting the corporate business tax rate will without question for myself, increase the profits for a company, allowing them better success at expanding and thus hiring more people.

How many time does the real world has to prove this is not true?

[Confucius]

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Sooo, trickle down economics? Yeah, doesn't work.

Do you or do you not have a microwave oven, refrigerator, computer, stove oven, porcelain toilet, and air conditioning unit?

How do you think everyone got those tho, when they used to be for the wealthy only?

[God Save The King]

I imagine, like many other things in his Presidency, his tax plan will benefit people like him, so once he's done with the office, he'll be better off. I fully expect corporate tax cuts, and tax cuts for people in the highest tax bracket.

To compensate for the loss of federal tax revenue, he has a few choices. He can raise taxes on the middle class and get booted out of office like we did with George H.W. Bush. He can ignore the loss of revenue and build up massive deficits like George W. Bush. Or he can attempt to balance the budget by cutting spending (which will likely be in the form of beneficial social programs instead of bloated defense spending).

If I were to guess, Trump will simply not care and run up a larger deficit, similar to how he ran his (now bankrupt) business ventures.


Though I'm holding out for a surprise, well thought out plan that attempts to benefit as many people as possible, and fix the issue of the ever growing wealth gap.

[Acidbaron]

Do you or do you not have a microwave oven, refrigerator, computer, stove oven, porcelain toilet, and air conditioning unit?

How do you think everyone got those tho, when they used to be for the wealthy only?

Because our economies work based on production, consumption and debt in that order. Economies grew the most when the taxation was more fair, resulting on more income and more spending power for all. When that stopped happening, banks came up with a solution called credit (debt), later on to increase profit margins and growth from companies, we came to globalization further reducing the worker wages by putting them in direct competition with third world countries and low wage countries.

A company cannot function on a rich few buying expensive goods, which is why a few owning most of the money is even bad for their wealth when looking over generations.

Trickle down didn't contribute to anything but a wider gap. It's also a concept that has to go against human nature to work, which is why it doesn't. Trickle down and deregulation are the root of housing bubble not so long ago.

[paralleluniverse]

His goal is that everyone will benefit from it. The rich, who generally are the ones who own companies and create jobs will benefit most from it. The poor who are not paying any taxes now and are on government assistance anyway, will not of course benefit more than they are now with the exception they may actually have better job opportunities.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Even after the total disaster of the Bush tax cuts this right-wing hack still believes in trickle-down economics! Of course, for Trump and the GOP, it's always about giving more to the rich. Didn't take long for the fake populism to be exposed.

Go learn some real economics, trickle-down has been totally debunked. When Clinton raised taxes, the economy didn't crash as the GOP predicted, but boom. What creates jobs is middle-class spending, which is the source of demand in the economy. The rich saves rather than spends most of their money, unlike the middle-class.

[Jerot]

Trump abolishes alternative minimum tax, the rich get richer, wealth gap increases exponentially. Less taxes, less government spending, more cutting to crucial systems like education, infrastructure, science, etc. Ultimately costing the poor to middle class more, leading to less spending, weaker economy. We've seen this song and dance before, but money controls the media, and this is what they want people to believe is in their best interest.

[NED funded]

The problem is that the white working class in America is so fucking deluded with right wing propaganda that they think that their employer is doing THEM a service by providing them with a job. Idiots so desperate for work that they don't realize the Chinese businessman who "invested in their community" isn't doing them a favor. And you know, for all the bitching that conservatives do about the Chinese owning all of our debt, that was never really an important issue compared to this.

The sad thing is that this used to be OUR schtick, effectively colonizing countries by moving in and forcing them to basically sell their entire country to American business interests. No one is going to feel bad if it happens to us.

Thats a consequence of deficits isn't it? Also our biggest investor is Europe.

- - - Updated - - -

Because FDI in the US doesn't make the US wealthier, it simply displaces local investment which hurts local investors.

It seems that you are right. My bad then.

[Ghostpanther]

Are you just being willfully ignorant? CEOs and shareholders are making millions of dollars a year, that money comes from profits. You seem to have this idea that corporations are struggling, they aren't. They're seeing record profits in many cases and that money is not going back into the economy. Trickle-down policies are directly responsible for that. Prior to corporations supposedly needing massive tax breaks and loopholes allowing them to off-shore profits, the best way to keep their corporate taxes low was to reinvest.

Example using arbitrary numbers: Company A profits $1.2m. They re-invest $350k on a new production facility, and another $200k toward hiring and training workers for the facility. Under the old rules, they would only be taxed on $650k profits instead of the $1.2m.

Now, we're lucky if they pay any tax on profits at all.

First off, you could have still made your point without coming off as a ass. Second, there are companies filing bankruptcy and also closing their doors. It is not as rosy as you would like to think. The average median household income is now lower than it was in the late 1990's. Why is that? Obama did not attack this trickle down concept? Or should we blame Bush?

I am willing to listen to respectful and well thought out points. Make them without the kiddish remarks and I will happily read them There have been some on here who have gave me some good stuff to think about.

[Priestiality]

First off, you could have still made your point without coming off as a ass. Second, there are companies filing bankruptcy and also closing their doors. It is not as rosy as you would like to think. The average median household income is now lower than it was in the late 1990's. Why is that? Obama did not attack this trickle down concept? Or should we blame Bush?

I am willing to listen to respectful and well thought out points. Make them without the kiddish remarks and I will happily read them There have been some on here who have gave me some good stuff to think about.

It was a genuine question. There's nearly 40 years of hard evidence that trickle-down policies have failed the middle class and small businesses while greatly benefiting the wealthiest of citizens and corporations, so to ignore that requires either willful ignorance or a lack of real world experience. Here, have some more information from the thread specifically about income inequality.

The middle class became what it was in post-WW2 America due to high corporate tax rates as well as any personal income over $400k being taxed at roughly 78% until Reaganomics came along. While high income taxes on the wealthiest certainly helped in keeping taxes low for lower income workers, the loopholes allowing corporations to pay very little, or in some cases zero and even negative tax rates (cough General Electric cough), is directly responsible for the gap between blue-collar workers and executives. In the 1950's CEOs made roughly 4x what the average American worker made. In modern times they make 20x, 50x, 100x, even 1000x more than the average worker in their companies. Prior to the invention of "trickle-down economics" it benefited companies to re-invest by expanding their businesses. Capital used to build another location and hire more workers was not subject to taxation, which allowed companies to report less profit and thus pay less taxes. In the 1980's Reagan and his ilk decided it was better to just cut out the middle man and tell them they didn't have to pay such high taxes anymore, and created loopholes allowing them to store profits off-shore so they no longer had to pay their already lower taxes on large percentages of their profits.

On the subject of personal income tax, the rich seem to get caught up on the raw numbers, while ignoring percentages. The poorest of Americans pay anywhere from 21%-28% when combined with state taxes. The rich, after abusing loopholes in investment laws and the like, pay AT MOST 30%, but often quite a bit less. It is much more detrimental to a person making $30k/yr to lose $7500 of it to taxes than it is for someone making $4.2m/yr to lose $300k.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Do you or do you not have a microwave oven, refrigerator, computer, stove oven, porcelain toilet, and air conditioning unit?

How do you think everyone got those tho, when they used to be for the wealthy only?

Because the technology got cheaper and easier to mass produce.