Trump's tax plan

[Foaming Clean]

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.

20% of the US population controls 85% of the money, it's not trickling down. Most people are employed within the 80% of the population that only control 15% of the wealth, the majority of job creation is done here as well. Lastly to say that the poor pay no taxes is disingenuous.

[Lenonis]

It's also probably a safe bet that Trump's tax plan won't get through Congress. Normally I'd say the Senate minority filibuster will be a sure think to kill this, but as we've seen the GOP has a real issue with their current civil war. I'm not sure it would get through the house either if it's just a big wet kiss to the rich with no income offset that doesn't hurt the poor and middle class.

And, of course, let's all not forget that Trump's #1 goal is to make himself rich so you can expect this tax plan to benefit Trump, his family, and his businesses more than any other demographic.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Fair enough. So I'm going to give you some simple facts and then ask a simple question.

In the last 50ish years:
-Corporate profits have shot up to record levels.
-Income taxes has drifted down to record levels.
-Wealth has concentrated into the upper level of society at record levels.

Question:
-If trickle down economics was even remotely viable in any way shape or form why has the economy not trended along with those indicators?

Bonus question:
-Why do you think that corporations making even more money, taxes going even lower, or the rich getting richer will do anything different now than in the last 50 years?

[Kujako]

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?

By having the middle class buy them in quantity enough to drive down costs due to economics of scale, while having working class wages be high enough to afford them? Not by giving tax break to the wealthy.

[Ghostpanther]

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.

I was not disputing it was. It was not that you made a point, it was how you led up to it. Make your point and I will gladly consider it. I do not see a depression the last 40 years and considering Obama had 8 years as the President ( some years with control of Congress ) and the median family income actually dropped during his presidency, going to be hard to convince me the democrats have done any better than the Republicans.

Your bottom post has some interesting points in it. But it is also good to remember a lot of states have exemptions also with state taxes. So it may not be as bad as it appears. And I know some not so rich people who own a small, but not highly profitable side business who pay less taxes than some full time middle class workers. Depends on a lot factors. There is no question that the super rich can hire tax consultants, who will look for every tax write off loop hole they can. But if it saves them money and they manage to stay in business, who can blame them? Without their success we would not have the products they make or the jobs they do provide.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough. So I'm going to give you some simple facts and then ask a simple question.

In the last 50ish years:
-Corporate profits have shot up to record levels.
-Income taxes has drifted down to record levels.
-Wealth has concentrated into the upper level of society at record levels.

Question:
-If trickle down economics was even remotely viable in any way shape or form why has the economy not trended along with those indicators?

Bonus question:
-Why do you think that corporations making even more money, taxes going even lower, or the rich getting richer will do anything different now than in the last 50 years?

Question one: Considering the Republicans and Democrats have roughly been in control 50% each during those 50ish years, the system is working well then as is. But we do have one of the highest Corporate Tax rates in the world? And how has our GDP been the last 8 years when Obama was President?

Bonus question: I do not know the future. But while not always a good rebuttal, I could answer your question with a " how do you know they will not help the economy more and thus create more jobs and reduce the deficit?"

[Lenonis]

Question one: Considering the Republicans and Democrats have roughly been in control 50% each during those 50ish years, the system is working well then as is. But we do have one of the highest Corporate Tax rates in the world? And how has our GDP been the last 8 years when Obama was President?

Well. You didn't actually answer my question and that's a bit disappointing but I'll answer yours.

Just because both parties have split power does not mean in any way shape or form that good policy has resulted. The economy has boomed and crashed in cycles while the indicators I've mentioned have made a steady progress in one direction. This directly conflicts with trickle down theory so I ask again -- why?

We have one of the highest marginal tax business tax rates, but are very competitive when you look at effective tax rates. What you put forward is just a talking point with no substance when you look at the facts. In fact, some of the largest corporations not only pay zero effective tax rates, but also get paid from the government through incentives, making their tax rates actually negative.

What we need to do is actually change how to tax overseas income earned as it comes to the US. That is where we aren't competitive but I'm willing to bet you don't really know what the rules are...do you? If not I could explain if you'd like.

And, I have absolutely no doubt you know this, talking about the GDP in the last 8 years while ignoring the crash of 2008 is just incredibly disingenuous and really undermines your credibility when talking about economics as it's a long term discussion, hence my reviewing 50 years rather than the last 8. And the crash of 2008 can't be entirely blamed on Bush either, as policies on both sides have led over decades to what happened. Unless you really think that Trump can take credit for the economy right now? If you do think that then we need to lower this discussion to Economics 101 and Civics 101 and not talk about policy details.

I honestly have no idea what you know from an economics perspective. As many people have pointed out you've made statements that really contradict economic theory and show a gap of understanding...which is fine, but you have to realize it can be frustrating to have these discussions with someone who doesn't have the knowledge to talk about the details...and the devil is in the details with these things.

Bonus question: I do not know the future. But while not always a good rebuttal, I could answer your question with a " how do you know they will not help the economy more and thus create more jobs and reduce the deficit?"

I want you to go to your fridge and grab an egg. Now I want you to drop it on the floor, but before you do say "how do you know that THIS time the egg won't float in air?"

That's what you just did with your economics argument. We have enough data to state that trickle down economics does not with in the US economic system. Full stop. We have a consumer driven economy, not a supplier driven economy. That's about as proven of a fact as gravity at this point.

[ati87]

Not exactly true. Lower taxes means more cash on hand for businesses, which could mean hiring additional employees.

Just because a business is not hiring does not mean they don't want or need more employees.

While I am confident in most cases it will lead to larger corporations pocketing more profits, I do believe that it will be good for many small businesses.

Ugh did you even read what I wrote? Companies hire people when they think that person can add value, this is a indisputable fact for every company of every size.

If you expect a return of X% by hiring more people why wouldn't you?

Trickle down economics doesn't work, just look at what BUsh left behind at the end of his term.

[Nadiru]

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.

CEOs get paid in stock options, which are unrealized capital gains which have no plausible way to tax them.

[Tijuana]

President Trump has told the AP that he will be announcing his tax reform plan next week, my question is simple.

If you're a Trump supporter what do you expect his tax plan will be and who will benefit from his plan the most.

To anyone familiar with the emerging science of math, the answer is clear.

Due to the huge variance in what rich and poor people pay in taxes, there is factually almost no way to change the tax rate, without the wealthy benefiting more. Those who pay the most taxes see the biggest variance in what is paid, when changes are made to all brackets. This is a game we play, where we disregard math, and instead apply feelings to taxes.

For example, the Bush tax cuts were the single biggest tax cut in US history, for the poor. Hell, they even raised the lower limit of when taxation begins, by 50%.

However, since the poor pay so little, when you apply the rate to the earnings, the total dollars are factually much fewer than applying even a much lower rate change to the total dollars of the wealthy. We look at rate when we want the stats to read one way, and we look at total dollars when we want them to read another way. By doing this, there is factually no way to cut taxes for the rich and the poor, and have the total dollar change be equal, since the starting figure was so different. (Nor would we want that, incidentally.)

All of that said, I wish we would address tax cuts via spending. Spending is the real taxation. Every time the government spends a penny, you can be rest assured that a tax will be used to pay for it, eventually. If we dramatically cut spending, and paid down the debt, surely the public would ask for tax cuts in lieu of the government building up a stack of savings.

[Z-Man]

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.

Trump has already talked about renegotiating the debt. He's not worried about running up the deficit because he thinks he won't have to pay it back. In his mind, all he needs to do to make the debt magically go away is refuse to pay it.

[Kujako]

To anyone familiar with the emerging science of math, the answer is clear.

That's not very fair... I'm sure Trump has at least some idea.

[Glorious Leader]

All of that said, I wish we would address tax cuts via spending. Spending is the real taxation. Every time the government spends a penny, you can be rest assured that a tax will be used to pay for it, eventually. If we dramatically cut spending, and paid down the debt, surely the public would ask for tax cuts in lieu of the government building up a stack of savings.

This is beyond asanine and stupid. Its actually quite ignorant of economics and history. The debt is the sum of every previous deficit. When the government runs a deficit it spends more than it takes in in taxes. When the government runs a surplus (and a trade deficit exists) its taking in more money in taxes then it is spending. The sum total of all 3 sectors (public, private domestic and trade) must sum to zero (double entry book keeping). The money to pay down the debt can only come.from one sector (assuming a trade deficit). This would ELIMINATE PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDS.

The US has been in debt every single year except one. Andrew jacksom paid it off and a massive depression followed. 7 surpluses follow 7 recessions...

[Kujako]

Every time the government spends a penny, you can be rest assured that a tax will be used to pay for it, eventually.

Well no... that's why we have so much debt. We keep spending money, on things like wars, and then cut taxes to keep people happy about being always at war.

[ati87]

To anyone familiar with the emerging science of math, the answer is clear.

Due to the huge variance in what rich and poor people pay in taxes, there is factually almost no way to change the tax rate, without the wealthy benefiting more. Those who pay the most taxes see the biggest variance in what is paid, when changes are made to all brackets. This is a game we play, where we disregard math, and instead apply feelings to taxes.

For example, the Bush tax cuts were the single biggest tax cut in US history, for the poor. Hell, they even raised the lower limit of when taxation begins, by 50%.

However, since the poor pay so little, when you apply the rate to the earnings, the total dollars are factually much fewer than applying even a much lower rate change to the total dollars of the wealthy. We look at rate when we want the stats to read one way, and we look at total dollars when we want them to read another way. By doing this, there is factually no way to cut taxes for the rich and the poor, and have the total dollar change be equal, since the starting figure was so different. (Nor would we want that, incidentally.)

All of that said, I wish we would address tax cuts via spending. Spending is the real taxation. Every time the government spends a penny, you can be rest assured that a tax will be used to pay for it, eventually. If we dramatically cut spending, and paid down the debt, surely the public would ask for tax cuts in lieu of the government building up a stack of savings.

Don't you ever get tired of the mental gymnastics?

Their are ton of ways to avoid disproportional benefits when cutting taxes by design , for example by not cutting taxes after certain brackets?

Republican plans aren't ''you pay more so you get back more'' by accident, they are by design.

[Tijuana]

Well no... that's why we have so much debt. We keep spending money, on things like wars, and then cut taxes to keep people happy about being always at war.

How do we pay the debt, guy? WITH TAXES.

Every penny spent, results in a penny of taxes, or worse, a penny with interest taxed.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you ever get tired of the mental gymnastics?

Their are ton of ways to avoid disproportional benefits when cutting taxes by design , for example by not cutting taxes after certain brackets?

Republican plans aren't ''you pay more so you get back more'' by accident, they are by design.

I don't think you understand my point. You have backed in to a reality that supports my point, however: The only way for a tax cuts to not benefit the rich more than the poor, is to not cut the taxes of the rich. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Math is only "mental gymnastics" if you don't understand math.

[Kujako]

How do we pay the debt, guy? WITH TAXES.

But we're not paying it at the same rate we accrue it... that's kind of the problem.

[Tijuana]

But we're not paying it at the same rate we accrue it... that's kind of the problem.

What are you on about? Are you trying to make the case that we ought not to spend too much? That was kind of my point: that the problem comes when we spend too much, not when we tax too little. No matter what we set the tax rates at, we will spend more than that. That has been a constant throughout the existence of the nation. Therefore, the only way to get taxes lower, on a permanent basis, is to spend less. It would also be nice if we didn't tax the public so hard that we stifle the economy, leading to even less taxes. I mean, that benefits nobody when we do that (see Jimmy Carter).

[Lenonis]

All of that said, I wish we would address tax cuts via spending. Spending is the real taxation. Every time the government spends a penny, you can be rest assured that a tax will be used to pay for it, eventually. If we dramatically cut spending, and paid down the debt, surely the public would ask for tax cuts in lieu of the government building up a stack of savings.

This argument, while factually correct, is entirely ignoring the benefits that occur when the government spends money. If we dramatically cut spending we'd destroy the economy as well as harm and likely kill millions of citizens.

[jdbond592]

About 70% of American debt is held by American agents.

By the way, no tax plan is coming. Just big points in case you missed them during election.

[araine]

His voters are getting fucked again, just wait and see.

pretty much, it will be if you make below 250k a year you will see very small if any reductions in taxes and might fight frequent increases in cost and fees for things in your life meaning your overall cost will go up by a fair amount but in the bracket 250-500k not much will change over all since the taxcuts you get is big enough to offset the increased fees and costs but when you make the big $$$$$ 1 million and up you will see MASSIVE increase in money going your way and the cost and fee increases are really just for the poor fuckers to pay for this reverse robin hood we will see.

there you have it the ultimate donny tax reform that will make his entire family and cabinet even richer and his followers will hail it as this is how you save america by forcing his followers to pay more for less

[Glorious Leader]

This argument, while factually correct, is entirely ignoring the benefits that occur when the government spends money. If we dramatically cut spending we'd destroy the economy as well as harm and likely kill millions of citizens.

Any argument to shrink the debt or deficit while a trade deficit exists is asking to take money out of peoples pockets. By simple accounting identity alone. When the public sector runs a surplus and the trade sector is in deficit the private sector must be in deficit by sheer logic. It can be no other way. The private sector cannot sustain debt for very long. The US government has been in debt for virtually its entire.existence. Again just as a point of pure logic the government must first spend before it can tax.