Trump's tax reform
As you'll see in the chart below, Trump's tax plan is a simplification. He wants to reduce the number of individual tax bands from seven to three: 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent.
This one always baffles me, reducing number of tax brackets does nothing to simplify the code. It's maff in the computer program or a different table is you are doing it by hand.
"Some taxpayers would definitely benefit from Trump's tax reform — especially those at the higher end of the income scale. There are others, however, who would see their tax rates go up. Especially those on lower incomes."
Clearly the upper income people will share their tax cuts with the lower income people.
CNBC's John Harwood calls Trump's tax reform a " remarkable paradox ," as middle America may not benefit as much as coastal elites.
Almost like people got duped into voting against their own interest.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chart-shows-exactly-trumps-tax-185043506.html
If you don't like the source, every analysis is basically the same.
Comments
-
You baffled? You don't say....
-
The plan would cut taxes at every income level, but high-income taxpayers would receive the biggest cuts, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income. Overall, the plan would cut the average tax bill in 2017 by $2,940, increasing after-tax income by 4.1percent. However, the highest-income taxpayers (0.1 percent of the population, or those with incomes over $3.7 million in 2016dollars) would experience an average tax cut of nearly$1.1million, over 14percent of after-tax income. Households in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut of $1,010, or 1.8 percent of after-tax income, while the poorest fifth of households would see their taxes go down an average of $110, or 0.8percent of their after-tax income.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-revised-tax-plan/full -
Who won the Spring game?
-
So Hondo is freaking out about couples under $20,000 in income paying 2% more? What is that? $40?
Let's also not forget couples making between $75,000 and $75,300, that extra $300 will be taxed an extra 10%!! $30? Fuck!!
I don't think it's simple enough. Allow couples to make $20,000 tax free and then tax every dollar above that at a 25% rate.
Incremental tax rates are flat out stupid. Just have it flat. -
25% is way too high of a tax bracket to begin with. If they just taxed everyone 10% and didn't give money back to people that don't even pay taxes we would be good.greenblood said:So Hondo is freaking out about couples under $20,000 in income paying 2% more? What is that? $40?
Let's also not forget couples making between $75,000 and $75,300, that extra $300 will be taxed an extra 10%!! $30? Fuck!!
I don't think it's simple enough. Allow couples to make $20,000 tax free and then tax every dollar above that at a 25% rate.
Incremental tax rates are flat out stupid. Just have it flat.
If you make $20k a year then you owe 10% and you're not getting back $12k because you decided to breed way too much for your income range. You aren't getting back anything.
That is plenty to fund defense which should be the only real function of the federal government since we have 50 state governments who also tax wages, property, sales, capital gains, etc. -
Agree. Everybody pays a flat Federal 15 % with no deductions.greenblood said:So Hondo is freaking out about couples under $20,000 in income paying 2% more? What is that? $40?
Let's also not forget couples making between $75,000 and $75,300, that extra $300 will be taxed an extra 10%!! $30? Fuck!!
I don't think it's simple enough. Allow couples to make $20,000 tax free and then tax every dollar above that at a 25% rate.
Incremental tax rates are flat out stupid. Just have it flat. -
Clearly the Sun will not rise come Jan 20th.2001400ex said:He won't get his way on this, but here's some tidbits:
As you'll see in the chart below, Trump's tax plan is a simplification. He wants to reduce the number of individual tax bands from seven to three: 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent.
This one always baffles me, reducing number of tax brackets does nothing to simplify the code. It's maff in the computer program or a different table is you are doing it by hand.
"Some taxpayers would definitely benefit from Trump's tax reform — especially those at the higher end of the income scale. There are others, however, who would see their tax rates go up. Especially those on lower incomes."
Clearly the upper income people will share their tax cuts with the lower income people.
CNBC's John Harwood calls Trump's tax reform a " remarkable paradox ," as middle America may not benefit as much as coastal elites.
Almost like people got duped into voting against their own interest.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/chart-shows-exactly-trumps-tax-185043506.html
If you don't like the source, every analysis is basically the same.
May as well not even play the inauguration. -
I'm ok with that on a personal level, but what does that look like in practice on the national level? With no deductions period, what is the age of taxation, since parents will no longer be claiming kids with jobs?salemcoog said:
Agree. Everybody pays a flat Federal 15 % with no deductions.greenblood said:So Hondo is freaking out about couples under $20,000 in income paying 2% more? What is that? $40?
Let's also not forget couples making between $75,000 and $75,300, that extra $300 will be taxed an extra 10%!! $30? Fuck!!
I don't think it's simple enough. Allow couples to make $20,000 tax free and then tax every dollar above that at a 25% rate.
Incremental tax rates are flat out stupid. Just have it flat.
Without doing any math, I have a feeling that 15% flat tax might not be enough. Happy to be shown otherwise.
Everyone keeps yelling about lowering taxes as a fix for the country, but when America WAS great, they were higher not lower. Corporate taxes in particular. -
I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
-
ThomasFremont said:
I'm ok with that on a personal level, but what does that look like in practice on the national level? With no deductions period, what is the age of taxation, since parents will no longer be claiming kids with jobs?salemcoog said:
Agree. Everybody pays a flat Federal 15 % with no deductions.greenblood said:So Hondo is freaking out about couples under $20,000 in income paying 2% more? What is that? $40?
Let's also not forget couples making between $75,000 and $75,300, that extra $300 will be taxed an extra 10%!! $30? Fuck!!
I don't think it's simple enough. Allow couples to make $20,000 tax free and then tax every dollar above that at a 25% rate.
Incremental tax rates are flat out stupid. Just have it flat.
Without doing any math, I have a feeling that 15% flat tax might not be enough. Happy to be shown otherwise.
Everyone keeps yelling about lowering taxes as a fix for the country, but when America WAS great, they were higher not lower. Corporate taxes in particular.
Why does it have to be enough???ThomasFremont said:
I'm ok with that on a personal level, but what does that look like in practice on the national level? With no deductions period, what is the age of taxation, since parents will no longer be claiming kids with jobs?salemcoog said:
Agree. Everybody pays a flat Federal 15 % with no deductions.greenblood said:So Hondo is freaking out about couples under $20,000 in income paying 2% more? What is that? $40?
Let's also not forget couples making between $75,000 and $75,300, that extra $300 will be taxed an extra 10%!! $30? Fuck!!
I don't think it's simple enough. Allow couples to make $20,000 tax free and then tax every dollar above that at a 25% rate.
Incremental tax rates are flat out stupid. Just have it flat.
Without doing any math, I have a feeling that 15% flat tax might not be enough. Happy to be shown otherwise.
Everyone keeps yelling about lowering taxes as a fix for the country, but when America WAS great, they were higher not lower. Corporate taxes in particular.
The Federal Government has spent over $10TT that it didn't have the last 8 years anyway.
As far as corporate taxes being higher in the good old days? I would attribute that to companies not having the option to move to Malaysia and avoid most taxes altogether like they can now. If you try to stick it to Corporate America, they just pack up and leave the Country or put all of their assets overseas like in the Apple game.
The only way to truly help the American taxpayer would be for the Feds to cut up their Credit cards and blow up the printing presses. -
I'm just asking a question. I didn't say I had the answer.salemcoog said:ThomasFremont said:
I'm ok with that on a personal level, but what does that look like in practice on the national level? With no deductions period, what is the age of taxation, since parents will no longer be claiming kids with jobs?salemcoog said:
Agree. Everybody pays a flat Federal 15 % with no deductions.greenblood said:So Hondo is freaking out about couples under $20,000 in income paying 2% more? What is that? $40?
Let's also not forget couples making between $75,000 and $75,300, that extra $300 will be taxed an extra 10%!! $30? Fuck!!
I don't think it's simple enough. Allow couples to make $20,000 tax free and then tax every dollar above that at a 25% rate.
Incremental tax rates are flat out stupid. Just have it flat.
Without doing any math, I have a feeling that 15% flat tax might not be enough. Happy to be shown otherwise.
Everyone keeps yelling about lowering taxes as a fix for the country, but when America WAS great, they were higher not lower. Corporate taxes in particular.
Why does it have to be enough???ThomasFremont said:
I'm ok with that on a personal level, but what does that look like in practice on the national level? With no deductions period, what is the age of taxation, since parents will no longer be claiming kids with jobs?salemcoog said:
Agree. Everybody pays a flat Federal 15 % with no deductions.greenblood said:So Hondo is freaking out about couples under $20,000 in income paying 2% more? What is that? $40?
Let's also not forget couples making between $75,000 and $75,300, that extra $300 will be taxed an extra 10%!! $30? Fuck!!
I don't think it's simple enough. Allow couples to make $20,000 tax free and then tax every dollar above that at a 25% rate.
Incremental tax rates are flat out stupid. Just have it flat.
Without doing any math, I have a feeling that 15% flat tax might not be enough. Happy to be shown otherwise.
Everyone keeps yelling about lowering taxes as a fix for the country, but when America WAS great, they were higher not lower. Corporate taxes in particular.
The Federal Government has spent over $10TT that it didn't have the last 8 years anyway.
As far as corporate taxes being higher in the good old days? I would attribute that to companies not having the option to move to Malaysia and avoid most taxes altogether like they can now. If you try to stick it to Corporate America, they just pack up and leave the Country or put all of their assets overseas like in the Apple game.
The only way to truly help the American taxpayer would be for the Feds to cut up their Credit cards and blow up the printing presses.
But on a practical level, we can't just cut up the credit cards, rent the spare room, and eat Top Ramen as a country. I get that spending is out of control, but slashing revenue alone would only make the deficit worse.
Would a 15% flat tax cover our financial obligations? If so, fine. If not, then what? -
I'm curious what you mean. Payroll is already a deduction for businesses. Payroll taxes are a deduction as well.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
-
I was responding to the hypothetical tax law of no deductions and 15% flat tax. Yes I'm aware the current tax law has those payroll deductions.2001400ex said:
I'm curious what you mean. Payroll is already a deduction for businesses. Payroll taxes are a deduction as well.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
-
Businesses shouldn't be taxed. They create all the jobs.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
-
Sole props too? Because that probably wouldn't workMosster47 said:
Businesses shouldn't be taxed. They create all the jobs.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
-
That one is tricky. I hate all of the different business classifications. If you are relieving businesses of taxes then there is one category for all. If you work for yourself under a business like an insurance agent then you would be exempt.greenblood said:
Sole props too? Because that probably wouldn't workMosster47 said:
Businesses shouldn't be taxed. They create all the jobs.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
Having said that if you employ anyone your personal income falls under the personal tax as does theirs.
This eliminates someone like Trump from writing off a billion dollars from his business and he never pays personal tax again. Then he writes off endless stuff on the business and doesn't pay tax there either. His business is untouched, but the umpteen millions he personally makes every year is subject to the 15%, no exceptions. -
The vast majority of corporations are not taxed on income at the federal level.Mosster47 said:
Businesses shouldn't be taxed. They create all the jobs.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
HTH -
Right, because of massive write offs and pay outs to executives to sneak away from the outrageous corporate tax rate.2001400ex said:
The vast majority of corporations are not taxed on income at the federal level.Mosster47 said:
Businesses shouldn't be taxed. They create all the jobs.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
HTH
Then those executives play their own game of mathmatical gymnastics to pay very little in taxes as well.
I'm not an anti-government guy, but our government is way too fucking big. Only getting 10% of the personal pot would end the bullshit of giving other countries that refuse to get their shit together billions of dollars, wars with no purpose, and having a hand in EVERYTHING.
10% would cover defense, SS/Medicare, and the VA. The IRS would still exist but with the simplicity of the new code they could function with 25% of their current staffing.
-
Actually it's because the vast majority of corporations are LLCs, LLPs, S corps, etc. that are not taxable on income at the federal level.Mosster47 said:
Right, because of massive write offs and pay outs to executives to sneak away from the outrageous corporate tax rate.2001400ex said:
The vast majority of corporations are not taxed on income at the federal level.Mosster47 said:
Businesses shouldn't be taxed. They create all the jobs.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
HTH
Then those executives play their own game of mathmatical gymnastics to pay very little in taxes as well.
I'm not an anti-government guy, but our government is way too fucking big. Only getting 10% of the personal pot would end the bullshit of giving other countries that refuse to get their shit together billions of dollars, wars with no purpose, and having a hand in EVERYTHING.
10% would cover defense, SS/Medicare, and the VA. The IRS would still exist but with the simplicity of the new code they could function with 25% of their current staffing.
And C corps average about 15% because of deductions and stuff with the top tax rate at 35%. Corporations are taxed fairly.
And the argument that if you cut taxes on corporations they'll hire more people, is FS. If you've ever been in a discussion about whether to hire or fire, it's always about expected demand. Never is it about taxes. -
Lowering taxes does create opportunities for companies to increase capital, and thus open up new avenues of income(new products and services, additional ventures, acquisitions, etc.)2001400ex said:
Actually it's because the vast majority of corporations are LLCs, LLPs, S corps, etc. that are not taxable on income at the federal level.Mosster47 said:
Right, because of massive write offs and pay outs to executives to sneak away from the outrageous corporate tax rate.2001400ex said:
The vast majority of corporations are not taxed on income at the federal level.Mosster47 said:
Businesses shouldn't be taxed. They create all the jobs.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
HTH
Then those executives play their own game of mathmatical gymnastics to pay very little in taxes as well.
I'm not an anti-government guy, but our government is way too fucking big. Only getting 10% of the personal pot would end the bullshit of giving other countries that refuse to get their shit together billions of dollars, wars with no purpose, and having a hand in EVERYTHING.
10% would cover defense, SS/Medicare, and the VA. The IRS would still exist but with the simplicity of the new code they could function with 25% of their current staffing.
And C corps average about 15% because of deductions and stuff with the top tax rate at 35%. Corporations are taxed fairly.
And the argument that if you cut taxes on corporations they'll hire more people, is FS. If you've ever been in a discussion about whether to hire or fire, it's always about expected demand. Never is it about taxes. -
Owned and ran an S corp for more than 20 years. All earnings passed through to the individual and taxed at individual rates. Stop making shit up.
-
That's why the tax rate is 35% but the average corporations is closer to 15%. Corporations get tax cuts and credits to stimulate growth over certain things such as research and development. Overall reducing taxes just gives the shareholders more money. Think of it this way:greenblood said:
Lowering taxes does create opportunities for companies to increase capital, and thus open up new avenues of income(new products and services, additional ventures, acquisitions, etc.)2001400ex said:
Actually it's because the vast majority of corporations are LLCs, LLPs, S corps, etc. that are not taxable on income at the federal level.Mosster47 said:
Right, because of massive write offs and pay outs to executives to sneak away from the outrageous corporate tax rate.2001400ex said:
The vast majority of corporations are not taxed on income at the federal level.Mosster47 said:
Businesses shouldn't be taxed. They create all the jobs.greenblood said:I would still like to see payroll as a deduction for business. At least create an added benefit for creating jobs.
HTH
Then those executives play their own game of mathmatical gymnastics to pay very little in taxes as well.
I'm not an anti-government guy, but our government is way too fucking big. Only getting 10% of the personal pot would end the bullshit of giving other countries that refuse to get their shit together billions of dollars, wars with no purpose, and having a hand in EVERYTHING.
10% would cover defense, SS/Medicare, and the VA. The IRS would still exist but with the simplicity of the new code they could function with 25% of their current staffing.
And C corps average about 15% because of deductions and stuff with the top tax rate at 35%. Corporations are taxed fairly.
And the argument that if you cut taxes on corporations they'll hire more people, is FS. If you've ever been in a discussion about whether to hire or fire, it's always about expected demand. Never is it about taxes.
If you invest $20 million in a project that you expect to return $4 million a year. Right now you pay 35% on that $4 million so you'll take home $2.6 million a year. If the tax rate was 15%, you'll take home $3.4 million. Does any business ever say no to taking home "only" $2.6 million a year?
Not to mention that on average corporations are holding a historically large amount of cash. The demand isn't there for additional business to invest in. Consumer confidence and spending is what needs to increase. Not tax cuts. -
That's the point. It's not taxed at the corporate level. In other words, not at 35%. And you get unreimbursed partnership expenses and get to roll personal vehicles through them.Sledog said:Owned and ran an S corp for more than 20 years. All earnings passed through to the individual and taxed at individual rates. Stop making shit up.
But yes I'm making shit up. Lol nice work. -
More senseless babble from an anti-American fake news propagandist
-
I think you meant fake American that's a news propagandist.doogie said:More senseless babble from an anti-American fake news propagandist
-
Reduce revenues. Reduce deficit. Pick one.
-
but, but, supply side. decrease taxes. economy booms. revenue increasesUWhuskytskeet said:Reduce revenues. Reduce deficit. Pick one.
-
That's why the deficit decreased under Reagan and Bush.dhdawg said:
but, but, supply side. decrease taxes. economy booms. revenue increasesUWhuskytskeet said:Reduce revenues. Reduce deficit. Pick one.
Oh wait. -
Make taxes voluntary. I'm always being told that tax dollars are spent on good things that make life better for everyone, so I'm sure everyone will donate.
-
It did and under Kennedy too. Spending increased so that's why deficits increased. Reagan increased defense spending and added star wars etc. (it works) and defeated the Russians without firing a shot. Bush had to deal with 9-11, war and a huge increase in domestic defense spending to protect the country and allow the democrats in congress to spend like crazy to get that stuff approved.2001400ex said:
That's why the deficit decreased under Reagan and Bush.dhdawg said:
but, but, supply side. decrease taxes. economy booms. revenue increasesUWhuskytskeet said:Reduce revenues. Reduce deficit. Pick one.
Oh wait.
