Trump Posted His Tax Reform Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Syrus said:
We need a plan like this. Me and my wife make 75-85k a year and two kids and we lose about 30% of our income to taxes and dont get crap back a year.

Wed pay a little bit less with a plan like this.

Tax reform NEEDS to happen especially for middle class. We are drowned in taxes
Click to expand...

You're doing your taxes wrong.

$85k income.

$12.4k standard deduction.

4 personal exemptions at $3950 each ~= $16k.

$85k - $12.4k - $16k = $58k.

Taxes are $6,872.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,200 = approximately $2k more = approximately $9k total.

That's about 10% of your gross income.

I left out the child tax credit, the child care credit, and any other credits you might be able to claim.

l2file noob
 
Unless other candidates can blow holes in this plan, this will garner A LOT of votes for him.

At this point, I'd still prefer to see him fire celebrities once a week.
 
Sparrowhawk said:
Could someone explain how this would affect someone like me who earns less than $25k and why it's good/bad?
Click to expand...

commedieu said:
You win!

You don't have to pay income tax.

Trump is mind fucking the hell out of me right now, what the fuck. This seems sensible...
Click to expand...

The caveat is that we have to understand at least what revenue overseas is like to determine if a 15% tax after the 10% first year is going to support all the government services we have now.

Taxing overseas revenue will be easier than closing the tax loopholes the way Congress has been acting, so I only see loopholes as unreliable bonus points.
 
this sounds so pie in the sky and idealist.

i love the idea of an i win tax form, but am i really winning if i make less than 25k a year?
 
I...this is...complicated. There are things in here I like, but the changes in revenue would fuck with the budget and operations of the government and screw getting rid of the estate tax
 
Also, the real tax master:

1531.jpg
 
numble said:
It wouldn't be a huge increase because 15% is low and subpart F rules already (try to) target money stashed in low tax jurisdictions. Most foreign jurisdictions tax above 15%, so they would have no tax burden on repatriation of cash from say, China, Japan, or the EU.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks.

So if this is true, the plan has the opposite problem -- Trump is claiming taxing foreign income would produce a lot more money and make his plan revenue neutral. If that change would produce very little additional income, then actually this change wouldn't make the plan revenue neutral at all.
 
It says nothing about the child tax credit.

Would this still be available under his plan? If not, it's actually a tax increase on the middle-class.
 
marrec said:
I would like to think that most liberal GAF understand the necessity of taxes across the board as a way to pay for public welfare and services like healthcare and education.

Lets RAISE Taxes across the board and pay for everyone to get a college degree or move to a single payer healthcare system.
Click to expand...
The problem with raising across the board is there is inherent inequity in the current tax code which would not be rectified.

The argument most liberals make is that current deductions / loopholes allow the rich to pay a lower rate than is immediately obvious. In many cases, it's lower in real world percentages than what the middle class actually pays. Simply raising across the board would mostly keep that disparity relative to each group.


Again I have no idea if the math works out here, but your proposal would do little do alleviate the disparity. Trump's proposal, at least on the surface, would.
 
marrec said:
I would like to think that most liberal GAF understand the necessity of taxes across the board as a way to pay for public welfare and services like healthcare and education.

Lets RAISE Taxes across the board and pay for everyone to get a college degree or move to a single payer healthcare system.
Click to expand...

I agree with your first statement, but less so your second. I'm not convinced that raising taxes on the lower end is necessary or helpful.
 
Raistlin said:
The problem with raising across the board is there is inherent inequity in the current tax code which would not be rectified.

The argument most liberals make is that current deductions / loopholes allow the rich to pay a lower rate than is immediately obvious. In many cases, it's lower in real world percentages than what the middle class actually pays. Simply raising across the board would mostly keep that disparity relative to each group.


Again I have no idea if the math works out here, but your proposal would do little do alleviate the disparity. Trump's proposal, at least on the surface, would.
Click to expand...

The actual rich elites like Trump and Romney before him actively duck paying taxes with offshore accounts that you really can't do anything about. They'll never, ever pay taxes at the same percentage as the middle class.
 
I'm pretty skeptical of this. My wife and I pull just over six figures a year and pay an effective rate of around 10% after deductions and exemptions for our kids. I'd *love* to see what deductions and credits will stick around.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this will work out to be a tax increase for a lot of people in the $50k-$150k bracket.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Well, Trump believes that by cleaninig up the tax code and eliminating loop holes, filling will result in more tax revenue that wouldn't have been paid otherwise. That increase in revenue offsets the tax cuts to the lower and middle class. The bottom line is businesses will be paying for it by not avoiding taxes like they have in the past through loopholes.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the CBO score on this before I start speaking too much about the effects to revenue. My hunch is it won't be all that pretty. And the elimination of the estate tax is a big sticking point for me. This country is already oligarchic enough.
 
NYCmetsfan said:
I'm honestly confused what anyone who isn't a conservative finds appealing about this plan.
Click to expand...

We're crunching the numbers because Trump is offering a plan that isn't from the Republican slash taxes playbook.

It isn't outlandish to at least examine what he's saying and then making up our mind instead of going LOL Trump, fuck no.

At the very least even if Trump's idea is ok it can be used as a talking point to have the candidates we prefer considering it.
 
shoplifter said:
I'm pretty skeptical of this. My wife and I pull just over six figures a year and pay an effective rate of around 10% after deductions and exemptions for our kids. I'd *love* to see what deductions and credits will stick around.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this will work out to be a tax increase for a lot of people in the $50k-$150k bracket.
Click to expand...

That's only general federal though right? You aren't counting stuff like FICA or state or local taxes right?
 
Ziltoidia 9 said:
Here you go.

patrick-cox-o.gif
Click to expand...

I just got a good chuckle out of his name being Pat Cox.

Anyway, any tax plan that will pay for cuts by "closing loopholes" is bullshit. It sounds good, because all hardworking Americans hate it when (other) people manage to get away with shortchanging the IRS, but it never amounts to anything.
 
Going after the loopholes seems ideal, but good luck with actually achieving that.

The plan looks alright on the surface, but implementation is pretty much not happening. If, theoretically, the loopholes that allow corporate inversions were to be filled, the tax cuts may seem sensible and tax revenue would probably be consistent with how it is now, if not more.
 
EskimoJoe said:
I agree with your first statement, but less so your second. I'm not convinced that raising taxes on the lower end is necessary or helpful.
Click to expand...

It's a complicated topic, but it's worth noting that almost all of the European countries with stronger social welfare programs also have VAT -- a (pretty regressive) national sales tax. America doesn't have that.

We still generally consider them better countries to be poor in, but it's not because the tax load is lower, because it isn't. It's because the social programs are so much stronger that it compensates for the additional taxation.
 
lemonlyman said:
Why do the middle class get a progressive tax and the rich get a flat tax? That's pretty fucked.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming it's because he's trying to get the rich to actually pay something now by eliminating some of the loopholes that they're currently able to take advantage of. So now, yes, they have a high tax rate on the books, but with fancy accounting techniques they can bring down their taxable income and rate to lower than you or I pay.
 
Jonm1010 said:
I'd like to see the CBO score on this before I start speaking too much about the effects to revenue. My hunch is it won't be all that pretty. And the elimination of the estate tax is a big sticking point for me. This country is already oligarchic enough.
Click to expand...

Ya, I don't know if the math adds up, which I'd like to see the numbers on, but on the surface, Trump's plan doesn't sound crazy. It's a question of how the numbers work to back up that plan.
 
NYCmetsfan said:
I'm honestly confused what anyone who isn't a conservative finds appealing about this plan.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's a huge tax cut for everybody.

It doesn't surprise me that a lot of people find that intuitively appealing!

As always, Trump's policy plan is to just promise people the stuff they want and assert that it's practical. Everybody loves Uncle Donald because Uncle Donald always buys ice cream! Everybody hates your parents because your parents keep saying dumb stuff like "it is not healthy or reasonable to eat only ice cream for the rest of your life, sometimes you have to eat vegetables and stuff." Uncle Donald knows better than that!
 
This benefits the wealthy the most, of course, just like all plans ever will. They get their taxes lowered, and then, the poor gets to buy more things, but where does that money go? The rich, because the pay structure in our country is there to benefit the wealthy. That's where the profits go.
 
pigeon said:
It's a complicated topic, but it's worth noting that almost all of the European countries with stronger social welfare programs also have VAT -- a (pretty regressive) national sales tax. America doesn't have that.

We still generally consider them better countries to be poor in, but it's not because the tax load is lower, because it isn't. It's because the social programs are so much stronger that it compensates for the additional taxation.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I suppose in theory, I would be fine with something like that. A tax that effected the poorer more harshly than it currently does, provided I were confident we would have a strong safety net. I just don't have enough faith on our politics to see that happen. More likely, I can imagine something like that getting passed, then slowly, the safety net would be eroded away while the higher taxes on the poor stuck around. But I'm a pessimist, I guess.
 
numble said:
Have you included social security and medicare, and state taxes? If self-employed, social security and Medicare is an additional 15.3% tax.
Click to expand...
Those taxes are separate from income taxes and aren't meant to be lumped together in effective tax rate discussions.

And with a likely effective rate of 10% as Syrus pointed out (I didn't figure in any deductions), it's still unlikely to reach 30% with everything else added in.
 
Needs a couple more tax brackets for rich people.
 
Zing said:
It's unfortunate that a whole industry formed to handle something that should be simple enough to not be a burden. For many people, a medieval sheriff coming by to demand a sack of gold might be preferred.

I am still in favour of a federal sales tax and zero income tax.
Click to expand...

That same industry lobbies heavily to keep those rules byzantine.
 
This is surprisingly not the worst tax policy I've seen from a Republican. It sure beats the flat tax and could conceivably work with different rates/cutoffs and such.

That said, it's still a pretty bad plan. Literally everyone gets tax cuts, so where's the necessary revenue going to come from? You can't cut tax rates for the poor, middle class, rich and businesses without making some sort of spending cuts too, and we all know where Republicans like to make cuts.

Syrus said:
We need a plan like this. Me and my wife make 75-85k a year and two kids and we lose about 30% of our income to taxes and dont get crap back a year.

Wed pay a little bit less with a plan like this.

Tax reform NEEDS to happen especially for middle class. We are drowned in taxes
Click to expand...

You need a better tax preparer then. I make somewhat more than that (not by much though), and my effective tax rate is about 17% for both federal and state income taxes combined. My only major deduction is for my mortgage, but a 15-year loan that's half paid off doesn't generate much interest to deduct anyway. Anyone who's paying anywhere near the full marginal tax rate on their income (short of owing AMT) is doing it wrong.
 
pigeon said:
It's a complicated topic, but it's worth noting that almost all of the European countries with stronger social welfare programs also have VAT -- a (pretty regressive) national sales tax. America doesn't have that.

We still generally consider them better countries to be poor in, but it's not because the tax load is lower, because it isn't. It's because the social programs are so much stronger that it compensates for the additional taxation.
Click to expand...
I don't see how a VAT is "regressive", it certainly isn't a tax that decreases as the taxable amount increases, but you probably mean that it has adverse effects on the poor. If designed well, it is a pretty good tax. It taxes all sales, not just consumer sales, and all services, including business to business services. You can exempt groceries, medicine and clothing (under certain thresholds), and like Canada, you can use it to fund direct welfare payments to the poor, eliminating "regressive" effects. The input/output credit mechanism allows it to be taxed throughout the whole supply chain instead of only a retail consumer in the sales tax situation.
 
shoplifter said:
Correct. I don't see anything in Trump's plan that would eliminate FICA or State/Local though, so I only used my effective Federal rate.
Click to expand...

No I get that, and Trumps plan IS only Federal.

The problem is talking on Federal for the average family is leaving out a ton of the equation. It's something I hate in general about discussing shit like this.
 
Vanillalite said:
No I get that, and Trumps plan IS only Federal.

The problem is talking on Federal for the average family is leaving out a ton of the equation. It's something I hate in general about discussing shit like this.
Click to expand...
It's the biggest chunk of what's taken out of your paycheck while also being the only one you have any control over.
 
Plinko said:
It says nothing about the child tax credit.

Would this still be available under his plan? If not, it's actually a tax increase on the middle-class.
Click to expand...
Like most Republican tax plans, credits like that and the EITC would likely be eliminated, which yes, would mean the middle-class would likely end up paying more in the end. Of course, they never mention that part, because the goal of these plans is always to help the rich, not anyone else.

EskimoJoe said:
I like that reducing the number of tax brackets is hailed as some simplification. As if having 7 of something is just too much to handle, but 4 is much simpler!
Click to expand...
The Verizon of tax plans.
 
Zoe said:
Those taxes are separate from income taxes and aren't meant to be lumped together in effective tax rate discussions.

And with a likely effective rate of 10% as Syrus pointed out (I didn't figure in any deductions), it's still unlikely to reach 30% with everything else added in.
Click to expand...
Plenty of effective tax analyses include social security taxes, I read them all the time. I was just linking to one the other day, in fact: http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

Syrus pointed out a effective rate of 30% to "taxes", not just federal income tax.
 
Zoe said:
It's the biggest chunk of what's taken out of your paycheck while also being the only one you have any control over.
Click to expand...

It is the biggest chunk taken, but the issue of taxes is something voters have some control over at all levels.

I also its not like the property taxes I pay or the 6% state rate I pay is nothing or anything. For families living pay check to pay check every penny counts!
 
Sure, but that's separate policy and those taxes are state by state and locality by locality and can't always be taken into account by federal policy.
 
Marty Chinn said:
Ya, I don't know if the math adds up, which I'd like to see the numbers on, but on the surface, Trump's plan doesn't sound crazy. It's a question of how the numbers work to back up that plan.
Click to expand...
It's certainly more reasonable then I expected. Not my ideal as a liberal but better then some of the crap others have spewed. And it's nice to see him willing to challenge the people the republicans typically avoid asking to pay their due.
 
pigeon said:
You're doing your taxes wrong.

$85k income.

$12.4k standard deduction.

4 personal exemptions at $3950 each ~= $16k.

$85k - $12.4k - $16k = $58k.

Taxes are $6,872.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,200 = approximately $2k more = approximately $9k total.

That's about 10% of your gross income.

I left out the child tax credit, the child care credit, and any other credits you might be able to claim.

l2file noob
Click to expand...

+ 6.2% Social Security
+ 1.5% Medicaire
+ 4% to 13%(!) State income tax (In most states)

The 8% SS+Medicare amount may not be a tax per se, but it does sure feel like it.
 
Under the current US (and Canadian) system, if you are incorporated, there are many loopholes to avoid paying any corporate or personal taxes if you are the owner or contribute to significant percentage to the business.

Why change this system? The goodness of their heart? LOL, bless them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom