Donald's Trump tax plan.

[weso1]

This is basically along the lines of what I've been arguing for a while now. Lower rates for everyone but cut out the loopholes that make the uber rich pay less than some who make less. I think this plan takes away the argument that the rich don't pay their fair share. Technically it's possible that a rich person would pay literally infinitely more taxes than a poor person.

The one thing I don't like about it is are we really going from 10% to 20%? No incremental step ladder? This is the one part that I think is unfair. Technically families who have 99,000 in taxable income would pay 10% less than a family with 100,000.

Also, this was Trump at his best today. This is the Trump that could actually win the presidency.

[Oklahomahawk]

Does this address the hiding of money in offshore accounts and all the other BS that the fat cats use all the time? I'm definitely not a tax expert, but I am extremely skeptical that anyone, even the Gestapo-like IRS will really ever clamp down on the top 5%-10%.

What do you think?

[weso1]

Does this address the hiding of money in offshore accounts and all the other BS that the fat cats use all the time? I'm definitely not a tax expert, but I am extremely skeptical that anyone, even the Gestapo-like IRS will really ever clamp down on the top 5%-10%.

What do you think?

It tries to. Here it is word for word in his plan:

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a tax maneuver. Under this plan, they can bring their cash home and put it to work in America while benefitting from the newly-lowered corporate tax rate that is globally competitive and no longer requires parking cash overseas. Other companies have cash overseas for specific business units or activities. They can leave that cash overseas, but they will still have to pay the one-time repatriation fee.
An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place because no company should face double taxation

[Runnin]

Donald Trump has a plan?

[Oklahomahawk]

It tries to. Here it is word for word in his plan:

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a tax maneuver. Under this plan, they can bring their cash home and put it to work in America while benefitting from the newly-lowered corporate tax rate that is globally competitive and no longer requires parking cash overseas. Other companies have cash overseas for specific business units or activities. They can leave that cash overseas, but they will still have to pay the one-time repatriation fee.
An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place because no company should face double taxation

OK that's the carrot, I wonder what the stick is?

[zitothebrave]

It tries to. Here it is word for word in his plan:

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a tax maneuver. Under this plan, they can bring their cash home and put it to work in America while benefitting from the newly-lowered corporate tax rate that is globally competitive and no longer requires parking cash overseas. Other companies have cash overseas for specific business units or activities. They can leave that cash overseas, but they will still have to pay the one-time repatriation fee.
An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place because no company should face double taxation

If that happens, get ready for a **** ton of firings. Last time we let companies bring money into the US after hiding they laid off tons of employees to make their shareholders rich as thieves.

[sturg33]

If that happens, get ready for a **** ton of firings. Last time we let companies bring money into the US after hiding they laid off tons of employees to make their shareholders rich as thieves.

I'm not sure I'm following the logic there. Can you explain why they are related?

[sturg33]

This is basically along the lines of what I've been arguing for a while now. Lower rates for everyone but cut out the loopholes that make the uber rich pay less than some who make less. I think this plan takes away the argument that the rich don't pay their fair share. Technically it's possible that a rich person would pay literally infinitely more taxes than a poor person.

The one thing I don't like about it is are we really going from 10% to 20%? No incremental step ladder? This is the one part that I think is unfair. Technically families who have 99,000 in taxable income would pay 10% less than a family with 100,000.

Also, this was Trump at his best today. This is the Trump that could actually win the presidency.

If it's not a progressive increase then it's dumb a plan. Basically saying you're better off making $90K than $100K

[Oklahomahawk]

If it's not a progressive increase then it's dumb a plan. Basically saying you're better off making $90K than $100K

OK for those of us (even if I'm the only one) who aren't tax/finance/money guys, what exactly are you proposing, with a few examples if you wouldn't mind?

[sturg33]

OK for those of us (even if I'm the only one) who aren't tax/finance/money guys, what exactly are you proposing, with a few examples if you wouldn't mind?

Well, I would propose 0% income tax and cut spending.

But if that is not doable, my next proposal would be a flat % for everyone across the board. Something like 10%, whether you make a dollar or $1B

But if you insist on having different tax rates based on income, then you have to make it progressive (just like our system is today)... but I of course would want everything lowered.

Trump - if he is truly not making this a progressive jump - is a moron for thinking that is a good plan

[Oklahomahawk]

Well, I would propose 0% income tax and cut spending.

But if that is not doable, my next proposal would be a flat % for everyone across the board. Something like 10%, whether you make a dollar or $1B

But if you insist on having different tax rates based on income, then you have to make it progressive (just like our system is today)... but I of course would want everything lowered.

Trump - if he is truly not making this a progressive jump - is a moron for thinking that is a good plan

What about corporate taxation or lack of it?

[sturg33]

What about corporate taxation or lack of it?

Our corporate tax structure is among the highest in the world - basically begging companies to invert or hide money. I'd slash them

[Oklahomahawk]

Our corporate tax structure is among the highest in the world - basically begging companies to invert or hide money. I'd slash them

And if most of them actually paid it I might agree with you. And if I'm reading the rest of your message correctly you're saying or at least implying that making more profits is more important than following the law?

[sturg33]

And if most of them actually paid it I might agree with you. And if I'm reading the rest of your message correctly you're saying or at least implying that making more profits is more important than following the law?

I think some laws are really dumb, so in some cases, sure.

If you believe - like I do - that money in corporations' pockets is better for the economy than money in the government's pockets is, then I'd prefer to find ways to make that happen

[Oklahomahawk]

I think some laws are really dumb, so in some cases, sure.

If you believe - like I do - that money in corporations' pockets is better for the economy than money in the government's pockets is, then I'd prefer to find ways to make that happen

I can see your second point, and if all corporations treated their people better and didn't concentrate the overwhelming majority of the money at the top among the very few I'd be more likely to go along with you on this one. I think the government spends a lot of money on stupid stuff too, but given the behavior of so many corporations for the past 30-40 years I just really don't want to go out of my way for them. I know you caught up in the idealism of running a corporation, maximizing profits, whose job is most important, as well as since I don't agree with a lot of what the government spends MY money on then if I can get out of paying at least some of it, it's something of a "passive resistance" kind of protest to take my corporate HQ overseas, or hide money, or BS on my tax returns, etc., I'd have to disagree with you.

The fact is I DON'T think many (and yes I mean a lot of them, but not all by any means and my wrath is for those who aren't doing what I feel are the right things, not for those who do good things consistently) corporations are being mistreated at all, if you look at how regular people live and how the corporate elite live I don't see how you could be as friendly to them either, but it's OK for people to disagree. Those corporate elite types make or write the laws and pay Congress to put them into effect, laws that almost always give them unfair advantage over regular people, then they get richer and richer while more and more of the American middle class erodes away and the lower class gets even poorer and basically gives up.

As for is it OK for a corporation or a person to just "get around" a law or rule they feel is unjust I know that's a big time temptation for all of us, but if you can look past the idealism they spew while they gut what's left of our economy just to make a few more millions so that they can win whatever fictional "game" their playing then I guess this is where we disagree. They've been rigging the system and propagandizing the gullible American people since the days of Lord Reagan and they've been pillaging our future since then too. It's really hard to see this when you really believe in something but it's there, you just have to want to see it.

[sturg33]

I can see your second point, and if all corporations treated their people better and didn't concentrate the overwhelming majority of the money at the top among the very few I'd be more likely to go along with you on this one. I think the government spends a lot of money on stupid stuff too, but given the behavior of so many corporations for the past 30-40 years I just really don't want to go out of my way for them. I know you caught up in the idealism of running a corporation, maximizing profits, whose job is most important, as well as since I don't agree with a lot of what the government spends MY money on then if I can get out of paying at least some of it, it's something of a "passive resistance" kind of protest to take my corporate HQ overseas, or hide money, or BS on my tax returns, etc., I'd have to disagree with you.

The fact is I DON'T think many (and yes I mean a lot of them, but not all by any means and my wrath is for those who aren't doing what I feel are the right things, not for those who do good things consistently) corporations are being mistreated at all, if you look at how regular people live and how the corporate elite live I don't see how you could be as friendly to them either, but it's OK for people to disagree. Those corporate elite types make or write the laws and pay Congress to put them into effect, laws that almost always give them unfair advantage over regular people, then they get richer and richer while more and more of the American middle class erodes away and the lower class gets even poorer and basically gives up.

As for is it OK for a corporation or a person to just "get around" a law or rule they feel is unjust I know that's a big time temptation for all of us, but if you can look past the idealism they spew while they gut what's left of our economy just to make a few more millions so that they can win whatever fictional "game" their playing then I guess this is where we disagree. They've been rigging the system and propagandizing the gullible American people since the days of Lord Reagan and they've been pillaging our future since then too. It's really hard to see this when you really believe in something but it's there, you just have to want to see it.

I hear a lot about corporations just making billions on billions on billions. But if you look at the S&P 500 YoY earnings growth, it's really not there... on a few major companies are carrying the load - but the majority is flat or down. The economy is not growing

[Oklahomahawk]

I hear a lot about corporations just making billions on billions on billions. But if you look at the S&P 500 YoY earnings growth, it's really not there... on a few major companies are carrying the load - but the majority is flat or down. The economy is not growing

That's probably true, but two quick things (I have to go teach a class) first you can talk about "growing" the economy all you (and I mean the metaphorical you, not you sturg) but when so much of the capital/wealth in this country is controlled by a very small number of individuals, corporations, etc., unless those entities are willing to let go of some of it the seeds simply don't exist to get the kind of you're talking about and the we all should be talking about. Also, remember a while back when I asked you guys why communism didn't work (I liked and agreed with pretty much all the answers I received by the way I've just been too busy to go back and update that post), right now those at the top of the pyramid have most if not all the incentives to achieve. Why should you or I go the extra mile, work out butts off, etc., to be our best, when someone who has enough wealth already to buy and sell us 1000 times over will just wind up getting most if not all the benefits of our extra effort?

Your thoughts...

[sturg33]

In general, when these companies make profits, they turn over a good portion of it to shareholders. For example, I've been invest in Conoco Phillips for years, and they have paid and increased dividends every single year. That money goes into my pocket, and then I can do with what I please.

Do CEOs make a lot of money? Of course. But that doesn't bother me like it bothers so many folks... often times they make decisions that help make their companies billions of dollars. But most of the time, they are compensated heavily in stock options. And that is why they're making so much money.

Oh, and why do you think stocks have been doing so well? Because of QE and artificially low interest rates. Is that the corporation's fault? Or is the government/fed reserve's fault? Should corporations not take advantage of low borrowing costs? And what do you think they do with that borrowed money - they invest it, and they grow it, and they make more money, which gets invested, etc. etc. etc.

I've explained this a million times, but why not once more. The income gap can almost be directly attributed to federal reserve policies over the last several decades, ESPECIALLY since 2008.

They infuse banks with trillions of dollars and keep interest rates low. The wealthy/smart people/corporations then take out loans at near 0% interest and grow the capital. Simply investing in an S&P index fun back in 2009 would have more than doubled your money in just 6 years. Who do you think is taking advantage of this? The average walmart cashier? Or the highly educated affluent person?

Should they be blamed?

[Julio3000]

In general, when these companies make profits, they turn over a good portion of it to shareholders. For example, I've been invest in Conoco Phillips for years, and they have paid and increased dividends every single year. That money goes into my pocket, and then I can do with what I please.

Do CEOs make a lot of money? Of course. But that doesn't bother me like it bothers so many folks... often times they make decisions that help make their companies billions of dollars. But most of the time, they are compensated heavily in stock options. And that is why they're making so much money.

Oh, and why do you think stocks have been doing so well? Because of QE and artificially low interest rates. Is that the corporation's fault? Or is the government/fed reserve's fault? Should corporations not take advantage of low borrowing costs? And what do you think they do with that borrowed money - they invest it, and they grow it, and they make more money, which gets invested, etc. etc. etc.

I've explained this a million times, but why not once more. The income gap can almost be directly attributed to federal reserve policies over the last several decades, ESPECIALLY since 2008.

They infuse banks with trillions of dollars and keep interest rates low. The wealthy/smart people/corporations then take out loans at near 0% interest and grow the capital. Simply investing in an S&P index fun back in 2009 would have more than doubled your money in just 6 years. Who do you think is taking advantage of this? The average walmart cashier? Or the highly educated affluent person?

Should they be blamed?

Gosh, it sounds like they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that tax, fiscal, and monetary policy seems to be written precisely to benefit them.

[sturg33]

Gosh, it sounds like they have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that tax, fiscal, and monetary policy seems to be written precisely to benefit them.

Look, you can be upset at the beneficiaries, or you can be upset with the folks who made the policy. I'm an anti-fed reserve guy... Many on here are anti-corporation folks. Where do you fall?

[Oklahomahawk]

Look, you can be upset at the beneficiaries, or you can be upset with the folks who made the policy. I'm an anti-fed reserve guy... Many on here are anti-corporation folks. Where do you fall?

You're still acting like these laws, policies, scenarios, etc,. are "just there waiting for someone/anyone to take advantage of them". Who do you think pays our elected officials to make these laws and rules? Who do you think pays our elected officials to let the Fed do whatever the hell they want? The correct answer is the few, the oligarchs who run this country, their two stooge groups of choice are the Republicans and Democrats. Whichever person from whichever party gets elected does what they're told or they are replaced by someone who will.

In many cases the banks and other corporations who need language specific laws or rules written a certain way write it themselves and then just deliver it to the elected official elected official/stooge and they add a little political mumbo jumbo at the beginning and the end so it looks official and they send it to be voted on. They set up rules and laws and situations that only certain people can enter into, where they're set up in a no-lose situation, then they come in and don't lose and everybody thinks they're role models.

I know you need to think everything is on the up and up and that the system just needs a little fine tuning but it's way beyond that, and has been for a long time, especially since the 1980s.

Oh and how many walmart cashiers do you know who have the time, energy, and education to understand that good old S&P index and become expert day traders? And that's not even counting those same people having the money to invest IF they understood it.

[sturg33]

You're still acting like these laws, policies, scenarios, etc,. are "just there waiting for someone/anyone to take advantage of them". Who do you think pays our elected officials to make these laws and rules? Who do you think pays our elected officials to let the Fed do whatever the hell they want? The correct answer is the few, the oligarchs who run this country, their two stooge groups of choice are the Republicans and Democrats. Whichever person from whichever party gets elected does what they're told or they are replaced by someone who will.

In many cases the banks and other corporations who need language specific laws or rules written a certain way write it themselves and then just deliver it to the elected official elected official/stooge and they add a little political mumbo jumbo at the beginning and the end so it looks official and they send it to be voted on. They set up rules and laws and situations that only certain people can enter into, where they're set up in a no-lose situation, then they come in and don't lose and everybody thinks they're role models.

I know you need to think everything is on the up and up and that the system just needs a little fine tuning but it's way beyond that, and has been for a long time, especially since the 1980s.

Oh and how many walmart cashiers do you know who have the time, energy, and education to understand that good old S&P index and become expert day traders? And that's not even counting those same people having the money to invest IF they understood it.

I don't know exactly what you're arguing, though half your post seems to agree with me.

The system is absolutely broken. I have been bitching about it for some time now. But the system is not broken because of CEO pay and corporate inversions. It's broken because of our INDEPENDENT central bank making horrifying anti-free market monetary policy that creates bubble after bubble. The rich benefit. The poor continue to get screwed.

[Oklahomahawk]

I don't know exactly what you're arguing, though half your post seems to agree with me.

The system is absolutely broken. I have been bitching about it for some time now. But the system is not broken because of CEO pay and corporate inversions. It's broken because of our INDEPENDENT central bank making horrifying anti-free market monetary policy that creates bubble after bubble. The rich benefit. The poor continue to get screwed.

Well what do you know, we do agree, at least to a large degree. I don't think CEO pay is the cause of the problems, though I do think it's a contributing factor and I guess it's the pedestal so many Americans put these people up on. Yeah I get that their job is important and not just everybody can do it, but the people at the other end of the spectrum are suffering because of it, the American family until it dissolving because of many things, but not enough decent jobs is one of them, and there's only so much money to go around, when the CEOs make over $20M/year that doesn't leave a lot for anyone else. If you need to think about it another way $10M would still be way higher than CEOs anywhere else in world make and that would allow more money for regular workers to maybe be able to make their freakin' house payments and it would also leave more to pay out in dividends. In the end it still comes back to the same things, the rich take care of the rich. you don't think it's that walmart cashier who influences national policy and not only allows the fed to run wild but even encourages it, as long as they get to share in the orgy of unsubstantiated money printing and passing out?

[Julio3000]

Look, you can be upset at the beneficiaries, or you can be upset with the folks who made the policy. I'm an anti-fed reserve guy... Many on here are anti-corporation folks. Where do you fall?

Well, they obviously deserve their great fortunes if they can figure out so many clever ways to benefit from government policy. It's almost like they're the ones writing it. It's uncanny.

[sturg33]

Well, they obviously deserve their great fortunes if they can figure out so many clever ways to benefit from government policy. It's almost like they're the ones writing it. It's uncanny.

That would be true if the Fed Reserve was part of our government. But alas, they are an independent private bank who controls the world's largest economy.

But yes - the government is despicable for being slaves to corporate lobbyists. It's why I'm always clamoring for less government and then I'm told I'm an extremist and that more government is the answer.

Now that's uncanny

[zitothebrave]

I'm not sure I'm following the logic there. Can you explain why they are related?

It's really simple, they took the money and repurchased stocks for a huge payout to shareholders.

Or

"The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found"

http://www.cbpp.org/research/repatriation-tax-holiday-would-lose-revenue-and-is-a-proven-policy-failure

[50PoundHead]

This is basically along the lines of what I've been arguing for a while now. Lower rates for everyone but cut out the loopholes that make the uber rich pay less than some who make less. I think this plan takes away the argument that the rich don't pay their fair share. Technically it's possible that a rich person would pay literally infinitely more taxes than a poor person.

The one thing I don't like about it is are we really going from 10% to 20%? No incremental step ladder? This is the one part that I think is unfair. Technically families who have 99,000 in taxable income would pay 10% less than a family with 100,000.

Also, this was Trump at his best today. This is the Trump that could actually win the presidency.

weso, it's only the increment above a bracket amount that is subjected to the higher rate. Someone making $100,000 and someone making $100,001 would pay the same rate on the first $100,000 of income. The $1 above for the second taxpayer would be subject to the higher rate.

[sturg33]

It's really simple, they took the money and repurchased stocks for a huge payout to shareholders.

Or

"The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found"

http://www.cbpp.org/research/repatriation-tax-holiday-would-lose-revenue-and-is-a-proven-policy-failure

I don't understand why getting the money at a lower tax rate would lead to layoffs... Why would those two things be related?

[zitothebrave]

I don't understand why getting the money at a lower tax rate would lead to layoffs... Why would those two things be related?

Did you not read my source material? Companies used the massive influx of cash as a way to bolster shareholders pockets because it's what the shareholders demanded. We had a incometax repatriation before, and nothing good came of it.

I personally think it's more fun watching these corporations leave large sums of money overseas where they can't do **** with it. They're expecting the repatriation. I would be a dick. I'd lower the tax rate, on all new income just to **** with them even more. Make them kinda happy, but still really pissed off.

[sturg33]

Did you not read my source material? Companies used the massive influx of cash as a way to bolster shareholders pockets because it's what the shareholders demanded. We had a incometax repatriation before, and nothing good came of it.

I personally think it's more fun watching these corporations leave large sums of money overseas where they can't do **** with it. They're expecting the repatriation. I would be a dick. I'd lower the tax rate, on all new income just to **** with them even more. Make them kinda happy, but still really pissed off.

You're not answering my question. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm asking why a company needs a tax benefit to justify layoffs?

They can still give the shareholders the extra cash without laying anyone off... Or they could lay someone off regardless if they got the tax break.

Saying "lowering the tax rate for companies to bring their money back to America will just lead to massive layoffs" makes absolutely no sense at all.

[zitothebrave]

You're not answering my question. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm asking why a company needs a tax benefit to justify layoffs?

They can still give the shareholders the extra cash without laying anyone off... Or they could lay someone off regardless if they got the tax break.

Saying "lowering the tax rate for companies to bring their money back to America will just lead to massive layoffs" makes absolutely no sense at all.

They had a massive influx of cash, they raised the value of their shares with layoffs before that cash came in, and repurchased stocks.

They could have done a million things with the money, but instead they maximized returns. And I'm not just saying it because I have a hunch. WE watched it happen. Again

"The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found"

Look at the numbers, 15 companies, 150 million, 21,000 lost jobs.

[sturg33]

They had a massive influx of cash, they raised the value of their shares with layoffs before that cash came in, and repurchased stocks.

They could have done a million things with the money, but instead they maximized returns. And I'm not just saying it because I have a hunch. WE watched it happen. Again

"The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found"

Look at the numbers, 15 companies, 150 million, 21,000 lost jobs.

Again, you're sentences are making no sense. Why would a company want to raise the value of their shares before repurchasing stock? Why would they want to do that before instituting a dividend (giving it a lower yield)? What you're saying is making no sense at all.

You're saying that a company that makes more money is more likely to do massive layoffs. You're really going to have to help me understand that one...

Just because something happened at a time when a tax holiday happened, doesn't mean they were related, or are poised to repeat.

[zitothebrave]

But they are poised to repeat. Because it paid the shareholders. Again you're right, they could have given the shareholders X amount of dollars, or they could have given them X+1 amount of dollars. YOu don't think they voted for X+1 and clammored, so on so forth. Like that guy who called apple idiots or whatever for not using their cash to buyback stocks, when he's one of the biggest benefactors of them buying back stock instead of them investing that money in R&D or employees, or buying other companies (whcih they did)

[goldfly]

There's no way Donald Trump's tax plan (which reduces revenues to the treasury by $11.98 trillion on a static basis and $10.14 trillion on a dynamic basis over the next decade) will be revenue-neutral. Here's why:http://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-s-tax-plan-will-not-be-revenue-neutral-under-any-circumstances

[50PoundHead]

There's no way Donald Trump's tax plan (which reduces revenues to the treasury by $11.98 trillion on a static basis and $10.14 trillion on a dynamic basis over the next decade) will be revenue-neutral. Here's why:http://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-s-tax-plan-will-not-be-revenue-neutral-under-any-circumstances

I heard a staff member from The Tax Foundation expound on that on NPR yesterday. It's a fiction that tax cuts pay for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't cut taxes, but the Laffer Curve is just that: a laugh.

[Runnin]

Trickle down is closer to trickle up.

[AerchAngel]

There's no way Donald Trump's tax plan (which reduces revenues to the treasury by $11.98 trillion on a static basis and $10.14 trillion on a dynamic basis over the next decade) will be revenue-neutral. Here's why:http://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-s-tax-plan-will-not-be-revenue-neutral-under-any-circumstances

Trump is a Democrat in wolf clothing. You should love him, anti-religious, anti-warmonger, but I know he has an "R" in his name so he is automatically the enemy.

[goldfly]

Trump is a Democrat in wolf clothing. You should love him, anti-religious, anti-warmonger, but I know he has an "R" in his name so he is automatically the enemy.

i don't support someone cause an R or D

and my support of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders while being on these boards proves just that

but hey, don't let that get in the way of your "point"

not really sure how you think those 2 things mean i should love someone

[AerchAngel]

i don't support someone cause an R or D

and my support of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders while being on these boards proves just that

but hey, don't let that get in the way of your "point"

not really sure how you think those 2 things mean i should love someone

<cough> bullsh*t </cough>

[sturg33]

I heard a staff member from The Tax Foundation expound on that on NPR yesterday. It's a fiction that tax cuts pay for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't cut taxes, but the Laffer Curve is just that: a laugh.

I've always hated the expression that you have to "pay for a tax cut"

That implies that the money belongs to the government, not the individual of which it's being confiscated.

[50PoundHead]

I've always hated the expression that you have to "pay for a tax cut"

That implies that the money belongs to the government, not the individual of which it's being confiscated.

There is probably a more elegant way to say it, but that's the language that conservatives use more than liberals by contending that the economic growth that will supposedly result from a tax cut will produce more revenue than the current system does. That may be true for certain taxes at the margin of the system, but for the most part, tax cuts will require budget cuts to adjust for less revenue being collected or the deficit will grow.

I think we will see some pretty major tax reform in the next decade that will involve base-broadening and rate reduction. But people shouldn't kid themselves. The greatest beneficiaries of the current system are those in the middle class, as the current framework of deductions/credits have greater value as a percentage of income for them than those in higher income brackets. It's how income is calculated is where the wealthy benefit.

[goldfly]

<cough> bullsh*t </cough>

uh

ok

[sturg33]

There is probably a more elegant way to say it, but that's the language that conservatives use more than liberals by contending that the economic growth that will supposedly result from a tax cut will produce more revenue than the current system does. That may be true for certain taxes at the margin of the system, but for the most part, tax cuts will require budget cuts to adjust for less revenue being collected or the deficit will grow.

I think we will see some pretty major tax reform in the next decade that will involve base-broadening and rate reduction. But people shouldn't kid themselves. The greatest beneficiaries of the current system are those in the middle class, as the current framework of deductions/credits have greater value as a percentage of income for them than those in higher income brackets. It's how income is calculated is where the wealthy benefit.

I agree with you... but it's a constant expression that leads to people actually believing that you have to "pay for a tax cut"

The money is ours. We earned it. The government wants to confiscate it. It doesn't cost anyone for them to confiscate less.

I'm always a believer that money in my hands is better than money in a bureaucrat's hands... I can use it to save, buy a house, a car, go out to eat, etc... The government uses it to write more and more laws.

[57Brave]

or fill more and more potholes. Or to establish more and more Food and Drug standards. Then inspect. When you say "government" people generally cherry pick those areas they dislike then ignore essential functions. One man's essential function is another man's bureaucratic waste. In a nation of 300M that is an awful lot of scope. What good is Irrigation Standards in Nebraska to a Manhattenite? Too many variables for blanket one size fits all solutions

[sturg33]

or fill more and more potholes. Or to establish more and more Food and Drug standards. Then inspect. When you say "government" people generally cherry pick those areas they dislike then ignore essential functions. One man's essential function is another man's bureaucratic waste. In a nation of 300M that is an awful lot of scope. What good is Irrigation Standards in Nebraska to a Manhattenite? Too many variables for blanket one size fits all solutions

I can't remember the last time a federal government filled a pot hole for me. But perhaps I missed something.

[57Brave]

Pretty certain there is federal funds funneled for local road maintenance as a holdover from the New Deal.
My example was meant more figuratively than literally.

As in Alfonse D'Amato was nick-named "Senator Pot Hole "

[sturg33]

Pretty certain there is federal funds funneled for local road maintenance as a holdover from the New Deal.
My example was meant more figuratively than literally.

As in Alfonse D'Amato was nick-named "Senator Pot Hole "

I'm curious about the essential functions of the federal government... what do they provide that we could not live without or handle more locally, other than the military...

For the record, I'm not saying they don't... but am curious to see the magnitude of the list

[57Brave]

There was a picture in the mid 90's of Clinton and Gore standing next to stacks of volumes of out dated - useless government regulation/law/text. Granted it was a photo-op but I think every administrator and legislator agrees with you.

Palin during her 15 minutes snarkedly went on and on about scientists being funded to study fruit flies. "Fruit flies ..." she would say. On it's face and to those that don't understand I can see where politically she made/had a point.

An example we can all understand
As fast as technology is moving there is equipment and I would guess service people attached to the out dated tech that take up not only physical space but monetary and manpower wastes
Now, multiply that by 300M people and 50 states.
Of course there will be waste --



Who defines essential function ?