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?