Trump's Tax Plan (security, conservative, CNN, vice president)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK , you stated your opinion. We disagree. I like the idea of ending the "tax deferral" I see it as Trump making good on his promise to bring back good jobs. He gives the multinationals here a break buy reducing their tax to 25 %. They pay 35 % now. They have to make a decision. Sell their manufacturing plants to foreign interests who will have to pay a tax to import products into the USA. Repatriate the money at 10 % and build a plant here and compete in the same market. Or as you say move overseas. With fair trade they will pay a tax if they want to import their products here. If we are not going to benefit by having them here who cares if they leave. They will, because most of the multinationals are manufactures, oil and gas equipment manufactures are the largest sub group.
U.S. corporations faced the highest effective tax rate on their foreign earnings (49.2 percent) in Africa in 2010. Latin America followed with an effective rate of 33.5 percent. The third highest effective rate was paid in Europe (30.7 percent), where a majority of foreign earned income was reported in 2010. Only two regions (Oceania and Other Countries) had effective tax rates on foreign earnings below 25 percent.
So will the Trump tax on imports be known as "Smoot Hawley II" in recognition of the great history of import taxes we've had? And you think this specifically is a good idea? And after world trade collapses under retaliatory taxation by our former trade partners, how well will the country be doing?
So will the Trump tax on imports be known as "Smoot Hawley II" in recognition of the great history of import taxes we've had? And you think this specifically is a good idea? And after world trade collapses under retaliatory taxation by our former trade partners, how well will the country be doing?
Just wondering.
World trade collapse? So? The American Middle Class hasn't benefited from it.
Worrying about "world trade" is pointless if you have a job being sent to Mexico because the globalists want it there. Let the "world" worry about their jobs and we will worry about ours.
So will the Trump tax on imports be known as "Smoot Hawley II" in recognition of the great history of import taxes we've had? And you think this specifically is a good idea? And after world trade collapses under retaliatory taxation by our former trade partners, how well will the country be doing?
Just wondering.
Why is it working so well for China, Japan, Mexico and others who are doing it. Maybe it is leadership.
While you are wondering. Wonder on over the bridge to Tijuana Mexico to get a glimpse of what we will be like in the future.
Responding to the OP's request we focus on the Goals...
The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals
If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.
All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.
No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.
No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it.
My tweaking
Anyone in this income bracket probably has little or no discretionary income. Everything they earn is used up paying for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care and education. If it goes that far. IF there is anything left over, it will be put back into the economy. No problem here.
There was a time tax rates for the top earners reached 90% and that was after WWII. So that part isn't true. But what is needed is to make sure everyone can keep enough of their income to buy what they need. See above. When you do that, more money goes back into the economy and is not used as a means to make the rich richer. We need more money funneled into the economy and the way to do that is put it in the hands of people who need things.
Okay, so long as we eliminate corporate welfare and tax breaks that allow cash rich corporations to pay little or no tax. Apply a minimum tax for corporations that do not contribute to the growth of the American economy and/or add jobs that pay a living wage. I would also add tax penalties to any business that creates a scenario where workers have to rely on public assistance to make ends meet.
seems that helps the poor and VERY low income middle class more than actual middle class imo
Just you wait..The revenue loss will cause any oppositions to "PAY FOR" cuts to allow such a plan!! So remains to be seen..tho doubt it will pass muster with Economists once calculated!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
Not enough details to see who is hurt and who benefits. It's all academic anyway as even if Trump were to be elected, his plan would go nowhere in Congress with opposition from special interests on both sides. That's not a knock on Trump. It is true of every candidate in the race. Congress is dysfunctional and it is not going to change any time soon.
A document from the Trump campaign says all these tax cuts would be “fully paid for” by the elimination of deductions and by a one-time tax on foreign profits of American firms held abroad. That math simply does not add up: As discussed above, rich people do not currently take enough tax deductions to offset the tax rate cuts Mr. Trump proposes, and the one-time foreign profits tax might raise $250 billion, not close to the trillions of revenue that would be lost through tax rate cuts.
Or what it was like in the past before there were free trade agreements.
Yes, I remember what it was like. To have that back, "The American Dream".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tujuleez1
Responding to the OP's request we focus on the Goals...
The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals
If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.
All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.
No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.
No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it.
My tweaking
Anyone in this income bracket probably has little or no discretionary income. Everything they earn is used up paying for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care and education. If it goes that far. IF there is anything left over, it will be put back into the economy. No problem here.
There was a time tax rates for the top earners reached 90% and that was after WWII. So that part isn't true. But what is needed is to make sure everyone can keep enough of their income to buy what they need. See above. When you do that, more money goes back into the economy and is not used as a means to make the rich richer. We need more money funneled into the economy and the way to do that is put it in the hands of people who need things.
Okay, so long as we eliminate corporate welfare and tax breaks that allow cash rich corporations to pay little or no tax. Apply a minimum tax for corporations that do not contribute to the growth of the American economy and/or add jobs that pay a living wage. I would also add tax penalties to any business that creates a scenario where workers have to rely on public assistance to make ends meet.
I agree. The death tax makes no sense.
Again, depending on where you live, $50,000 for a household and what you can do with that differs greatly. Cost of living makes a difference. That also enters into "living wage" discussions that I see. Obviously I get tired of hearing how we are probably barely getting by. Debt-free since 2001.
Anyone in this income bracket probably has little or no discretionary income. Everything they earn is used up paying for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care and education. If it goes that far. IF there is anything left over, it will be put back into the economy. No problem here.
There was a time tax rates for the top earners reached 90% and that was after WWII. So that part isn't true. But what is needed is to make sure everyone can keep enough of their income to buy what they need. See above. When you do that, more money goes back into the economy and is not used as a means to make the rich richer. We need more money funneled into the economy and the way to do that is put it in the hands of people who need things.
Okay, so long as we eliminate corporate welfare and tax breaks that allow cash rich corporations to pay little or no tax. Apply a minimum tax for corporations that do not contribute to the growth of the American economy and/or add jobs that pay a living wage. I would also add tax penalties to any business that creates a scenario where workers have to rely on public assistance to make ends meet.
I agree. The death tax makes no sense.
Point #2. - Vast majority of people in the USA did not pay that 90% rate. Furthermore, there was no medicare tax, and SS taxes were very small. There were also a large number of deductions that are no longer present as well. At that time, the USA had to take care to mostly balance the budget because the gold standard still existed in the world and the $1 was still payable in silver.
What you should compare to is the "median effective tax rate".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
