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.
repeal the corporate income tax, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and estate and gift taxes;
collapse the seven individual income tax rates to a single 10 percent rate, increase the standard deduction, and eliminate most other deductions and credits;
introduce a new 16 percent broad-based consumption tax. The plan would cut taxes at most income levels, although the highest-income households would benefit the most and the poor the least.
Effect on revenues:
Federal tax revenues would decline by $8.6trillion (3.6 percent of gross domestic product) over a decade.
converts the federal income tax into a consumption tax.
No taxes on investment income of individuals
converts the corporate income tax into a cash - flow consumption tax.
Eliminates most deductions and exemptions with a universal credit;
eliminate estate taxes, the AMT, and all ACA taxes; and move the US to a territorial tax system.
A new $2,500 child credit would aid families with children.
Effect on revenues:
Taxes would fall at all income levels, with high - income households benefiting the most. Revenues would decline by $6.8 trillion over a decade (assuming no change in economic growth)
would significantly reduce marginal tax rates on individuals and businesses;
increase standard deduction amounts to nearly four times current levels, and curtail many tax expenditures.
Cuts taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households.
Effect on revenues:
Reduces federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects.
Would improve incentives to work, save, and invest.
Unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.
Significantly increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes
Adds new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. (New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family leave, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, and more.)
All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with the very highest income.
His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent historical experience in the US.
[/list] Effect on revenues:
TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade.
Great! Another reason to support Trump. You forgot to mention that Trump also wants to:
1. reduce corporate tax rates
2. reduce capital gains taxes
3. reduce taxes for EVERY INCOME BRACKET, except the uber rich
Hillary wants to increase personal income taxes and keep corporate taxes the same. In addition, she supports "carbon credits" which is an additional tax to industry, maintain or increase capital gains taxes, supports increasing the death tax, and perpetuation of Obamacare (which is a tax).
Great! Another reason to support Trump. You forgot to mention that Trump also wants to:
1. reduce corporate tax rates
2. reduce capital gains taxes
3. reduce taxes for EVERY INCOME BRACKET, except the uber rich
According to the analysis in the first post ("Cuts taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households."), Trump's tax plan MAINLY reduces taxes for the uber rich and creates a $1 trillion per year deficit. I don't look at that as a reason to support him.
Now, if Trump is claiming that his plan reduces taxes for everyone except the rich, he is either misinformed about his own plan or is not being honest about his plan.
What they are proposing isn't for the overwhelming number of Americans.[/b] They are masking something they say would help retirees but the reason they want to eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest income is to help the very rich. Half of all capital gains is concentrated in the top 1% and half of that is concentrated in the top 0.1%. What eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest income means is the very richest people in the nation would pay zero or near-zero federal income taxes -- and that's not just retirees.
This is what I was thinking... the reality is too many Americans are working pay check to pay check just struggling to make ends meet in the short term where "capital gains" and "dividends" are not familiar territory.
We're middle class renters in California with a growing 401 K, but we wont be retiring uber rich or semi uber rich that for sure! We're older and wiser now, but we are a bit "older".
Sigh...personal finance should be mandatory for high school students.
As far as "helping the very rich"... are there any reasonable theories behind this? Is it the trickle down theory? The rich do after all invest etc.
According to your link,To understand this, know that Social Security has no immediate shortfall. Any estimated shortfall is decades in the future. So, to avoid having to raise the Social Security retirement age in the future, Cruz wants to raise the retirement age now. That makes no logical sense. It's just a foot-in-the-door to eliminating Social Security.
Also, according to the link:
Quote:
Cruz wants to increase Social Security's solvency by gradually increasing the full retirement age. Cruz has specifically said he'd like to make 70 the new full retirement age...
What they are proposing isn't for the overwhelming number of Americans. They are masking something they say would help retirees but the reason they want to eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest income is to help the very rich. Half of all capital gains is concentrated in the top 1% and half of that is concentrated in the top 0.1%. What eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest income means is the very richest people in the nation would pay zero or near-zero federal income taxes -- and that's not just retirees.
I also have a problem with this "raise the age" for Social Security. It's nothing but a band-aid and does not solve the problem.
Instead of coming up with viable, HELPFUL solutions, they just keep raising the age before anyone can get it. Soon, you'll have to work until you're 90 before you can get any social security to help out in your retirement.
I can't believe that people swallow this carp thinking it's the best plan/solution. Why wouldn't you want your candidate to actually try to FIX the mess that causes such a limited number of people putting in to the Social Security system.
We used to have...what, 16 people for every 1, and now we have like 3...something like that. Why don't these politicians find a fix for THAT...I think if everyone were very honest with themselves, they would have the answer: The politicians don't care as long as they get what they need.
I also have a problem with this "raise the age" for Social Security. It's nothing but a band-aid and does not solve the problem.
Instead of coming up with viable, HELPFUL solutions, they just keep raising the age before anyone can get it. Soon, you'll have to work until you're 90 before you can get any social security to help out in your retirement.
I can't believe that people swallow this carp thinking it's the best plan/solution. Why wouldn't you want your candidate to actually try to FIX the mess that causes such a limited number of people putting in to the Social Security system.
We used to have...what, 16 people for every 1, and now we have like 3...something like that. Why don't these politicians find a fix for THAT...I think if everyone were very honest with themselves, they would have the answer: The politicians don't care as long as they get what they need.
Raising the Social Security age would be really bad public policy because it's a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who depend on Social Security and often have jobs that involve manual labor, and have not, in fact, seen a big rise in life expectancy. Meanwhile, the decline of private pensions has left working Americans more reliant on Social Security than ever.
And no, Social Security does not face a financial crisis; its long-term funding shortfall could easily be closed with modest increases in revenue.
Still, nobody should be surprised at the spectacle of politicians enthusiastically endorsing destructive policies. What's puzzling about the renewed Republican assault on Social Security is that it looks like bad politics as well as bad policy. Americans love Social Security, but conservative candidates can't help themselves to attack Social Security, even when it's bad politics.
This is what I was thinking... the reality is too many Americans are working pay check to pay check just struggling to make ends meet in the short term where "capital gains" and "dividends" are not familiar territory.
We're middle class renters in California with a growing 401 K, but we wont be retiring uber rich or semi uber rich that for sure! We're older and wiser now, but we are a bit "older".
Sigh...personal finance should be mandatory for high school students.
As far as "helping the very rich"... are there any reasonable theories behind this? Is it the trickle down theory? The rich do after all invest etc.
Or is it ALL about greed and evildoers?
First, 401K plans aren't covered by capital gains taxes. When you start drawing from the plan, the income is taxed at ordinary income, so, the GOP candidates' plans that eliminate capital gains, doesn't help those with 401K, 403B or 457 plans.
Second, the people who need tax-relief are on the bottom of the pay scale. They are busy paying the rent and buying food and don't have anything left over for investments.
First, 401K plans aren't covered by capital gains taxes. When you start drawing from the plan, the income is taxed at ordinary income, so, the GOP candidates' plans that eliminate capital gains, doesn't help those with 401K, 403B or 457 plans.
Second, the people who need tax-relief are on the bottom of the pay scale. They are busy paying the rent and buying food and don't have anything left over for investments.
That's why they can be attracted to the socialist policies. They see it as the only way to get a share knowing they are never going to be in the 1%
That's why they can be attracted to the socialist policies. They see it as the only way to get a share knowing they are never going to be in the 1%
There was a time when the product of society was shared more widely. It isn't a state of nature to have income and wealth concentrated in the top 1%.
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.
We're older and wiser now, but we are a bit "older". 
