I win! LOL
The great thing about being Donald Trump is you can make up numbers with no pretense that they would ever work.
The great thing about being Donald Trump is you can make up numbers with no pretense that they would ever work.
Donald Trump tax plan
- Thread starter Neutron Monster
- Start date
Wow! That is crazy. He is pandering to everyone here.
How does this not get the group that hates the free-loaders mad?
Does the cuts for the upper end soften the increase to the lower end?
What does this make the number now? 60% instead of 47%?
How does this not get the group that hates the free-loaders mad?
Does the cuts for the upper end soften the increase to the lower end?
What does this make the number now? 60% instead of 47%?
It would likely increase net tax revenue on that group due to the loss of deductions/credits and the EITC
It's basically the Jeb plan with lower rates
Of course these plans are fantasy, we have to keep that in mind - this would be a cut of easily 2% of GDP in revenue per year - a budget buster that isn't going to happen
It's basically the Jeb plan with lower rates
Of course these plans are fantasy, we have to keep that in mind - this would be a cut of easily 2% of GDP in revenue per year - a budget buster that isn't going to happen
Trump talks a great game, but that is all it is....talk. For a guy that has never been in politics, he sure has mastered the art of making promises he has no chance of keeping.
What needs to be done is to do away with the progressive tax plan and institute a Fair Tax that would tax us as we spend the money instead of earning it.
We could do way with all the capital gain and dividend exclusions, interest deductions, and all the special loopholes that people dodge taxes with, and tax as the money is spent on a daily basis. The government would get the money quicker, we could do away with a lot of the IRS, and every person would have some skin in the game. We have way to many people milking the system today, and we simply can't sustain a society that isn't working or contributing.
What needs to be done is to do away with the progressive tax plan and institute a Fair Tax that would tax us as we spend the money instead of earning it.
We could do way with all the capital gain and dividend exclusions, interest deductions, and all the special loopholes that people dodge taxes with, and tax as the money is spent on a daily basis. The government would get the money quicker, we could do away with a lot of the IRS, and every person would have some skin in the game. We have way to many people milking the system today, and we simply can't sustain a society that isn't working or contributing.
So you're essentially proposing a Federal Sales Tax? Just an initial impressions off the top of my head: This would be great for building wealth while in your working years (could put much more into savings/retirement plans) but not so good when you are retired and spending more than you're making and that deferred tax bill is coming due.
I may be way off there, though.
The fair tax is just another con by really rich republicans to try to shift the burden to the poor and middle class. The progressive income tax works far better than a consumption tax at reflecting the ability of Americans to fund the government. As a result, it reduces the demand for government services. If you actually want a smaller government, support a simple progressive tax.
Further, you could fix basically everything else you are saying by reforming the current progressive tax code to limit/eliminate deductions and credits, using that to fund lower rates. See the Dave Camp tax plan for an example of this. That's not an argument for a FairTax; that's an argument that the current tax code picks way too many winners and losers (which I agree with.)
The Federal government has no need to raise tax revenue on a daily basis. No large organization exists without ample liquidity, which is available to the Federal government through the Treasury Dept and Fed. No state demands sales taxes be paid daily (it's monthly or quarterly.) Any requirement to pay in FairTaxes on a daily basis would be a crazy burden for that reason. And, the income tax is already received throughout the year through W-2 withholding.
"Getting rid of the IRS" is one of the most brain-dead ideas on the right. It reflects blind hatred of government with zero rational thought about how the government has to be run. The government has to have some administrative body to collect revenue. It needs an enforcement mechanism to handle tax cheats. It needs an organization to administer and interpret tax regulations. Etc. Finally, the IRS pays for itself many times over because having an IRS increases tax compliance. This lowers the tax rates you need to charge to fund the government.
It's one thing to want a simpler tax code which lets the IRS be a simpler organization. The IRS would love for this to happen. It's another to pretend we don't need any sort of IRS. We need it with any tax system you could possibly think of. Every functioning government has a department of revenue.
A lot of the supposed non-federal income tax paying adults pay federal tax once you account for FICA - analysis that pretends otherwise are misleading. And another big chunk of the non-taxpayers are retirees whose only income is SS. Another big chunk are students who make little/no money but will be taxpayers. The idea that somewhere near 47% of people pay no Federal taxes for a sustained period is ludicrous. Basing tax policy on this fictitious number is lousy policy making
I find it interesting that Jeb, Trump, and others are running far, far away from the 47% rationale. Their campaigns must consider it to be a PR disaster. No one is talking about it, and the Jeb/Trump plans would likely increase the % of Americans who pay no income taxes.
Income matters a huge amount too - the spread of income from high to low is much wider than the spread of consumption. It's a giant shift in the tax burden away from the very rich to the poor and middle class.
keep in mind that the rich do not consume nearly as much (as a % of income) as someone in the bottom half of the income distribution. Poor people can't afford to save.
For a rich elderly person, it may be a great deal since they stop paying taxes on investments. For a poor elderly person, it is almost guaranteed to be a really bad deal, because their SS payment is tax advantaged. They are a major part of the 47% mentioned by Romney (and another reminder why that statistic is so silly - taxing SS for the poor doesn't make any sense when the program targets something closer to a poverty level income than a middle class income for many Americans)
That is essentially what I was alluding to but I haven't looked at this any at all and am not familiar with the concept. At first glance for me, it seems to me that it would not be good for people who don't have the income level to put away the extra money in their working years to account for that "deferred" tax bill in later years on your living expenses.
Putting away money is a lot easier whe you give everyone the portion of their paycheck going to the IRS. The fair tax plans i've seen all have exempions for the first 30k or so of expenses. It also allows people who have saved all their lives for retirement to not pay income tax on those savings unless spent. The best part of the fair tax is that no tax can be avoided through those dreaded "loopholes" everyone worries about.
We could do that without a 'fair' tax . Just close the loopholes. But alas the greed that is destroying us won't allow it.
IRS is attacked due propaganda put out by Fauxnews, Rx Limpfaugh and the like. They have a ridiculous tax code to enforce. Rich people like it that way.
Sooner or later there will be a need to pay back all the deficits Reagan and Bush 2 ran up.
What kind of people think those two were conservative?
Technically, that's a progressive tax system with two rates, not a flat tax. And it would still be a significant tax increase for the poor and middle class relative to the current system. It's another example of the R party doing a great job of convincing blue collar whites that tax cuts for the rich make the country "better"
You could eliminate all of the loopholes without changing to a sales tax based system. You better believe any sales tax based system would have loopholes - look at the lower rate on Food in MO and things like that.
Last edited:
It's amazing how R candidates pretend the deficit and debt is unimportant when they think they have a chance to govern. Every single tax cut proposal (Bush, Trump, Rubio) is laughable. The US is running a budget deficit of around 3% of GDP. All of the candidates advocate for a higher level of defense spending. It is basically impossible to cut taxes and increase defense spending without a material increase in the deficit.
If anything, the US needs a slight tax increase, not a decrease.
It is one thing to push for spending cuts or to simplify the tax code. It is another to pretend that the US can afford a tax cut with the spending plans put forth by these candidates.
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-...n-is-headed-my-qa-with-tax-expert-alan-viard/ this is a good commentary on the FairTax (and a lot of other things, actually)
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-fairtax/ The graph here gets at how the FairTax shifts income from people making 15k-200k to the really rich. It's amazing to see so many middle class people advocate for a policy that would be a big loser for them.
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-fairtax/ The graph here gets at how the FairTax shifts income from people making 15k-200k to the really rich. It's amazing to see so many middle class people advocate for a policy that would be a big loser for them.
In practice, if something like the FairTax ever came into existence in the US:
- It would be at a much smaller level. You're not going to see the income tax scrapped; it would be a supplemental tax or a replacement for part of the tax. A big part of this is that no one can guarantee how much money it would actually raise so you'd start small enough to where the variance in estimate vs reality is acceptable
- It should be a VAT, not a sales tax to improve tax compliance
- It would be used as a part of a plan that increases the overall tax burden, including an increase the tax burden on the middle class, because the uncomfortable truth is that you can't really balance the US budget on the backs of the rich
- There won't be a "prebate" since you still have the income tax and EITC. That makes the program a lot simpler
I do wonder about the Constitutionality of a national sales tax or VAT. It probably is Constitutional but it's not as cut and dried as the income tax.
- It would be at a much smaller level. You're not going to see the income tax scrapped; it would be a supplemental tax or a replacement for part of the tax. A big part of this is that no one can guarantee how much money it would actually raise so you'd start small enough to where the variance in estimate vs reality is acceptable
- It should be a VAT, not a sales tax to improve tax compliance
- It would be used as a part of a plan that increases the overall tax burden, including an increase the tax burden on the middle class, because the uncomfortable truth is that you can't really balance the US budget on the backs of the rich
- There won't be a "prebate" since you still have the income tax and EITC. That makes the program a lot simpler
I do wonder about the Constitutionality of a national sales tax or VAT. It probably is Constitutional but it's not as cut and dried as the income tax.
Last edited:
Republicans arent living in reality. They rarely have solutions they just complain
I don't know where the current sales taxes aren't collected. There are more people avoiding the income tax than sales tax.
I believe that would be in the context of "as a percentage of income."So taxing the wealthy on every dollar they spend shifts the burden to those who don't have much to spend?
"Very Interesting Klink"
income tax avoidance is a lot lower than you think it is due to federal banking regulations and withholding requirements. And the incentive to avoid the fair tax would be a lot higher than the incentive to avoid current sales taxes. It's pretty easy to image this happening regularly.
There's some sales tax avoidance as well right now. One of the main ways you're not thinking of is to actually collect the tax but not remit it. It's pure profit for a business.
Sales tax compliance has likely improved as people move to credit cards. You can't lie forever about sales that have a paper trail.
You would do better to post the exact opposite of what you are thinking when you try to say something factual about the economy.So taxing the wealthy on every dollar they spend shifts the burden to those who don't have much to spend?
"Very Interesting Klink"
The average poor person spends more than they make due to income transfers. Part of that transfer is in the income tax code.
The average middle class American doesn't pay that much income tax as a percentage of income. They spend most of their income - less than a poor person but more than a rich person.
The average rich person pays a higher tax rate and spends less as a percentage of their income. the super rich also pay an estate tax that would go away. And they disproportionately benefit when corporate tax rates are cut since they tend to own that equity.
When you look at these basic facts, you are just as misguided as ever.
There is PLENTY of evidence to support this conclusion. Go look at every single evaluation of the FairTax that has ever been created. They all show that rich people would get a windfall. In a revenue neutral proposal, guess where that revenue comes from? The middle class
Analyses of the FairTax created by its proponents do not dispute this basic conclusion. Your denial of it is baffling. It's a reminder you have zero clue what you are talking about whenever you post about fiscal policy.
Yes. Which is why the FairTax would be a huge tax cut for the rich and a tax increase for you
The FairTax is the perfect example of the stupidity of the republican base on tax matters. They complain that taxes are too high so their solution is a revenue neutral plan that increases their taxes so rich people can have a windfall. Brilliant!
When you account for fica and state way more than half of the country are net payers
And you are aware the FairTax doesn't really fix what you are suggesting is the problem? The prebate is just another way to have a tax code where a lot of people are net zero or negative taxpayers. The fair tax is a scam to shift tax burden from the rich to the middle class. It is a dumb proposal
Fair tax is totally dumb, even if you think taxes should be consumption based you wouldn't pick a giant sales tax over a VAT. Compliance with the tax law would be higher with a VAT, and the economic distortions are lower.
When a politician advocates for the fair tax, you can safely assume they are idiots about taxes and economics. That or they are a huckster.
When a politician advocates for the fair tax, you can safely assume they are idiots about taxes and economics. That or they are a huckster.
That doesn't create debt when you fund your spending. The real problem is the R party likes to spend and pretends they don't have to fund it.
Remember the Paul Ryan plan that wouldn't come close to paying for everything?
GOP must cut military spending if they ever want to have any realistic shot at balancing budget.
They are the true fiscal liberals.
Your GOP put us in debt. Those are the facts. Unfunded wars and spending like drunken sailors....all hails back to your hero Reagan.
You liberals make me sick.
You and I both know there are only 3 real levers to balance the budget:
Taxes
SS/Medicare
Military
They have dogma against #1 and their gerontocratic base would go nuts if they did #2.
It is really odd for a party to focus on wasteful spending and ignore the military budget, which is as pork laden as anything else in Washington.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Ukraine war: Still going. Gas and food prices: Still high- Latest: Kurt_Warners_Blind_Son