Trump's Tax Plan

[GMDino]

(09-28-2017, 02:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, that percentage isn't our tax liability on average, it is how much tax revenue we have compared to our GDP. Tax liability averages would be too difficult to calculate, so this is the standard used for comparisons.

Now, keep in mind that GDP includes government expenditures. The government spending part of our GDP rides around 35%. So 35% of our GDP is spent by the government, but they only bring in 26%.

It was still a good guess. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2017, 02:54 PM)Goalpost Wrote: From what I have seen in watching the two business channels, CNBC and Fox Business, i don't see a lot of celebrating by the well to do guests.

I'm still educating myself on it to form an opinion. One industry that could get hurt is the tax refund/return and accounting industry due to simplification

The ones that this will really simplify things for aren't typically going to these places because it is easier, they are going to get their refund up front. The complicated ones we make our money on will still be complicated, will still have to file extensions and do quarterly filings, etc.

[Yojimbo]

This is why our economic/tax policies shouldn’t be written by Wall Street execs. They are completely out of touch with the working class.

Top economic adviser and former president of Goldman Sachs is trying to sell Trump’s/GOP taxplan by saying that with a tax cut of $1000 for a couple with two kids making $100k, you could renovate your house or buy a new car.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/28/gary-cohn-says-1000-in-tax-savings-can-buy-a-family-a-car-kitchen.html

[Aquapod770]

(09-28-2017, 11:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'll continue to be poor and likely see no benefit. If it adds to the debt, which is almost guaranteed at this point, then we shouldn't be doing it.

Ironic that this never comes up with spending increases. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-29-2017, 01:12 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Ironic that this never comes up with spending increases. 

It usually does, it's just a more obvious way than tax cuts. Notoriously, Democrats in recent years have not cared about deficits too much. Republicans in Congress only care about them when a Democrat is in office (see comments from GOP lawmakers during Bush II era and recent ones regarding tax reform). There has been a constant thrust of deficit spending since the 1970's, and we need to stop. It is good in the short term but lowering taxes and increasing spending needs to be balanced with raising taxes and cutting spending.

Like I said in another post, we need to get Keynesian on this shit.

[Luvnit2]

(09-28-2017, 02:38 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, even all that together, off the top of my head, we still only have an individual liability of less than 27% (average because there's a lot of people who lave little to no tax liability). Most developed countries are about double that per person.

Now, I'll agree we have some higher personal income/corporate tax rates. But that's deceptive, as it doesn't take into accounts deductions, deferrals, etc. Plus, that's largely offset by much, much higher VAT or sales taxes in other countries. 

Why we include any American who pays zero federal tax into the average? It makes no sense, I am talking about the average of Americans who actually pay all of the taxes.

[Luvnit2]

(09-28-2017, 02:40 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Not really....

The following graphic represents all of the taxes you listed at all levels of government.  

The one exception, is I do not see if it includes Sales Tax.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

Show me a chart that excluded all that pay zero tax (remove their income as it was not taxed) and then get back to me. Also son't forget property and Sales taxes and in some states personal property taxes as well. Lots missing from this chart.

[Belsnickel]

(09-29-2017, 01:26 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why we include any American who pays zero federal tax into the average? It makes no sense, I am talking about the average of Americans who actually pay all of the taxes.

It could be, and this is just spitballing here, that when you are calculating the average tax liability of the combined taxes in the country you have to include them, because there is no person that pays zero taxes.

[Belsnickel]

(09-29-2017, 01:29 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Show me a chart that excluded all that pay zero tax (remove their income as it was not taxed) and then get back to me. Also son't forget property and Sales taxes and in some states personal property taxes as well. Lots missing from this chart.

That chart takes into account property, sales, state and local income taxes, etc.

[Benton]

(09-29-2017, 01:26 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why we include any American who pays zero federal tax into the average? It makes no sense, I am talking about the average of Americans who actually pay all of the taxes.

(09-29-2017, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It could be, and this is just spitballing here, that when you are calculating the average tax liability of the combined taxes in the country you have to include them, because there is no person that pays zero taxes.

More or less.

At some point, that person has some liability, whether it's paid through their own resources or by money they receive from someone else. If you survive completely off public assistance, you're still paying taxes. If you're able to defer taxes through a loss of profit, you still have some liability. Even if you live in a tent in the middle of nowhere, you've got some kind of tax liability. 

[JustWinBaby]

(09-29-2017, 01:29 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Show me a chart that excluded all that pay zero tax (remove their income as it was not taxed) and then get back to me. Also son't forget property and Sales taxes and in some states personal property taxes as well. Lots missing from this chart.

That the US may have the most progressive tax system in the world isn't really relevant here...Basically everyone pays less than they would in other countries.

[Belsnickel]

(09-30-2017, 06:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That the US may have the most progressive tax system in the world isn't really relevant here...Basically everyone pays less than they would in other countries.

Well, this would be why I tried ti correct the idea that these charts were showing average liability.

[ballsofsteel]

If I'm not mistaken, Trump's tax plan will benefit the rich most. The middle class will get a few crumbs thrown their way, nothing to get excited about.

[BmorePat87]

(09-29-2017, 01:29 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Show me a chart that excluded all that pay zero tax (remove their income as it was not taxed) and then get back to me. Also son't forget property and Sales taxes and in some states personal property taxes as well. Lots missing from this chart.

Why don't you show them a chart? As far as I can tell, they provided enough data to prove your currently unsubstantiated claim to be false.

Why do they need to provide anything else when you won't even back up your own claim? The burden of proof isn't on them.

[HarleyDog]

(09-28-2017, 02:40 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Not really....

The following graphic represents all of the taxes you listed at all levels of government.  

The one exception, is I do not see if it includes Sales Tax.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

Or free healthcare (which is paid for in higher taxes).

[GMDino]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-about-estate-tax-sm/

Quote:Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim about the estate tax, small businesses and farms

During a speech in Indianapolis launching his proposal for tax overhaul legislation, President Donald Trump said that one element of the plan -- elimination of the estate tax -- would lift a burden on many family businesses and farms.



"To protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer, we are finally ending the crushing, the horrible, the unfair estate tax, or as it is often referred to, the death tax," Trump said in his Sept. 27 speech.


He continued, "That means, especially for all of you with small businesses that are really tremendous businesses, you’ll be able to leave them to your family, and your family won’t have to run out and do a fire sale to try and get the money to pay the tax. ...  The farmers in particular are affected. They have wonderful farms, but they can't pay the tax, so they have to sell the farm.  … So that death tax is a disaster for this country and a disaster for so many small businesses and farmers."


We’ve addressed the question of how many small businesses and farmers pay the estate tax in previous fact-checks, but Trump’s assertion that eliminating the estate tax would "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer" goes well beyond what we’ve heard before.


And the data doesn’t support it.


The estate tax comes into play when someone dies and their estate is large enough to qualify for the tax.


The estate tax was first established in 1916 to offset a decline in tariff revenue caused by the first World War, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Congress has tinkered with it many times throughout the years.


In 2017, estates worth less than $5.49 million are exempt from the tax, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Above $5.49 million, the estate is generally taxed at 40 percent. However, family-owned farms and closely-held businesses may be able to pay less or pay in low-interest installments.


So how many estates are affected by the tax? Not many, and the people who pay it are usually among the country’s richest families.


For 2017, the Tax Policy Center estimated, based on past tax data and modeling, that 11,310 individuals will have estates big enough to file an estate tax return. "After allowing for deductions and credits, 5,460 estates will owe tax," the center concluded. "Over two-thirds of these taxable estates will come from the top 10 percent of income earners and close to one-fourth will come from the top 1 percent alone."


The top 10 percent of income earners would pay 88 percent of estate tax revenues, the center found, while the richest 0.1 percent could pay 27 percent.


How about small businesses and farms? The center projected that only about 80 small farms and closely held businesses would pay any estate tax in 2017. That would amount to about 1 percent of all payers of the estate tax that year. And the estate tax revenue from small businesses and farms, the center said, would amount to fifteen-hundredths of 1 percent of the total paid under the estate tax in 2017.


So, getting rid of the estate tax would hardly "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer," as Trump put it.


Trump's claim doesn't hold up even if you account for small businesses and farms that would potentially benefit from elimination down the road. The number from the Tax Policy Center (80) only refers to the number of small businesses and farms that would have to pay the tax this year.


Multiplying the amount of small business and farm-based estate taxpayers who are living today by deaths over the next 70 years would still just result in 5,600 small businesses or farms potentially relieved of the tax — vastly smaller than Trump’s "millions."




Our ruling
Trump said that ending the estate tax would "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer."


That’s a ridiculously high estimate. Only 5,460 estates even pay the tax each year, according to a credible estimate, and of those, about 80 represented small businesses or farms. We rate the statement Pants on Fire.

[6andcounting]

The market hasn't shown any reaction to the proposals - meaning most of the people and most of the money are not betting on the proposals passing in the foreseeable future.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-29-2017, 01:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It usually does, it's just a more obvious way than tax cuts. Notoriously, Democrats in recent years have not cared about deficits too much. Republicans in Congress only care about them when a Democrat is in office (see comments from GOP lawmakers during Bush II era and recent ones regarding tax reform). There has been a constant thrust of deficit spending since the 1970's

Like I said in another post, we need to get Keynesian on this shit.

Ehhh, I'd say mostly just in the past 15 years.

(09-29-2017, 01:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Like I said in another post, we need to get Keynesian on this shit.

Ummm, NO, we need to get the Keynesians OUT of this shit.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-01-2017, 06:43 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The market hasn't shown any reaction to the proposals - meaning most of the people and most of the money are not betting on the proposals passing in the foreseeable future.

Another take is the impact (adjusted for the probability of passing) has already been priced in.
Another take is the market has a very different take than what the various partisan media is spamming us with.
Still another take is this will have another very political, but very immaterial, impact on the economy and deficits.

If you honestly believe taxes trickle down (they do), then a "revenue neutral' policy is not pro-growth nor helping anyone...just a shell game.

[Belsnickel]

(10-01-2017, 07:01 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ummm, NO, we need to get the Keynesians OUT of this shit.

I know a lot of people tend to think that Keynesian theory is behind this, but in truth it hasn't been applied the way intended. Deficit spending in bad times, surpluses in good. They've just continued to spend spend spend instead of cutting and taxing, which is the other half of the equation that has been ignored.