Trump's tax plan

[JustWinBaby]

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

Two interesting things here....

1) Before if you made over $112k you were taxed at 28% (up until $190k, when it jumps to 33%). Those people will be taxed an extra 8% now on approx $80k (less some relief of 3% on approx. $20k). But the good news is you'll be in the black once you start making over $600k!

2) And then there's the big one: "The 2017 plan promised to eliminate all itemized deductions except for those on mortgage interest, retirement savings and charitable contributions." Deducting state income and property tax jumps out right away, but I'm sure many have some other significant deductions.

3) Doubles the standard deduction, so $6300 for single filers....but might be ending the personal exemption which is $4050. That's EACH person, so a family of four gets an extra $12,600 in standard deductions, but loses $16200 in personal exemptions.

A married couple with 3-4 kids, a good income, and probably a bunch of deductions is really going to get hosed. Once again, the middle class is where the money is!

[Belsnickel]

I don't see this plan going far in Congress. The increase to the debt is going to be very hard to justify, though I could be wrong, we've been deficit spending for decades and other than some grumblings there hasn't been any serious political push to correct it.

[CKwi88]

Just give him a chance.

[Dill]

(07-09-2017, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't see this plan going far in Congress. The increase to the debt is going to be very hard to justify, though I could be wrong, we've been deficit spending for decades and other than some grumblings there hasn't been any serious political push to correct it.

I'm pretty sure that tax relief for the rich will create many more and better jobs. More people working and receiving higher income will increase tax revenues, enabling us to drive the debt down.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-09-2017, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't see this plan going far in Congress. The increase to the debt is going to be very hard to justify, though I could be wrong, we've been deficit spending for decades and other than some grumblings there hasn't been any serious political push to correct it.

I haven't looked, so not sure how much this will really increase the deficit, since it looks to be a sizeable increase in taxes on the middle class (where the money is).  When the CBO scores these things, they always overestimate revenues from increases and vice versa on decreases - it will add to the deficit, probably significantly, but probably not nearly as much as being predicted.

[Belsnickel]

(07-09-2017, 10:29 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I haven't looked, so not sure how much this will really increase the deficit, since it looks to be a sizeable increase in taxes on the middle class (where the money is).  When the CBO scores these things, they always overestimate revenues from increases and vice versa on decreases - it will add to the deficit, probably significantly, but probably not nearly as much as being predicted.

This isn't a CBO scoring, it's from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and they had a large increase to the debt. Admittedly, no analysis is a guarantee, but raising taxes on the middle class may not be the revenue driver you think with income inequality continuing to spread. There are many things that could be done to increase revenues by broadening the tax base that coukd result in a shrinking deficit and eventually debt.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-09-2017, 10:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This isn't a CBO scoring, it's from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, and they had a large increase to the debt. Admittedly, no analysis is a guarantee, but raising taxes on the middle class may not be the revenue driver you think with income inequality continuing to spread. There are many things that could be done to increase revenues by broadening the tax base that coukd result in a shrinking deficit and eventually debt.

Heritage found $3.8T over 10 years, which is probably a little more than double what I would have guessed. Of course, I'm a believer in lower taxes and lower spending - decreased revenues don't HAVE to mean increased deficits.

I think there's a lot wrong with the plan, but keeping the estate tax is probably $250B. And I'm completely in favor of lowering corporate tax rates, but I think you need to offset that with a higher capital gains tax.

[xxlt]

(07-09-2017, 09:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't see this plan going far in Congress. The increase to the debt is going to be very hard to justify, though I could be wrong, we've been deficit spending for decades and other than some grumblings there hasn't been any serious political push to correct it.

Really? You don't think Mitch "What's in it for me?" McConnell and Paul "The Brain" Ryan will eat this up with a silver spoon in each fist? You got to be pulling my leg. They'll be whipping their members so hard to vote for this they'll make their backs look like Chokecherry trees.

[Belsnickel]

(07-09-2017, 11:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Heritage found $3.8T over 10 years, which is probably a little more than double what I would have guessed. Of course, I'm a believer in lower taxes and lower spending - decreased revenues don't HAVE to mean increased deficits.

I think there's a lot wrong with the plan, but keeping the estate tax is probably $250B. And I'm completely in favor of lowering corporate tax rates, but I think you need to offset that with a higher capital gains tax.

I agree that lower taxes don't have to mean increased deficits, but we both know that the spending decreases aren't going to keep up. Plus there is the added bonus that right now we bring in enough revenue to cover mandatory expenditures plus the discretionary defense budget, and nothing more. Cuts deep enough to reduce revenues and keep the budget balanced would be devastating to the country at this point.

(07-09-2017, 11:37 PM)xxlt Wrote: Really? You don't think Mitch "What's in it for me?" McConnell and Paul "The Brain" Ryan will eat this up with a silver spoon in each fist? You got to be pulling my leg. They'll be whipping their members so hard to vote for this they'll make their backs look like Chokecherry trees.

I think they would go for it, but I don't think the Senate would pass it. In its current form there is an increase in tax burden to the middle class, as JWB pointed out, and that is going to be a huge no go politically.

[*michaelsean*]

Nobody is increasing taxes on the middle class. That's political suicide now.

[Benton]

(07-10-2017, 01:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Nobody is increasing taxes on the middle class.  That's political suicide now.

Bush I increased taxes. Clinton raised marginal taxes from the disastrous Reagan-era cuts. Bush II cut taxes on top earners, shifting debt to lower earners for a long-term increase. Obama raised taxes on some industries and closed several tax credits.

We've had direct and indirect tax increases ever since Reagan.

The two parties stay relatively equal in power because you have no other option. They're going to increase taxes one way or another for lower earners and continue decreasing taxes for higher income earners. There's not much the middle class can do about it because they're shrinking, and lower income earners are apathetic. It's hard to care what some multi-millionaire is doing to help his friends when you're trying to make your kid's school play between two jobs.

[Dill]

(07-10-2017, 02:16 PM)Benton Wrote: Bush I increased taxes. Clinton raised marginal taxes from the disastrous Reagan-era cuts. Bush II cut taxes on top earners, shifting debt to lower earners for a long-term increase. Obama raised taxes on some industries and closed several tax credits.

We've had direct and indirect tax increases ever since Reagan.

The two parties stay relatively equal in power because you have no other option. They're going to increase taxes one way or another for lower earners and continue decreasing taxes for higher income earners. There's not much the middle class can do about it because they're shrinking, and lower income earners are apathetic. It's hard to care what some multi-millionaire is doing to help his friends when you're trying to make  your kid's school play between two jobs.

You are saying that Democrats want to or are forced to continue decreasing taxes for higher income earners?

[xxlt]

(07-10-2017, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree that lower taxes don't have to mean increased deficits, but we both know that the spending decreases aren't going to keep up. Plus there is the added bonus that right now we bring in enough revenue to cover mandatory expenditures plus the discretionary defense budget, and nothing more. Cuts deep enough to reduce revenues and keep the budget balanced would be devastating to the country at this point.


I think they would go for it, but I don't think the Senate would pass it. In its current form there is an increase in tax burden to the middle class, as JWB pointed out, and that is going to be a huge no go politically.

Reagan did it and was canonized. Bush Sr. did it after saying, "Read my lips." There are some people who you just can't screw over enough. I hope your right but hx and the ignorance of the American voter say you might not be.

[Belsnickel]

(07-11-2017, 07:01 AM)xxlt Wrote: Reagan did it and was canonized. Bush Sr. did it after saying, "Read my lips." There are some people who you just can't screw over enough. I hope your right but hx and the ignorance of the American voter say you might not be.

This one is a bit more blatant than previous ones, but it's hard to say. I'd like to think that people aren't going to tolerate it, but who knows?

[JustWinBaby]

(07-10-2017, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree that lower taxes don't have to mean increased deficits, but we both know that the spending decreases aren't going to keep up. ... Cuts deep enough to reduce revenues and keep the budget balanced would be devastating to the country at this point.

True, but we keep kicking the can down the road.  No one is advocating deep cuts in Yr1 - you have to get there over the course of a decade.  And it can be done, there's just too much pork that goes around Washington.

Plus you get vilified every time you talk about cutting an agency's budget, any agency, even if it is all largely small potatoes.  Dems learned some time ago not to hardline on military spending - debate now seems mostly to be about how much to increase military spending each year.

In many cases, these debates are even worse at the state level.  But voters don't seem to care much - appears governor and House/Senate at the state level mostly only change in the swing states.

Your average voter just really doesn't seem to care about state and federal debt and taxes.  That's probably why the middle class keeps getting hosed.  If you're a middle class voter, you have little-to-no real representation anywhere.

[*Nately120*]

(07-11-2017, 09:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This one is a bit more blatant than previous ones, but it's hard to say. I'd like to think that people aren't going to tolerate it, but who knows?

If the blue-collar workers can be convinced a born-rich gazillionare who lives in a golden penthouse in Manhattan is their political ally and bro ANYTHING is possible! Can't he just raise taxes and call it a "Essential to defeat Muslims" tax? Also, sure he raised taxes but Clinton was going to raise them a lot higher and give all your money to lazy people rather than making America great again. Duh.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-11-2017, 10:03 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If the blue-collar workers can be convinced a born-rich gazillionare who lives in a golden penthouse

Honest question....Why does the upbringing or background of the advocate matter?  Can we not talk about the policy?  Why should the childhood of the supporters matter?

[GMDino]

(07-13-2017, 03:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Honest question....Why does the upbringing or background of the advocate matter?  Can we not talk about the policy?  Why should the childhood of the supporters matter?

Primarily because the ones who were born on third and think they hit a triple are telling everyone else they just have "work harder" and that if we give them just one more tax cut they can pass some of that sweet, sweet mommy &daddy money on to creating another job or two that pays so little you'll need two of 'em to afford a place to live.

It's about where the perspective is coming from.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-13-2017, 03:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Honest question....Why does the upbringing or background of the advocate matter?  Can we not talk about the policy?  Why should the childhood of the supporters matter?

Why do you think demographics matter?

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 03:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Honest question....Why does the upbringing or background of the advocate matter?  Can we not talk about the policy?  Why should the childhood of the supporters matter?

(07-13-2017, 07:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Primarily because the ones who were born on third and think they hit a triple are telling everyone else they just have "work harder" and that if we give them just one more tax cut they can pass some of that sweet, sweet mommy &daddy money on to creating another job or two that pays so little you'll need two of 'em to afford a place to live.

It's about where the perspective is coming from.

I mean, I don't think that Trump cares about the lower and middle classes one bit, but that's based on his actions. But just because he was born with a silver spoon doesn't mean he can't be an advocate for the lower classes. I'll just point out that one of the best biographies of FDR is titled "Traitor to His Class." Trump ain't no FDR, but it is an example of how someone with even a privileged background can't put forth policies that are intended to improve the welfare of the lower and middle classes.