Trump's tax plan

[GMDino]

(07-13-2017, 09:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I hurried my response so that's my bad for not adding the caveat that what I said was in general...not for every person born into a rich family obviously.

However I'll stand by response as an explanation of why the upbringing of the advocate matters, again though based on their actions more.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 09:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: I hurried my response so that's my bad for not adding the caveat that what I said was in general...not for every person born into a rich family obviously.

However I'll stand by response as an explanation of why the upbringing of the advocate matters, again though based on their actions more.

And my post was a bit more broad. I just quoted you two because it was convenient to hit those buttons.

Upbringing matters a ton, but it isn't just the idea of growing up privileged. Plenty grow up privileged but are taught early on to give back. Of course, those are the ones that were born on third and see themselves as a pinch runner, not the ones that think they hit a triple.

[*michaelsean*]

The funny thing is that you all think that there's a big group of people who actually care. At the risk of inciting dill's counter-narrative ire, does anyone here really think Hillary cares about the middle class and poor outside of her deriving power from them? All you have to do is listen to how she treated people at the WH when she was First Lady. Do you think Harry Reid lies awake at night languishing over the plight of the poor? I'm not saying there aren't any that care, but I would think most are relative newcomers to Washington.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 09:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The funny thing is that you all think that there's a big group of people who actually care. At the risk of inciting dill's counter-narrative ire, does anyone here really think Hillary cares about the middle class and poor outside of her deriving power from them? All you have to do is listen to how she treated people at the WH when she was First Lady. Do you think Harry Reid lies awake at night languishing over the plight of the poor? I'm not saying there aren't any that care, but I would think most are relative newcomers to Washington.

I think there are more that care than we often realize. The problem is that the political situation is in such a state that doing anything about it is not going to happen. Now, I don't think the Clintons care, or most of the Democratic establishment, but there are still a fair amount of people in our government, and not just elected officials, that care.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2017, 09:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think there are more that care than we often realize. The problem is that the political situation is in such a state that doing anything about it is not going to happen. Now, I don't think the Clintons care, or most of the Democratic establishment, but there are still a fair amount of people in our government, and not just elected officials, that care.

Yeah I'm talking about elected officials.  I believe a lot more day to day government workers care.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2017, 09:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I'm talking about elected officials.  I believe a lot more day to day government workers care.

The percentage of elected officials is lower, no doubt in my mind. It's because they care most about reelection, and helping the disadvantaged doesn't help them in that goal as much. They vote at lower rates and don't have money to give to campaigns.

[GMDino]

I've had the pleasure of working for a first generation rich guy (he grew up with an outhouse and built a company making millions of dollars), and a second generation rich family (the dad was a farmer that owned a lot of valuable land...the kids grew a construction business that lead to owning hotels and golf courses).

Within the family there was one that treated everyone well and the same.  There was another who cared more about making more money than eating...but even she treated people with respect.

Their children, however, which run the company now (I still have ties to it) are grade A arseholes.  No idea what they are doing and care only about showing how much money they have...employees be damned.

The first guy, where I still work, he knew what it was to struggle day to day and he treated his employees like gold.  He understood that he needed them as much as they needed him because if they were happy and did a good job everyone made money.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2017, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: I've had the pleasure of working for a first generation rich guy (he grew up with an outhouse and built a company making millions of dollars), and a second generation rich family (the dad was a farmer that owned a lot of valuable land...the kids grew a construction business that lead to owning hotels and golf courses).

Within the family there was one that treated everyone well and the same.  There was another who cared more about making more money than eating...but even she treated people with respect.

Their children, however, which run the company now (I still have ties to it) are grade A arseholes.  No idea what they are doing and care only about showing how much money they have...employees be damned.

The first guy, where I still work, he knew what it was to struggle day to day and he treated his employees like gold.  He understood that he needed them as much as they needed him because if they were happy and did a good job everyone made money.

I don't know a first generation rich guy that's an entitled ass.  I'm sure there are plenty, but most are people who just put in a lot of hard work, and also they don't ever retire.  So if you're like me, and think damn I would have retired when I was 50 if I were them, that's why you're not them.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2017, 10:30 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know a first generation rich guy that's an entitled ass.  I'm sure there are plenty, but most are people who just put in a lot of hard work, and also they don't ever retire.  So if you're like me, and think damn I would have retired when I was 50 if I were them, that's why you're not them.

Sadly he was killed at work about 12 years ago now.

He never got to see his grandkids or enjoy the fruit of his labor.

We often wonder if he would have ever retired, but I know he would have backed off a little when the grandbabies started showing up!  LOL!

He was a good guy and we miss him.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2017, 10:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sadly he was killed at work about 12 years ago now.

He never got to see his grandkids or enjoy the fruit of his labor.

We often wonder if he would have ever retired, but I know he would have backed off a little when the grandbabies started showing up!  LOL!

He was a good guy and we miss him.

Back down, but they can't ever give it up.  And I should say, the 1st generation wealthy people I know are all business owners who built a business up from nothing.  I'm guessing there are plenty of younger wealthy people who made money quickly like on Wall St who are a different animal.  

[GMDino]

(07-13-2017, 10:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Back down, but they can't ever give it up.  And I should say, the 1st generation wealthy people I know are all business owners who built a business up from nothing.  I'm guessing there are plenty of younger wealthy people who made money quickly like on Wall St who are a different animal.  

Agreed.  It's different for people who "worked" for it.  Also depends on what area you are from.  Poor and rural around here is different than poor in another place.

He was planning to build a big house in Florida for his family to use and to take customers.  After he died his wife went ahead and built it.  The family used it for about ten years then it got to be too much since they weren't going there enough and they sold it off.

He also enjoyed golfing with his old friends.  I'm sure he'd still have been here most days, but he definitely would have enjoyed his time off too!  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2017, 10:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: Agreed.  It's different for people who "worked" for it.  Also depends on what area you are from.  Poor and rural around here is different than poor in another place.

He was planning to build a big house in Florida for his family to use and to take customers.  After he died his wife went ahead and built it.  The family used it for about ten years then it got to be too much since they weren't going there enough and they sold it off.

He also enjoyed golfing with his old friends.  I'm sure he'd still have been here most days, but he definitely would have enjoyed his time off too!  

That's a shame when they don't get to live long enough to really enjoy the fruits of their labor, and that includes their grand kids.

[*Nately120*]

(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?

Well, I'm a marketing guy so I'm very interested in why people think the way they do and how they are steered into supporting things.  Besides, Trump got elected because a lot of people think the fact that he is super rich makes him super awesome and smart so you can't just ask people to forget about those things after he benefits from them.  It's like Obama supporters acting like you couldn't mention that he was black AFTER he got elected.  You can't have your cake and eat it, too. In Trump's case his background was literally everything he brought to the table because the man had never spent a day in office, nor served the public.

But yes, I think the fact that Trump is a super-rich Manhattan elitist who lives in a golden penthouse but still has johnny six-pack convinced that they are bros is quite interesting.  My point is that raping the middle class isn't political suicide as long as you can still convince voters that your opponents would have and/or will do them even dirtier.  Perception trumps reality.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-13-2017, 05:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: But yes, I think the fact that Trump is a super-rich Manhattan elitist who lives in a golden penthouse but still has johnny six-pack convinced that they are bros is quite interesting.  My point is that raping the middle class isn't political suicide as long as you can still convince voters that your opponents would have and/or will do them even dirtier.  Perception trumps reality.

This isn't something new with Trump.  As they always say, "the middle class is where the money is".

Fiscal/Tax policy between the two parties has pretty much converged.

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2017, 06:44 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This isn't something new with Trump.  As they always say, "the middle class is where the money is".

Fiscal/Tax policy between the two parties has pretty much converged.

I say this same thing far too often around here. It's just usually wordier.

[GMDino]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/12/15959210/trump-tax-cuts-reform-tax-policy-center

Quote:Trump’s tax cuts would give the poor $40 each and the ultrarich $940,000
Researchers tried to run the numbers on Trump's ridiculously vague tax plan. They’re not good.



A new analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds that the tax cuts included in the Trump administration’s outline for tax reform released in April could cut federal revenues by as much as $7.8 trillion over 10 years, and that the benefits would go almost exclusively to the top 5 percent of earners.


Even if the plan included some very large tax hikes to offset the cuts (like doing away with personal exemptions and other common deductions) and taking into account effect on economic growth, the cost still comes to $3.4 trillion over 10 years. The cost would be even greater once you take into account the interest the US would have to pay on all that debt. For context, a $3.4 trillion tax cut would amount to about 12 percent of GDP in 2027, slightly larger than all the tax cuts George W. Bush passed while in office.


The package, the TPC finds, would overwhelmingly help the wealthy. Including the tax hikes, the overall plan would give the average family earning under $25,000 per year a $40 tax cut, or a 0.3 percent boost in after-tax income. The top 0.1 percent, earning above $3.4 million a year, would get an average tax cut of $937,700, or a 13.3 percent boost in after-tax income:
Tax Policy Center
What the Trump tax plan does
Donald Trump issued no less than three tax plans on the campaign trail, each subtly different from the last. Then on Wednesday, April 26, National Economic Council Chair Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin introduced a slightly tweaked outline of a plan at a White House press briefing. The outline pledged to:

• Collapse the seven income tax brackets into three: 10, 25, and 35 percent
• Double the standard deduction, e.g., from $12,000 to $24,000 for couples
• Repeal the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax, and the 3.8 percent Obamacare tax on investment income for the rich
• Add a new deduction for child care expenses
• Cut the corporate rate to 15 percent
• Treat “pass-through income” as corporate income taxed at 15 percent, rather than individual rates
• Exempt foreign income from corporate tax
• Impose a one-time “repatriation” tax on assets US companies hold overseas
  

Tax Policy Center
These are the provisions that, put together, cost $7.8 trillion over 10 years.




The most costly elements, according to TPC, are the corporate rate cut ($2.3 trillion over 10 years), the individual rate cuts (also $2 trillion), and the new lower rate for pass-through income ($2 trillion). Pass-through companies — owner-operated businesses whose profits are taxed as individual income — are overwhelmingly owned by rich people, so cutting the top rate on income from them from 39.6 percent under current law to 15 percent under Trump’s plan is a huge, regressive, cut. It would also encourage tax evasion by spurring high-income people to stop earning wages from their employers and instead form pass-through businesses that their employers can pay instead, to take advantage of the new low rate.


But at least in theory, the Trump administration wants its tax reform package to pay for itself, perhaps after accounting for economic growth effects. Republicans in the House have proposed a few ways to do that, most notably by adding a new border adjustment tax, which in the long run doesn’t raise any money but would be scored as raising money in the short term. The Trump administration, however, has been a little hot and cold about that idea.


Mnuchin and Cohn's outline included a few vague hints at ways to raise revenue. It promised "targeted tax breaks" for individuals and "special interest" breaks for corporations. It promised to preserve the home mortgage interest and charitable deductions but implied that all other itemized deductions (such as for state and local taxes) were gone.


In the 2016 campaign, the Trump campaign also floated a few other ways to raise revenue that didn't make it into the administration outline, like repealing "head of household" filing status for single parents, repealing personal exemptions for taxpayers and their dependents, still subjecting "large" pass-through businesses to individual tax rates, and imposing capital gains tax on certain wealthy estates upon death, so that valuable assets that were never taxed in a person's life could be taxed.


The TPC paper takes all these together and tries its best to estimate what they'd raise. Put all together, they raise about $4.3 trillion over 10 years. That's no small amount — but it's also not nearly enough to pay for $7.8 trillion in cuts. Further, it's worth asking whether these are revenue raisers that the Trump administration is actually willing to countenance. Would Donald Trump, a wealthy person living in a high-tax liberal state, really do away with the state and local tax deduction, which predominantly helps people like him? Would he really raise taxes on wealthy estates like his own?


Usually, when challenged on the numbers for its tax proposals, the Trump administration has insisted that they’ll lead to large-scale economic growth, which can largely offset the cost. The TPC finds that this isn’t the case. The total plan, incorporating both revenue raisers and tax cuts, would cost $3.5 trillion over 10 years before taking economic growth into account, and $3.4 trillion after you take it into account. You only raise $108.9 billion from growth effects.


The revenue raisers also serve to make Trump’s plan even more regressive. If you just look at the tax cuts he's proposing, 60.9 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent of Americans. That's a pretty astonishing tilt toward the rich. But if you look at the combined effects of the cuts and the revenue raisers, 76.3 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent, and 94.8 percent go to the top 5 percent. Getting rid of head of household filing status and personal exemptions are tax increases that overwhelmingly hit middle-class people and don't hurt the rich much at all, especially since the personal exemption currently phases out for rich taxpayers.

“We emphasize that we are not analyzing the Trump administration’s tax plan: the released outline contains too many unknowns to do so,” TPC emphasizes. It had to fill in a lot of vague parts of Trump’s plan to produce numbers. But the report does indicate that the Trump plan will likely be very regressive, and very expensive.

Please note that no one really knows what will happen because, as usual, Trump has provided no specifics and probably has no idea.

[*michaelsean*]

A family of four making less than $25,000 doesn't get a big tax cut? How is that possible?

[Vlad]

(07-13-2017, 05:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, I'm a marketing guy so I'm very interested in why people think the way they do and how they are steered into supporting things.  Besides, Trump got elected  received votes because a lot of people think the fact that he is super rich makes him super awesome and smart so you can't just ask people to forget about those things after he benefits from them.  It's like Obama supporters acting like you couldn't mention that he was black AFTER he got elected.  You can't have your cake and eat it, too.  In Trump's case his background was literally everything he brought to the table because the man had never spent a day in office, nor served the public.

But yes, I think the fact that Trump is a super-rich Manhattan elitist who lives in a golden penthouse but still has johnny six-pack convinced that they are bros is quite interesting.  My point is that raping the middle class isn't political suicide as long as you can still convince voters that your opponents would have and/or will do them even dirtier.  Perception trumps reality.

No that's not why he got elected.

That is an assumption. I'll give you Trump may have received votes based on that assumption, but many other factors contributed to him being elected.

I know plenty of people who traditionally vote democrat not being able to bear listening to a hideous screechy voiced wench for 4 years voting for Trump.

[Vlad]

(07-13-2017, 10:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: He never got to see his grandkids or enjoy the fruit of his labor.

But he didn't build his business, others made it happen.

[GMDino]

(07-16-2017, 11:07 AM)Vlad Wrote: But he didn't build his business, others made it happen.

That is very close to accurate.

He had a plan and he knew he needed good workers and help so he went out and got it and used it.

And he never forgot that it was the guys making $10 an hour in his shop that allowed him to earn millions a year.

He treated every employee with respect...that included the ones he knew he had to get rid of.

No one does it by themselves.  No one should believe that they and they alone have all the answers and they can do it alone.

He built his business by understanding that.

Good point.