Who has the best tax plan?

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2016, 02:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  move to publicly funded elections so our elected officials could do something other than fund raise and return favors while they are supposed to be doing their jobs.

Added benefit of publicly funded elections is that they would help end the two party strangle on our country.  Right now if you don't have the financial backing of one of the two main parties you don't have shot.

[fredtoast]

Here is my plan.  

-Add another bracket and raise the tax on the amount earned over something really high like $5 million a year.

-Re-instate estate tax.  People who get money for free should not be allowed to complain about paying tax on it.

-Raise capital gains rates.  Investors will still invest just as much.

-Tax transactions in the finance industry.  If nothing more than to pay for additional regulation to make sure they don't take down our economy again.

-Remove or greatly limit the mortgage deduction.

-Clean up all the special interest loopholes in the code that allow the largest corporations to pay zero taxes (They don't care what the corporate rate is because they don't pay it anyway)

[*Nately120*]

(02-01-2016, 02:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Things I would like to see in a tax plan:
-Flat personal income tax with a deduction based on an adjusted amount for costs of living and no other deductions.
-More reliance on duties and tariffs.
-Standardizing sales/use tax nationwide. This doesn't mean a national transaction tax, but at least some sort of uniformity.
-Restructure corporate/business income taxes to bring them more in line with the rest of the western world.

I would also like to see our country move to a biennial budget system and move to publicly funded elections so our elected officials could do something other than fund raise and return favors while they are supposed to be doing their jobs.

Belsnickel/Nately120 in 2016!

I have to warn you that I may have a number of sex scandals that MIGHT emerge during our campaign.

[Benton]

(02-01-2016, 05:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Belsnickel/Nately120 in 2016!

I have to warn you that I may have a number of sex scandals that MIGHT emerge during our campaign.

Can it be considered a sex scandal if nothing else with a pulse is involved?

[GMDino]

(02-01-2016, 07:04 PM)Benton Wrote: Can it be considered a sex scandal if nothing else with a pulse is involved?

I'm sure there was a pulse.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-01-2016, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Her is my plan.  Add another bracket and raise the tax on the amount earned over something really high like $5 million a year.

Re-instate estate tax.  People who get money for free should not be allowed to complain about paying tax on it.

Raise capital gains rates.  Investors will still invest just as much.

Tax transactions in the finance industry.  If nothing more than to pay for additional regulation to make sure they don't take down our economy again.

Remove or greatly limit the mortgage deduction.

Clean up all the special interest loopholes in the code that allow the largest corporations to pay zero taxes (They don't care what the corporate rate is because they don't pay it anyway)

REP  spot on fred

[StLucieBengal]

(02-01-2016, 02:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Things I would like to see in a tax plan:
-Flat personal income tax with a deduction based on an adjusted amount for costs of living and no other deductions.
-More reliance on duties and tariffs.
-Standardizing sales/use tax nationwide. This doesn't mean a national transaction tax, but at least some sort of uniformity.
-Restructure corporate/business income taxes to bring them more in line with the rest of the western world.

I would also like to see our country move to a biennial budget system and move to publicly funded elections so our elected officials could do something other than fund raise and return favors while they are supposed to be doing their jobs.

For a national sales tax to be implemented it would need to lower or remove personal income tax. Even at the flat rate.

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2016, 03:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: For a national sales tax to be implemented it would need to lower or remove personal income tax. Even at the flat rate.

Agreed, but I am not even a proponent of a national transaction based tax. I would just like to see uniformity amongst the states as far as what is taxed and what isn't. There was an attempt at this some years back that got no traction, but it is important in today's marketplace. I can tell you as someone that has had to navigate these rules for 37 different states that it can get very messy.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-02-2016, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed, but I am not even a proponent of a national transaction based tax. I would just like to see uniformity amongst the states as far as what is taxed and what isn't. There was an attempt at this some years back that got no traction, but it is important in today's marketplace. I can tell you as someone that has had to navigate these rules for 37 different states that it can get very messy.

Yeah I can see why that blows in your work. Just loads of variables.

[*Nately120*]

(02-02-2016, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure there was a pulse.

Joke's on you...I'm left handed.  Idiot.

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 11:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Joke's on you...I'm left handed.  Idiot.

[Aquapod770]

Tax Foundation ran an analysis of all the candidates tax plans and they're pretty interesting reads. Basically the Republican plans will cut taxes and have less revenue coming in to the government, but will lead to huge growths in GDP, wages, and jobs over the long run. Sanders plan will see a huge increase in revenue coming in to the government, but a substantial drop in GDP and wages.

So I guess the question comes down to: who do you trust with your money? You or the federal government?


Cruz
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

Rubio
http://taxfoundation.org/article/economic-effects-rubio-lee-tax-reform-plan

Trump
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

Sanders
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

[GMDino]

(02-04-2016, 03:17 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Tax Foundation ran an analysis of all the candidates tax plans and they're pretty interesting reads. Basically the Republican plans will cut taxes and have less revenue coming in to the government, but will lead to huge growths in GDP, wages, and jobs over the long run. Sanders plan will see a huge increase in revenue coming in to the government, but a substantial drop in GDP and wages.

So I guess the question comes down to: who do you trust with your money? You or the federal government?


Cruz
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

Rubio
http://taxfoundation.org/article/economic-effects-rubio-lee-tax-reform-plan

Trump
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

Sanders
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Also who do you trust to judge the plans?

[Belsnickel]

(02-04-2016, 03:17 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Tax Foundation ran an analysis of all the candidates tax plans and they're pretty interesting reads. Basically the Republican plans will cut taxes and have less revenue coming in to the government, but will lead to huge growths in GDP, wages, and jobs over the long run. Sanders plan will see a huge increase in revenue coming in to the government, but a substantial drop in GDP and wages.

So I guess the question comes down to: who do you trust with your money? You or the federal government?


Cruz
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

Rubio
http://taxfoundation.org/article/economic-effects-rubio-lee-tax-reform-plan

Trump
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

Sanders
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Disclaimer for all of this: Tax Foundation is a conservative-leaning think tank. Also, it should be noted that there is no definitive way to predict these sorts of things as any number of variables can change these sorts of outcomes. That being said, those predictions are not surprising at all based on my limited understanding of economics.

[GMDino]

(02-04-2016, 03:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Disclaimer for all of this: Tax Foundation is a conservative-leaning think tank. Also, it should be noted that there is no definitive way to predict these sorts of things as any number of variables can change these sorts of outcomes. That being said, those predictions are not surprising at all based on my limited understanding of economics.

Sure.  Look at the State of Kansas.

The GOP Dream!

Well, except for them running out of money and cutting everything to the bone and failing.

Otherwise it has been great!

[fredtoast]

(02-04-2016, 03:17 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Tax Foundation ran an analysis of all the candidates tax plans and they're pretty interesting reads. Basically the Republican plans will cut taxes and have less revenue coming in to the government, but will lead to huge growths in GDP, wages, and jobs over the long run. Sanders plan will see a huge increase in revenue coming in to the government, but a substantial drop in GDP and wages.

The Tax Foundation is a shill for conservatives and large corporations.  Their projections are based on what type of policy they want in place. Their Board of Directors are either former Republican congressmen or representatives of Koch Brother, Exxon-Mobile, Ely Lilly, etc.

(02-04-2016, 03:17 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: So I guess the question comes down to: who do you trust with your money? You or the federal government? 

This is not the question at all.  If you are allowed to keep all of your own money then how much would you have to spend to make sure your food and medicine are safe; your insurance company actually has funds to pay claims; industry is not poisoning your air and water; your workplace is safe; your country is safe from attack by foreign powers; your travel in an aiurplane is safe; etc, etc , etc?  That is the question.

[Belsnickel]

(02-04-2016, 03:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sure.  Look at the State of Kansas.

The GOP Dream!

Well, except for them running out of money and cutting everything to the bone and failing.

Otherwise it has been great!

Hey, they have had GDP growth since the tax bill of Brownback's took effect in mid 2012, which is more than can be said for Alaska and Wyoming. They may rank 41st in GDP growth in that time period, but at least there was growth.

FYI: The interactive data tool on the BEA website is awesome. http://bea.gov/itable/

[Benton]

(02-04-2016, 03:17 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Tax Foundation ran an analysis of all the candidates tax plans and they're pretty interesting reads. Basically the Republican plans will cut taxes and have less revenue coming in to the government, but will lead to huge growths in GDP, wages, and jobs over the long run. Sanders plan will see a huge increase in revenue coming in to the government, but a substantial drop in GDP and wages.

So I guess the question comes down to: who do you trust with your money? You or the federal government?


Cruz
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

Rubio
http://taxfoundation.org/article/economic-effects-rubio-lee-tax-reform-plan

Trump
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

Sanders
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

As already mentioned, Tax Foundation is a conservative group designed to promote pro-business policies. Normally, if Tax Foundation promotes it, so does the GOP. They're normally critical of any tax plan that raises a tax saying it will lead to less growth and eventually less revenue. To give you an idea of what they promote, they predicted Bush's tax plan of cutting taxes, increasing spending would have the U.S. in some kind of golden age. That didn't work too well, but they stick with that mantra of 'cut taxes, increase tax credits and pump cash into housing.'

I read through their reports on Sanders, Cruz and Rubio. I didn't know they did one on Trump. They're all pretty laughable interpretations. For Sanders, they point out he's planning on paying for things and increasing spending on infrastructure (which leads to jobs and higher overall wages through Bacon), but predict that's going to cut jobs and lower wages. For Cruz, he's cutting something like $4 trillion in taxes and people are going to be taxed less as it's going to switch to a consumer tax instead of an income tax... but somehow they predict that's going to create significant growth in the GDP and wages (even though it makes no sense as you aren't going to purchase more things if the things you have to purchase cost significantly more).

In truth, the plans will probably be the opposite. I'm not opposed to Cruz's tax plan on some levels, but charging people 15% more than they're paying now is going to stop them from buying bigger ticket items. When your $30,000 car costs $35,000 or your $800 tv is suddenly $1,000, you're going to buy less of those items, even if you are saving a couple hundred extra each week. Which leads to less jobs, less growth.