Trump Releases Tax Reform Plan

Submitted by: normalfreak2 3 weeks ago in News & Politics


Here's a summary of the GOP tax plan that was released yesterday. And here's the important fine print: "To simplify the tax rules, the additional standard deduction and the personal exemptions for taxpayer and spouse are consolidated into this larger standard deduction."

Here's how that math works. Let's say you are single with no dependents, and you have a moderate income. Currently, you get to take the standard deduction ($6,350) and one personal exemption ($4,050). If you are 65 or older, you also get to take an additional standard deduction ($1,250). That adds to $10,400, or $11,650 if you're a senior citizen.

The Republican plan would replace all these provisions with a single deduction of $12,000 ($24,000 for married couples.) That's a 15% increase — except for seniors, who get a 3% increase.

Taxes that are going away, "Estate Tax" (Also referred to as the "Death Tax" -- that tax applies to ~60,000 (.02%) Americans American out of 300,000,000  While calling it a death tax suggests that the estates of all people who die will be taxed, the reality is that given that the size of the exemption, very few Americans are affected. According to a 2015 report from Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation, 4,700 estate tax returns reporting tax liability were filed in 2013, out of 2.6 million total deaths in the United States. That means the estate tax hits roughly 0.2% of Americans, or 1 out of every 500 people who die.

Sounds like those people that take advantage of itemized deductions will be paying more and those that are taking the standard deduction will be paying more on top of a higher base line tax increase.  Again the poor and middle class are forced to carry more burden than those who have all the wealth.
There are 47 comments:
Male 4,155
I like it.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
trimble Okay why?  You are a Libertarian, do you make more than 250,000 a year?  If not the current outline TAXES YOU MORE.  How could you like it if you make less than 250k?  Last time we had a Tax Holiday under Bush those dollars didn't go to creating jobs or increasing pay of employees,  It went to bonus's and investors, what makes you think this time will be different?
1
Reply
Male 4,155
normalfreak2 I make a bit less than that, the Bush tax cuts were great for me, not sure how you figure but this will get me back about what I lose paying for ACA for others, will be very good for my investment portfolio and I think will create jobs and get the economy moving at a better clip. Everyone receiving a tax cut will spend their money far more wisely that the government ever will. It could be even better but I'll take it.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
I make a bit less than that, the Bush tax cuts were great for me, not sure how you figure but this will get me back about what I lose paying for ACA for others

trimble Again, how? The ACA taxes aren't going away....your deductions are going away.  Depending on how much investing you have you may recoup something there.

I think will create jobs and get the economy moving at a better clip. Everyone receiving a tax cut will spend their money far more wisely that the government ever will.

The people getting the tax cut in this plan are the people with the MONEY ALREADY and they aren't spending it now, They didn't spend it during the Bush tax cuts, it's provable by evidence, again here you are again the same place we were 17 years ago and you expect a different outcome?  What's the saying, Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is called insanity.

The rich IE anyone making between 250 and 2 million spend .49 on the dollar.  Those making less spend .89 on the dollar.  Money doesn't trickle down, it gushes up.  Give more money to the people like me and we will spend more.
1
Reply
Male 7,943
As an American Taxpayer who makes less than 100k a year this doesn't benefit me at all.  I'm sick of hearing if we magically cut taxes on Companies somehow that's going to magically give me more money in my pocket when you are raising my tax rates and removing the deductions I can take.
1
Reply
Male 318
There is an inverse correlation between income and percent of income spent. The lower the income the larger the percent of income the person spends. The more lower incomes can keep the more that gets put back into the economy. That is the only thing that creates jobs. The corporate rate could be zero and they still will not hire unless there is demand. The more taken from lower incomes in taxes, fees, or any other means the less demand there will be. 
3
Reply
Male 472
Congress passes tax law...
1
Reply
Male 8,560
toetagmodel2 Who said otherwise?  Any tax bill/budget that becomes law will be passed by Congress.



0
Reply
Male 472
megrendel This would be like me producing a tax proposal. It might be interesting but its not useful.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
toetagmodel2 Understood but this is straight out of Steve Bannon Grover Norquist playbooks.  Trump is also the "head" of the GOP.
1
Reply
Male 3,213
How about a flat rate with zero exemptions or deductions for businesses?
1
Reply
Male 8,560
captkangaroo I'll take that for several reason:
  • You can fill out your taxes on a 3x5 card.
  • ~50,000 IRS employees can find honest work for a change.
  • Fewer lawyers. (Always a plus)

1
Reply
Male 3,425
captkangaroo no no no common sense is evil
3
Reply
Male 3,213
rumham 
Well, there is that.
2
Reply
Male 7,943
Just look at the goals that Trump wants in this proposal, how is ANY of this good for the Poor OR middle class IE anyone making 200,000 or less?
2
Reply
Male 3,497
normalfreak2 Trump thinks that the day laborers you see at home depot make 100k a year.  He doesn't understand the idea of making less than that.
2
Reply
Male 9,769
"This is not good for me. Believe me. Believe me."
LOL.
But they will believe him. They are THAT fucking dumb.
2
Reply
Male 3,425
holygod but he called Kim Jong rocket man!! wooo MAGA RED HATS SONS OF BITCHES. the only millionaires trump hates are nfl players
2
Reply
Male 4,953
holygod One of the most important things to understand about Trump-speak is that the phrase Believe me should be understood as I'm lying. Thus, the sentences you just gave--

"This is not good for me. Believe me. Believe me."

become

"This is not good for me. I'm lying. I'm lying."
2
Reply
Male 5,028
Republican leaders are so much better at negotiating what they want from the top down. They will put out something waaaay beyond what they want so they can negotiate down to what they want. It took Obama a long time to figure this out. He would put out these bills starting from what he wants and they would get whittled down to nothing.
2
Reply
Male 2,694
For years now the top 1% pay 50% of all federal income tax.  The top 20% pay 84%.  The top 40% pay 97% of federal income tax.  To be in the top 40% you need make only $79,500 a year.  So tell me again how the middle class and the poor are getting screwed come tax time?  And to add another point.  What moral argument can you possibly make for the estate tax?  What gives you the right to that money?  
0
Reply
Male 1,746
What moral argument can you possibly make for the estate tax?  What gives you the right to that money?

All taxes are payments to the government during a transaction. When I buy a soda, I pay the government some tax $$$. When I receive a salary, I pay the government some tax $$$. When I buy a boat, I pay the government some tax $$$. Even if my parents give me $$$, I pay the government some tax $$$--unless the amount of $$$ is less than a certain amount (I think $10K a year?).

All "tax breaks" are exceptions to the general rule that citizens should pay the government when a transaction occurs. A tax break is the government essentially stating, "in this specific situation, I'm going to allow a transaction to take place and not collect any $$$, because it's good for the society for more of these transactions to take place."

When a person dies, their possessions are transferred from the deceased to their heirs...this is a transaction. That transaction should be taxed. It's as simple as that. The estate tax is already an exception to this rule. The estate tax essentially states that all transactions between the deceased and their heirs should be taxed--except for transactions that are less than $5.5 million dollars.

Removing the estate tax is creating an even larger exception. By removing the estate tax completely, the government is stating, "when a person passes away and their assets are transferred to their heirs, the government is not going to collect any tax revenue no matter how much is transferred between the deceased and their heirs."

So the burden isn't on the government to prove why the estate tax is morally correct. The burden is on Republicans to prove that it's better for society to allow tax-free transactions to occur when a person passes away of any amount.

For years now the top 1% pay 50% of all federal income tax.  The top 20% pay 84%.  The top 40% pay 97% of federal income tax.

Yes, that is how the progressive tax system works. All transactions are taxed except for some transactions that the government deems "good for society." Generally, those tax breaks are awarded to smaller transactions, since society seems to do better when there are a lot of small transactions and there are fewer gigantic transactions. Poorer citizens generally can't afford gigantic transactions, and therefore generally don't pay as many taxes.
2
Reply
Male 8,560
bliznik When a person dies, their possessions are transferred from the deceased to their heirs...this is a transaction. That transaction should be taxed.

That's not a transaction, that's a transferal...on money and goods that have already been taxed.  How many times do you want to tax a farm?

If a farmer pays his taxes one year, dies, and his heirs pay the taxes the next year, why should the same farm be taxed additionally when he died?
0
Reply
Male 1,746
megrendel

Because the farmer's assets were transferred from himself to his heirs.

This type of thing happens all the time. Apple needs to build an iPhone. Apple purchases parts from 3rd parties, and Apple pays a tax to those 3rd parties. Then we buy the iPod from Apple, and we get taxed. EVERY TIME there is a transaction, there is a tax.

Both transfers and transactions are always taxed...with few exceptions. Otherwise, companies and other entities could "transfer" assets to each other willy-nilly without ever being taxed.
1
Reply
Male 2,694
bliznik I understand perfectly.  I don't even have a problem with it.  What I don't understand is how 60% of the population being on the hook for 3% of the bill is screwing them?
0
Reply
Male 7,943
dromed because they don't have enough disposable income to spend on taxes.  They are busy working and providing for a family.  They make the economy boom, and the 60% is paying the sales taxes, city taxes etc way more than the wealthy do.  You are missing a large portion of the taxes and just focusing on Income tax, income tax is to make up the disproportionate amount of consumer taxes the working poor pay.
1
Reply
Male 2,694
normalfreak2 Wealthy people pay sales tax and city/county/property tax too so I'm not sure where you're going with that line of thinking.  Now look...I'd like to see everybody's taxes go down.  But the only way that's going to happen is to shrink government.  But as soon as you mention that it's a chorus of  "But my benefits!!!"  Can't have it both ways.  So my advice is to get on a written plan and make the money you do have work harder.  Yeah the government is an impediment to financial success but less of an impediment than the average American's financial plan...because the average American doesn't have a financial plan.   Oh they got a 600 dollar phone with a 100 dollar a month bill and a 500 dollar car payment and a 30 year mortgage and a 100 dollar hair cut drinking 5 dollar Starbucks ordering lunch out five days a week.  But they don't have a few grand in the bank in case of an emergency.  They'll put the emergency on the credit card that they don't pay off each month.  They can name the last reality show winner and who got thrown off the island but they can't take 15 minutes each month to sit down with their spouse and make a budget/plan.  I'm as middle class as they come brother but you know what?  I've had a plan for the last 25 years and I've worked it and I'm not going to apologize for having accumulated some wealth because I didn't do anything that most Americans couldn't do themselves.
0
Reply
Male 1,746
I'd like to see everybody's taxes go down.  But the only way that's going to happen is to shrink government.  But as soon as you mention that it's a chorus of  "But my benefits!!!"

I agree with that. Social Security, Military, Medicine...all of that spending needs to severely decrease, and can be severely decreased with common-sense overhauls. But unfortunately individuals and corporations have gamed these systems so badly that special interests prevent very simple reforms. It's a shame.

I actually have completely abandoned the hope that Federal Government will work in any rational way, and only really concentrate on city and state government reform. I'm so lucky I live in California...
1
Reply
Male 860
dromed sounds like you've got a problem with wealth distribution.  I wonder what methods can be used to avoid this catastrophic problem? 1) Estate taxes.  You want your money to go to your kids?  spend it on them while they're alive, so the tax burden is less.  You want to give kids money?  cool, the kids will treat it as income. Oh yeah, to avoid top levels of tax, pass the money along sooner.  Get this money back out there in the economy where it will do the most good.
2) Flat Taxation.  Lets make it fair.  Lets have all citizens pay the same percentage of tax on income above a base poverty level.  Lets make it 15%. Nice and low.  Now, eliminate 100% of any and all deductions.  Perfectly fair flat tax.  I'm sure the rich will look forward to this.

2
Reply
Male 8,560
punko Lets make it 15%. Nice and low.  Now, eliminate 100% of any and all deductions.  Perfectly fair flat tax.  I'm sure the rich will look forward to this.

Seeing as most rich are paying significantly more than 15%, I'm sure they'd be all for it.

I know I would.
0
Reply
Male 860
megrendel One of the items that Trump has eliminated was the minimum tax.  Many rich folks had sufficient loopholes and deductions to avoid all other taxes.  with a 15% minimum tax without deductions, they will be paying much more tax
1
Reply
Male 7,943
dromed The Estate Tax was implemented to prevent Dynasties.  Like it or not Money=Power.  Giving families generational wealth and letting them hold on to it creates Lords and Lieges.  America was created because we don't like that.  If you have a better way of dealing with it let's hear it
2
Reply
Male 2,694
normalfreak2 American was created for people to have personal freedom.  It had fuck all to do with preventing generational wealth.  Again I ask..what moral reason do you have to take money that's already been earned and taxed?  And you people act like rich people just sit on wealth like 'ol Smaug in the Hobbit.  Rich people invest money, they create businesses, they (gasp) even spend a shit load of it.  And lots of them give lots of it away.  Wealth isn't a zero sum game.  A billionaires wealth  does not prevent anybody from earning what they can.  80% of millionaires in this country earned and invested their way into wealth.  It didn't come from mommy and daddy, it came from hard work, frugality, discipline and making smart choices.
0
Reply
Male 684
dromed flip it , what moral argument is there not to tax it that doesnt apply to every other transaction? If someone earns/works for a wage/dividend etc. they are taxed. Then when they spend it they are taxed so the double taxation argument doesn't stand up.  Everyone is taxed when they recieve or spend money.

Someone inherits money which they've done nothing for it why shouldn't it be taxed? If anything there is a stronger argument to tax inheritance the people receiving it have done absolutely nothing for it.

Some argue but 
 "it came from hard work, frugality, discipline and making smart choices"
And that the parents who have worked hard decide to give it to their children. I call bullsh*t frankly. If a parent wants to give it to their children do it when living. Otherwise they are getting double enjoyment/use of thier wealth. Once in their life, second in thier childrens life. Transfer the house when alive then it becomes a sacrifice and choice to give to their children as they no longer have control over it and theregore enjoyment of it.

Inheritance tax brings a certian emotional draw but i find it the least defensible on the equal opportunity, why force wealth redistribution,  low taxation arguments ( which i genrally agree with) The people receiving have literally done nothing to earn it aside from being born lucky. 

And it impedes the equal opportunity in society argument. Worker A and worker B both earn 20 k a year and spend 10k on rent. Worker A inherits a house no longer pays rent. Worker A just gained an additional 10k a year to put in a savings account/invest etc. Worker B does not have the same opportunity. A decade later same amount of work and effort worker A now has 100k more. What moral argument is there for that? 

2
Reply
Male 2,694
jayme21 That money has already been taxed "to death."  Just the government taking one more fucking bite at the apple.  The rest of your argument is pure class envy.  The moral argument is that what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours.  Tax people enough and there's no incentive to earn more, create more, do more...because it all just goes to somebody else.  Your Worker A gained a nice benefit that Worker B did not.  So A had money left over.  So what did he do with it in your example?  He invested it back into the economy.  He took a risk and loaned it to somebody who took it and grew a business.  The business thanked him by giving him green certificates of appreciation.  That's the moral argument for A having more than B.  A did something for society that B did not.  All money is certificates of appreciation.  The more people you please with your labor and with how you handle/invest your money the more certs you get back in return.    
0
Reply
Male 9,769
dromed I kinda agree with you. The estate tax was really just a way to encourage people to spend the money and spread the wealth instead of hoarding and passing it from generation to generation. It is legislated morality. It's just too bad so many of the ultra rich don't have any of their own.

There are enough resources on this planet for every man woman and child to have a reasonable quality of life. The only reason children are starving to death in their mother's arms is because a billionaire wants a 150 foot yacht instead of a 125 foot yacht.

Do we attempt to solve that issue or just not give a fuck?
1
Reply
Male 8,560
holygod It is legislated morality. It's just too bad so many of the ultra rich don't have any of their own.

Whether they have morality or not, it's not the government's job to apply it. 

The only reason children are starving to death in their mother's arms is because a billionaire wants a 150 foot yacht instead of a 125 foot yacht.

Bullshit.  That purchase of that 150 foot yacht provided jobs, salaries for shipfitters, carpenters, decorators, etc., business for suppliers, improved infrastructure for all.  It employed and fed hundreds, if not thousands.

It did not take any food from the mouths of the children...
0
Reply
Male 9,769
megrendel 1. We can agree to disagree. I happen to think one of the government's ONLY jobs is imposing the morality of the majority on the masses. That's what laws are.

That was hyperbole of course, but your retort is drastically flawed. Does a billionaire buying a $50 million house support jobs? Sure, landscapers, maids, etc. If it is a new house then there are also construction workers, interior designers, etc. However it doesn't provide $50 million worth of jobs. 

No matter how you spin it there are enough resources on Earth so that nobody should be starving to death. That happening while others spend $100,000 on a wedding cake is beyond disgusting. You either fight it or condone it.
1
Reply
Male 8,560
holygod That's what laws are.

Actually, no.  Laws =/= morality.  Laws are there to, among other things, to make sure one's morality is not imposed on another. The only laws (or political system) that attempt to impose morality are the worst kind, and usually end up getting millions killed.

holygod No matter how you spin it there are enough resources on Earth so that nobody should be starving to death.


1) There are less starving now than it has in the past.  That's real numbers, not percentage. If you take into account population growth the percentage reduction is even more drastic (from 23.3% to 12.9%). 

2) You seem to think resources just appeared. They were developed, mainly by 'greedy' people who have the strange idea that they should be able to do what they will with whatever they created.  Had it been deemed that every resource that was developed must automatically be shared amongst the entire population, then there would be very little of the resources we have today. (very few people put effort into something they will get to enjoy very little of)
0
Reply
Male 9,769
megrendel "Laws =/= morality"
You either don't know what "laws" are or don't know what "morality" means.

As a society we draw lines and define what our morality is. Morality is simply defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Laws are simply the enforcement of that.

"with whatever they created"
Except for the metric fuck ton of them who don't "create" anything.

People in power and the rich game the system to keep as much as they possibly can and they actually are able to brainwash half the country to cheer them on. It's pretty funny to watch.
2
Reply
Male 2,694
holygod Most people become rich because they please people with their efforts.  Do you go back to the contractor who does shoddy work?  Or do you tell everybody to steer clear of him?  Whatever dude...stay envious and angry of successful people who "fuck people over"  And for those who don't create anything and "just inherit"  What gives you the right to covet their dough...what gives you the right to want it taken from them?  Your moral outrage over a 100K wedding cake smacks of sour grapes.  I seem to remember you telling me you lived in a 300K+ house.  Mine cost 92K+...should I tell you to move?  Should I tell you to give 200K to "the poor" to even the scale?  I would not dream of doing that you greedy rich fuck.  
-1
Reply
Male 9,769
dromed My house isn't opulent. It just is someplace people actually want to live and my guess is yours is in a shitty place people are fleeing.
1
Reply
Male 3,497
Increase taxes on everyone who voted this orange ass clown into office, they wanted him, they can pay for tax cuts the rich are getting.
2
Reply
Male 8,560
daegog It's funny, liberals always want more taxes...but when you explain to them they are allowed to VOLUNTARILY contribute MORE of their money to the IRS, they are universally disinclined to do so. 

Why is that?
0
Reply
Male 7,943
megrendel I think "liberals" want wealthy people to pay more in taxes.  The wealthy defined as people well over a million in income a year.  If I may speak on behalf of "liberals" I want an efficient and effective Government, I want the Government to protect the middle and lower classes from those that would prey upon them.  I want the Government to not be corrupted from outside influences.
1
Reply
Male 8,560
normalfreak2 I think "liberals" want wealthy people to pay more in taxes.  The wealthy defined as people well over a million in income a year.

Well, according to the IRS, people earning over a million average tax rate of 20.4% (last time I checked, that was more than 15% and, on average, a higher percentage than middle class).

The top 1% (those making ~$345,000 or more) pay 37% of all taxes paid.

Simply put, any tax cut will not effect the bottom 45% for the simple reason THEY DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES AS IT IS.


0
Reply
Male 1,739
Colour me shocked.
2
Reply