Trump's 'trickle-down' tax reform
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
The interesting thing is, the plan will ultimately harm most the people and the states that voted for Trump.
Poetic justice.
Poetic justice.
He's doubling the standard deduction, which seem like the bigger deal for people on a fixed income. Big tax cuts for the rich, small ones for everyone else, huge deficits for the foreseeable future, and potential insolvency of the US Treasury.
ClimateSanity
New member
How?
Some truth here, yet why would the US treasury become insolvent? Do you know who holds most of these bonds?
Talk about buying back the government :chuckle:
Standard liberal spam, cliche.
Thanks for the input, comrade. Jealousy is a sin, according to the bible, Trotsky.
Wasn't James Burnham a Trotskyist in the beginning? Didn't Reagan award him with the medal of freedom?
Even conservatives know that there is a cloud hanging over tax reform that won't go away until "The Donald" makes his tax returns public!
ClimateSanity
New member
What is in those returns that is so important to you?
drbrumley
Well-known member
The (mostly) good, the bad, and the ugly in Trump's tax plan
POSTED BY Norm Singleton April 27, 2017
Yesterday, *President Trump unveiled *a tax "reform" plan. Here is the (mostly) good, a few bad, and one ugly piece of the plan:
The Good
1. Lowers taxes for millions of Americans;
2. Removes many Americans from the tax rolls;
3. Lowers the corporate tax rate -- which is currently one of the highest in the world -- to 15%;
4. Increases the standard deduction from $6,300 to $12,600 for individuals, and* from $12,600 to roughly $24,000 for married couples;
5. Reduces the tax rate from 39.5% to 35% and collapses the current seven rate system to three rates of 10%, 25%, and 35%;
6. Allows a one-time reparation to bring millions of dollars of capital into the United States, thus jump-starting job creation and economic growth. (This was also a key feature of Ron Paul's Restore America Now budget plan.);
7. Provides tax relief for families with child care expenses;
8. Repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was created in the 1960s to squeeze more revenue out of the "wealthy" but now affects many middle-class taxpayers;
9. Repeals the death tax;
10. No VAT;
11. No border tax;
12. Repeals ObamaCare's 3.8% tax on investment income;
13. Preserves the mortgage deduction, which helps reduce the tax burden of middle-class homeowners, and saves charitable deductions.
The Bad
1. "Pays for" the tax cuts by eliminating numerous deductions that enable Americans to lower their tax burden. The very notion that tax reduction needs to be "offset" with tax increases is rooted in the idea that the government has some moral claim to a certain percentage of your income and can never lose a penny of revenue.
Of course, the main reason tax increases are necessary to offset is because of:
The Ugly
1. Even with the elimination of tax deductions, many are claiming Trump's tax plan would cause the deficit to skyrocket. Of course, we shouldn't reject Trump's tax plan out-of-hand. Instead, President Trump and Congress should work to merge tax reform with spending cuts.
President Trump has made a good start on cutting domestic spending in his proposed budget. Unfortunately, he uses those savings to increase the already bloated "defense" budget instead of using the savings to reduce the deficit and provide meaningful tax relief for the American people.
Here is Tim Carney on the plan.
POSTED BY Norm Singleton April 27, 2017
Yesterday, *President Trump unveiled *a tax "reform" plan. Here is the (mostly) good, a few bad, and one ugly piece of the plan:
The Good
1. Lowers taxes for millions of Americans;
2. Removes many Americans from the tax rolls;
3. Lowers the corporate tax rate -- which is currently one of the highest in the world -- to 15%;
4. Increases the standard deduction from $6,300 to $12,600 for individuals, and* from $12,600 to roughly $24,000 for married couples;
5. Reduces the tax rate from 39.5% to 35% and collapses the current seven rate system to three rates of 10%, 25%, and 35%;
6. Allows a one-time reparation to bring millions of dollars of capital into the United States, thus jump-starting job creation and economic growth. (This was also a key feature of Ron Paul's Restore America Now budget plan.);
7. Provides tax relief for families with child care expenses;
8. Repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was created in the 1960s to squeeze more revenue out of the "wealthy" but now affects many middle-class taxpayers;
9. Repeals the death tax;
10. No VAT;
11. No border tax;
12. Repeals ObamaCare's 3.8% tax on investment income;
13. Preserves the mortgage deduction, which helps reduce the tax burden of middle-class homeowners, and saves charitable deductions.
The Bad
1. "Pays for" the tax cuts by eliminating numerous deductions that enable Americans to lower their tax burden. The very notion that tax reduction needs to be "offset" with tax increases is rooted in the idea that the government has some moral claim to a certain percentage of your income and can never lose a penny of revenue.
Of course, the main reason tax increases are necessary to offset is because of:
The Ugly
1. Even with the elimination of tax deductions, many are claiming Trump's tax plan would cause the deficit to skyrocket. Of course, we shouldn't reject Trump's tax plan out-of-hand. Instead, President Trump and Congress should work to merge tax reform with spending cuts.
President Trump has made a good start on cutting domestic spending in his proposed budget. Unfortunately, he uses those savings to increase the already bloated "defense" budget instead of using the savings to reduce the deficit and provide meaningful tax relief for the American people.
Here is Tim Carney on the plan.
If this was a Democratic president withheld his income tax returns, conservatives would be screaming "lock him/her up" from the rooftops!
A billionaire president restructuring the American tax system represents an obvious conflict of interest that won't go away until Trump puts his finances into a "blind trust" - just like every other president over the past 50 years.
I'm not sure that it would, but the solvency of the government is premised on confidence in its ability to pay back the debts, and massive deficit explosions can undermine that.
Sure. But we still need to be able to pay them back.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and rightly so, seeing that democrats are generally dishonest
It's not illegal to not release tax returns to the public
Most countries want to buy US bonds, as they offer some interest. European bonds are far too low, same with Japan. The US treasury bonds are very secure, besides even Donald Trump seems to not fully understand what deficit is? He seems to fail to understand American consumers like Korean cars more than Koreans like American models. We also have far more money, per individual, so, we buy lots of foreign products.
"“We are going to be doing trade deals that are going to be much better trade deals,” he said. Trump broached the topic of renegotiating or even terminating a 5-year-old free trade deal with South Korea owing to a big deficit with that country."
He also said, "‘I loved my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-on-being-president-i-thought-it-would-be-easier-2017-04-28
When we have a deficit, all that means it we buy more from another country than they buy from our country. We import more than we export. This is because more people in the USA have money and liked shopping. One cannot blame the seller and making the seller pay in a tariff is not the best answer.
"Reducing the U.S. trade deficit requires Americans to save more or invest less" Read the whole article, I am sure you will find this one informative.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-real-reason-for-the-trade-deficit-us-2017-04-26
Even this is not the whole of the problem, or the answer. Check back with ole Kat for the rest of the story. :up:
Actually, it's just the opposite. Yes, US bonds are highly coveted....but for their stability, and Japanese and European bonds have low (or occasionally negative) interest rates because the currencies are strong. You can only borrow at low or negative rates if the loan is highly desirable for a variety of reasons. But in the case of any government bond, the rate of return is relatively low compared to other investments, while the safety is generally thought to be high.
I think my cat knows more about economics than the Donald.
And I don't have a cat.
The desirability of a product is just one factor in how well it sells. If a Korean car were twice the price of a similar American car, it would definitely drive sales to the American cars. But right now, most cars are international affairs. I drive a Chevy, but a large portion of the car (the drive-train, the battery) was built by LG, which is a Korean company. And many of those foreign companies build their cars here. The notion of a domestic company is pretty diluted.
In his (partial) defense, I don't know that anyone is making much sense regarding the trade deficit. Is it good to have one, or bad? Does anyone even know for sure? On the one hand, yes, it means that jobs supporting the US economy are now located overseas. But on the other hand, American consumers have access to what you would presume is a cheaper or better product. I think it's fair to assume that there are both winners and losers in the deal.
The number of things that he thought were going to be easy is stunning. I wish he would go back to his old life.
Just to be clear, in my last post, I was talking about the budget deficit, not the trade deficit.
It's an interesting article, but he kinda skips over the causality. His argument that we import a lot because we save little isn't actually an implication of "saving minus investment equals exports minus imports". The same identity and math can be used to argue that Americans save less because they are buying a bunch of goods from overseas. And if you think about it, cheap imports would be an obvious impetus for a shift from saving to spending of that magnitude. Of course, it's also true that there are few incentives for saving in an economy where interest rates are low and it's hard to make any money that way, but even when interest rates were high, we had a high trade deficit.