ADVERTISEMENT

Trump tax plan

CommuterBob

Todd's Tiki Bar
Gold Member
Aug 3, 2011
42,536
78,640
113
Stuck in traffic
Unless you pay more than $24K in combined mortgage interest and charitable contributions, you'll take the standard deduction. Gone are deductions for medical expenses, student loan interest, child care, home office expenses, etc.



 
Last edited:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/...d-brackets-reduced-standard-deduction-doubled

AMT gone, business tax cut to 15%, yet promises of trillions more revenue, despite across the board tax cuts.

Not that I really give a shit to see his tax returns, but he did state that he would share them immediately after the audit was complete. So, this now becomes yet another Trump flip-flop? I can't keep up. This guy's becoming the Republican version of John Kerry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
Not that I really give a shit to see his tax returns, but he did state that he would share them immediately after the audit was complete. So, this now becomes yet another Trump flip-flop? I can't keep up. This guy's becoming the Republican version of John Kerry.
That's really the biggest issue I have with him not releasing them. It's something he said he would do, and has promptly reneged and even ensured that they'll never be available via Congress. I really don't think there's anything in them that is illegal or improper, but it's pretty obvious he's hiding something.
 
Not that I really give a shit to see his tax returns, but he did state that he would share them immediately after the audit was complete. So, this now becomes yet another Trump flip-flop? I can't keep up. This guy's becoming the Republican version of John Kerry.

Are all his audit complete? Obviously, the IRS won't say anything about it (not their job to discuss specific audits).

I was never interested in his personal or biz tax records. He owns a lot of "stuff", made money on some (,not on others).
 
Finally a pro growth plan. Thank God.

Que the typical left wing insisting that anything other than a tax hike is a gift to billionaires.

Best part is 10% for repatriated capital. Bring that money home.
 
Finally a pro growth plan. Thank God.

Que the typical left wing insisting that anything other than a tax hike is a gift to billionaires.

Best part is 10% for repatriated capital. Bring that money home.

QUE?!?!?!?! QUE PASA, HOMBRE!!!!!!
 
without a deep dive into the actual items in it, its a good plan overall. I am confused about getting rid of deductions for child care given its one of his biggest platforms, but assume he'll make it up somewhere else?

the doubling of the standard deduction should decrease taxes for almost everyone across the board.

I really don't see how he can get this passed though without going trillions more into debt. Hes effectively decreasing taxes across the board, dramatically in some cases, but not cutting the budget hardly at all (just moving spending from some areas to others).

85 you were one of the biggest complainers about our national debt, do you have an opinion on it potentially exploding with this plan?
 
without a deep dive into the actual items in it, its a good plan overall. I am confused about getting rid of deductions for child care given its one of his biggest platforms, but assume he'll make it up somewhere else?

the doubling of the standard deduction should decrease taxes for almost everyone across the board.

I really don't see how he can get this passed though without going trillions more into debt. Hes effectively decreasing taxes across the board, dramatically in some cases, but not cutting the budget hardly at all (just moving spending from some areas to others).

85 you were one of the biggest complainers about our national debt, do you have an opinion on it potentially exploding with this plan?

Um you just explained how this is largely possible. If you slash rates but remove most deductions, it's effectively not stripping away tons of revenue from the Government, it's just simplifying how taxes are actually collected. If they had proposed lower rates with the same deductions then yes it would be a budget buster.

And despite what the D's love to insist, there IS new revenue simply from growth. Which we absolutely will get with a 15% corporate tax rate and 10% repatriation. It may not cover all of the cuts but it will provide significant boost in tax receipts. More people working with higher wages = more revenue.

If and when they replace Obamacare there will be big savings there too.
 
Um you just explained how this is largely possible. If you slash rates but remove most deductions, it's effectively not stripping away tons of revenue from the Government, it's just simplifying how taxes are actually collected. If they had proposed lower rates with the same deductions then yes it would be a budget buster.

And despite what the D's love to insist, there IS new revenue simply from growth. Which we absolutely will get with a 15% corporate tax rate and 10% repatriation. It may not cover all of the cuts but it will provide significant boost in tax receipts. More people working with higher wages = more revenue.

If and when they replace Obamacare there will be big savings there too.
um read my whole statement, the standard deduction DOUBLED which means most will actually pay less taxes. This isn't just a tax cut on the rich like repubs usually like to do, this is a major tax cut across the board. Since most do not even itemize or qualify to itemize the standard deduction doubling gives a tax break to the vast majority of tax payers. Revenue will not increase, it'll decrease dramatically.

Repubs and Dems can argue trickle down economics all day, which you are advocating here but the results are hard to quantify. Certainly not a sure thing and not something i'd count on to keep us from growing the national debt.

The fact is, if this tax reform passes and trump keeps spending like he wants to we will add more to the debt than in the history of the country. It's simple accounting. I just find it funny that some were screaming about the debt for years and years but now its ok?

To be clear this tax reform is badly needed. But for anyone to think we aren't going into further national debt as a result is looney. Trump is cutting taxes more than a usual repub, but spending like a democrat. Its pretty wild.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MACHater02
um read my whole statement, the standard deduction DOUBLED which means most will actually pay less taxes. This isn't just a tax cut on the rich like repubs usually like to do, this is a major tax cut across the board. Since most do not even itemize or qualify to itemize the standard deduction doubling gives a tax break to the vast majority of tax payers. Revenue will not increase, it'll decrease dramatically.

Repubs and Dems can argue trickle down economics all day, which you are advocating here but the results are hard to quantify. Certainly not a sure thing and not something i'd count on to keep us from growing the national debt.

The fact is, if this tax reform passes and trump keeps spending like he wants to we will add more to the debt than in the history of the country. It's simple accounting. I just find it funny that some were screaming about the debt for years and years but now its ok?

To be clear this tax reform is badly needed. But for anyone to think we aren't going into further national debt as a result is looney. Trump is cutting taxes more than a usual repub, but spending like a democrat. Its pretty wild.

You're making assumptions without even seeing a bill. You've heard a few key major points but nothing beyond that. What I've heard over and over is that the House will not pass anything that loads onto future deficits. They had a bill that was revenue neutral by using a Border Adjustment clause.

Yes, middle class families will get to double their standard deduction. You're not mentioning the fact that a lot of deductions that wealthy people use will be gone, meaning a lot more revenue coming in via those eliminations. I have no idea if that will bridge the gap but neither do you.

As for Trump wanting to "spend a ton", his first budget proposal didn't add a dime to the deficit. It didn't lower it, which sucks, but it didn't call for any new spending.

The bottom line is we have to get off this flatline we're at with less than 2% GDP growth.
 
It sounds like a great idea. Will it work?

That's a multitrillion-dollar question. Mnuchin has conceded that, if you don't factor in faster economic growth – a process known as "dynamic scoring" – the math may not work.

The problem is that the strategy has been tried twice – most recently by President George W. Bush and earlier during the Reagan administration. In both cases, tax cuts were based on the premise that faster economic growth, along with higher profits and wages, would make up revenues lost from lower tax rates.

It didn't work, and budget deficits added trillions to the national debt.

On the other hand, after tax rates went up during the Clinton administration, federal tax receipts also went up and the national debt as a share of GDP went down.
 
It sounds like a great idea. Will it work?

That's a multitrillion-dollar question. Mnuchin has conceded that, if you don't factor in faster economic growth – a process known as "dynamic scoring" – the math may not work.

The problem is that the strategy has been tried twice – most recently by President George W. Bush and earlier during the Reagan administration. In both cases, tax cuts were based on the premise that faster economic growth, along with higher profits and wages, would make up revenues lost from lower tax rates.

It didn't work, and budget deficits added trillions to the national debt.

On the other hand, after tax rates went up during the Clinton administration, federal tax receipts also went up and the national debt as a share of GDP went down.

So what about taxes going up massively under Obama and the debt also doubling?
 
It sounds like a great idea. Will it work?

That's a multitrillion-dollar question. Mnuchin has conceded that, if you don't factor in faster economic growth – a process known as "dynamic scoring" – the math may not work.

The problem is that the strategy has been tried twice – most recently by President George W. Bush and earlier during the Reagan administration. In both cases, tax cuts were based on the premise that faster economic growth, along with higher profits and wages, would make up revenues lost from lower tax rates.

It didn't work, and budget deficits added trillions to the national debt.

On the other hand, after tax rates went up during the Clinton administration, federal tax receipts also went up and the national debt as a share of GDP went down.

So what about taxes going up massively under Obama and the debt also doubling?
A recession and 2 wars will do that.
 
You're making assumptions without even seeing a bill. You've heard a few key major points but nothing beyond that. What I've heard over and over is that the House will not pass anything that loads onto future deficits. They had a bill that was revenue neutral by using a Border Adjustment clause.

Yes, middle class families will get to double their standard deduction. You're not mentioning the fact that a lot of deductions that wealthy people use will be gone, meaning a lot more revenue coming in via those eliminations. I have no idea if that will bridge the gap but neither do you.

As for Trump wanting to "spend a ton", his first budget proposal didn't add a dime to the deficit. It didn't lower it, which sucks, but it didn't call for any new spending.

The bottom line is we have to get off this flatline we're at with less than 2% GDP growth.
I guess you are right and we'll have to wait and see. Anything is possible. I didn't say hed "spend a ton" I said if he keeps spending like he wants. Basically, he isn't cutting spending (just moving it from one pot to another) but he is potentially cutting tax revenue dramatically. I am concerned the deficit will explode under this reform but will wait to see how his tax plan and budget get passed before assuming.
 
I like getting rid of all the deductions . Will make taxes much much simpler . Giving to charity shouldn't be find because it's a tax deduction . It's supposed to be because you want to help someone
agree with you but I actually like keeping the charity and mortgage deductions. I think the mortgage industry lobbyists fought hard to keep that deduction around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight_Light
A recession and 2 wars will do that.

100% wrong. You can't keep double counting "2 wars" to fit your narrative. You already blamed Bush for deficits on 2 wars, you can't apply that to Obama at a time when those wars drastically reduced in scope and cost.

I'd also remind you that the largest deficit under Bush, prior to the recession, was $380B. We haven't had a deficit lower than $450B in all 8 years of Obama.

It's also a lie that Bush tax cuts didn't spur revenue. They did. In fact the total revenue increase was nearly the same as the Clinton years, only it got hammered at the end with the 2009 recession. Bush failed to account for Medicare expansion and operations overseas but the revenues absolutely increased following his tax cuts. The idea that cuts don't create growth in revenues is a total lie.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
 
A recession and 2 wars will do that.

100% wrong. You can't keep double counting "2 wars" to fit your narrative. You already blamed Bush for deficits on 2 wars, you can't apply that to Obama at a time when those wars drastically reduced in scope and cost.

I'd also remind you that the largest deficit under Bush, prior to the recession, was $380B. We haven't had a deficit lower than $450B in all 8 years of Obama.

It's also a lie that Bush tax cuts didn't spur revenue. They did. In fact the total revenue increase was nearly the same as the Clinton years, only it got hammered at the end with the 2009 recession. Bush failed to account for Medicare expansion and operations overseas but the revenues absolutely increased following his tax cuts. The idea that cuts don't create growth in revenues is a total lie.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
So you're saying the recession and wars were paid for prior to Obama taking office?
 
Yeah for no more death tax!

That means more $$$ donations to UCF after many of use decide to hang up our cleats and head to the Sky Box for future games.
 
It sounds like a great idea. Will it work?

That's a multitrillion-dollar question. Mnuchin has conceded that, if you don't factor in faster economic growth – a process known as "dynamic scoring" – the math may not work.

The problem is that the strategy has been tried twice – most recently by President George W. Bush and earlier during the Reagan administration. In both cases, tax cuts were based on the premise that faster economic growth, along with higher profits and wages, would make up revenues lost from lower tax rates.

It didn't work, and budget deficits added trillions to the national debt.

On the other hand, after tax rates went up during the Clinton administration, federal tax receipts also went up and the national debt as a share of GDP went down.

Govt receipts went up, under Reagan, He had to spend more to get tax cuts he wanted past the Dems, plus he rebuilt the military which had been gutted under Jimmy Carter. The recession Reagan took over in some ways was worse than the last one.
12 to 15% inflation rate, Unemployment maxed out at 10.2%

A housing crash which destroyed the Savings n Loans banking industry. Instead of giving them a huge pile of cash like Bush/Obama did, the govt bought thousands of homes which were sold while Clinton was in office, helping lead to the one year surplus under him and Rep house.

I went through both recessions, 1980, and 2007, The difference is at the end of Reagans term the economy was booming, Obama only saw 3% growth for one quarter.

I think the biggest difference between this recession and 1980 n82 (had a quick double dip.) The Savings n Loan industry was destroyed in 1980, American motors went under, Chrysler was bailed out. In 80 everyone rich and poor got hit hard, but the bounce back was across the board as well. this time around pain for the top 30% was short lived, the bottom 30% still have not recovered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanjerk
One commentator said it right, this is voodoo economics all over again. Any jackass who can rack up $10T in debt can be made to look good.

If all we're going to do is move to the far, far left on spending, let's just 'automate' the job of the President and get rid of that role altogether. If you throw $10T bones at the economy, you can bet that will be stimulative in the short term. The longer term damage is yet to be seen.

Trump has been a complete failure and has exceeded even my worst case outlier expectations so far. Voodoo economics on steroids, drastic cuts to NIH and cancer research , yet plenty of money for wars and bombs.
 
agree with you but I actually like keeping the charity and mortgage deductions. I think the mortgage industry lobbyists fought hard to keep that deduction around.

It's the right move but it's more about the housing market as a whole (i.e. construction), that means so much to the economy that remains the Golden goose, hence why that deduction will never be touched.

PS. Heck, even without mortgage interest tax deduction, most homeowners monthly mortgage payment, insurance and taxes is still cheaper than "rent" in most areas, and outside major recession, home ownership is still a good long term investment.
 
Govt receipts went up, under Reagan, He had to spend more to get tax cuts he wanted past the Dems, plus he rebuilt the military which had been gutted under Jimmy Carter. The recession Reagan took over in some ways was worse than the last one.
12 to 15% inflation rate, Unemployment maxed out at 10.2%

A housing crash which destroyed the Savings n Loans banking industry. Instead of giving them a huge pile of cash like Bush/Obama did, the govt bought thousands of homes which were sold while Clinton was in office, helping lead to the one year surplus under him and Rep house.

I went through both recessions, 1980, and 2007, The difference is at the end of Reagans term the economy was booming, Obama only saw 3% growth for one quarter.

I think the biggest difference between this recession and 1980 n82 (had a quick double dip.) The Savings n Loan industry was destroyed in 1980, American motors went under, Chrysler was bailed out. In 80 everyone rich and poor got hit hard, but the bounce back was across the board as well. this time around pain for the top 30% was short lived, the bottom 30% still have not recovered.
I'll believe CNN Money's research over yours.
 
You're the idiot who doesn't understand why repatriation doesn't mean much if the tax rate is still 35% once they put money back to work.

You literally know nothing about business or economics yet always insist on talking about it.

Just jerk off to your Bernie poster and piss off.


You support a economic gimmick that has already been tried, and failed, but I'm the idiot who doesn't understand?

Then answer me: is all of this record-high wealth finally going to start trickling down after Trump hands even more money to the wealthiest? We've been waiting roughly 35 years. It has to happen sometime soon, right?
Oh, make that a second economic gimmick that has already been tried, and failed, that you support.
 
Yeah for no more death tax!

That means more $$$ donations to UCF after many of use decide to hang up our cleats and head to the Sky Box for future games.
I would hope so, but lots of estates used donations to get the estate under the threshold for the death tax. With the repeal of the death tax, I fear that estates won't try to do that any longer and simply pass the money down to the next generation.
 
You support a economic gimmick that has already been tried, and failed, but I'm the idiot who doesn't understand?

Then answer me: is all of this record-high wealth finally going to start trickling down after Trump hands even more money to the wealthiest? We've been waiting roughly 35 years. It has to happen sometime soon, right?
Oh, make that a second economic gimmick that has already been tried, and failed, that you support.

Yeah! Because raising taxes always helps stimulate business and economic development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I would hope so, but lots of estates used donations to get the estate under the threshold for the death tax. With the repeal of the death tax, I fear that estates won't try to do that any longer and simply pass the money down to the next generation.

And they shouldn't have to. The government already taxed the money once. It's is straight up theft to do it again. If someone earns a trillion dollars and paid income taxes/capital gains on it, they have every right to do whatever the hell they want with it.
 
One commentator said it right, this is voodoo economics all over again. Any jackass who can rack up $10T in debt can be made to look good.

If all we're going to do is move to the far, far left on spending, let's just 'automate' the job of the President and get rid of that role altogether. If you throw $10T bones at the economy, you can bet that will be stimulative in the short term. The longer term damage is yet to be seen.

Trump has been a complete failure and has exceeded even my worst case outlier expectations so far. Voodoo economics on steroids, drastic cuts to NIH and cancer research , yet plenty of money for wars and bombs.
I read posts like this and I just shake my head at how f'king stupid people actually are and yes, Boston, I"m calling you F'ing stupid. First Trump has been in office less than 100 days and he inherited the most divided government in modern history. In his short time in office he has actually tried to work with both sides. Trump has signed executive orders reducing regulations, added rules that require the social security administration to share disability records with ATF for background checks, added a lifetime ban on white house officials becoming lobbyist, he sticking to his promises on immigration, rebuilding a military that can't use half the planes they own because of missing parts, moved the Keystone pipeline forward, reigning in the EPA and the education department and freezing all federal hiring.

That is just some of his executive orders, and considering he is fighting both parties that is what he has to do. As to this tax reform, nothing will be perfect but it is a huge improvement to what we are living with today. You cry long term damage and I will say look around today. What we know is the tax code today is crushing corporate growth and personal incomes. Tell me Boston, if a retailer could keep an extra 20% of their profits how many would still be in business today? If a small start up could pay 15% instead of 38% how many would still be around today? This from the guy that has told us to buy gold for years...
 
Trump hands even more money to the wealthiest?

Are you sure about that? 39.6% goes down to 35% but they lose a ton of deductions.

This is great for the middle class, 24,000 standard deduction (more money in middle class pockets and WAY easier to file taxes) and 15% for small-business owners instead of 35%. Sign me up
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingDavid
And they shouldn't have to. The government already taxed the money once. It's is straight up theft to do it again. If someone earns a trillion dollars and paid income taxes/capital gains on it, they have every right to do whatever the hell they want with it.
Sometimes yes, sometimes, no. Some estates have large volumes of unrealized gains, especially those with large amounts of property or investments held for a long time. Those capital gains most likely have never been taxed, and if simply transferred to the next generation, could possibly never be. The idea of the estate tax was to prevent the pooling of wealth by those not involved in the labor force - essentially preventing modern feudalism - to limit the number of people who have sovereign wealth without ever having to work for it. Plus, as I mentioned there is a large possibility that removing it would result in a significant drop in charitable giving. However, removing it could result in keeping more money here in the US.

In the end, it's currently not a huge issue, except to those with multi-million dollar estates, those above $5.45M individual or $10.9M for couples (after many deductions and vaulations), and only impacts 0.2% of the population and accounts for less than 1% of Federal tax revenue. And let's be honest, the vast majority of those estates that do have to pay the tax can afford to without any pain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddog4720
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT