It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Trump wrote off 103 millon income from being taxed in 2005

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Trump said he knows the tax laws better than anyone. So far everything has been legal.

He also said he would change these laws so people like him wouldn't be able to get away with not paying taxes.

Time will tell. Presidents in general don't have a great history of doing what they said they were going to.




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I'm aware of what a flat tax is. I don't agree with it either because in the end it's just a very poorly scaled progressive tax system that hits the middle class the hardest, alternatively it's implemented as a regressive system where the poor are hit the hardest. If you want a progressive tax system, just make a progressive tax system and scale it properly, it's a simple system to calculate if you get rid of all the various deductions involved. However, in common practice, most people use the phrase flat tax as a euphemism for tax cuts.

And I'll repeat, 10% is not viable. It's literally impossible, just like all people having skin in the game. The bottom 50% of people take home 0.5% of the wealth in this country. Regardless of how much you tax them, they cannot make up any meaningful contribution to the tax base.

Do the math, 10% cannot happen. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. A 10% flat tax would result in a federal budget (in 2015 again) of $1.7 trillion. The US budget is $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending, for various reasons that is the only spending that can be reduced. That was on a $3.7 trillion budget. If ALL of it were eliminated that would still result in $2.6 trillion in spending. That would be a $900 billion dollar deficit.

It is mathematically impossible unless you add in a substantial number of other taxes, in which case you end up in the exact same position in terms of tax paid.

Edit: To add, a tax cut is never a tax cut unless it's also accompanied by a spending cut. If taxes are cut, but spending remains the same it means taxes were redistributed not reduced.
edit on 20-3-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

How did the US manage to exist for over a century without an income tax? How do states within the US manage without income taxes? (Hint: There are other means for raising revenue.)

See, just because someone has told you something is "impossible" doesn't mean it is actually impossible. It just means that things might be very different and the speaker would not like the new, different way.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

The US had fewer things to buy back then. For one we didn't maintain much of a standing military. There was no Social Security system, no subsidies for education, no subsidies for health care, and many other things also didn't exist... for example, the political philosophy was that famines were preferable to food aid.

Only 26% of the federal budget can be cut, income taxes make up ~45% of the budget. If we were to eliminate income taxes, you would be paying those taxes anyways through other hidden taxes. It's much better to be upfront about these things.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Well then, it would be a fine idea to start the cutting with the things that the founders thought unnecessary wouldn't it?

You've been led down the garden path to get you to hand over the product of your labor so government bureaucracies can spend the product of your labor in any foolish way they desire. It is good to be upfront about these "needed" expenses. Who told you these things? The mainstream media who have a vested interest in the government spending money with them and the Congresscritters who have a vested interest in getting re-elected.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I happen to think it's better to have these programs than not. I also support them on a federal rather than state level, because the feds are the most efficient, and least corrupt system simply due to how many eyes they have on them. And certain things simply cannot be cut. If it disappears from your federal income tax, the responsible thing to do, is bring it to the states, and pay it on a state income tax.

You may want to pay nothing, but that's simply not realistic.

You ask who told me these things? Myself. Figuring out how budgetary proccessed work, how fiscal policy is conducted, and looking into where the optimal scope for various spending initatives is. Who is it that's telling you, you can somehow cut 50% of government spending so that we can eliminate an income tax?



new topics

 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join