Trumps new tax plan

a reply to: Aazadan

I will always support paying less taxes than higher taxes.

Government does not spend our money well.

a reply to: Aazadan

I meant in a much more economically broad sense when I said 'grow the tax base'. Creating good paying jobs is the best method to grow the tax base. At that point everyone contributes and you do not need to resort to punitive and confiscatory policies.

a reply to: Aazadan

No what I am saying is we need to try something different. We keep trying either parties so called tax plans and get the same results, more debt. Maybe before we increase taxes or do tax cuts we should think about how money is to be used. I like to think we teach our children the value of money. Maybe we should start teaching the children in both parties the same thing we teach our children.

originally posted by: rnaa
So before Trump can have any credibility on any new (or old for that matter) economic plan for the country, he needs to earn some credibility on his own economic status. The only way to do that is to release his tax returns.

He is under audit.

Ever been in an audit?

You do not make anything available beyond what an inspector asks for. You just don't.

The question should be, why is Obama's IRS taking so long to review his returns? They have had plenty of time.

originally posted by: 727Sky
There was a report that the USA had a increase in tax recipes of one point something (1.3 ?) trillion dollars since February.

Which report? Tax revenues are known ahead of time because it's something that can be very accurately projected when you're trying to do so (in other words, none of Trumps previous assumptions of 8% economic growth every year to pay for his low tax plan). In constant dollars (meaning inflation from year to year is accounted for) revenues are (in billions)
2010 - 2162.7
2011 - 2303.5
2012 - 2450.0
2013 - 2775.1
2014 - 3021.5
2015 - 3176.1
2016 - 3525.2
2017 - 3755.0
2018 - 3944.4
2019 - 4135.0
2020 - 4332.2

Nothing new for you can go back at least 3 years and the tax revenues hit records every year.. All the extra money is gone evidently because the deficit continues to increase day by day

It's always going to increase every year. Nearly 80% of budget outlays cannot be reduced either because it's politically unpopular (reducing military spending) or because it's legally not allowed (Social Security and such). The deficit however is not increasing day by day. It has mostly shrunk during Obama's term and it's continuing to shrink, though it will start rising again in something like 2018 due to Social Security and the baby boomer problem unless we increase taxes.

Spending cuts and getting rid of government workers like the supposedly 10,000 IRS agents hired to manage Obama care for starters

IRS agents pay for themselves, the average IRS agent brings in several hundred million in additional revenue but only costs a few thousand. If you don't want to cut taxes, and you can't agree on spending cuts, the best thing you can do to actually get the budget under control is to grow the IRS.

military acquisitions that do not rip off the public coffers

This is difficult to do, because when you start cutting military programs the cries of not supporting the troops, not supporting the military, and being soft on defense begin and that's pretty much political suicide.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

I will always support paying less taxes than higher taxes.

Government does not spend our money well.

But government is the only group that can spend on certain things. Look at how much money it costs to develop a new tank, or a fighter jet, or drones. If government weren't spending that money how would those items for our common defense and eventual private sector use ever be invented?

It took government spending to get to the moon, it's taken it to turn AIDS from a near term death sentence into something you can live with for decades, it's needed to defend the country, and even the very internet we're using right now to argue could not have been invented without government spending.

There are many advantages to it.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
No what I am saying is we need to try something different.

So a tax plan similar to Reagan's (which didn't work) is something different?

originally posted by: lordcomac
If he's actually talking about cutting big gov and dropping taxes on the middle class, I might vote for him.

The details are too light at this point. I didn't hear it in his speech but some other posters claimed he mentioned a few spending cuts. What is known about his plan right now is that there's four brackets for individuals. 12%, 25%, and 33%, for income or an independent contractor bracket of 15%. Alongside this is a 15% rate for corporations, and a tax holiday to bring money back into the country. The levels of income needed to hit each bracket haven't yet been clarified.

This would be a tax increase for the middle class, paying 25% instead of the ~11% that's currently paid on $50k (this could change with additional details being released), or an increase from 11% to 15% if you give up all your employment benefits and go the contractor route. For corporations this would be a big increase (their tax burden gets shifted to you), and for those making more money they would see a slight decrease going from 39.8% on their income to 33%, but also probably an increase on capital gains (under Trumps old plan those went up from 15% to 20%, they haven't yet been addressed under the new one).

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

I will always support paying less taxes than higher taxes.

Government does not spend our money well.

But government is the only group that can spend on certain things. Look at how much money it costs to develop a new tank, or a fighter jet, or drones. If government weren't spending that money how would those items for our common defense and eventual private sector use ever be invented?

It took government spending to get to the moon, it's taken it to turn AIDS from a near term death sentence into something you can live with for decades, it's needed to defend the country, and even the very internet we're using right now to argue could not have been invented without government spending.

There are many advantages to it.

Government spending is rife with corruption.

Often over budget and never on time, perhaps we are attributing too much on government.

Maybe we need to turn things over to the private sector and eliminate government programs.

It appears Trump has changed his tax plan considerably.

He even went as far as to remove the "tax reform" page from his website because it contradicts his current plan with his previous statements.

This is his website now: www.donaldjtrump.com... No tax reform link.

This is what it used to show before:

Link

a reply to: DBCowboy

We actually do turn things over to the private sector. It happens remarkably often and it's usually called crony capitalism when it does. What happens is we try to keep the government out of the market, so instead what will happen is the government places an order with certain companies for X product on a large scale contract. This is intended to give the company experience with delivering their product and the operating capital to fund R&D.

A successful example of this would be the post office leading the development in flex fuel vehicles when they replaced their fleet. Another successful example would be the funding milestones companies like SpaceX have been given. Unsuccessful examples of this would be the VA's recent debacle with solar panels and the plan to push wind power.

When technological innovations run in the hundreds of millions and sometimes into the billions, the private sector just isn't capable of putting up the capital and if we wait for them to so do, we'll give up cutting edge research to nations like China that aggressively direct funds to certain sectors in order to make globally competitive products.

It's unreasonable to expect start up's or even established companies like Apple, Microsoft, and GE to be able to stand up to nations out spending those companies 100:1 to make something worth selling.

a reply to: Aazadan

hat's all well and good, but does nothing to eliminating the abject corruption within government.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

hat's all well and good, but does nothing to eliminating the abject corruption within government.

Then perhaps we should focus on systems for transparency and oversight?

a reply to: Aazadan

Isn't that what Obama ran on?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Isn't that what Obama ran on?

He ran on transparency, he didn't follow through. That's one route to take, but I would argue the other route is oversight which typically involves less transparency but still involves regulation to keep people in line. That's the route the Federal Reserve takes for example, which is filled with it's own problems such as regulation not being a valid career path but is another way to handle things if we address the issues.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Isn't that what Obama ran on?

It is. He didn't follow through on it.

Point is, he might have followed through on it, but there is so damned much corruption that it's like asking an arsonist to guard gasoline and matches.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Point is, he might have followed through on it, but there is so damned much corruption that it's like asking an arsonist to guard gasoline and matches.

I ninja edited on you to add another point.

I don't think Obama ever had any intention on following through with transparency. It's something he used as a major point of his campaign but he never would have done it. Where I am now, I don't trust anyone who campaigns for transparency unless they're old enough that they don't have many years left. The young like Obama are going to be living down their legacy for another 40-50 years, and that means they have an image to craft which isn't conducive to transparency. The old don't have that burden.

I really agreed with Ben Carson's tax plan, so this Trump plan isn't exactly what I'd like to see. I disagree with the lower bracket paying nothing, in fact I disagree with it strongly. Everyone should have skin in the game. That's where our current system fails, in fact. We have a contingent of America living off the blood, sweat, and tears of those of us paying income tax and those folks get to vote... meaning we have a system in which theft is voted on favorably by the recipients of the ill gotten gains.

I'd much rather see a 5-10-15 system in which $0-$50K pays 5% straight, $50,001 to $$200K pays 10% straight, and those making more pay 15%. That's fair.

Trump can stuff his tax plan where it stinks. We need a flat consumer tax, that way everyone (rich and poor) pays a proportionally fair rate.

We need to stop taxing businesses on income too. For every tax increase on producers, the consumer pays a higher price to compensate for the producer's increased cost. Consumers get tripple taxed under the current system: Income, property, and business.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Trump can stuff his tax plan where it stinks. We need a flat consumer tax, that way everyone (rich and poor) pays a proportionally fair rate.

We need to stop taxing businesses on income too. For every tax increase on producers, the consumer pays a higher price to compensate for the producer's increased cost. Consumers get tripple taxed under the current system: Income, property, and business.

And it makes it hard to give employees more money because the profit margin is so small.

Lower the basic cost of doing biz and prices can come down and/or pay can go up.