jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (37 posts)

Donald Trump's Tax Plan: Who does it help Really?

  1. My Esoteric profile image88
    My Esotericposted 8 days ago

    The latest analysis of who benefits most (in terms of percentage change) from Donald Trump's tax plan.  It was done by an Obama economic adviser AND agreed to by the conservative Tax Foundation (funded by corporations, the Koch Foundation, among others).  Therefore it is essentially a non-partisan look.

    Who benefits:

    *  Estates worth over $11 million
    *  The very wealthy in terms of income
    *  Single middle class or middle class with dependents and no daycare expenses

    Who loses:

    *  Lower class
    *  Low-middle class single parents
    *  Middle class single parents paying daycare expenses
    *  Middle class with large families

    Is this the outcome You expected from Trump's plan?  Is this what he promised?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

      Implicit in your post is that liberals have an innate, ethical duty to take money from anyone they can, an in as large amounts as they can, in order to fund their programs.  They don't.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 7 days ago in reply to this

        And implicit in your answer is that every man is an island to live and fall as fate and social Darwinism may dictate, with no obligation to the nation that allows him/her to live freer than anywhere else on earth.  Conservatives believe that, liberals (like Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln to name just two) don't.

        1. ahorseback profile image46
          ahorsebackposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          And so this - Your hands in my pocket !   =  Liberal justice.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          Agreed, with the caveat that conservatives believe in helping those that need help while liberals believe in stealing every dime they can lay their greedy hands on to have more to give away to those that want a nice life without earning it.  Need doesn't enter the picture, and neither does an end point.

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 7 days ago in reply to this

            The problem your "stealing" point is that it is simply untrue, just hyperbole.

            To do what your first sentence suggests, then conservatives would be "stealing" money as well. wouldn't it?

            The best solution would be that states, ALL the states, take care of their own citizens.  But history shows that does not work, helping people in need is not on many conservative state's agenda.  And THAT is why the federal gov't got involved in the first place ... because MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, LA, AR, and others couldn't or wouldn't.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

              I doubt that.  The feds got involved because some people didn't have what others thought they should have.  Location didn't have much, if anything, to do with it.

              But whatever the beginning of the entitlement philosophy, it has grown far beyond what is useful or helpful to either the majority of the recipients or to the country.  When half the country can't afford to contribute to the needs of the nation there is a problem, a huge one.  One that will not be solved by increasing the "share the wealth" concepts of the liberal mind.

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 days ago in reply to this

        I thought the study was bi partisan? Where do you apply the liberal take in that?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          If there is anything in this country that is bi partisan I haven't seen it.  But that is only my opinion; others, finding studies that prove what they want to be proved, will certainly claim it is bi partisan all the way.

        2. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          Actually, it was non-partisan because the liberal Tax Policy Center produced the report and the conservative Tax Foundation basoca;;u.agreed with the results

      3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 days ago in reply to this

        +1

    2. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 7 days ago in reply to this

      When did taxing people become en vogue. Oh yea it never did.


      Let me tell you how it will be
      There's one for you, nineteen for me
      Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

      Should five per cent appear too small
      Be thankful I don't take it all
      Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

      If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
      If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
      If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
      If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

      Taxman!
      Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

      Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
      If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
      Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

      Now my advice for those who die
      Declare the pennies on your eyes
      Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

      And you're working for no one but me
      Taxman!

    3. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 7 days ago in reply to this

      Tax Foundation Analysis - http://taxfoundation.org/article/detail … ember-2016

      Tax Policy Center - http://taxfoundation.org/article/detail … ember-2016

      NPR's View - http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277 … s-tax-plan

      Question - Everyone knows, and expect, the wealthy who pay taxes (which apparently Trump does not) will get a much larger reduction in taxes in terms of dollars.  But, are they getting so much more than other income brackets in terms of percentages.  A fair plan would give each income level the same "percentage" reduction.

      Before you answer with "because they pay more taxes" or they are the ones who create jobs" (in a full-employment economy, that is doubtful) mantra that doesn't apply to percentages. 

      For example, at a 1% reduction, the millionaire will get a $10,000 increase in income, while the $50,000 earner will see a $500 increase.  Nobody can quarrel with that outcome because it is fair.  But to fix it so the millionaire gets $100,000 back,  because their tax decrease is 10%, while the $50,000 earner will still get only $500.  How is THAT fair?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

        Using your figures (1% reduction = $10,000 reduction in taxes), the millionaire will still pay $900,000 in taxes while the $50,000 earner will now pay $49,500 in taxes.  Recognizing that that's not how it works, it still leaves one person paying twenty times what another pays.  And you consider that to be "fair" somehow"?  How is THAT "fair"?

        At 1% across the board, are you insinuating that because you gave the millionaire more "back" out of the excess already taken from him it makes it "fair"?

        Progressive tax brackets are inherently unfair; they have to be if we are to operate the country without causing half the population to starve to death.  But to claim that excessive taxation returned to the taxpayer is "unfair" is ridiculous.

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          You clearly do not understand 1) the purpose of taxes or 2) even the need for taxes. 

          You also don't appear to understand how percentages work.  Let me be more precise:

          *  A person who earns a $ 1 M who gets a 1% cut in taxes will see his taxes reduced by $10,000 - he will NOT pay $900,000 in taxes (please show me your calculations).0
          *  If his taxes are reduced by $10,000 that means his take-home pay increases by $10,000
          *  If the effective tax rate is 25% (not marginal) then his taxes will be $250,000.  If it goes down to 24% then his taxes will be $240,000

          Use the same process for the $50,000 earner

          Show me where I said "But to claim that excessive taxation returned to the taxpayer is "unfair"   That wasn't what I said OR meant and you know it.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

            But you said a 1% cut in taxes.  Not the 4% indicated here (1/25).  What you meant was a 1% decrease in the tax rate being paid.  25%-1%=24%.

            But the bottom line remains the same: the millionaire (earning 1M) is still paying 48 (240,000/5,000) times what the other man is paying, and you think that is unfair; that he should pay even more.

            "But to fix it so the millionaire gets $100,000 back,  because their tax decrease is 10%, while the $50,000 earner will still get only $500."

            Are you not saying that too much of the excessive taxation being "returned" (actually not being taken rather than returned) is unfair?  That DOES seem to be exactly what you meant.

            Our difference is that you seem to believe that the rich man should pay $240,000 towards operating the country while the poor man pays $5,000.  48 times as much.  Presumably simply because he can, so that makes it "fair".

            At the same time, though, I presume that you would not suggest that the rich man pay $48 for a loaf of bread while the rest of us pay $1.  Or $100 for a gallon of milk while we pay $2.  The reasoning is the same - the rich man can contribute more to the profits of the grocery store - why is the result different? Why is it "fair" to pay many times more to have a country but the same to have a gallon of milk?

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 7 days ago

    We knew this before the election.  Many economists told us plainly how his plan would work.  It's too late to realize this fact now.  It does beg the question: Who were voters listening to before Nov. 8?

    1. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 7 days ago in reply to this

      51% of those who voted for Trump did it because they thought their taxes will go down.  But just like with the Reagan tax "cuts" only the top 20% of income earners benefit.

      And with the estate tax elimination, that puts us back to the 1910 when the top 10% had 80% of the country's wealth.

      - it was about 65% in 1970 and has climbed to around 71% in 2010.  By the end of 2016 it will be roughly 72% and, under Trump's plan, will increase more rapidly.

      - In 1910, people became super wealthy mainly through inheritance, not work.  In 1950 most people became super wealthy from labor.  Since the 1980s the trend has been back to inheritance, and will rapidly increase if Trump has his way with the estate tax (designed to benefit ONLY him and his peers.

  3. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 7 days ago

    Forcing the selfish to contribute to the general good is not theft.

    Taxes are used primarily to ensure businesses can flourish and life can go on. Teachers need to be paid if you want a skilled workforce, roads built, societies policed, borders defended etc etc.

    Beyond those things taxes are used to make life worth living.

    If you want to walk through your cities without choking on smog and swim in your lakes and seas without contracting dysentery then you will need environmental regulations.

    Don't fancy a life without seeing your family? You will need labor laws and officials to police them.

    Find your sensibilities offended by child mistreatment, neglect and abuse? You will need social services.

    History suggests that the wealthy as a group will not willingly contribute to social well being because they are well insulated from the discomforts everyone else suffers.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

      "Forcing the selfish to contribute to the general good is not theft."

      Legally, no of course it isn't.  The law says it is acceptable.  Ethically, though - when you take something by force, something that belongs to someone else - and use it for your own selfish purposes...you may not call it theft, but I certainly do.  And playing Robin Hood to the detriment of the country and it's people is defined as your own selfish purposes.  Designed primarily to create a nation of slaves and to ensure your own political power.

      "History suggests that the wealthy as a group will not willingly contribute to social well being because they are well insulated from the discomforts everyone else suffers."

      Except that history strongly suggests that most people are more than willing to support the country and it's needs.  And experience shows that simply giving people what they want but cannot afford does not "help" them to grow or develop.  It only causes them to expect more of the same.

      1. Will Apse profile image90
        Will Apseposted 7 days ago in reply to this

        It would help me to understand what you are saying if you explained exactly who is trying to enslave who.

        Forcing the wealthy to take some responsibility for the general fabric of society, on which we all depend, does not entail enslaving anyone.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          "Forcing the wealthy to take some responsibility for the general fabric"

          But you don't want the wealthy to take some responsibility.  Or even their fair share.  You want them take all the (fiinancial) responsibility.

          If you've never watched a poor person, on govt. charity, try to get out from under it and stand on their own two feet I can't expect you to understand.  But I assure you that they are virtually locked into that charity, and that it is set up to ensure that it is extremely difficult to get away from taking it.

          I'm not talking about the guy that lost his job and gets some food stamps and unemployment until he finds another one.  I'm talking about the single mom trying to educate herself and move up.  I'm talking about a young couple with kids starting their life.  I'm talking about the uneducated, unskilled worker that would move up if he could.  For those people, taking the charity of the politician, breaking out of that vicious cycle is virtually impossible.  I know some that have, but far more that have not been able to get out.  Not all their fault as "the system" is designed to make it that way.

          1. Will Apse profile image90
            Will Apseposted 7 days ago in reply to this

            I missed this. Low wages are the main cause of poverty traps of the kind you are describing. Maybe tackle low wages?

            I remember the scandal when MacDonald's wanted to expand its operations into Holland. Unscrupulous unions demanded much higher wages than were ever paid in the US. Dismayed, MacDonald's threatened to deny Holland its delicious snacks but the unions would not back down...

            Visit now and MacDonalds are everywhere, somehow the wage bills have not killed the enterprise.

            And the employees do not need food stamps to raise their children.

            Isn't that a kind of freedom?

            I imagine employees also get the thirty days paid holiday other workers in Holland get, too (some get 50). And parental leave. Two more kinds of actual, real freedom not the illusory US kind.

  4. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 7 days ago

    One of the ironies of tax cuts for the super rich is that it will barely improve their standard of living. Most of those things that they value will simply increase in price.

    Want a penthouse in New York? A Picasso? A classic car? The best wine vintages?

    The prices of all those things are driven by demand.

    For Joe Average, tax cuts mean poorer quality (but more expensive) education, poorer roads, fewer police and a general decline in the ability of government to deal effectively with everyday issues.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

      You don't think that poor roads or a lack of cops will affect the rich?  Maybe the lack of good airport controllers?  That the inability of govt. to deal with issues won't affect them because they are rich and absolutely depend on a stable government to stay that way?

      I would disagree.

      1. Will Apse profile image90
        Will Apseposted 7 days ago in reply to this

        If the super rich lived among us and experienced normal life you might have a point but they do their very best not to. Whole industries cater to their need for the commodity that they most value, 'privacy'.

        This includes:

        Exclusive hotels with everything they might need on site.
        VIP lounges in airports,
        Streamlined immigration services when they travel,
        Aides to fill in incomprehensible forms and wait in queues
        Cooks, gyms and trainers to make sure they stay fit
        Armies of lawyers to pursue anyone or anything that inconveniences them
        Bodyguards to part the seas of seething humanity

        High quality government services are no interest to them because they live in a parallel world. Worse, high quality government services hover up money that could be in their pockets (and they have the political power to make sure money always heads in their direction).

        Two of the latest trends in London: underground personal swimming pools in Kensington and Chelsea. Public pool closures (to save money) across the capital.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          When poor roads delay or stop deliveries to that VIP lounge, it affects the rich.  When there aren't enough airport controllers, planes (carrying the rich) crash.  When govt. can't provide enough cops to keep the mobs away from the mansion, it affects them.  When the water treatment plant crashes and there is no fresh water to the home, it affects them.  When pollution laws are set aside because there isn't money to enforce them, it affects the rich and poor alike.

          We'll have to agree to disagree that not enough taxes doesn't affect the rich.  Although you would like to portray them as living on another planet, they don't.  They live just a few miles down the road, and use all of the same services you and I do.

          But if I'm wrong, and they exist in a world separate from ours, should that not mean that they should owe no taxes?  They get no services, so what are they paying for?

          1. Will Apse profile image90
            Will Apseposted 7 days ago in reply to this

            They may live in bubble but obviously their wealth comes from the real world.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 days ago in reply to this

              That it most certainly does.  And the creation of that wealth requires the same government services that you and I depend on - let them deteriorate and there goes the wealth.  Once more the wealthy are absolutely dependent on govt. services, the same ones we all depend on.

          2. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 6 days ago in reply to this

            It is tax cuts like Trump is proposing that will lead to "When poor roads delay or stop deliveries to that VIP lounge, it affects the rich. ....".  These are paid for out of the discretionary budgets.  Since defense spending will increase and since both sides agree that his proposal will lead to an "average annual increase" in deficit spending of around $500 billion then the ONLY place that can come from is discretionary spending (or, god forbid, increasing the debt). 

            Of course that means poorer infrastructure like roads, air controllers, cops (because federal subsidies dry up), etc. 

            BTW, there are many a poor nation that has terrible infrastructure like you describe and their very wealthy do just fine, thank you.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 days ago in reply to this

              Not sure what you're saying here - that infrastructure will degrade, affecting the rich and poor alike?  But at the same time won't affect the rich because...because they own their own fresh water supplies, their private freeway system, private police and private airports?

              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 6 days ago in reply to this

                Sort of.  You have to look at countries, and there are many of them, where you have a small number of very wealthy people (say North Korea) and the masses are dirt poor you will find the rich have made sure their particular needs are met while letting 90% of the country go to hell.

                And that will be the trend here.  The needs of those in New York City will be met while Flint rots.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 days ago in reply to this

                  But the rich in Korea do not depend on an infrastructure to maintain their wealth.  And that's a huge difference between the two countries - their wealth is independent on a good highway system or any of the other things we've talked about.  Not so in the west.

        2. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 6 days ago in reply to this

          You have illustrated an amazing amount of professional people that are employed by the rich. In turn they employ others. I bet they employ more people in an hour than most do in a lifetime. I bet that pays a lot of student debt too. The rich can often be penny pinchers and efficient with money. If we tax them some more, well, is it possible to have too many 25 thousand dollar hammers? 2 bux of taxes for the hammer and the other 24,998.00 added to the debt. Its a false dilemma to envy taxing of others.  Do ones own taxes. Find and use deductions etc etc. Even a poor man is more efficient with HIS money than the government..

          PS. I think it best to keep ones hand in their own pocket

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 6 days ago in reply to this

            Does this mean you don't to fund a government?

            BTW, America prospered VERY well, in fact better than all periods save Clinton's two terms, when top marginal rates topped 70% in the 60s.  Go figure.

            1. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
              Kathleen Cochranposted 2 days ago in reply to this

              My Esoteric:  Thanks for your effort to warn folks what to expect from their vote.  I appreciate the validated information.  But the response is the same old same old.  It's good, though, to see someone try.  Merry!

              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 2 days ago in reply to this

                Happy Holidays to you as well Kathleen.

 
working