His plan streamlines the system so that there are only 3 brackets. The lower bracket pays 12%. The middle bracket pays 25%. The upper bracket pays 33%.
If you're in the lower bracket, that's an increase from 10%.
If you're in the middle bracket, that's an increase from 20%.
If you're in the upper bracket, that's a decrease from 38%.
Do you support or oppose this plan?
What you have presented is the reason that Hillary Clinton will WIN in November. She is more equitable towards the middle class & poor as opposed to Trump.
Brackets don't mean much when it isn't paid anyway. Top bracket in the 50's, I think, was in the 90% area but nobody paid it so it was a moot point. Actually monies paid are more now than back then.
So what are the deductions and so-called loopholes? That's what counts far more.
This was all part of his economic plan:
1. The elimination of special tax treatment for carried-interest income at private-equity firms and other investment firms.
2. Reduction of business taxes from 35% to 15%.
3. Eliminate the estate tax.
4. Make child care costs fully tax deductible.
5. A moratorium on all new regulation.
6. Renegotiate NAFTA.
7. Invest a "substantial" amount on infrastructure.
#1 and eliminates a deduction, but #4 adds one. Is that all? The thousands of other deductions for business will remain? Not those directly connected with business - R&D, electric bills, etc., but all those that simply save taxes for doing what govt. thinks should be done? That's the problem, IMO, with our taxes - not what rates are paid.
Business taxes - I've always had a hard time understanding why a business must pay taxes on profits, then the owners pay again when they get whatever is left. Never made sense to me - I don't pay federal income taxes twice on what I earn - why should business owners?
Well, #1 and #4 don't apply to the same people. I would imagine there was more to the plan. I think these were the highlights.
No, they don't apply to the same people, but don't know how that's important anyway. Except to hit the wealthy for an even greater percentage of our tax base than they are already paying, anyway.
Not familiar with #1, but could support all the others, I think.
Both #1 and #4 are tax cuts that benefit wealthier people.
But being wealthy does not mean that "we the people" have an innate right to what they earn. I know that that's not what the socialists of the liberal left want to hear, but it's true.
If Joe Blow gets a complete deduction for child care so that he can work, so does everyone else. It's really that simple.
Not sure what your point is. I didn't qualify the tax cut. Joe Blow can't afford childcare. It's a benefit for the wealthy. At one time, my childcare bill was 36k/year. It's a great tax cut if you can afford that or if you have a nanny.
You must be wealthy then, if you paid childcare, and doubly so if it cost you that much. But my kids weren't - they were just scraping by - and they had 4 being cared for (2 after school only).
I see childcare as no different than legitimate business expenses, like the cost of labor or raw materials. Necessary to garner income. Although I'd like see some kind of limit - being subsidized (via tax break) for a full time nanny for one kid isn't quite the same thing as subsidizing the cost of a home day care at the neighbors for the same kid.
And there is another side, too - my wife didn't work for several years because the cost of daycare and commuting was more than she could earn. But if it was a deduction, Uncle Sam would have gotten taxes on her (net) income PLUS taxes on what she was paying for daycare. As it was, they got nothing.
I don't consider myself wealthy, but probably by most American standards, I am. I think upper middle class is fair.
All I'm saying is that the benefit favors the wealthy and helps people who already have money to pay for things. It sounds like it's some kind of benefit for everyone, but it's not.
I've seen some estimates that Trump's economic plan will add 11 trillion dollars to the deficit.
You lost me. How does not paying taxes on what is paid for daycare not benefit anyone earning enough to pay taxes and having daycare expenses?
It benefits those who can afford daycare. Most people I know usually, like you, have one parent stay home. The deduction isn't going to make daycare affordable suddenly for those in lower income brackets. Generally, you need a decent amount of income between two parents for both to work and send their kids to daycare. For me, the deduction would have been great - more money in my pocket. But it just would have been a benefit of being well-off that I got to deduct that big chunk of money. I'm just saying the deduction disproportionately benefits the wealthy. A better program to help the working poor would be some kind of subsidized daycare. Kindergarten isn't free everywhere, so that's a start. Or even public schooling starting earlier would be a good idea.
If it was a deduction, the government would only get taxes on what she paid for daycare when the daycare reported its income. Your wife would have deducted it from her income and only paid taxes on what was left over.
Right. She would pay taxes (at my higher rate) for her net income after daycare. And the daycare provider would pay taxes on what it charged my wife (less their own costs).
But without that deduction it wasn't worth her time to work at all. The deduction might have tipped the scales (or might not - it isn't a credit, after all).
More of the same on steroids. Trickle down on its' own never worked. The wars are what make it work. Hillary is no better as she will jump the rates and still get us in some new wars. War is our most valuable business and the politicians know it. We are headed this way with either of them.
by My Esoteric9 months 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...
by Stacie L5 years ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is expected to seek a new base tax rate for the wealthy to ensure that millionaires pay at least at the same percentage as middle income taxpayers.A White House official said...
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
Is nobody going to call Peter Schiff on his "I pay 50% tax" crap?Recently, Peter Schiff marched into OWS and confronted demonstrators, claiming that he pays 50% of his income to taxes. Unfortunately, the...
by ptosis2 months ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though?...
by GA Anderson22 months ago
Much is heard of a demand that corporations and the wealthy pay their "fair share" of taxes, but I have heard little of what that share should be.With only a single restriction; that the discussion is about...
by Brian17 months ago
This is not a current tax, or one that is planned, this is my own idea. (United States)I am just curious if you would favor a 5% national sales tax if the money from that tax went back to the people, in the form of...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.