Trump's tax plan: Trickle Down Economics: Give your opinion
yea or nea? Are you HAPPY! that the richest .01% get less taxes? I mean - they did earn it didn't they?
Do they just work harder? Is everybody else just stupid and lazy? Hard work will only get you so far if circumstances aren’t amenable. Do you believe that “If you’re still poor at 35, you deserve it,”? If hard work and dedication were the secrets to becoming wealthy, the worlds richest people would be {insert your favorite very hard working poor person[s] here}.
As much as we like to think that the wealthy earn their money with hard work, is it really possible that 85 people worked harder than 3.5 billion?
Can this problem be solved by dividing all the world’s wealth up equally? If all the world’s wealth were divided equally we’d all only have about $9,000 each. Which should give you a good idea of how much of the world lives in abject poverty.
Increasing inequality exists because rich people have politicians doing them too many favors. The income gap isn’t growing because the 1% is working harder, it’s growing because they get tax cuts, because they’re allowed to use tax havens, because they don’t have to pay their employees very much.
The most common way for billionaires to make their money is investing. So ... it's not like the top 0.01% work harder.
DJT wants to slash or eliminate many of the taxes that disproportionately hit the wealthy. If Trump's plan were implemented, "it could exacerbate inequality," said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
Owners, partners and shareholders of so-called pass-through entities pay taxes for their businesses on their individual tax returns at a top tax rate of 39.6%. Trump would cut that down to just 15%.
Pass-throughs run the gamut from mom-and-pop shops to big law firms to hedge funds. Most, if not all, of Trump's hundreds of businesses are considered pass-throughs. - http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/26/news/ec … index.html
The Tax Policy Center (TPC) has estimated the revenue cost and the distributional effects of a plan consistent with the House GOP blueprint. We estimate that a plan such as this would reduce federal revenue by $3.1 trillion over the first decade of implementation and by an additional $2.2 trillion in
the second decade, before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The revenue loss is primarily due to reductions in business taxes. - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicat … -plan/full
The findings by the Tax Policy Center contradict assertions by the White House and congressional Republicans that the plan unveiled this week would not benefit the wealthy — including Trump himself.
Trump lying again?
Shocking abuse of assuming everyone in the country is an idiot.
Sounds like you are in denial ... still.
Equitable system of taxation includes such as equity, simplicity, neutrality.
Well it ain't simple and if I had an answer to solve that one -
I would win theNobel prize!
Which system of taxation do you support?
Proportional
Progressive
Regressive
Trump plan is Regressive https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Principle … s/Taxation
This is very rarely done intentionally by a government, as it would be extremely unpopular and would be seen as supporting wealthy, high income individuals over more needy households. However, indirect taxation could be said to partly support this. Very high income earners may spend a lower proportion of their income on goods and services, and so pay proportionally a fewer taxes as a percentage of their income.
https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingT … _les01.jsp
Fairness and Taxation \ People's taxes should be in proportion to their wealth and income. Our federal income tax is based on the ability to pay principle. It is hard to get people to agree on what is a fair tax because people have different values and priorities.
Architect of the Reaganomics trickle down voodoo economics, Bruce Bartlet:
the systematic denial of many inconvenient truths about the Reagan tax-cuts and the cuts that came after, including the fact that Reagan repeatedly raised taxes after the 1981 cuts; that the "prosperity" of the 1980s is grossly overstated (GDP growth in the 1980s was weaker than in the 1970s); that the Reagan years ended with a series of unprecedented market crashes and a deep recession; that Clinton's tax increases ended the recession; that GWB enacted near-annual cuts that coincided with collapsing GDP growth and federal revenues (and that growth returned when Obama allowed the Bush cuts to start expiring) and so on.
https://boingboing.net/2011/08/17/why-p … -rich.html
“last-place aversion”, the people who were a spot away from the bottom were the most likely to give the money to the person above them: rewarding the “rich” but ensuring that someone remained poorer than themselves.
Donald Trump declared a massive net operating loss of $916 million in 1995, enough to allow him to avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years. The documents shed light on provisions in the U.S. tax code that allow wealthy individuals to avoid income tax payments even in years when they make millions.
The "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." — Warren Buffett
Six-in-ten Americans said they were bothered a lot by the feeling that “some wealthy people” and “some corporations” don’t pay their fair share.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that "virtually every state's tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." It added that state and local tax systems are "indirectly contributing to growing income inequality by taxing low- and middle-income households at significantly higher rates than wealthy taxpayers."
In other words, it said the tax systems are "upside down," with the poor paying more and the rich paying less. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.
“We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes,” - Leona Helmsley
Law experts believe 'Ol Bone Spurs may be benefiting from provisions in the tax code that specifically benefit real-estate developers. These generous tax breaks could reduce his reported income in later years to zero, or even a loss. More to the point, those loopholes would allow him to claim losses on someone else’s money—in other words, money he borrowed to buy real estate that then depreciated in value.Hi ptosis, since you went to the trouble of providing all those stats for your perspective, I thought it only fair for me to go searching for stats to support another perspective I am hopeful you will consider - instead of just offering my usual contrary opinion.
In the food-service business we too dealt with percentages; relative to food costs and stuff. 27% food costs was a standard target, (a more defined 'fair share" as related to your tax thoughts), but we also considered another perspective - relative to profit, (as might compare to your idea of total tax revenue), and that was, contributory dollars, as in how much actual money did a percentage-cost item contribute to total income. For instance; we could sell a fountain soda at about a 16% food costs, ie. a $1 drink costs 16 cents to make, and contributed 84 cents to total income. Sweet - if only we could sell all the sodas we could make.
But, we also sold steak dinners at a 35% food cost, ie. a $20 steak entree costs $7.00 to make and contributed $13.00 to total income. As you can see, we would prefer to sell a steak dinner to a soda any day.
I apologize for appearing to offer a lesson on something you probably already knew, but I just wanted to be sure you understood my basis for the "contributory dollars" tax perspective I hope you will compare to your "individual percentage" tax mantra.
*I know your stats were for the States, and mine are Federal, but I think the concept still lends itself to comparison.
You noted that individually, the bottom line is that the 1% pay about 5.4% of their income, the middle about 9.4% and the bottom about 10.9%.
Here's what those numbers represent in real money, (contributory dollars), actually paid to the government; according to a Pew Research Center Study
The top 1% pay about 43.6% of all tax monies, or about $671 Billion
Those making over $250,000 pay about 51.6%, or about $795 Billion - and that group is less than 3% of total tax filers.
Your bottom 20% paid between $22 - $86 billion, depending on your cut-off point - either under $30,000, ($22 billion), or under $50,000, ($86 billion)
That is my "contributory dollar" perspective, as compared to your "individual rate" perspective.
I think the reality of actual tax monies paid is more illustrative than mere percentages. A contributory dollar perspective shows that less than 3% of tax filers pay over half - $795 billion, of all taxes. Or put differently, the comparison between the top and bottom that you seem to prefer - less than 3% of all tax filers pay between 10x and 36x more than the bottom 20% bracket of filers.
Is that a perspective you could consider as realistically comparative?
ps. I hope you will take a look at the Pew link. There are several more stats that pertain to your individual rate preference that show a bit of a different outlook when considered.
pps. I even hunted down a picture for you
GA
Reaganomics was another name for trickle down economics, Dan. If I had to bet, I'd wager you were a Reagan fan as well.
Related Discussions
- 203
Trickle Down Economics doesn't work
With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying wages that are holding their own against inflation....
- 226
Top 10 Reasons for Higher Taxes on the Top 1%
Funding for our country's children is being cut, but we allow a hedge fund manager to make enough money to pay the salaries of every public school teacher in New York City. Most of his earnings are taxed at a rate less than that of his secretary.We haven't been able to do anything about it because...
- 26
Do tax breaks for the rich really create jobs?
Do tax breaks for the rich really create jobs?Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist states consumers create jobs and not the wealthy. He claims the rich only hire if consumers are buying goods and products and that there are not enough wealthy to support our economy. He says, "If it were true...
- 167
Is the president whipping up class warfare?
What are your thoughts on this?"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing,...
- 16
Why would people be against lower taxes on thier income?
More than 400 millionaires and billionaires asks Congress not to pass a bill that "further exacerbates inequality." It also says the tax bill should not add to the country's debt.Republicans are “saying we can’t afford to spend money, but we can afford to give rich people a huge tax...
- 8
To tax or not to tax, that is the question...
I don't claim to be a big financial, economics know it all (how could anyone, frankly, but the link here is a conservative version of the current presidents tax creation scenario for next yearcan anyone that monitors similar information from the liberals post a comparison for us all to learn...