• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump vs Clinton vs Johnson on Taxes

jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ignore the spending issue for now. This is just a comparison of their philosophy on the purpose of taxation and how it should be collected. Also ignore whether any of them could accomplish any of them. Which one do you agree with and why?

Trump
-economic policy should be geared towards growth
-reduce the burden on the economy
-reduce brackets from 7 to 3
-exemption for child care
-lower corporate tax to 15%
-repeal estate tax

Clinton
-make sure wealthy, wall street and corporations pay more taxes
-surcharge on high wealth
-no deductions for high wealth
-no deductions for corporations profits outside country
-exit tax on companies leaving country
-tax deductions for businesses who employ people here at higher wages
-tax deductions for middle class healthcare expenses, childcare, college

Johnson
-purpose is to collect revenue
-taxation should minimize burden on business, savings, investment, be widely distributed
-replace all income tax with minimal sales tax
-100% subsidy to cover taxes paid on spending up to poverty level, for everyone
-no sales tax on used goods


Personally, I dont think any of them are the perfect way, but obviously support Johnson's the most. The purpose of taxes is to collect revenue to pay for spending, not to play social games, be used as tools of power, or even help the govt steer the economy. The simplest system that is as most equal for all and minimizes the burden on liberty is the best one.
 
jonny5 said:
Ignore the spending issue for now. This is just a comparison of their philosophy on the purpose of taxation and how it should be collected. Also ignore whether any of them could accomplish any of them. Which one do you agree with and why?

Trump
-economic policy should be geared towards growth
-reduce the burden on the economy
-reduce brackets from 7 to 3
-exemption for child care
-lower corporate tax to 15%
-repeal estate tax

Clinton
-make sure wealthy, wall street and corporations pay more taxes
-surcharge on high wealth
-no deductions for high wealth
-no deductions for corporations profits outside country
-exit tax on companies leaving country
-tax deductions for businesses who employ people here at higher wages
-tax deductions for middle class healthcare expenses, childcare, college

Johnson
-purpose is to collect revenue
-taxation should minimize burden on business, savings, investment, be widely distributed
-replace all income tax with minimal sales tax
-100% subsidy to cover taxes paid on spending up to poverty level, for everyone
-no sales tax on used goods


Personally, I dont think any of them are the perfect way, but obviously support Johnson's the most. The purpose of taxes is to collect revenue to pay for spending, not to play social games, be used as tools of power, or even help the govt steer the economy. The simplest system that is as most equal for all and minimizes the burden on liberty is the best one.
Click to expand...

That social game (first bolded above) requires some explanation. How and when. exactly, does one get that subsidy?
 
jonny5 said:
Ignore the spending issue for now. This is just a comparison of their philosophy on the purpose of taxation and how it should be collected. Also ignore whether any of them could accomplish any of them. Which one do you agree with and why?

Trump
-economic policy should be geared towards growth
-reduce the burden on the economy
-reduce brackets from 7 to 3
-exemption for child care
-lower corporate tax to 15%
-repeal estate tax

Clinton
-make sure wealthy, wall street and corporations pay more taxes
-surcharge on high wealth
-no deductions for high wealth
-no deductions for corporations profits outside country
-exit tax on companies leaving country
-tax deductions for businesses who employ people here at higher wages
-tax deductions for middle class healthcare expenses, childcare, college

Johnson
-purpose is to collect revenue
-taxation should minimize burden on business, savings, investment, be widely distributed
-replace all income tax with minimal sales tax
-100% subsidy to cover taxes paid on spending up to poverty level, for everyone
-no sales tax on used goods


Personally, I dont think any of them are the perfect way, but obviously support Johnson's the most. The purpose of taxes is to collect revenue to pay for spending, not to play social games, be used as tools of power, or even help the govt steer the economy. The simplest system that is as most equal for all and minimizes the burden on liberty is the best one.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that they are ALL pushing different social goals. Some favor the rich, some favor the poor. Who do you think needs more protection?
 
I can find aspects I agree with and disagree with with all of them.

I guess I most agree with Clinton because I do believe in progressive taxation. I believe those who have benefited disproportionately from living and working here should pay disproportionately. And I happen to be among those whose pocketbook would feel a bit lighter if Hillary gets her way.

I'm fine with taxing capital gains at a higher rate but am against property tax on a person's residence. I'm against an exit tax but am ok with tax deductions that employ people here at higher wages. If you pay your employees so little that a significant percentage of them need to go on government assistance your company shouldn't be getting any deductions.
 
jonny5 said:
Johnson
-replace all income tax with minimal sales tax
Click to expand...

That's misleading. He wants to impose a 28% consumption tax.

For someone like me, who already pays nearly 10% sales tax, that would cause prices for everything to skyrocket to obscene levels.

Want to buy a new car? Well, now you get to pay an extra $10,000 on that $35,000 car!

Honestly, Johnson's tax plan is the worst by far. It would destroy the economy.
 
jonny5 said:
Ignore the spending issue for now. This is just a comparison of their philosophy on the purpose of taxation and how it should be collected. Also ignore whether any of them could accomplish any of them. Which one do you agree with and why?

Trump
-economic policy should be geared towards growth
-reduce the burden on the economy
-reduce brackets from 7 to 3
-exemption for child care
-lower corporate tax to 15%
-repeal estate tax

Clinton
-make sure wealthy, wall street and corporations pay more taxes
-surcharge on high wealth
-no deductions for high wealth
-no deductions for corporations profits outside country
-exit tax on companies leaving country
-tax deductions for businesses who employ people here at higher wages
-tax deductions for middle class healthcare expenses, childcare, college

Johnson
-purpose is to collect revenue
-taxation should minimize burden on business, savings, investment, be widely distributed
-replace all income tax with minimal sales tax
-100% subsidy to cover taxes paid on spending up to poverty level, for everyone
-no sales tax on used goods


Personally, I dont think any of them are the perfect way, but obviously support Johnson's the most. The purpose of taxes is to collect revenue to pay for spending, not to play social games, be used as tools of power, or even help the govt steer the economy. The simplest system that is as most equal for all and minimizes the burden on liberty is the best one.
Click to expand...

None of those plans seems convincing. They do not target or tackle the major problems we have fiscally and indicate that we might even install more programs and bureaucracy.
 
Gaea said:
That's misleading. He wants to impose a 28% consumption tax.

For someone like me, who already pays nearly 10% sales tax, that would cause prices for everything to skyrocket to obscene levels.

Want to buy a new car? Well, now you get to pay an extra $10,000 on that $35,000 car!

Honestly, Johnson's tax plan is the worst by far. It would destroy the economy.
Click to expand...

Yep. Johnson's platform would be a complete disaster. His only appeal is in not being Trump or Clinton.
 
Gaea said:
That's misleading. He wants to impose a 28% consumption tax.

For someone like me, who already pays nearly 10% sales tax, that would cause prices for everything to skyrocket to obscene levels.

Want to buy a new car? Well, now you get to pay an extra $10,000 on that $35,000 car!

Honestly, Johnson's tax plan is the worst by far. It would destroy the economy.
Click to expand...

It would mean paying less income taxes. And it would improve savings relative to consumption and probably reduce merchandise trade deficits.
 
joG said:
It would mean paying less income taxes. And it would improve savings relative to consumption and probably reduce merchandise trade deficits.
Click to expand...

Half of Americans don't pay anything in income tax as it is. The only people who benefit off Johnson's taxation system are the people who are obscenely rich.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
What you don't seem to understand is that they are ALL pushing different social goals. Some favor the rich, some favor the poor. Who do you think needs more protection?
Click to expand...

That is certainly true. The first impact of the policy mixes as mentioned are very different on persons of different income and wealth. What second and later incidents would be is less trivial to tell. But they could easily be the opposite of what first glance gut feeling had one think.
 
joG said:
It would mean paying less income taxes. And it would improve savings relative to consumption and probably reduce merchandise trade deficits.
Click to expand...

Has a heavy tax on consumption ever worked? And why would you want to "improve" savings relative to consumption?
 
Gaea said:
Half of Americans don't pay anything in income tax as it is. The only people who benefit off Johnson's taxation system are the people who are obscenely rich.
Click to expand...

That doesn't fit the information I have seen concerning the numbers that pay income tax. But maybe you have some?
As to the immediate benificiaries of a switch to sales taxes ( why not VAT?) You are certainly right. But it would probably shift money away from consumption to savings giving the economy a push.
Whether this is the best time for such a switch is questionable and would certainly have been a good move in the early 1990s. Probably we should wait till we are not on monetary life support from the Fed.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Has a heavy tax on consumption ever worked? And why would you want to "improve" savings relative to consumption?
Click to expand...

It is always a tight walk between too high and too low taxes on consumption. As a probably reasonable rule of thumb, if your merchandise trade ballance is chronically deeply in surplus, you are possibly taxing your consumption too much.
 
joG said:
That doesn't fit the information I have seen concerning the numbers that pay income tax. But maybe you have some?
Click to expand...

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch

An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.)

Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
Click to expand...

joG said:
But it would probably shift money away from consumption to savings giving the economy a push.
Click to expand...

I agree that it would shift money away from consumption to savings. But that doesn't give the economy a push. It would trigger a deflation + a major recession.

The economy is dependent on consumption. Reducing consumption hurts business revenue, which results in cutting production, which results in fewer jobs, which results in higher unemployment.

I really don't see how increased savings helps the economy either.
 
joG said:
It is always a tight walk between too high and too low taxes on consumption. As a probably reasonable rule of thumb, if your merchandise trade ballance is chronically deeply in surplus, you are possibly taxing your consumption too much.
Click to expand...

You are going to have to explain your reasoning on that one.
 
Gaea said:
That's misleading. He wants to impose a 28% consumption tax.

For someone like me, who already pays nearly 10% sales tax, that would cause prices for everything to skyrocket to obscene levels.

Want to buy a new car? Well, now you get to pay an extra $10,000 on that $35,000 car!

Honestly, Johnson's tax plan is the worst by far. It would destroy the economy.
Click to expand...

Actually, the statutory rate would be 23% at current spending levels. And you already pay it. When you earn a dollar the govt takes 15%-25% directly, then when you spend your left overs you pay your 10% local plus the corporate and compliance taxes embedded in every good.
 
jonny5 said:
Actually, the statutory rate would be 23% at current spending levels. And you already pay it. When you earn a dollar the govt takes 15%-25% directly, then when you spend your left overs you pay your 10% local plus the corporate and compliance taxes embedded in every good.
Click to expand...

You've read 23%. I've read 28%. But even 28% is misleading - it's actually 39%.

Here's one article on the subject:
Gary Johnson's Unfair, Expensive National Sales Tax

But the tax rate is higher than it appears to be. Let’s say Johnson’s tax ideas prevailed, and a Kindle sold for $139 -- with $100 going to Amazon and $39 to the new federal sales tax. Advocates of a national sales tax would say that’s a 28 percent tax rate, because 39 is 28 percent of 139. That method makes for a clean comparison to the income-tax rates that the sales tax would replace. (Income tax rates are “tax inclusive,” too, if you stop and think about it.) But state sales tax rates aren’t calculated that way, and most people will get the wrong idea when they hear Johnson say he’s for a 28 percent tax, and when reporters repeat it.
Click to expand...

That 39% sales tax would cost me far more than I pay in FICA, income tax, etc. And I don't see any reason to assume corporations will cut costs by 35% just because they no longer have to pay corporate taxes.

His plan is disastrous - and it would end social security, medicare, and disability.
 
jonny5 said:
Everyone gets it, rich and poor.
Click to expand...

Maybe you know what that means but I do not. Let's say that the national sales tax is 10% and that the (individual?) poverty level is $20K. Does that mean that each US person (about 321 million folks) gets handed $2K as a "prebate"?

That alone puts the federal government in the hole for $642 billion off the bat. With total US retail sales at just over $400 billion/month (maybe $5 trillion annually?) which yeilds $500 billion with a 10% sales tax rate.

That means nobody but those spending more than $20K (per person poverty level) annually on "new goods" would pay any net federal (sales) tax at all.

Such a tax system would not generate near enough federal revenue even to pay.for the sales tax "prebates".
 
Last edited:
Gaea said:
You've read 23%. I've read 28%. But even 28% is misleading - it's actually 39%.

Here's one article on the subject:
Gary Johnson's Unfair, Expensive National Sales Tax



That 39% sales tax would cost me far more than I pay in FICA, income tax, etc. And I don't see any reason to assume corporations will cut costs by 35% just because they no longer have to pay corporate taxes.

His plan is disastrous - and it would end social security, medicare, and disability.
Click to expand...

No, its literally 23% if you read the bill thats submitted. But even if its 39%, so what? Thats the cost of all that social spending you like. Obvisouly if Johnson has his way he would significantly cut spending, which would keep the rate as low as possible.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Maybe you know what that means but I do not. Let's say that the national sales tax is 10% and that the (individual?) poverty level is $20K. Does that mean that each US person (about 321 million folks) gets handed $2K as a "prebate"?

That alone puts the federal government in the hole for $642 billion off the bat. With total US retail sales at just over $400 billion/month (maybe $5 trillion annually?) which yeilds $500 billion with a 10% sales tax rate.

That means nobody but those spending more than $20K (per person poverty level) annually on "new goods" would pay any net federal (sales) tax at all.

Such a tax system would not generate near enough federal revenue even to pay.for the sales tax "prebates".
Click to expand...

As the bill is written, every citizen would get a check every month for about $200. I dont want this to become yet another FairTax thread though, so the rest of the math you can see here.

https://fairtax-structure-psyclone..../0000/56c4af2369702d7c197c0000.pdf?1455730467
 
BrewerBob said:
I can find aspects I agree with and disagree with with all of them.

I guess I most agree with Clinton because I do believe in progressive taxation. I believe those who have benefited disproportionately from living and working here should pay disproportionately. And I happen to be among those whose pocketbook would feel a bit lighter if Hillary gets her way.

I'm fine with taxing capital gains at a higher rate but am against property tax on a person's residence. I'm against an exit tax but am ok with tax deductions that employ people here at higher wages. If you pay your employees so little that a significant percentage of them need to go on government assistance your company shouldn't be getting any deductions.
Click to expand...

The issue really is simple: the more the government takes, the less money is available for spending in the private sector. The private sector is the original source for all tax income. As money is redirected to the government furnace, less is spent doing profitable work, and profits are what are ultimately taxed.
 
Gaea said:
You've read 23%. I've read 28%. But even 28% is misleading - it's actually 39%.

Here's one article on the subject:
Gary Johnson's Unfair, Expensive National Sales Tax



That 39% sales tax would cost me far more than I pay in FICA, income tax, etc. And I don't see any reason to assume corporations will cut costs by 35% just because they no longer have to pay corporate taxes.

His plan is disastrous - and it would end social security, medicare, and disability.
Click to expand...

Not only that but it is never explained how service "consumption" (labor?) would be taxed. The taxation of services makes the "fair tax" serve as an income tax (yet simply being called "consumption" tax). For example if you pay me $100 (for labor that you "consumed") to fix your fence, maintain your lawn or paint your house - who collects (and pays the federal government) that $23 (or whatever) in tax? Since I have no duty to report my income (IRS no longer exists) and you might "forget" to keep labor "consumption" records for your personal living expenses then who plays "fair tax" collector for service labor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom