Trumpo Top Bracket -33%- starts at $112,500

joG · Feb 11, 2017

Crovax said:
What theory have you been reading?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-spending/index.html?client=ms-android-att-us

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...o-the-economy-2016-2?client=ms-android-att-us

https://mises.org/library/saving-bad-economy

Rising savings rate could cause problem for economy - Feb. 12, 2009

https://research.stlouisfed.org/pub...-is-saving-good-or-bad-the-paradox-of-thrift/

Theory indicates that a general vat does least damage to an economy. If you don't want to reduce consumption, restrict government spending to public goods.
Consumption in one period reduces investment cp reducing availability of goods in later periods. That's the principle.

mbig · Feb 11, 2017

jmotivator said:
As an example, take a single parent (3 kids) making $56k
Current plan: Effective taxable income: $33.8k, Taxes: $4603
Trump Plan: Effective taxable income: $29.2k, Taxes: $3500
Taxes Reduced by 24%
Another example: Single parent (3 kids) making $30k
Current plan: Effective Taxable Income: $7.5k , Taxes: $750
Trump Plan: Effective Taxable Income: $2.9k, Taxes: $342
Taxes Reduced by 55%
Another Example: Single Parent (3 kids) making $200k
Current plan: Effective Taxable Income: $177.5, Taxes: $42.7k
Trump Plan: Effective Taxable Income: $172.9k, Taxes: $33.5k
Taxes reduced by 22%
I'm not seeing where single parents will be struggling under this plan.

jmotoivator said:
Another Example: Married couple (3 kids) making $56k:
Current Plan: Taxable income: $ 23.2k, Taxes: $2,547
Trump Plan: Taxable income: $9.8k, Taxes: $1,176
Taxes Reduced by 54%
And so on...

So If I average your 4 scenarios, that's an Average loss of 39% to the Federal Treasury....
Not Including/Conspicuously MIA, How much Taxes drop on those making 250K to 250M...
Cutting Corporate rate from 35% to 15%....
and dropping the Estate tax altogether.
IOW, app/at least/More than Halving Tax Revenues.

Yeah that works!

Winchester · Feb 11, 2017

Perotista said:
Like I just told another poster, it worked and satisfied the IRS. He had the tickets to prove it. That was several years ago and as far as I know, if it was illegal, it worked.

Did he get audited or was it just like the vast majority of returns with illegal deductions that never get looked at?

Perotista · Feb 11, 2017

Winchester said:
Did he get audited or was it just like the vast majority of returns with illegal deductions that never get looked at?

As far as I know, no audit.

jmotivator · Feb 11, 2017

mbig said:
So If I average your 4 scenarios, that's an Average loss of 39% to the Federal Treasury....
Not Including/Conspicuously MIA, How much Taxes drop on those making 250K to 250M...
Cutting Corporate rate from 35% to 15%....
and dropping the Estate tax altogether.
IOW, app/at least/More than Halving Tax Revenues.

Yeah that works!

Nice static reasoning there, chief!

First off, the majority of tax revenue doesn't come from the $56k and under income bracket. They pay about 11% of all income taxes collected. So the effective reduction in total revenue would be 4%, not 40%... and that is assuming a static economic model (hint: the economy isn't static)

Second, people in the $56k and under tax brackets will not be stuffing the money in mattresses, but will instead be spending it, putting in back into the market where it will be reinvested in producing goods and services that people want to (and can now) buy, and that money will then be taxed again.

mbig · Feb 11, 2017

jmotivator said:
Nice static reasoning there, chief!
First off, the majority of tax revenue doesn't come from the $56k and under income bracket. They pay about 11% of all income taxes collected. So the effective reduction in total revenue would be 4%, not 40%... and that is assuming a static economic model (hint: the economy isn't static)
Second, people in the $56k and under tax brackets will not be stuffing the money in mattresses, but will instead be spending it, putting in back into the market where it will be reinvested in producing goods and services that people want to (and can now) buy, and that money will then be taxed again.

"Static Reasoning"?
YOU gave four examples:
and I said "that Doesn't include the 250k to 250M crowd" who would be the biggest beneficiaries of this Cut.
and I said "that doesn't include Eliminating the Estate Tax"". (a 100% Tax Cut)
and I said "that doesn't include lowering the Corporate rate from 35% to 15%.

So, feeling your mere Four examples were TOO "static" I rounded it with a bigger picture
Which would take the treasury cut down even more than your examples. (like by "Half")
LOL.. Whose analysis was "static"?

Lastly, thanks for your Phenomenal and Unwitting statement supporting my simplification, of Not only More Progressive Taxes, but possibly No Income Tax on those under 30K (or 50K)

Jmotivator: ""..Second, people in the $56k and under tax brackets will Not be stuffing the money in mattresses, but will instead be Spending it, putting in Back into the Market where it will be reinvested in producing goods and services..."

EXACTLY!
People over, ie, 5 Million WILL be saving/"stuffing their money" in .1% T-bills/mattresses, so let's get it In circulation by taxing that income more steeply before it's buried, and the under (or just over) 56K even Less.
YO! you're in Bernie country!

<alt>doxygen · Feb 11, 2017

Visbek said:
...even if it's a good idea, it is deeply antithetical to the American ethos. I may be wrong, but I don't think it would last long.

That's the rub. Same goes for means testing social security. Although people in this country are already so confused that a lot of them think SS IS socialism.

justabubba · Feb 11, 2017

Winston said:
Trump is going to cut taxes and create more income/wealth disparity. Tax cuts have a direct correlation with income/wealth disparity. The lower the taxes the higher the income/wealth gap. Trump's tax cuts are going to decimate federal revenue. Then conservatives are going to use the deficit that bad tax policy created, as an excuse to cut spending. and "reform" medicare and social security. This is the double-speak world we live in. They will tell you they're going to "save" social security and medicare. Whenever you hear the Paul Ryan's of the world say they're "saving SSC" what they mean is we are going to cut benefits and funnel the money to the 1%. Because how dare you as Americans think that you can have a comfortable retirement and decent healthcare.. are you some kind of idealistic dreamer??? That money goes to our rich friends who get to make more and more money while you can't afford your prescription drugs. Silly tax payers.. They thought that we worked for them, oh god that's a riot.

exactly
this is a reprise of the republican 'starve the beast' policy that was begun during reagan's administration
under-fund the treasury via tax breaks for the rich and then slash the social safety net because we no longer can afford it

Fearandloathing · Feb 11, 2017

justabubba said:
exactly
this is a reprise of the republican 'starve the beast' policy that was begun during reagan's administration
under-fund the treasury via tax breaks for the rich and then slash the social safety net because we no longer can afford it

Remember The Who? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....."

Quadraphenia prophecy

justabubba · Feb 11, 2017

DA60 said:
I agree with the theory, but not the fact.

I do not think people making under the poverty line should be paying any income tax. And certainly not the same as billionaires.

I could live with everyone above, say, $30,000 paying the same tax rate.

What about capital gains and corporate tax and deductions?

I am for ending all corporate tax, ALL deductions except capital losses (something you rightly corrected me on months ago) and charitable contributions should end AND capital gains should be taxed exactly the same as income tax.

Almost everyone could do their taxes in five minutes and few get favoritism.

PLUS - income tax rates mean nothing to billionaires as they make almost all their money from capital gains.

i missed it
what is the rationale for allowing deductions for capital losses

jmotivator · Feb 11, 2017

mbig said:
"Static Reasoning"?
YOU gave four examples:
and I said "that Doesn't include the 250k to 250M crowd" who would be the biggest beneficiaries of this Cut.
and I said "that doesn't include Eliminating the Estate Tax"". (a 100% Tax Cut)
and I said "that doesn't include lowering the Corporate rate from 35% to 15%.

So, feeling your mere Four examples were TOO "static" I rounded it with a bigger picture
Which would take the treasury cut down even more than your examples. (like by "Half")
LOL.. Whose analysis was "static"?

Lastly, thanks for your Phenomenal and Unwitting statement supporting my simplification, of Not only More Progressive Taxes, but possibly No Income Tax on those under 30K (or 50K)

Because the economy is not static in size, your claim of the impact of tax cuts on gross tax revenue derived from that economy is not logical.

Jmotivator: ""..Second, people in the $56k and under tax brackets will Not be stuffing the money in mattresses, but will instead be Spending it, putting in Back into the Market where it will be reinvested in producing goods and services..."

EXACTLY!
People over, ie, 5 Million WILL be saving/"stuffing their money" in .1% T-bills/mattresses, so let's get it In circulation by taxing that income more steeply before it's buried, and the under (or just over) 56K even Less.
YO! you're in Bernie country!

People making over $5 million WILL NOT be stuffing money in a mattress. What exactly do you think T-bills are? Do you think rich people buy T-Bills in a growing economy? Why would they do that?

mbig · Feb 11, 2017

jmotivator said:
Because the economy is not static in size, your claim of the impact of tax cuts on gross tax revenue derived from that economy is not logical.

Nothing was more "static" than YOUR 2 post 'analysis', and nothing more wide than mine.
And whether the economy grows at 2% or near 4% that does NOT affect revenues enough to justify a all-around 50% Revenue fall off.

jmotivator said:
People making over $5 million WILL NOT be stuffing money in a mattress. What exactly do you think T-bills are? Do you think rich people buy T-Bills in a growing economy? Why would they do that?

I am a Financial Advisor: LOL
I know what I do with my money and the even wealthier I manage.

"you can call me ray and you can call me jay.."
But no matter how you slice it, taking/Taxing an incremental 10 million (of 100 million), instead of taking 10,000 Each from 1000 people making 50,000 is much Better for the economy.
Those 50Kers, as you UNWITTINGLY admitted (thanks for the possible future sig) WILL spend that 10,000 each, and stimulate the economy...
instead of buying, T-Bills, Munis, or the S&P stocks. S&P stocks, that is, who have so little to invest in because of not enough money in consumers hands, (the bottom half), that they buy back their own stocks. Thus, wealth disparity/the rich paying the rich.
The economy (and inflation) is slow because there is not enough money in the bottom half's hands to justify that new factory.
Welcome to Econ.

jmotivator · Feb 12, 2017

mbig said:
Nothing was more "static" than YOUR 2 post 'analysis', and nothing more wide than mine.
And whether the economy grows at 2% or near 4% that does NOT affect revenues enough to justify a all-around 50% Revenue fall off.

I am a Financial Advisor: LOL
I know what I do with my money and the even wealthier I manage.

"you can call me ray and you can call me jay.."
But no matter how you slice it, taking/Taxing an incremental 10 million (of 100 million), instead of taking 10,000 Each from 1000 people making 50,000 is much Better for the economy.
Those 50Kers, as you UNWITTINGLY admitted (thanks for the possible future sig) WILL spend that 10,000 each, and stimulate the economy...
instead of buying, T-Bills, Munis, or the S&P stocks. S&P stocks, that is, who have so little to invest in because of not enough money in consumers hands, (the bottom half), that they buy back their own stocks. Thus, wealth disparity/the rich paying the rich.
The economy (and inflation) is slow because there is not enough money in the bottom half's hands to justify that new factory.
Welcome to Econ.

I don't have time right now to dismantle you foolishness but let it suffice to show that you equate stocks and t-bills and other investments to be equivalent to stuffing money in a mattress. Your econ ignorance is breathtaking.

mbig · Feb 12, 2017

jmotivator said:
I don't have time right now to dismantle you foolishness but let it suffice to show that you equate stocks and t-bills and other investments to be equivalent to stuffing money in a mattress. Your econ ignorance is breathtaking.

Suffice it to say you WHIFFED with a BS excuse.
Suffice it to say you're mischaracterizing my post, and even then, only 'responding' to a small portion of it, Not the gist.
Suffice to say you don't have the knowledge to do as you claim.
Suffice it to say I am a Life Time financial professional, not just a One party drone. (ie, I basically support Trump's trade and immigration ideas)

jmotivator · Feb 12, 2017

mbig said:
Suffice it to say you WHIFFED with a BS excuse.
Suffice it to say you're mischaracterizing my post, and even then, only 'responding' to a small portion of it, Not the gist.
Suffice to say you don't have the knowledge to do as you claim.
Suffice it to say I am a Life Time financial professional, not just a One party drone. (ie, I basically support Trump's trade and immigration ideas)

No, suffice it to say you haven't the first clue how an economy works, how taxes work, or how investments work. All money tat we the people are allowed to keep are invested back into the economy either by lending capital to companies through investment or through the purchase of goods and services. Nobody stick their money in a mattress, the money never leaves the economy.

I am sure your vision of rich people being some form of Scrooge McDuck swimming in a sea of coins served you well in your youth, but it is time for you to grow up and learn how things really work.

Yes, when I get a tax break I can indeed calculate how much more money I will have in my bank account versus the previous tax regime. That is a static function. The economy and tax revenue, however, is not as it is determined by billions of transactions conducted by hundreds of millions of people who make decisions based on their own needs and desires on a day to day basis. The only thing that we know is that if people control more of their own money then they invest it and spend it in ways that suit them and those who cater to their needs also benefit and they themselves use their money earned on what they feel is best for them.

mbig · Feb 12, 2017

jmotivator said:
No, suffice it to say you haven't the first clue how an economy works, how taxes work, or how investments work. All money tat we the people are allowed to keep are invested back into the economy either by lending capital to companies through investment or through the purchase of goods and services. Nobody stick their money in a mattress, the money never leaves the economy.
I am sure your vision of rich people being some form of Scrooge McDuck swimming in a sea of coins served you well in your youth, but it is time for you to grow up and learn how things really work.
Yes, when I get a tax break I can indeed calculate how much more money I will have in my bank account versus the previous tax regime. That is a static function. The economy and tax revenue, however, is not as it is determined by billions of transactions conducted by hundreds of millions of people who make decisions based on their own needs and desires on a day to day basis. The only thing that we know is that if people control more of their own money then they invest it and spend it in ways that suit them and those who cater to their needs also benefit and they themselves use their money earned on what they feel is best for them.

I Invest quite successfully for myself and others. You post Conservative politics board-wide.
YOU have no clue.
Which is why there will NEVER be an answer to the simple fact that's it much more economically stimulative to put more money in the hands of the bottom half, or 56K Middle.
Something you Unwittingly acknowledged a few pages ago.
Which is why BOTH parties have agreed in the past to send out stimulus checks (ie 600/1200) which the Bottom SPENDS and the top couldn't even find.
Really just Another example of my last you WHIFFED on:

mbig.. again said:
"you can call me ray and you can call me jay.."

But no matter how you slice it, taking/Taxing an incremental 10 million (of 100 million), instead of taking 10,000 Each from 1000 people making 50,000 is much Better for the economy.

Those 50Kers, as you UNWITTINGLY admitted (thanks for the possible future sig) WILL spend that 10,000 each, and stimulate the economy...
instead of buying, T-Bills, Munis, or the S&P stocks. S&P stocks, that is, who have so little to invest in because of not enough money in consumers hands, (the bottom half), that they buy back their own stocks. Thus, wealth disparity/the rich paying the rich.
The economy (and inflation) is slow because there is not enough money in the bottom half's hands to justify that new factory.
Welcome to Econ.

You were/are still Unable to discuss what was posted, just try ridiculous put downs.

And for the record, you have 14,000 posts with 252 in Govt Spending/debt (more political), and 16 in 'Economics.'
I have just Under 10,000 posts with 501 in Economics and 162 in Govt Spending Debt.
And it's the same with 'Science', where my posts are more heavily weighted in the 'Science' section, than the Political "Env/Climate" section.
I have also posted extensively/inordinately in other sections on Econ, Taxes, and debt, including the European and Japanese economies.
Your party is Conservative, my party is MATH/STEM.

the_recruit · Feb 12, 2017

jmotivator said:
I don't have time right now to dismantle you foolishness but let it suffice to show that you equate stocks and t-bills and other investments to be equivalent to stuffing money in a mattress. Your econ ignorance is breathtaking.

"Investing" in stocks (outside of IPOs and newly issued shares) isn't investment in the economic sense; it's a type of savings. It's a shame that personal finance and macroeconomics happen to use the same word to mean different things which leads to your (and many others') mistaken impression that investment in stocks is far different than savings for the purposes of macroeconomics; it's not.

When you buy stock in Apple all that happens is the seller's position is liquidated. Ownership of the stock changes hands. This doesn't benefit Apple, Apple doesn't get a dime from this exchange with which to fund new capital such as, say, a new factory or R&D (ie, actual investment).

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Macroeconomics/Savings_and_Investment

In national accounting terms, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other items whose value is risky, are NOT investments. They fall into the savings account, not the investment account.

cpwill · Feb 12, 2017

MaggieD said:
I could support that with a reasonable and large deduction. Like, maybe, I don't know, $75,000...

Just a WAG, I'd have to think about it.

I like it, but I think we would need to make it adaptable.

200% of the Federal Poverty Line strikes me as correct, with a flat rate of 25% on all monies earned over that.

Dittohead not! · Feb 12, 2017

cpwill said:
I like it, but I think we would need to make it adaptable.

200% of the Federal Poverty Line strikes me as correct, with a flat rate of 25% on all monies earned over that.

Since the federal government spends about 21% of the GDP, I tend to doubt that such a plan would raise enough money without some major cutbacks in spending.

cpwill · Feb 12, 2017

Dittohead not! said:
Since the federal government spends about 21% of the GDP, I tend to doubt that such a plan would raise enough money without some major cutbacks in spending.

you consolidate all non-medicare/medicaid/OASI federal social welfare spending into a single negative income tax of -50% of monies not earned below 200% of FPL.

Also, you might be surprised how much we make by flattening the tax code and stripping out the major deductions.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Cassandra · Feb 12, 2017

mbig said:
I Invest quite successfully for myself and others. You post Conservative politics board-wide.
YOU have no clue.
Which is why there will NEVER be an answer to the simple fact that's it much more economically stimulative to put more money in the hands of the bottom half, or 56K Middle.
Something you Unwittingly acknowledged a few pages ago.
Which is why BOTH parties have agreed in the past to send out stimulus checks (ie 600/1200) which the Bottom SPENDS and the top couldn't even find.
Really just Another example of my last you WHIFFED on:
You were/are still Unable to discuss what was posted, just try ridiculous put downs.

And for the record, you have 14,000 posts with 252 in Govt Spending/debt (more political), and 16 in 'Economics.'
I have just Under 10,000 posts with 501 in Economics and 162 in Govt Spending Debt.
And it's the same with 'Science', where my posts are more heavily weighted in the 'Science' section, than the Political "Env/Climate" section.
I have also posted extensively/inordinately in other sections on Econ, Taxes, and debt, including the European and Japanese economies.
Your party is Conservative, my party is MATH/STEM.

Hey, I never took Econ 101 but this stuff seems self-evident to me. The middle class keeps the economy moving. The U.S. has always been the consumer to the world. If the 1% has an ever greater share of the wealth, who is going to do the consuming? Perhaps the Chinese will fill the void when/if U.S. purchasing power slows but that leads to even more wealth disparity as the 1% continue to be able to move their money, their homes and their investments, elsewhere.

After 2008, I don't know how anyone can think that it is a good idea to give billionaires another tax break (with the inevitable increase in the deficit).

mbig · Feb 12, 2017

Cassandra said:
Hey, I never took Econ 101 but this stuff seems self-evident to me. The middle class keeps the economy moving. The U.S. has always been the consumer to the world. If the 1% has an ever greater share of the wealth, who is going to do the consuming? Perhaps the Chinese will fill the void when/if U.S. purchasing power slows but that leads to even more wealth disparity as the 1% continue to be able to move their money, their homes and their investments, elsewhere.

After 2008, I don't know how anyone can think that it is a good idea to give billionaires another tax break (with the inevitable increase in the deficit).

It's unfortunate, but against partisan posters, especially in the age of Trumpov, one is oft faced with preposterous claims.
So yes, of course, 'Velocity' of money has slowed to a crawl because of disparity.
Disparity exists because of Globalization. Capital can and does pursue the lowest cost/biggest profit....
And Taxation, see below

So..... there is no 'Market' way to get get rid of the growing disparity!
Our workers have to compete with the lowest wages on the planet.
Both sides now agree NAFTA wasn't good for our blue collars, and even some white collar jobs.

Ergo, the only way is 'After-Market' remediation with More Progressive taxes.
INSTEAD... Taxes have gotten less progressive.
WAY below historical rates, (see first few posts/OP too)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/90108-truth-can-afford-pay-taxes.html#post1059220592

further aggravating the problem.
Plutocracy Reborn - Business Insider

Winston · Feb 12, 2017

Cassandra said:
Hey, I never took Econ 101 but this stuff seems self-evident to me. The middle class keeps the economy moving. The U.S. has always been the consumer to the world. If the 1% has an ever greater share of the wealth, who is going to do the consuming? Perhaps the Chinese will fill the void when/if U.S. purchasing power slows but that leads to even more wealth disparity as the 1% continue to be able to move their money, their homes and their investments, elsewhere.

After 2008, I don't know how anyone can think that it is a good idea to give billionaires another tax break (with the inevitable increase in the deficit).

Hi Cassandra! Great astute observation. Right now the middle class job market almost requires a BA/MBA to participate. Middle class blue collar jobs are vanishing and getting replaced with crappy retail/fast food ones. So, what happens when you push too many people into the poor class. At what point does the 1% extract too much money out of our economy? So, that people aren't buying the goods the Chinese are making? That's the million dollar question. I think before the jig is up the banks will encourage people to go into massive debt and oppress our shrinking middle class that way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dittohead not! · Feb 12, 2017

cpwill said:
you consolidate all non-medicare/medicaid/OASI federal social welfare spending into a single negative income tax of -50% of monies not earned below 200% of FPL.

Also, you might be surprised how much we make by flattening the tax code and stripping out the major deductions.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

That may be. We had a thread a while back claiming that income qualified welfare spending was around a trillion a year. I didn't want to believe it, but checked it out and it was pretty accurate.

So, how much do you think the negative income tax would cost?

jmotivator · Feb 13, 2017

the_recruit said:
"Investing" in stocks (outside of IPOs and newly issued shares) isn't investment in the economic sense; it's a type of savings. It's a shame that personal finance and macroeconomics happen to use the same word to mean different things which leads to your (and many others') mistaken impression that investment in stocks is far different than savings for the purposes of macroeconomics; it's not.

When you buy stock in Apple all that happens is the seller's position is liquidated. Ownership of the stock changes hands. This doesn't benefit Apple, Apple doesn't get a dime from this exchange with which to fund new capital such as, say, a new factory or R&D (ie, actual investment).

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Macroeconomics/Savings_and_Investment

That's true, but you are arguing against something I never said. Investing in the stock market is not the equivalent of taking the money out of circulation as mbig suggests with his "stuffing it in a mattress" analogy.

Trumpo Top Bracket -33%- starts at $112,500

onomatopoeic

Computer Gaming Nerd

onomatopoeic

"I want MY WALL!"

long standing member

How long is now?

long standing member

Computer Gaming Nerd

onomatopoeic

Computer Gaming Nerd

onomatopoeic

Computer Gaming Nerd

onomatopoeic

master political analyst

onomatopoeic

Give me convenience or give me death

master political analyst

Computer Gaming Nerd