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

[mbig]

Yes Billionaires, and those who can can barely afford an apartment in Manhattan, are proposed in the Same bracket, and with less deductions.
I don't think those making 112K should be taxed at the same rate as those making 250K, 500K, 1M, 10M, 100M.
Congress has similar but slightly different numbers Thresholds.
Billionaires and big donors, Of Course, ALL get a tax cut. It's a mixed bag for everyone else.
112.5ers need that money to live, especially in our Big Cities. Taking a Third of it hurts.


How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes
moneytips.com, KSDK - Feb 08, 2017
How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes | WFMYNEWS2.com

"...Trump would simplify tax rates from the current seven brackets to three brackets: 12%, 25%, and 33%. The threshold values would be $75,000 (25%) and $112,500 (33%) for single taxpayers, and twice that for married filing jointly (MFJ).

Winners and losers are spread throughout the bracket because of the difference in Trump's threshold values and current law. The higher 33% bracket would apply to more people, increasing taxes for singles making between $112,500 and $191,650 but providing a significant break for those making above $416,700. Trump also intends to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that limits tax benefits for higher earners.

At the other end of the scale, singles making $9,325 or less will see their bracket increase, while those earning between $9,325 and $75,000 will see a tax cut — especially those between $37,950 and $75,000 who will see their rate drop from 25% to 12%."..

 

[11Bravo]

Yes Billionaires, and those who can can barely afford an apartment in Manhattan, are proposed in the Same bracket, and with less deductions.
I don't think those making 112K should be taxed at the same rate as those making 250K, 500K, 1M, 10M, 100M.
Congress has similar but slightly different numbers Thresholds.
Billionaires and big donors, Of Course, ALL get a tax cut. It's a mixed bag for everyone else.
112.5ers need that money to live, especially in our Big Cities. Taking a Third of it hurts.


How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes
moneytips.com, KSDK - Feb 08, 2017
How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes | WFMYNEWS2.com

rich ppl should continue to pay less tax so they can keep gettin rich. this is america they should be free to get rich

 

[Crovax]

Yes Billionaires, and those who can can barely afford an apartment in Manhattan, are proposed in the Same bracket, and with less deductions.
I don't think those making 112K should be taxed at the same rate as those making 250K, 500K, 1M, 10M, 100M.
Congress has similar but slightly different numbers Thresholds.
Billionaires and big donors, Of Course, ALL get a tax cut. It's a mixed bag for everyone else.
112.5ers need that money to live, especially in our Big Cities. Taking a Third of it hurts.


How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes
moneytips.com, KSDK - Feb 08, 2017
How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes | WFMYNEWS2.com

Looks like my taxes would go up. Hopefully this has no chance of passing.

 

[TurtleDude]

everyone should pay the same rate-this prevents politicians from pandering to the many by promising tax hikes only on a few

 

[Winston]

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.

 

[natsb]

everyone should pay the same rate-this prevents politicians from pandering to the many by promising tax hikes only on a few

It would also stop the usual suspects from calling for higher taxes. People tend to be a bit more frugal when spending their own money.

 

[MaggieD]

everyone should pay the same rate-this prevents politicians from pandering to the many by promising tax hikes only on a few

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.

 

[mbig]

everyone should pay the same rate-this prevents politicians from pandering to the many by promising tax hikes only on a few

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.

Well that's the thing.
You can't take 25 or 30% (6-7000) from a Walmarter who makes 25K. That's Blood money.
There goes his car, his Rent, prescriptions, Walmart shoppers.... and the economy.

EDIT: ergo any Flat tax needs at least a 30K deduction/threshold before it kicks in.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Well that's the thing.
You can't take 25 or 30% (6-7000) from a Walmarter who makes 25K. That's Blood money.
There goes his car, his Rent, prescriptions, Walmart shoppers.... and the economy.

People that were born into money don't understand that though. It is a foreign concept to them.

 

[joG]

Yes Billionaires, and those who can can barely afford an apartment in Manhattan, are proposed in the Same bracket, and with less deductions.
I don't think those making 112K should be taxed at the same rate as those making 250K, 500K, 1M, 10M, 100M.
Congress has similar but slightly different numbers Thresholds.
Billionaires and big donors, Of Course, ALL get a tax cut. It's a mixed bag for everyone else.
112.5ers need that money to live, especially in our Big Cities. Taking a Third of it hurts.


How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes
moneytips.com, KSDK - Feb 08, 2017
How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes | WFMYNEWS2.com

Taxes on income should be eliminated and replaced by a value added tax. That increases savings and reduces consumption aggregates. Replace social spending with a minimum income for citizens and foreigners with work documents.

 

[mbig]

People that were born into money don't understand that though. It is a foreign concept to them.

"Tax simplification" seems to always be Top Down.
Because of who supports the 'simplifiers'/Riches tax cutters.

The best simplification would be NO Income taxes below 30-40K.
They are not worth the IRS' time, and the bottom 47% pay no [income] taxes anyway.
In fact, that works out to an average of something like 50K income which pay basically No income taxes now.
Lets just Drop everything under 50K (pikers who aren't worth the IRS employees time), and have two brackets 50-250 at 25%, and 250K up at 40-50% or so.
We could actually cut 20% of the IRS employees that way too.

 

[TurtleDude]

People that were born into money don't understand that though. It is a foreign concept to them.

You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact. And I get tired of people saying that just tax the rich more which is why we get more and more government-because the people who demand more and more government don't have to pay any more for more and more government

 

[TurtleDude]

"Tax simplification" seems to always be Top Down.
Because of who supports the 'simplifiers'/Riches tax cutters.

The best simplification would be NO Income taxes below 30-40K.
They are not worth the IRS' time, and the bottom 47% pay no [income] taxes anyway.
In fact, that works out to an average of something like 50K income which pay basically No income taxes now.
Lets just Drop everything under 50K (pikers who aren't worth the IRS employees time), and have two brackets 50-250 at 25%, and 250K up at 40-50% or so.
We could actually cut 20% of the IRS employees that way too.

why should those paying the most actual tax dollars pay the highest percentages

 

[mbig]

why should those paying the most actual tax dollars pay the highest percentages

Because you can't get blood from a stone.
Below at least the poverty line, more probably 30K, they got nothing to give without making them homeless and unable to support themselves or the economy/stock portfolios of the upper middle and wealthy.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because you can't get blood from a stone.
Below at least the poverty line, more probably 30K, they got nothing to give without making them homeless and unable to support themselves or the economy/portfolio of the wealthy.

Plenty of those poor people could actually pay some taxes.

 

[reinoe]

Yes Billionaires, and those who can can barely afford an apartment in Manhattan, are proposed in the Same bracket, and with less deductions.
I don't think those making 112K should be taxed at the same rate as those making 250K, 500K, 1M, 10M, 100M.
Congress has similar but slightly different numbers Thresholds.
Billionaires and big donors, Of Course, ALL get a tax cut. It's a mixed bag for everyone else.
112.5ers need that money to live, especially in our Big Cities. Taking a Third of it hurts.


How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes
moneytips.com, KSDK - Feb 08, 2017
How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes | WFMYNEWS2.com

If you want to cross the top 10% mark, you’ll still need a six-figure income but the numbers aren’t quite as high. The IRS sets the adjusted gross income cutoff required to be in the 10% group at $133,445, based on 2014 tax data. Once again, the average household income for the top 10% of earners is higher, at $295,845.

What's the problem?

 

[mbig]

Plenty of those poor people could actually pay some taxes.

"plenty" is debatable and anecdotal.
The overall effect would be terrible for our economy, and again, even the stocks in your portfolio.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact. And I get tired of people saying that just tax the rich more which is why we get more and more government-because the people who demand more and more government don't have to pay any more for more and more government

You are now making assumptions not based in fact. I don't think we should just be taxing the rich more and more, but I don't have a problem with the concept of progressive income taxation either. For example, I do not have a problem personally paying a much higher tax rate than a single mother working 2 jobs does.

 

[Visbek]

Taxes on income should be eliminated and replaced by a value added tax. That increases savings and reduces consumption aggregates. Replace social spending with a minimum income for citizens and foreigners with work documents.

Pass

1) VAT is regressive, just like a sales tax. I.e. You're proposing a HUGE tax cut for the wealthy, especially those who can travel elsewhere and avoid the tax on big ticket items.

2) We actually don't want to reduce consumption. That will kill growth.

2a) Increasing costs of goods won't necessarily increase savings rates. Poor people don't have enough income to save; even if they took home an additional $10k per household per year, they won't be able to save. This will likely screw any household that makes less than $150k per year.

3) Minimum income might work -- or it might not. We have to test it first. One issue is that even if it does work, the second some obnoxious 24 year old surfer dude spends his minimum income on lobster and killer bud, there will be an outcry. People will start piling all sorts of constraints on the program, which won't work because there is just too much behavior people want to restrict, and we're back to all those in-kind programs like we have now.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes Billionaires, and those who can can barely afford an apartment in Manhattan, are proposed in the Same bracket, and with less deductions.
I don't think those making 112K should be taxed at the same rate as those making 250K, 500K, 1M, 10M, 100M.
Congress has similar but slightly different numbers Thresholds.
Billionaires and big donors, Of Course, ALL get a tax cut. It's a mixed bag for everyone else.
112.5ers need that money to live, especially in our Big Cities. Taking a Third of it hurts.


How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes
moneytips.com, KSDK - Feb 08, 2017
How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes | WFMYNEWS2.com

Anyone who believes that Trump will cut their taxes probably is ready to believe he can cut taxes, increase spending on the military, build a wall, and still reduce the national debt.

 

[Lutherf]

Yes Billionaires, and those who can can barely afford an apartment in Manhattan, are proposed in the Same bracket, and with less deductions.
I don't think those making 112K should be taxed at the same rate as those making 250K, 500K, 1M, 10M, 100M.
Congress has similar but slightly different numbers Thresholds.
Billionaires and big donors, Of Course, ALL get a tax cut. It's a mixed bag for everyone else.
112.5ers need that money to live, especially in our Big Cities. Taking a Third of it hurts.


How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes
moneytips.com, KSDK - Feb 08, 2017
How President Trump's Plans Will Affect Individual Income Taxes | WFMYNEWS2.com

That's a lot of squawking over very little. Right now the 33% bracket kicks in at $190k for single taxpayers so Trump's change isn't much of a change ESPECIALLY since the 28% bracket disappears.

 

[joG]

Pass

1) VAT is regressive, just like a sales tax. I.e. You're proposing a HUGE tax cut for the wealthy, especially those who can travel elsewhere and avoid the tax on big ticket items.

2) We actually don't want to reduce consumption. That will kill growth.

2a) Increasing costs of goods won't necessarily increase savings rates. Poor people don't have enough income to save; even if they took home an additional $10k per household per year, they won't be able to save. This will likely screw any household that makes less than $150k per year.

3) Minimum income might work -- or it might not. We have to test it first. One issue is that even if it does work, the second some obnoxious 24 year old surfer dude spends his minimum income on lobster and killer bud, there will be an outcry. People will start piling all sorts of constraints on the program, which won't work because there is just too much behavior people want to restrict, and we're back to all those in-kind programs like we have now.

I see you think envy makes good fiscal policy

But consider that the welfare effect is generally less for VAT than for most other taxes. Of course there are some taxes that to a point will improve compared to a purely VAT financed fiscal policy. But all told and in approximation? And think about the guaranteed minimum income. That seems a good basis for the poor to build on.

As for reactions to sensible policy it only requires it be explained better than we presently do.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are now making assumptions not based in fact. I don't think we should just be taxing the rich more and more, but I don't have a problem with the concept of progressive income taxation either. For example, I do not have a problem personally paying a much higher tax rate than a single mother working 2 jobs does.

so do you give the federal government extra money?


why should women who cannot afford children continue to have them?

 

[Visbek]

I see you think envy makes good fiscal policy

Yeah, not so much....

But consider that the welfare effect is generally less for VAT than for most other taxes. Of course there are some taxes that to a point will improve compared to a purely VAT financed fiscal policy. But all told and in approximation?

I'm not sure what you mean by "welfare effect."

I believe we'd need a 10% VAT to be revenue-neutral on income taxes; that's on top of a typical 4% state and 4% municipal sales tax. It would have some benefits (like less paperwork and better compliance), but would again be a huge boon for the wealthy, especially those who could easily hop on a plane and shop in a nation that operates like a tax haven.

The problem with swapping out our current quasi-progressive system for a regressive one is that it'll exacerbate income inequality, which is already a pretty serious issue.

And think about the guaranteed minimum income. That seems a good basis for the poor to build on.

I have. Again, we'd have to test it; and 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.

 

[joG]

Yeah, not so much....



I'm not sure what you mean by "welfare effect."

I believe we'd need a 10% VAT to be revenue-neutral on income taxes; that's on top of a typical 4% state and 4% municipal sales tax. It would have some benefits (like less paperwork and better compliance), but would again be a huge boon for the wealthy, especially those who could easily hop on a plane and shop in a nation that operates like a tax haven.

The problem with swapping out our current quasi-progressive system for a regressive one is that it'll exacerbate income inequality, which is already a pretty serious issue.



I have. Again, we'd have to test it; and 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.

You are certainly right that we have never liked the idea of VAT taxes and preferred progressive income taxes. It doesn't mean that it is the best way to do it.