Trump's tax plan

[Chris0nllyn]

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday proposed slashing tax rates for businesses and on overseas corporate profits returned to the country in a plan greeted as an opening gambit by his fellow Republicans in Congress.

The Trump administration touted the president's blueprint - which also calls for raising standard deductions for individuals, repealing inheritance taxes on estates and simplifying tax returns - as a landmark proposal just days before Trump marks his 100th day in office on Saturday.

Trump's plan would cut the income tax rate paid by public corporations to 15 percent from 35 percent and reduce the top tax rate assessed on pass-through businesses, including small partnerships and sole proprietorships, to 15 percent from 39.6 percent, the White House said.

Mnuchin also said that Trump was proposing that corporations bring offshore profits into the country at a rate well below the current 35 percent rate. He did not say what that rate would be, but said that the administration was working with Congress on a low rate.

About $2.6 trillion in profits are being held tax-exempt abroad by U.S. multinationals under a rule that says they are only taxable if brought into the United States, or repatriated. Trump proposes requiring repatriation, but at the lower rate.

Democrats and fiscal-hawk Republicans will be concerned about how much Trump's proposals would cause the deficit to balloon. To minimize that impact, Republicans will rely heavily on "dynamic scoring." This is a controversial economic modeling method that attempts to predict economic growth and new tax revenues resulting from tax cuts.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, comprised of some of the nation's largest retailers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N), Target Corp (TGT.N) and Best Buy Co Inc (BBY.N), praised Trump's call for a lower tax rate and reiterated opposition to the idea of the border adjustment tax.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-idUSKBN17S1CE

 

[SamSpade]

Until I see three bracket numbers, I'm not convinced it will help me. My tax situation almost entirely relies on itemizing deductions, and it looks like he plans to wipe most of them out.

 

[Gilligan]

Until I see three bracket numbers, I'm not convinced it will help me. My tax situation almost entirely relies on itemizing deductions, and it looks like he plans to wipe most of them out.

Since my return includes the "pass through" from my S Corp, I'm cautiously optimistic that I could see a nice reduction. Getting killed as it is now.

 

[tommyjo]

Here is the actual "plan" as distributed to the press: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-white-house-memo-president-175500724.html

Interestingly this is not on the whitehouse.gov website. As expected, this is just more Trump BS. How many more days of this sh*t do we have to put up with before we can get someone qualified in the White House?

The President's tax plan is about as worthless and about as long as his tweets. This is a joke...but will likely make the far right wing nutjobs start bleeting their agreement.

"Tax reform" does not equal tax cuts.

Oh...and reforming the tax system is supposed to benefit the country...not one dumbass poster on a dumbass chat board.

Tax reform means that the system of revenue collection should be made more fair and returns should be easier to file or unnecessary depending on the system. But we will never get to either.

Hmm...didn't read the idiotic right wing mantra about tax cuts paying for themselves...did our illustrious leader spew that bilge or did he let one of his underlings propagate the myth???

 

[Gilligan]

How many more days of this sh*t do we have to put up with before we can get someone qualified in the White House?

'bout 2820 days...give or take a few.

Fortunately for you, your disability payments are not taxed.

 

[luvmygdaughters]

'bout 2820 days...give or take a few.

Fortunately for you, your disability payments are not taxed.

 

[SamSpade]

Tax reform means that the system of revenue collection should be made more fair and returns should be easier to file or unnecessary depending on the system. But we will never get to either.

Hmm...didn't read the idiotic right wing mantra about tax cuts paying for themselves...did our illustrious leader spew that bilge or did he let one of his underlings propagate the myth???

Well, what do I know? My degrees are just in applied math and engineering - I'm not an economist. I have no idea if the articles I've read have any merit to them. The only thing I *am* qualified to comment on is how it will affect me, personally. On that, I'm the world's authority. I have no business making forecasts and judgments and so forth.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say what we all suspect - you don't either. You're just following the idiotic left wing talking points because unless the economy is your area of expertise, you're just another puppet regurgitating what you've been filled with. Really, you did a full analysis just like that?

 

[GURPS]

"Tax reform" does not equal tax cuts.

Tax reform means that the system of revenue collection should be made more fair and returns should be easier to file or unnecessary depending on the system. But we will never get to either.

Not All But Part ....

 

[This_person]

Here is the actual "plan" as distributed to the press: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-white-house-memo-president-175500724.html

Interestingly this is not on the whitehouse.gov website.

Thank you. That is odd.

How many more days of this sh*t do we have to put up with before we can get someone qualified in the White House?

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Tax reform" does not equal tax cuts.

Interestingly, neither does this tax plan exclusively equal tax cuts. That's interesting because it makes one wonder if you read it, or if you understand what you read.

Oh...and reforming the tax system is supposed to benefit the country

Fully agreed. Good point.

Tax reform means that the system of revenue collection should be made more fair and returns should be easier to file or unnecessary depending on the system. But we will never get to either.

I agree with you conceptually. What do YOU mean by "fair"? And, why so pessimistic? Certainly we can try to get there. Maybe if we make all tax rates and deductions the exact same for all persons?

 

[SamSpade]

Not All But Part ....

I think Trump made it abundantly clear during the campaign that there would be a cut to the corporate tax, taxes on smaller businesses, death tax and marriage penalty. He's also said many times in the past couple months that this would be a tax cut.

I don't care what the label is - it's irrelevant except to nitpickers who want to argue over minutiae. The Affordable Care Act did not make health care affordable, just mandatory. And I don't know what anyone on the left thinks "fair" is - I presume they believe that the rich should shoulder an even GREATER tax burden than they already have, but I never see that working. You can't have all your money coming from a tiny sliver of society any more than you can run a company with just one or two people working.

 

[SamSpade]

What do YOU mean by "fair"?

And there is the question of the day. If I were at a restaurant and the bill was divided among those present "fairly" , most people would assume that the burden would be divided evenly. Or that everyone would pay in the amount they took out (so that the guy who just had coffee wouldn't have to cover the cost of someone else's filet mignon).

That's what most of us tend to think when we hear "fair".

But truth be told, the persons at the bottom of the tax ladder cannot afford to pay what they're getting out of it. And it's endless what most people will claim this or that person "gets" from taxes (such as, does everyone benefit from extending the subway or widening the road - or just the vendors along the route?).

So we have the "sensible" idea that richer people pay more, partly because they CAN - and partly because the simple fact that a millionaire can part with 10 thousand dollars or more a lot easier than a poor man can, if at all.

Hence, we scale it upward. As more people want more stuff, and more people who AREN'T poor think the government can easily fund anything they want, and more people realize that the pie is only so big and getting funds can be a zero sum game - we have fights in Washington and elsewhere over what gets funded and what doesn't.

It's like kids fighting over the Christmas budget (if they could). Little brother doesn't DESERVE a new bike and anyway I want a new Playstation. Because eventually they GET it that there ain't enough for everybody.

Since everyone wants more, one thought is to just take more from the richest - until he's carrying an enormous load.

The problem with this approach is - what happens when he decides to take the ball and go home? What if he makes some bad business decisions and DOESN'T make all that money everyone else wants?

-------------------------------------------------------

See, it seems to me the philosophical solution to the tax problem - aside from figuring out you can't keep asking for more money - is not to distribute the wealth but find a way for everyone to be able to make more of their own.

 

[This_person]

And there is the question of the day. If I were at a restaurant and the bill was divided among those present "fairly" , most people would assume that the burden would be divided evenly. Or that everyone would pay in the amount they took out (so that the guy who just had coffee wouldn't have to cover the cost of someone else's filet mignon).

That's what most of us tend to think when we hear "fair".

But truth be told, the persons at the bottom of the tax ladder cannot afford to pay what they're getting out of it. And it's endless what most people will claim this or that person "gets" from taxes (such as, does everyone benefit from extending the subway or widening the road - or just the vendors along the route?).

So we have the "sensible" idea that richer people pay more, partly because they CAN - and partly because the simple fact that a millionaire can part with 10 thousand dollars or more a lot easier than a poor man can, if at all.

Hence, we scale it upward. As more people want more stuff, and more people who AREN'T poor think the government can easily fund anything they want, and more people realize that the pie is only so big and getting funds can be a zero sum game - we have fights in Washington and elsewhere over what gets funded and what doesn't.

It's like kids fighting over the Christmas budget (if they could). Little brother doesn't DESERVE a new bike and anyway I want a new Playstation. Because eventually they GET it that there ain't enough for everybody.

Since everyone wants more, one thought is to just take more from the richest - until he's carrying an enormous load.

The problem with this approach is - what happens when he decides to take the ball and go home? What if he makes some bad business decisions and DOESN'T make all that money everyone else wants?

-------------------------------------------------------

See, it seems to me the philosophical solution to the tax problem - aside from figuring out you can't keep asking for more money - is not to distribute the wealth but find a way for everyone to be able to make more of their own.

I'm perfectly fine with everyone being burdened equally. 10% from you, 10% from me. I'm 100% certain we do not make the same amount of money, but I don't know which one of us makes more - but it is virtually impossible to imagine we make the same. So, one of us will pay more. But, the burden on us will be equal - 10%. A few deductions make sense - the cost of other taxes like state taxes, etc. But, if you get to claim the cost of your kids' educations, so do I - no differences. And, if you have to pay to Soc Sec, so do I - same percentage on the whole income all the time. I don't believe in Soc Sec, but I am far less enamored with the idea that some people only pay on a portion of their income while others pay with all of their income. And, yes, I'm one that pays on a portion of my income.

The above seems fair to me.

 

[Gilligan]

This part of it...

reduce the top tax rate assessed on pass-through businesses, including small partnerships and sole proprietorships, to 15 percent from 39.6 percent,

..would have a huge impact on my tax situation. Paid something like 28% on most recent year.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

This part of it...

..would have a huge impact on my tax situation. Paid something like 28% on most recent year.

Same here.

My wife is a minority owner of a S-Corp. I told her about this last night and said she'd be able to hire someone else (if not more than one person) and be able to save money to renovate the place of business, expand, etc.

I'm not optimistic that it'll be 15%, but something is better than nothing.

 

[awpitt]

Until I see three bracket numbers, I'm not convinced it will help me. My tax situation almost entirely relies on itemizing deductions, and it looks like he plans to wipe most of them out.

But what if the increase in the standardized deduction makes the standardized deduction larger than the amount you're currently able to deduct via itemized deductions? That would make things a lot easier for you, wouldn't it?

 

[SamSpade]

But what if the increase in the standardized deduction makes the standardized deduction larger than the amount you're currently able to deduct via itemized deductions? That would make things a lot easier for you, wouldn't it?

It would - but the increase they are reporting is WAY lower than my itemized deductions - and they plan to take away a few (presumably they are taking away things like state tax).
Unless my actual tax goes down, this will tend to raise my tax bill. I still don't know where the brackets fall yet.

 

[awpitt]

It would - but the increase they are reporting is WAY lower than my itemized deductions - and they plan to take away a few (presumably they are taking away things like state tax).
Unless my actual tax goes down, this will tend to raise my tax bill. I still don't know where the brackets fall yet.

I heard a tail end of a report that I thought mentioned taking away the deduction for state and local taxes but wasn't sure if I'd heard right. If that's the case, it's not a good thing.

I was hoping he'd push for scrapping the whole tax code and go for the Fair Tax which is something Pence has been a supporter of while he was in Congress.