Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Evil Yoda

Poor Americans don't fare well under Trump tax plan

36 posts in this topic

Poor Americans will get about a $60 annual tax cut under Trump's plan. Middle class Americans do better, at around $300. The wealthiest Americans do best; a family making $700,000 pays $129,000 less per year. In exchange for this, the national debt increases by an estimated 1,500,000,000 over the next decade.

Seems like a bad idea to me.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/poor-americans-dont-fare-well-064745527.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, chickens still are not faring well under Colonel Sanders.  :P:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So didn't we end up in a recession last time we tried this stunt?

I don't think it's that we never learn, but that people who vote for this nonsense actually want to see America harmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They believe what politicians tell them. You would think Americans would know better; pretty much all a politician does from the time he or she takes office is lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

Poor Americans will get about a $60 annual tax cut under Trump's plan. Middle class Americans do better, at around $300. The wealthiest Americans do best; a family making $700,000 pays $129,000 less per year. In exchange for this, the national debt increases by an estimated 1,500,000,000 over the next decade.

Seems like a bad idea to me.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/poor-americans-dont-fare-well-064745527.html

Yeah, but that is always going to be true with an across the board tax cut.  You can't get a $100,000 tax break if you only are paying $10,000 in taxes now.  It's the same argument as saying 95% of all personal tax revenue is paid by 5% of the people.  Of course it is because those making millions per year will be paying much more in taxes.  Someone having a tax burden of $200,000 per year will get a tax break of $2,000 with just a measly 1% across the board tax cut.  Someone with a $5,000 tax burden will see only $50 in that same scenario.  If you want to argue that there should be no tax break for anyone over a certain income, that's different.  But in a scenario where everyone gets the same percentage cut, those making the most, and paying the most, will always benefit the most.  As for the debt, I'm done arguing that.  I argued that Bush was blowing up the debt and my republican friends were silent.  When Obama blew it up even more, my democrat friends who were highly vocal during the Bush years suddenly weren't worried about the debt.  It's a partisan issue that I am just tired of arguing about.  

 

Quote

 

One reason the poorest families wouldn't get much of a tax break is that many don't pay federal income taxes. About 44 percent of U.S. households pay no federal income tax, according to the Tax Policy Center. Most of these people pay other federal taxes, including payroll taxes.

However, when it comes to the income tax, most low-income families receive tax credits that are greater than the amount of taxes they owe. They receive the tax credits in the form of a tax refund, even though they paid no taxes.

Maag said this would not change under Trump's tax plan.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/poor-americans-dont-fare-well-064745527.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

They believe what politicians tell them. You would think Americans would know better; pretty much all a politician does from the time he or she takes office is lie.

On this, we agree.  I have no respect for politicians of either party.  They are all only concerned about power and money for themselves first, their party second.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cprenegade said:

Yeah, but that is always going to be true with an across the board tax cut.  You can't get a $100,000 tax break if you only are paying $10,000 in taxes now.

That family making $700,000 gets a tax cut equal to 18% of their total income. They don't provide the annual incomes receiving the $60 and $300 refunds, but it's really hard for me to believe that they're getting 18% of their total income in tax cuts. That would put their incomes at $333 and $1667 respectively. So, as a percentage of income the tax refund is going to the people who least need it.

And is it wise to offer anyone a tax break that is going to increase the debt by $1.5 trillion over 10 years? Trump likes this plan, especially getting rid of the estate tax, because it benefits him, personally, and hugely. It's an enormous conflict of interest. The Republicans were once better than this. We keep hearing that Republicans are disturbed by the things Trump is doing. Corker, for example. But in the end they fall in line behind what he wants whether it's a good idea or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

That family making $700,000 gets a tax cut equal to 18% of their total income. They don't provide the annual incomes receiving the $60 and $300 refunds, but it's really hard for me to believe that they're getting 18% of their total income in tax cuts. That would put their incomes at $333 and $1667 respectively. So, as a percentage of income the tax refund is going to the people who least need it.

And is it wise to offer anyone a tax break that is going to increase the debt by $1.5 trillion over 10 years? Trump likes this plan, especially getting rid of the estate tax, because it benefits him, personally, and hugely. It's an enormous conflict of interest. The Republicans were once better than this. We keep hearing that Republicans are disturbed by the things Trump is doing. Corker, for example. But in the end they fall in line behind what he wants whether it's a good idea or not.

I would have to see how they arrived at that number.  Quite honestly I can't come up with a $129,000 tax cut on an income of $700,000 given the tax rate reduction from %39.6 to 35%.  It's impossible to do.  There seems to be some play on words there where they say the top 1% would get an average of %129,000 tax cut.  Like I said, I would like to see what the numbers are on that.  I'm ok with getting rid of the estate tax simply on principle.  Everything in an estate has already been taxed once.  I see no reason the government should be able to continually tax estate money every time it gets handed down.  That's just my opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cprenegade said:

I would have to see how they arrived at that number.  Quite honestly I can't come up with a $129,000 tax cut on an income of $700,000 given the tax rate reduction from %39.6 to 35%.  It's impossible to do.  There seems to be some play on words there where they say the top 1% would get an average of %129,000 tax cut.  Like I said, I would like to see what the numbers are on that.  I'm ok with getting rid of the estate tax simply on principle.  Everything in an estate has already been taxed once.  I see no reason the government should be able to continually tax estate money every time it gets handed down.  That's just my opinion.  

At the link:

The Tax Policy Center's analysis says most of the tax cuts would go to the wealthiest Americans. For example, the top 1 percent — families making about $700,000 a year — would get an average tax cut of $129,000. Tax breaks targeting the wealthy include lowering the top income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, and doing away with the federal estate tax, which is only paid by people who inherit multimillion-dollar estates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cprenegade said:

I would have to see how they arrived at that number.  Quite honestly I can't come up with a $129,000 tax cut on an income of $700,000 given the tax rate reduction from %39.6 to 35%.  It's impossible to do.  There seems to be some play on words there where they say the top 1% would get an average of %129,000 tax cut.  Like I said, I would like to see what the numbers are on that.  I'm ok with getting rid of the estate tax simply on principle.  Everything in an estate has already been taxed once.  I see no reason the government should be able to continually tax estate money every time it gets handed down.  That's just my opinion.  

Simply not true.

  • Myth 6:  The estate tax constitutes “double taxation” because it applies to assets that already have been taxed once as income.
    Reality:  Large estates consist to a large degree of “unrealized” capital gains that have never been taxed; the estate tax is the only means of taxing this income.
  •  
  • https://www.cbpp.org/blog/10-myths-about-the-estate-tax
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, cprenegade said:

I'm ok with getting rid of the estate tax simply on principle.  Everything in an estate has already been taxed once.  I see no reason the government should be able to continually tax estate money every time it gets handed down.  That's just my opinion.

It's an opinion I don't share. First, every dollar, everywhere, has been taxed dozens of times. I earn it and pay tax. I buy something at your store and pay tax. You earned it, and pay tax. You buy something from Ms Maggie, she pays tax. That, by itself, doesn't move me much. In fact, it sounds to me like something people paid to lobby against the estate tax might come up with. The idea is to appeal to fairness, as if it is unfair to pay taxes. It may be unpleasant, but it is also necessary. Now, if you say we pay too much taxes or that the government does not spend that income wisely, those are different debates.

Second, and most importantly, the estate tax acts as a counter-tension to the idea of massive wealth accumulating in very few hands. I have come to believe this is not good for society, despite being good for the families of those involved (I'm sure Trump's idea that he does not benefit from this provision of his tax reform is based on the notion that really, Don Jr., Ivanka, etc. benefit - Don Sr. does not because he's dead at that point. This is sophistry.) If all we ever did was what was good for us, personally, no one would ever pay taxes. How long would the country last, then? Keep in mind, too, that you have to be very, very wealthy before the estate tax is a problem. So wealthy, that even after it is paid your heirs will still be swimming in unearned income. They won't be turned out on the street.

Edited by Evil Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ms maggie said:

Simply not true.

  • Myth 6:  The estate tax constitutes “double taxation” because it applies to assets that already have been taxed once as income.
    Reality:  Large estates consist to a large degree of “unrealized” capital gains that have never been taxed; the estate tax is the only means of taxing this income.
  •  
  • https://www.cbpp.org/blog/10-myths-about-the-estate-tax
     

An unrealized capital gain is one that exists on paper but has yet to be cashed in.  At the point of cash-in, it will be taxed.  So taxing the estate is not the only way of taxing that income.  Taxing the estate and then taxing the capital gain at the point of converting it to profit is double taxation on the same item.  Now if the estate is taxed and the capital gain is not subject to taxation after that when it is converted to profit, then I stand corrected.  But I don't think it works that way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kandace said:

In other news, chickens still are not faring well under Colonel Sanders.  :P:lol:

News flash......it has been discovered that there is air on the planet earth and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Fortunately the Obama administration had nothing to do with it so those premises are safe from Trump. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

It's an opinion I don't share. First, every dollar, everywhere, has been taxed dozens of times. I earn it and pay tax. I buy something at your store and pay tax. You earned it, and pay tax. You buy something from Ms Maggie, she pays tax. That, by itself, doesn't move me much. In fact, it sounds to me like something people paid to lobby against the estate tax might come up with. The idea is to appeal to fairness, as if it is unfair to pay taxes. It may be unpleasant, but it is also necessary. Now, if you say we pay too much taxes or that the government does not spend that income wisely, those are different debates.

Second, and most importantly, the estate tax acts as a counter-tension to the idea of massive wealth accumulating in very few hands. I have come to believe this is not good for society, despite being good for the families of those involved (I'm sure Trump's idea that he does not benefit from this provision of his tax reform is based on the notion that really, Don Jr., Ivanka, etc. benefit - Don Sr. does not because he's dead at that point. This is sophistry.) If all we ever did was what was good for us, personally, no one would ever pay taxes. How long would the country last, then? Keep in mind, too, that you have to be very, very wealthy before the estate tax is a problem. So wealthy, that even after it is paid your heirs will still be swimming in unearned income. They won't be turned out on the street.

I can appreciate your opinion, I just don't share it, although I admit that the fact that the estate tax does not kick in until over 5 million dollars does temper my feelings on that a bit.  And yes, the bolded statement is exactly how I feel about taxes on both counts.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Evil Yoda said:

It's an opinion I don't share. First, every dollar, everywhere, has been taxed dozens of times. I earn it and pay tax. I buy something at your store and pay tax. You earned it, and pay tax. You buy something from Ms Maggie, she pays tax. That, by itself, doesn't move me much. In fact, it sounds to me like something people paid to lobby against the estate tax might come up with. The idea is to appeal to fairness, as if it is unfair to pay taxes. It may be unpleasant, but it is also necessary. Now, if you say we pay too much taxes or that the government does not spend that income wisely, those are different debates.

Second, and most importantly, the estate tax acts as a counter-tension to the idea of massive wealth accumulating in very few hands. I have come to believe this is not good for society, despite being good for the families of those involved (I'm sure Trump's idea that he does not benefit from this provision of his tax reform is based on the notion that really, Don Jr., Ivanka, etc. benefit - Don Sr. does not because he's dead at that point. This is sophistry.) If all we ever did was what was good for us, personally, no one would ever pay taxes. How long would the country last, then? Keep in mind, too, that you have to be very, very wealthy before the estate tax is a problem. So wealthy, that even after it is paid your heirs will still be swimming in unearned income. They won't be turned out on the street.

I'm with you on this ;last time I checked the estate tax doesn't kick in federally until about $5.5 million. That's less than 2% of US households. These are not going to be destitute people.

Wealth concentration begets wealth concentration. I've realized this coming from a lower middle class family and ending up making pretty good money. Once I have the things I need to pay for locked down, I can now afford to put my investments in non-taxable (retirement plans) and tax-advantaged capital investments (taxed at 15% versus paying real taxes; and I didn't work for this money at all).

Good tax policy requires a balance. But if your family has hoarded $200 million to spread to your heirs who likely aren't going to do anything but just sit on their asses, I don't have a problem with it being taxed "again". The whole system is a series of recycled tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

Poor Americans will get about a $60 annual tax cut under Trump's plan. Middle class Americans do better, at around $300. The wealthiest Americans do best; a family making $700,000 pays $129,000 less per year. In exchange for this, the national debt increases by an estimated 1,500,000,000 over the next decade.

Seems like a bad idea to me.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/poor-americans-dont-fare-well-064745527.html

If they pay no taxes, do you think the poor should receive a $129,000 tax cut?  Seriously?  Don't you think the poor might benefit from jobs in a more vibrant economy?  JFK famously said "a rising tide raises all boats."  Was he wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

They believe what politicians tell them. You would think Americans would know better; pretty much all a politician does from the time he or she takes office is lie.

Oh hogwash.  Please don't try to water this down by saying they all lie like this thing lies.  When we run with the they all do it mantra we really do a disservice to all the politicians out there who really do try their best to do a good job serving their constituents

Edited by banner1124

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jdsample said:

If they pay no taxes, do you think the poor should receive a $129,000 tax cut?  Seriously?  Don't you think the poor might benefit from jobs in a more vibrant economy?  JFK famously said "a rising tide raises all boats."  Was he wrong?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha... vibrant economy?  I can't believe anyone on earth still buys into this trickle down crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jdsample said:

If they pay no taxes, do you think the poor should receive a $129,000 tax cut?  Seriously?  Don't you think the poor might benefit from jobs in a more vibrant economy?  JFK famously said "a rising tide raises all boats."  Was he wrong?

Maybe we should go by JFK's proposed tax rates then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jdsample said:

If they pay no taxes, do you think the poor should receive a $129,000 tax cut?  Seriously?  Don't you think the poor might benefit from jobs in a more vibrant economy?  JFK famously said "a rising tide raises all boats."  Was he wrong?

No. But I certainly don't think the wealthy should get a proportionally better tax cut. In fact, I think any tax cut that isn't revenue neutral is a mistake. And since I am certain Trump will have as much luck cutting spending as he has had doing anything else, this tax cut won't be revenue neutral even if that's what Trump wants. Because he fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha... vibrant economy?  I can't believe anyone on earth still buys into this trickle down crap

So JFK was an ***.  Gotcha pal.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

37 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

Oh hogwash.  Please don't try to water this down by saying they all lie like this thing lies.  When we run with the they all do it mantra we really do a disservice to all the politicians out there who really do try their best to do a good job serving their constituents

I didn't. Read for comprehension. I said all politicians lie, and I stand by that.

Trump, in fact, is the biggest political and personal liar I have ever experienced, except maybe that guy who tried to sell Isuzu automobiles back in the day.

Edited by Evil Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, kandace said:

In other news, chickens still are not faring well under Colonel Sanders.  :P:lol:

I think the chickens do very well, except for the extra crispy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

No. But I certainly don't think the wealthy should get a proportionally better tax cut. In fact, I think any tax cut that isn't revenue neutral is a mistake. And since I am certain Trump will have as much luck cutting spending as he has had doing anything else, this tax cut won't be revenue neutral even if that's what Trump wants. Because he fails.

If you pay no tax, and there is a tax cut for people who do, then did you get a 0% or a 100% tax cut on the $0 you pay?  

For my entire lifetime we have had tax cuts and then tax increases over and over again.  Each and every change has favored the lower income people.  Seems like it has to to get it passed.  But with the rich paying the bulk of our taxes, if someone gets a $100,000 tax cut, where do you guess that money goes?  A mattress?  It doesn't matter where you speculate the money will go, somebody has to go to work.  Buy a boat?  Boat makers.  Blow it on sushi and beer?  Sushi chef and a brewery.  Invest in pork bellies?  Pig farmers, investment managers, wholesalers, etc.  Or maybe that wealthy person has a small business.  They might expand the business building a new location and hiring more staff.  Even if it gets parked in a savings account, the bank will need employees and they will invest the savings in other businesses allowing them to expand.  Please come up with a scenario where that $100k does nothing for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jdsample said:

For my entire lifetime we have had tax cuts and then tax increases over and over again.  Each and every change has favored the lower income people.

Seems like it has to to get it passed.  But with the rich paying the bulk of our taxes, if someone gets a $100,000 tax cut, where do you guess that money goes?  A mattress?  It doesn't matter where you speculate the money will go, somebody has to go to work.  Buy a boat?  Boat makers.  Blow it on sushi and beer?  Sushi chef and a brewery.  Invest in pork bellies?  Pig farmers, investment managers, wholesalers, etc.  Or maybe that wealthy person has a small business.  They might expand the business building a new location and hiring more staff.  Even if it gets parked in a savings account, the bank will need employees and they will invest the savings in other businesses allowing them to expand.  Please come up with a scenario where that $100k does nothing for anyone.

So now you favor the rich getting a tax cut? Are you one of them? If not, why defend them? They have plenty of defenders: themselves, men they hire to do it (lobbyists, chiefly), and the entire GOP.

If what followed the Great Recession is any clue, they stuff it in their proverbial mattresses. That's what happened back then when folks (businesses, chiefly) got stimulus money. In a few cases they used it to make strategic acquisitions, but for the most part they sat on it and waited for someone *else* to fix the economy. I see you're still a trickle-down follower. While that theory seems to make sense, experience following Reagan seems to indicate that something else is going on, as money appears to mostly trickle up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0