Posted on 08/30/2015 6:54:01 AM PDT by conservativejoy
First Donald Trump antagonized the Republican establishment with his proposals on immigration. Then he irritated some with his stands on trade and Social Security. Now Trump is preparing a tax proposal that will again set him far apart from the party's powers-that-be.
The problem for the establishment is that Trump's positions on all three issues are more in line with the majority of American voters than the establishment's preferred policies. By using his popularity to force outside-the-GOP-box ideas into the Republican presidential debate, Trump is displaying an uncanny sense of the divisions between voters and the GOP power structure.
Trump has been sending signals that his tax proposal, which he says will be "comprehensive," will include higher rates for some of the richest Americans, a position generally at odds with Republican orthodoxy. "I want to see lower taxes," Trump said at an appearance in Norwood, Mass., on Friday night. "But on some people, they're not doing their fair share."
In particular, Trump has said he will go after "carried interest," which refers to the practice of hedge fund managers who make hundreds of millions of dollars a year paying a lower tax rate than Americans who earn ordinary wages. "I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it's outrageous," Trump told Bloomberg Politics last week. "I want to lower taxes for the middle class."
"Hedge fund guys have to pay up," Trump said Friday on MSNBC. "I'm going to lower taxes, but these hedge fund guys are making a lot of money — I have friends who laugh about how little they pay — and it's not fair to the middle class."
Trump appears to have a special concern about hedge fund executives — "They don't really build anything, they shuffle paper," he said on MSNBC. But his comments to Bloomberg suggest he might also target "people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year" in a more general way. Asked about a broad policy of increasing taxes on the super rich, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski would say little about Trump's intentions, but noted that "Mr. Trump has said that he does not mind paying what is required to make our country great again."
Raising taxes on anyone, even the super rich, has generally been anathema to Republicans for a generation. But Trump will probably find a receptive ear among American voters overall. An academic study by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler — a study that also had revealing findings about immigration — suggests that Trump's views on taxes are closer to the public's than those of Republican elites.
In the paper, Broockman and Ahler examined a broad range of public opinion on several issues. They conducted a poll in which respondents, rather than being given either-or policy options, were presented with a range of seven different possibilities on a particular issue, from the far left to the far right. On the question of federal taxes, these are the options Broockman and Ahler presented to respondents:
1. Establish a maximum annual income, with all income over $1,000,000 per year taxed at a rate of 100 percent. Decrease federal taxes on the poor and provide more services benefiting the middle class and poor.
2. Increase federal income taxes on those making over $250,000 per year to pre-1990s levels (over 5 percent above current rates). Use the savings to significantly lower taxes and provide more services to those making less and to invest in infrastructure projects.
3. Increase federal income taxes on those making over $250,000 per year to 1990s rates (5 percent above current rates). Use the savings to lower taxes and provide more services to those making less while also paying down the national debt.
4. Maintain current levels of federal spending and federal income taxes on the rich, middle class, and poor.
5. Decrease all individuals' income tax rates, especially high earners who pay the most in taxes now, accomplished by decreasing government services.
6. Move to a completely flat income tax system where all individuals pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, accomplished by decreasing government services.
7. Move to a flat consumption tax where all individuals pay the same percentage of their purchases in taxes, banning the income tax, even if this means the poor pay more in taxes than the rich. Significantly decrease government services in the process.
Also inherited property if you want to expand on it, but I think hedge funds are dealing in purchased property, not gifted or inherited.
Excellent point!
Trump for sure is move the debate, get issues out that never would dare be talked about by any GOP candidate.
It’s remarkable the attention that is paid when there is skin in the game.
Amen, Liz!
Actually, the plan I saw caps the top percentage of tax paid at 15%. That seems fair. I’ve been paying more than that for years and I’m not rich.
That is certainly true if the consumption tax is added to the income tax. But, if the consumption tax is a substitute for income tax, then your analysis is flawed.
That is not to say I believe your analysis to be completely untrue in case of substitution, but the effect of the consumption tax will definitely be ameliorated by cessation of the income tax. My reading of your analysis is that it assumes no effects from repeal of income taxes.
What the actual effects would be should be vigorously analyzed (first) and debated (second).
It's amazing to me how many people who are in favor of llimited government support a tax system used in Europe. This is not Europe and we don't want it to be.
No most of the built in costs are government regulation and financial burdens levied by government on employment. Built in costs of fuel taxes, social security, unemployment insurance, medical coverage, on and on. This stuff will not go away with a consumption tax.
I believe that any debate on tax systems needs to be informed, based on well-defined analyses, and not be pro forma for or against based on where it has been used (understanding that an substantially identical formula in Europe would be a major part of the analysis of effects, of course).
Sorry I misunderstood the basis for your assertions, although I have to admit I am not certain I agree with your conclusions. Nor do I necessarily disagree, BTW.
Have a great day, FRiend.
And grows deeper every day!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.