Posted on 09/28/2015 7:28:03 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
Published on Sep 28, 2015
Donald Trump revealed new details about his tax plan in an interview that aired Sunday, saying that a "large segment" of Americans would pay no federal income taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Thanks.
It was a good interview. Will re-watch to catch anything I might have missed ;-)
Thanks, I’ve been looking all over for that.
Off to watch it.
Bkmk
We need MORE people with skin in the game. We absolutely DO NOT need more people off the tax rolls and jumping on the gravy train. He’s been trending down in my view and that does him in as far as I’m concerned.
TTTT full interview
Erin Burnett did a nice job with this interview, much better than the hostile male interviewers have done. Obviously, they feel threatened by Trump so they are rude and defensive.
Well, enjoy your candidate whoever he or she is.
I STAND WITH TRUMP!
So what is your candidates tax plan?
Grading Trump’s tax plan
Sep. 28, 2015 - 7:23 - Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and former U.S. International Trade Commission Chief Economist Peter Morici break down Donald Trump’s tax plan.
Don is so good!
Whoever it will be, he or she most certainly won’t propose creating more that 47% of sponges and gibsmedats we have now.
Grover Norquist? The Moslem sympathizer?
She seems to dress appropriately, too.
I will probably be lambasted for saying this, but here goes...
I am not interested in a tax system that is ‘fair’. Fairness is too often judged in ‘the eye of the beholder’. I do not believe that our country can at this juncture come to an agreement on what is ‘fair’. So I discount fairness as a plank from which a solution can be built.
I am interested in a revenue system that supports economic growth while providing that revenue which is necessary to support the core responsibilities of our government.
Our revenue system has for too long been used as a social equaliser, and not as a necessary evil.
I do not begrudge some paying little or no taxes if we don’t need that revenue, or if that revenue will in the end detract from the economy as a system.
The biggest advantages I see from the Trump proposal are two-fold: simplicity for the common citizen, and corporate rates which make America an attractive place to do business.
Some will say it doesn’t go far enough, and some will say it goes too far. Many have already weighed in thusly.
I say it is a far sight better than that which we have now and if nothing else leads to the conclusion that Mr Trump is in fact serious about his candidacy as he continues to lay out policy positions that are thoughtful, clearly stated, and which have specific goals in mind.
People are welcome to disagree with his or any other candidate’s positions. That is the process. But to date he has offered as many or more large scale positions as any other top tier candidate, and he continues to drive the agenda. If this process, this discussion, leads to serious, thoughtful discourse on the topic of the current tax structure and its crippling impact on our economy - he will have accomplished a laudable achievement. If through this discussion we loosen the chains holding back the American economy he will have achieved that which many of the political pragmatist class considered impossible.
Erin Burnett did a nice job with this interview,
i agree but she lost it in the end when her talking head couldn’t respond to trump about something. it was funny she looked at her notes and just couldn’t re-engage.
Finally! I saw it. Thank you for the link and post! Now I need to go to bed.
Low-income workers already have skin in the game with payroll, sales, state, and other taxes. Then they end up getting a lot of that back via EITC and other welfare subsidies.
Better policy is to let them keep all they earn via work, tax free, than to tax (and thus discourage) work, but then hand the taxes paid (plus more) back to them.
Trump made an all-around smart proposal on taxes.
What’s wrong with people keeping even more of their money? Unless you’re complaining about the EIC. But that’s something we already have, with most of these people below 25K a year already receiving. IOW, there is no change, and you’re not going to win a general election by arguing that people who live check by check need to be paying the same thing (percentage wise) as someone bringing in billions. It’s just not going to happen.
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.