Posted on 09/15/2015 9:59:37 PM PDT by entropy12
Conservative Presidential candidate Donald Trump is a smart businessman. He works hard, and does whatever he can to pay the minimal amount of taxes to President Barack Obama.
Now, as Trump announced in his book “Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again,” we learn Donald Trump’s bold and specific plans to completely restructure America’s tax code. And after the changes are made, every American will end up paying lower taxes.
Called the “1-5-10-15” income tax plan–this will likely form the basis of his presidential campaign. Tax proposals consist of the following:
* Those making up to $30,000 will pay 1 percent.
* Income from $30,000 to $100,000 results in a flat 5 percent.
* $100,000 to $1 million income will be taxed at 10 percent.
* On $1 million or above will be taxed 15 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepoliticalinsider.com ...
And here I thought we were debating what is the best plan.. :)
I guess you’ve never done a Schedule C & all the stuff that can go with it? The rules that go with determination of expenses are a nightmare...
Such a minor insignificant issue. We have the entire world to support. Lets keep things business as usual.☺
Too “progressive”/communist. ...from each according to his abilities...
It’s a good tax proposal, but let’s not forget that it is Congress that determines what the tax code will be, not the President. So even if he is sincere, it doesn’t mean he can get his plan enacted into law.
The second paid $7,000 and first paid $42,000 - 600% more. Is that unfair? And if they make different incomes or the same incomes, but buy the same stuff they pay the same tax.
[Family 1] spends most of their money on buying necessities of life
Isn't that always the case? The lower your income the larger percentage goes to necessities. I don't see any reason to punish Family 2 for this. Likely they were in the same boat as Family 1 at some point - and could be again.There's also no fairness in rewarding Family 1 over Family 2. You're always heading towards punishing success and redistributing wealth - and putting the whole calculation out for demagoguing and vote buyinj.
As one put it: "the poor are discriminated against on everything." I'm all for a *temporary* safety net, but..
Trump wants to cut spending across the board.
We’ve also seen that tax cuts stimulate the economy and lead to increased tax revenues.
Trump will start introducing his agenda and giving specifics.
He has done so more than anyone else at this point.
The debate tonight will also be telling.
Trump picked the perfect time to unveil his tax plan and to steal the spotlight.
Smart man indeed.
Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program's lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program.
Cruz's support of any more H-1B's is reliant upon this taking place.
All three, Trump, Cruz, and Sessions are preaching from the same gospel as far as I can tell.
Problem that I have is then Trump started talking about keeping the foreign graduates here during the news conference last week. I couldn't believe what I was hearing as it was a direct conflict with what's written above, and with what you posted.
I wonder if sometime Trump's mouth engages before his brain. No criticism if so, we're all guilty of it occasionally.
He would have some powerful tools to convince Congress. Namely the White House podium. Take it to the people. Name names. expose their motives. Weekly or daily he could slam the people perpetuating these epic frauds, who are literally blocking Americans for what they've demanded for years. He could literally brutalize the corrupt in Congress on a routine basis.
the interest savings would still be real however. an extra $200 billion a year buys a lot of military hardware. As it is, they’re talking about scrapping the third Zumwalt destroyer because they can’t afford its $7.5 billion price tag and then there’s the F-22 program of course and a host of other systems that we really ought to have but don’t.
It seems pretty straight forward and fair to me. The 14.25% one time tax on wealth above %10 million is more than offset by the elimination of the 55% inheritance tax which is one of the most insidious taxes out there.
Trumps plan will win him lot more votes because it lowers taxes for vast majority of middle class.
ALL of the candidates will campaign on lowering taxes on the middle class. ALL of them.
They will debate how much and how much to soak the rich instead, and how much to give the poor, and just what the middle-class category is and what deductions and how much to give one group and take from another.
And then the whole tax policy becomes vote buying. And next go-around, rinse and repeat and pit class against class as though we were not and did not want a fluid opportunity incentive society.
This dynamic is just bad for society, bad for the economy and really not fair in the highest sense of the word.
The graduated income tax was a communist notion, straight from the pens of Marx and Engles.
And this just one more variation on the graduated income tax.
I can see your point regarding a straight tax rate for all as to leveling expenses, but what you do not address is basic cost of living. There is in any community in this country a basic cost of supporting a family of two, three, four...
Ten percent of someone raising a family on $14 bucks an hour is a heck of a bite compared to someone earning $30 or more. There needs to be a threshold of basic subsistence income that is not taxed. This would eliminate tax credits that are redistributing wealth... basically encouraging someone to live off the system.
“Folks making below 30K almost all get money FROM taxes - check out the Earned Income Tax Credit. Someone making 25K may pay no taxes but get a 3K “refund”. Making them pay 1% would be a big tax increase.”
I like the idea of everybody paying some taxes so we all have some skin in the game.
“But if everyone DID pay less, that leaves an even bigger deficit - unless spending is cut. Anyone want to bet on that?”
As Reagan and the Laugher curve proved lower tax RATES increase tax REVENUES because of increased economic activity.
It is estimated that the cost of tax preparation in the US is $500 billion a year (half a trillion), almost what we spend on defense.
Also there are some bright people in tax prep (attorneys, CPA, etc.). Imagine if these smart people were redeployed in doing actually useful stuff.
FIT and FICA are both income taxes.
To be fair, the Sessions / Trump plan does not indicate how much wages paid to H-1B’s should be raised, and I see that as a weakness in their plan. But they do seem to call for a pause.
OTOH, MY take is that if H-1B wages get a 20% premium over “prevailing wages”, the problem takes care of itself, and there’s not even a need for a stated “pause”. Much like self-deportation if the goodies are taken away, the thing enforces itself, so far as numbers hired, yet companies really needing someone, or wanting to snag a truly talented worker, can do so. (I don’t think any wise company would balk at a 20% premium to get a top flight employee.)
My problem with Cruz is that, at least as I’ve seen it presented, the 500% more H-1B’s is stated as a desirable goal. In the present situation of a vast oversupply of citizen* labor, many of whom are not even looking for employment because the job market is so skewed, I just can’t go along with the idea of increased H-1B’s. 500% LESS would be more like it...
*I’d include in that number permanent legal immigrant residents working toward citizenship.
Then again, a small % (the top 5%?) of foreign graduates would be quite desirable to keep here. If Trump meant something like that, he wasn’t very clear about it.
Basically, I’m an “equal opportunity criticizer”: No one’s convinced me yet, but Trump’s ability to “get traction”, and the infectious nature of his “can do” attitude are something I’m not seeing out of other candidates, at least at this time. On the other hand, while he probably can’t go with the ‘ol teleprompter, now, his “speeches” do wander too much. If he makes it to the general election, the attacks on his inconsistencies and mouth-running are going to be brutal.
Maybe better notes...?
I won’t argue, or even disagree, with what you have said. But it has become quite obvious that many of our politicians are no longer beholden to us ordinary citizens. Instead their loyalty lies with those who significantly finance their campaigns. As such those tools may turn out to be ineffective, much like Town Hall meetings were. They could care less what we thought. I’m certainly no soothsayer, but I can see this as being a real possibility. Especially since GOPe will undoubtedly band together with their Democrap cohorts to thwart him at every turn. To them, America and her citizens are not of much concern. Retaining their power is their only true concern.
Unless it becomes less so. This is a good start but it has to go away quickly. Who is going to agree to earn a few dollars over one of these hurdles? No one. Not as big of an economy wrecker as we currently have but it needs to be flat straight across. 10% for everyone. No exceptions. No exemptions. No deductions. If the feral gummint can’t live on that then, like we do, figure out what to do without. Get rid of some Depts. of Education, energy, etc. would be a starting place.
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.