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 ...
I think your logic is flawed. She only has a tax incentive not to earn more if she gets a tax break for it. That's the way it is in a progressive system.
Progressive taxation rewards non-production and punishes production.
There would be no tax incentive to stay on welfare under a flat tax. The economic incentive would be as it should be: earn more.
IMHO the end of the republic, and the beginning of a new slave state started in 1913.
I don’t know if rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is 10k-light-years ‘better’....
***
Unfortunately, I have heard LITTLE of the Constitution this election cycle; which this falls nicely. Quite disparaging actually.
Note that the 16th Amendment did not change the Supreme Court’s clarification that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court’s clarification Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes was long forgotten by the time that the 16th Amendment was ratified.
Regarding Congress’s limited power to lay taxes, note the following disturbing information. Helvering v. Davis indicates that FDR’s corrupt Congress argued the constitutionality of unconstitutional Social Security using the General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1). The problem with justifying taxing and spending with the GWC is the following.
President James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had vetoed the federal public works bill of 1817, the 14th Congress using the GWC to justify the public works bill. Madison had explained in the constitutionally required veto explanation (1.7.2) that the GWC was not an express delegation of power to Congress, but basically an introductory clause for the clauses that followed which were delegations of specific powers.
”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —Veto of federal public works bill, 1817
The reason that Congress has continued to ignore its limited powers to appropriate taxes through the 21st century is the following imo. The corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate is not doing its job to protect the states as the Founding States had intended for it to do. Instead, the corrupt senators are hurting their states by working with the corrupt House to pass unconstitutional bills which not only steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also steal state revenues associated with those powers.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and unconstitutional federal taxes along with it.
If you can't remember what you are replying to you, or what you have previously posted, then you should probably slow down a bit.
You wrote:
"FICA is not an income tax."
To which I replied:
What is it then? It is an income tax on the first $105K of income.
Regardless of where the money goes or what it gets used for FICA is still a tax on incomes. And no, your employer isn't really paying half of it. That's just an accounting trick to fool you about the rate you are paying. It is all money your employer pays for your service. It's all your wages so it's all really paid by you.
Now. What list?
“I’m not in favor of keeping the income tax as it stands regardless of how the rates are set in the law.”
I agree... getting rid of the 16th amendment (income tax) is about much more than simplifying tax preparation. More importantly it’s about the intrusiveness of politicians and bureaucrats into our private affairs, it’s about the destruction of our privacy, it’s about them using that knowledge to blackmail, extort, threaten citizens to knuckle under.
It’s also about manipulating people’s morality and behavior by passing exemptions for whatever they want you to do and taxing at a higher rate what they don’t like.
And lastly, it creates a mentality within the governing elites, our supposed “servants”, that they have first dibs to any money you earn, and that you should be thankful for what they let you keep.
The 16th amendment has corrupted government more than any other single act I can think of.
I’m much more in favor of the “fair tax”, a national sales tax, something that, to his credit, Huckabee is promoting.
FICA is a tax on income, it's just one that frequently gets left out of the discussion when assessing individual federal taxes.
One of the things I liked about Herman Cain's proposal was the elimination of the distinction between 'payroll' taxes and other income taxes.
“I’ll take that bet, how much?”
Did you not see the rest of what I wrote? You say revenue will go down, while I say revenue will go up.
Are you a demonRAT that wants higher taxes?
Trump’s proposal will tax any one earning under $30,000 at 1% = $300 maximum. Lot better than taxing them 10% = $3000.
Getting rid of 16th amendment is 1000 times more difficult than simplifying tax code.
A smart person always aims for what is possible first, and leave wishful thinking for later.
After we have achieved tax simplification, only then it is time to spend energy on ending 16th amendment.
Tax simplification does NOT mean reduction in revenues, necessarily. The flat tax system ELIMINATES ALL DEDUCTIONS except may be family size exemption.
The result is every one plays on a level field. There are no penalties for your personal choices. And every one pays the same tax rate if in the same income bracket.
With proper tax rates, the tax collected will be about the same.
Reducing federal spending is entirely another issue, and it must be tackled immediately next on the agenda..
“A smart person always aims for what is possible first, and leave wishful thinking for later.”
No arguments here - I’ll take half a loaf today, and work on the rest tomorrow.
You wrote:
Look at it this way. A family making $30,000 would have to pay $3000 with a 10% tax. That is a huge burden on that family.
Need to re-check your math there sonny. 1% of $30,000 is NOT $3,000. It’s $300. The cost of their iPhone. I think they can afford that.
my bad. I guess I can’t read a “0”. Sorry, you are correct.
My math is fine. I was responding to some posters who wants ONE TAX RATE for all such as 10% across the board.
“Tax simplification does NOT mean reduction in revenues, necessarily.”
True. It could increase, decrease or leave it level. But the claim was made that everyone would have their tax reduced...and if EVERYONE pays less taxes, AND spending is not cut, we’d be in trouble. And I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to cut spending...
Yep, I apologize, as noted in my post immediately after.
Wish there was a way to delete and/or edit posts afterward.
Have you ever had to pay “self employment tax” or have you ever had an employee.
The employer absolutely pays an equal amount of taxes. At least the IRS made ME do that. And I know I am not special.
The reason I say that its not an income tax is that you can change all of the rates you like, but it the “Federal Income Tax” would not affect the amount you are paying in FICA.
Yes, you can play the semantics game. It is a tax on income. It is not Federal 1040 income Tax.
Satisfied?
FICA is withheld on your income to pay for Social Security. I guess I could state the “party line” which says its invested “for you.” We both know that is bullshit.
My point is that people mistake FICA for INCOME Tax. As in 1040 Tax Form income tax.
It’s a semantics game. I know you know the difference and I agree that it is often overlooked.
But we should be specific when we are speaking of the different ways we get the shaft by the government.
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.