Posted on 09/28/2015 8:18:50 AM PDT by Helicondelta
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump plans to unveil an ambitious tax plan Monday that he says would eliminate income taxes for millions of households, lower the tax rate on all businesses to 15% and change tax treatment of companies’ overseas earnings.
Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.
Many middle-income households would have a lower tax rate under Mr. Trump’s proposal, but because high-income households generally pay income tax at much higher rates, his proposed across-the-board rate cut could have a positive impact on them, too. For example, an analysis of Jeb Bush’s plan—taxing individuals’ incomes at no more than 28%—by the business-backed Tax Foundation found that the biggest percentage winners in after-tax income would be the top 1% of earners.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
How would the Fair Tax control what you buy? I would think you would still buy necessities and then have the freedom to decide whether to spend on discretionary items or save- just don’t understand your objections. We can agree to disagree.
There cannot be, and never will be, "zero taxes for everyone." The government must have some source of revenue to do their necessary, constitutional functions. But to let some citizens get off scot-free while others have to carry the load--progressive taxation--is the height of unfairness and is THE key to the Democrats' appeal. Those who pay no taxes, who have no skin in the game, love it and call for higher taxes on "the rich"--i.e., anyone who makes more money than they do A flat tax, on the other hand, is fair for everybody, all paying the same percentage.
Fox Business LOVED the tax plan. I was watching Stuart Varney and he called it Reaganesque. Others he spoke to agreed.
This is Reagan’s tax plan with one additional bracket, a zero percent bracket.
Get rid of the marriage penalty, the death tax, and lower corporate taxes. That, too, is what we want to hear.
Despite the glowing reports of increased income due to lowering taxes, in the past it was used to spend more and not to cut the deficit. Reagan had to deal with a democrat Congress, and GW Bush did, too, for the most part in the Senate for the most part. Bush didn’t really resist spending, and Reagan wasn’t in a position to stop a lot of it.
I do like any plan not to replace retired or departing workers in the Federal government. This natural attrition approach would apply to those who retire, find employment elsewhere, or are fired for obvious, irrefutable cause. There are no aggrieved parties and all employees are treated fairly.
One step at a time.
The left has used incrementalism against this country for decades.
We can use it against them too.
But Reagan's plan was a huge massive sea change of conservatism compared to what was in place at the time. The same cannot be said of this one. You can't look at things in a vacuum.
Another Trump hater weighs in with an illogical non-response to a rather uncontroversial statement.
The best 'fair' is paying no taxes, and I wouldn't begrudge anyone who pays none. No, we won't get rid of all taxes for everyone, but it should be a goal to strive for.
The Trump plan if implement would likely be the best implement tax plan in 100 years, or since the beginnings of the federal income tax. This plan is going to help Trump win the presidency.
I’d favor a flat tax as well, but that’s not getting passed by Congress in the foreseeable future.
And, flat taxes in our welfare environment aren’t so flat after all. Most I’ve seen proposed have a hefty exemption to start. EITC and other welfare would warp any flat tax. That’s what Trump’s plan does well: maximizes incentives for lower income people to work.
Also, because it looks like good tax news for so many makes it more likely that his plan would be politically popular, he would get voted in, and the plan would be passed.
Yet, as I pointed out, the most important good to come of it would be the drastically lowered corporate tax rate.
Because Republicans fight taxes for the rich, the Democrats have been able to keep their donor base in tact. I’m not for tax the rich but I do think that someone making millions shouldn’t be paying a lower percentage than me either and that’s what’s been happening. If Trump can get a 25% rate through, they’ll live.
I agree to a large degree. I’m just talking about it being a Reagan like copy.
Reagan’s rates were something like 10, 15, 28 percent. That is similar.
I’m gonna say something about our bottom 50 percent.
Some of these individuals, in my opinion ... Are unable to be rehabilitated. In any form or fashion. They are either old, disease or drug ridden, or are just absolute lazy worthless toothless reprobates. They are legion in this country. I’m not sure many of them will ever work again, even if jobs were plentiful.
We can’t tax them, because there is nothing to tax.... But I’d be happy if we at least stopped transferring our hard earned cash to them, via the earned income credit and other various scams.
If we could at least reduce the numbers of these types of people over time .... At least provide jobs to younger poor people and save them from a lifetime of mooching and scamming ..... I’d call that progress.
It would send a message .... Thai if you choose not to work, it’s not going to be a picnic. Being “poor” now is party time. I’d like us to get back to seeing poor who are truly poor.... The type with no shoes on their feet .... Not driving escalades or using Obama phones or getting their nails did at noon while the rest of us get up before dawn every day to support them.
That sounds good, but as devil’s advocate, shouldn’t we be concerned about his big ego?
If he does pull this off, this will return the income tax back to closer to what it was when originally passed... whether that’s a good or bad thing who knows, but the original income tax when passed only hit the extremely wealthy most paid nothing.
In fact in todays dollars you would not pay a dime in tax until you hit 66K in income if single, and $88k if married filing joingly, approximately and the rate would be 1%.. the next rate up was 2% Starting at 440k and 3% at 1.1 Million.
I doubt Trumps plan will return us to those original rates, but that ought to give you an idea of how much the government bloat has been over the last century.
The millionaires are paying 39% now. How is cutting them to 25% having millionaires getting an increase?
He says those people can send a one page form "I win!". That should reduce the IRS personnel in addition to reducing taxes.
What you are saying is that half the population has an low IQ. Well duh. Is that their fault?
THe original Income tax law passed in 1913 no one paid taxes until they hit 66k in income if single and 88k of income (In current dollars) if married... at the rate was a whopping 1% the income tax when passed was intended to only be paid by the wealthy.
The bloat of the fed is what has turned it into what it is today.
I’d rather them move to another country than keep ripping off America.
That 0% bracket will mean a huge reduction in work for the IRS and taxpayers. You can bet Trump is planning to slash the IRS as well as every other Fed agency.
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.