Are you PAID to post this utter crap from a moron Blogger website run by the Salem Communication , a DC fat cat front group ?.
Salem which also employs Trump haters Hugh Hewitt, Erik Erickson, Mike Medved, Kathleen Hamm..
You and Salem have a huge agenda !
I was hoping against hope that he would propose something akin to a Flat Tax or even better the Fair Tax. But once again, we have a variation of Woodrow Wilson’s utopian tax plan.
Damn Donald , you are better than that.
Bleh. I take the Cruz version - a flat tax and cut the IRS down to nothing.
As much as i love trump shaking the bowl, this is garbage and does nothing really. “Son, I am disappoint”
Consider this published plan. Two fudgepackers claiming a child will get less of a hit than two actual people in a real marriage with a real child.
One baby daddy and his slut with an anchor pay less than two committed adults attempting to actually raise their child.
Sorry but with the talk of tariffs, support for expansion of Brady and now this, the donald has pretty much lost my vote. Its tough, because I want someone, anyone, to burn it all down. But not in an Obama way.
I think this author needs to have a capital gain or two and learn how this all works.
So, selling your stocks and paying 25% on income makes more sense than holding a winner and paying 20% Capital gains... ?
Am I suddenly bad at math?
Seriously, what am I missing?
It seems to me there is a small band of crossover where the rate on regular income comes down, but the capital gains rate goes up. It would absolutely depend on the individual financial situation, but there does appear to be a narrow set of folks who could pay more.
An example would be those single folks, making more than 150k, but less than 189k, and who’s qualified, non tax deferred, capital gains are roughly 38% or more of their annual income. Even among those with significant portfolios such a situation is rare, not impossible, but rare. A similar narrow band of married folks, making between 300k and 454k, who’s capital gains account for more than 72% of their income could also be found. Far from impossible, but also extremely rare.
Perhaps the numbers could be tweaked to eliminate these bands. My first gut take is that if I crunched the numbers a little deeper the reduction in rates for the lower tiers would further narrow these bands.
That said, the situation posited by the author still makes little sense to me.
Taking more people off the rolls is not a good idea. It increases the number of “takers” in the country.
I guess I shouldn’t really be surprised (given his stance on health care), but Trump’s tax plan is complete crap.
If you’re going to have an income tax (which you shouldn’t, because it’s one of the most profoundly destructive policies), you HAVE to tax the poorest Americans as well, to make sure they have skin in the game. If you don’t tax them, they vote for every spending bill they get their grubby little hands on. While Trump seems to recognize the problem with taxing the highest brackets 40-50% (namely, that it provides an incentive to donate to Democrats), 25% is still far too high.
The best way for our government to receive revenue consists of seizing all assets from Dementocrat voters; this will pay off the national debt that they caused. In the long term, a simple 1-10% flat tax is all that is needed to fund the military (the only legitimate function of the federal government).
Hopefully, Cruz or one of the fellows at the Mieses Institute can get Trump on the right track.
Tinker all you want. If in the end you still have a progressive tax on income, work, and production you have failed.
The package is limited in its scope. It doesn’t do everything.
But for a tax plan, it’s a good start. I’m for Cruz and will not vote for Trump. But this is a pretty good income tax plan. The author of this essay describes it honestly, and critiques it fairly.