WRONG, wrong, wrong. Course, the question that is *never* answered: At what % of income tax does ‘slavery’ exist? What % of MY life\property is owned by the govt\another??
NO person should ‘win’ over another (IE: Pay ZERO) when, in fact, it’s the lower economic bracket(s) that utilize the most of govt ‘services’.
Simplify by ELIMINATING. Follow the Constitutional constraints and make the State/territories pay their % share.
I’ve been admiring the rest of his plans. This is the one completely off base, IMO.
it’s the lower economic bracket(s) that utilize the most of govt ‘services’I'm tired of that line. Can you explain what federal government services are used more by low income than higher wage people?
Low income people pay a huge tax and it can't be put on a IRS form. They pay through the nose in the form of stagnant and even reductions in real wages coupled with and compounded by hyper-inflation/cost of living increases.
BTW, food and energy, the real cost of living, isn't even calculated in the inflation index.
All of that printed money being pumped into the stock markets etc. causes inflation. Who is hurt most by the inflation making the rich richer?
You want to return to the original constitutional restraints, and eliminate the Federal income tax on individual wage earners altogether. Getting from here back to there—not so easy. Where to start?
“NO person should win over another (IE pay ZERO) when, in fact, it’s the lower economic bracket(s) that utilize most of the govt ‘services.’
Agreed—sort of. But OTOH I feel perhaps you’re overlooking some things, which I’ll get to in a moment.
First, though, it should be obvious that tax cuts without reductions in entitlements and and increase in jobs is a recipe for fiscal disaster.
A few things need to be tweaked here, IMO, in the short term, within the context of long term goal of re-establishing the concept of self reliance.
SHORT TERM
1. Government benefits need to be counted as income, and taxable! This would probably not bring in revenues; it would simply discourage people who aren’t truly needy from applying.
2. Immediate, small, across the board reductions in benefits, with recipients notified NOW that future reductions are coming. Also term limits for collecting benefits. A year or two, not a lifetime. Require applicants to seek help from family or private charities first, before taxpayer subsidies kick in.
3. Require fingerprint identification to eliminate fraudulent collections under multiple identities.
4. NO housing benefits for anchor babies of illegals. Saying you’re not elible for a free apartment, but your infant qualifies, is absurd.
5. Cap household benefits at a low maximum, removing incentives to produce additional children. No benefits for additional children born while receiving assistance.
6. Government benefits need to be put on a schedule to be gradually scaled back to zero for all but the most needy, ie elderly and truly disabled.
Here’s what I’m getting at, and what I think you’re overlooking:
The $25k -$50k exemption in Trump’s plan is sound, IMO.
1.The employee or household earning $25k or $50k NEEDS every penny of that for very basic expenses, just to be able to get up and drive to work everyday.
2. Yes, the various complicated exemptions and deductions in the current tax code result in these bottom earners paying little or no FEDERAL INCOME tax (most of which goes to fatass DC bureaucrats anyway)
But it is incorrect to assert these folks pay ZERO taxes.
These workers DO in fact pay state income taxes, sales taxes, tolls, fees, property taxes and gasoline taxes. They’re forking over at least $10-$20 in taxes of every $100 they spend in their local communities. (I paid $32 in sales tax only at 1store, the Dollar Store, last month.)
Meanwhile, unemployed or “low income” workers can collect benefits adding up to $60k-80k, paying ZERO federal income tax, while the food stamps, rent, etc spent in their local communities are subsidized by working chumps.
Ok, here’s the meat. Trump’s $25k-$50k plan IMO will not, as you say, increase the number of households paying ZERO taxes. It simply acknowledges what already exists, and reduces the unnecessary paperwork and bureaucrats in DC= immediate savings+deficit reduction.
But here’s the real beauty:
It removes a major disincentive for the individual to work, and, furthermore, to work one’s way UP.
As things are, Shinequa chooses a better standard of living by getting tax free benefits. If she’s working part-time for $10 k and can still qualify for $25k in housing, childcare, and foodstamps, why would she want to increase her work hours and lose that **income**? Why earn $25k when federal and SS taxes are taken off the top and she must do paperwork to get part of her money refunded later? Plus all those other work-related expenses mentioned above that come off the top. She needs to pay her bills now.
She feels she is being penalized for working, just as you do.
Working fewer hours means more government income, plus less spent on gas, tires, auto maintenance. More people are figuring this out, hence swelling welfare rolls.
Trump’s plan BEGINS to reverse this trajectory. It gives Shinequa (and everybody choosing between work or dependence!) a chance to pay herself first, not the government. She’s incentivized, not discouraged, from earning more. She can pay her own basic living expenses, and has the incentive to raise her own living standard, while keeping her first tax dollars in her own local community and out of Washington DC.
Additionally, the $50k family exemption is a HUGE incentive to bring baby daddies out of hiding and back into the household as wage earners.
But it only works along with a return of jobs and by disincentivizing entitlements.
Trump’s plan to reduce corporate business taxes will bring back manufacturing jobs.
Also, it logically follows that keeping cash in local communities will naturally spur local investment and job creation.