Bear - 2016-11-25 4:31 PM It's interesting. Do we know what specific deductions he would eliminate? Has he outlined those details? Here's another analysis: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-... We will have to see, won't we. In the meantime, jd&ez and Norma, you will have to wait before you go further with your premature gloating.

BS Hauler - 2016-11-25 6:15 PM I think that getting rid of the death tax will be a long term disaster for this country. In 20 or 30 years all property will be owned by a lot fewer people than it is now. People that don't own any property will never be able to compete with the owners and inheriter's of property for any piece of property that comes up for sale. The average person will be locked out of buying property. I own my own now and I can see the hand writing on the wall and this is not good for the country. There will be no reason for property to ever come up for sale if this gets passed.

 

1DSoon - 2016-11-25 5:19 PM


that is very possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on the interweb.

And I look at Huffington pretty reg 

BS Hauler - 2016-11-25 5:15 PM I think that getting rid of the death tax will be a long term disaster for this country. In 20 or 30 years all property will be owned by a lot fewer people than it is now. People that don't own any property will never be able to compete with the owners and inheriter's of property for any piece of property that comes up for sale. The average person will be locked out of buying property. I own my own now and I can see the hand writing on the wall and this is not good for the country. There will be no reason for property to ever come up for sale if this gets passed.

 

BS Hauler - 2016-11-25 5:15 PM

I think that getting rid of the death tax will be a long term disaster for this country. In 20 or 30 years all property will be owned by a lot fewer people than it is now. People that don't own any property will never be able to compete with the owners and inheriter's of property for any piece of property that comes up for sale. The average person will be locked out of buying property. I own my own now and I can see the hand writing on the wall and this is not good for the country. There will be no reason for property to ever come up for sale if this gets passed.
 

GLP - 2016-11-25 5:55 PM

I believe people are too greedy to not sell land they have no use for. Besides, my dad bought the family farm, but we ALL worked on it to improve it. We were just kids when we helped him put fence up- carrying water buckets because the ground was that hard, hammering the staples in the fence posts, tamping around the fence posts, etc. My kids have worked their butts off since they were little on this ranch. We shouldn't have to sell even a portion of it just because my dad died and someone else thinks it's their turn to own some land.

jbhoot - 2016-11-25 5:56 PM

I just reread Trump's tax plan and reread the article that jd&ez posted. And usual the internet is full of BS. 1st in the article it states that the family making 75000 would only get a 15000 deduction NOT TRUE. Under Trumps plan they would get a 30000 deduction reducing their income to 45000. And with Trumps proposed four new lower brackets they would be at a lower net tax than under present law. However all this is just a proposal it still has to get thru congress.

1DSoon - 2016-11-25 5:19 PM that is very possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on the interweb.



And I look at Huffington pretty reg 

Bear - 2016-11-25 6:59 PM Here's the deal. Trumps plans are just that...his plans. The popular idiom, " the proof is in the pudding" fits perfectly here. That "pudding" may look delicious, but we won't know how delicious it is until we actually taste it. We will continue to see his proposals scrutinized until there are results, one way or another. We are seeing this now with the daily deluge of critics and supporters of his potential cabinet selections. This is good.....very healthy for our country. I happen to have confidence that he is working hard to do what's best for the country. I think he probably realizes he can't satisfy everyone all the time. He's been laying low, staying on task, and working his ass off as far as I can tell. One example where the "pudding" ended up tasting like sh!t was ObamaCare. Most people thought that pudding looked unappetizing and it turned out to be even worse....it was a vile sh!t sandwich.

1DSoon - 2016-11-25 5:19 PM


that is very possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on the interweb.

And I look at Huffington pretty reg 

GLP - 2016-11-25 5:55 PM

I believe people are too greedy to not sell land they have no use for. Besides, my dad bought the family farm, but we ALL worked on it to improve it. We were just kids when we helped him put fence up- carrying water buckets because the ground was that hard, hammering the staples in the fence posts, tamping around the fence posts, etc. My kids have worked their butts off since they were little on this ranch. We shouldn't have to sell even a portion of it just because my dad died and someone else thinks it's their turn to own some land.

classicpotatochip - 2016-11-25 7:47 PM Fantastically stupid.

Bear - 2016-11-25 6:26 PM That's what I thought as well. I had to read it twice.

SloRide - 2016-11-25 8:43 PM

"I think that getting rid of the death tax will be a long term disaster for this country. In 20 or 30 years all property will be owned by a lot fewer people than it is now. People that don't own any property will never be able to compete with the owners and inheriter's of property for any piece of property that comes up for sale. The average person will be locked out of buying property. I own my own now and I can see the hand writing on the wall and this is not good for the country. There will be no reason for property to ever come up for sale if this gets passed."

It might not be a bad way to look at it but there are a few things to take into consideration before jumping to conclusions. There are many people who might inherit properties but just because you inherited it does not mean it would be manageable. I know we will inherit property from my in laws, but we will have to sell it quickly because we could never afford the yearly property taxes on that property and ours without stressing us financially. So I am betting people will still be selling.

I do not think the estate tax should repealed but I would not mind lowering it a bit. I think it's 46% right now and I think it's kind of high. Now that 46% is on 5 million or more. But still I think it's kind of high and we would probably be fine lowering it.

Nevertooold - 2016-11-25 9:48 PM There is all kinds of ranches and land around us for sale. Many of the kids today don't want the hard work that a ranch requires so they sell when they inherit it.

BS Hauler - 2016-11-25 5:15 PM I think that getting rid of the death tax will be a long term disaster for this country. In 20 or 30 years all property will be owned by a lot fewer people than it is now. People that don't own any property will never be able to compete with the owners and inheriter's of property for any piece of property that comes up for sale. The average person will be locked out of buying property. I own my own now and I can see the hand writing on the wall and this is not good for the country. There will be no reason for property to ever come up for sale if this gets passed.

 

SC Wrangler - 2016-11-26 10:29 AM


I wonder if how many on this forum would benefit from abolishing the death tax.  Currently the exemption for 2016 stands at 5.45 million and is projected to raise to 5.5 million for 2017.  There also exists an annual gift tax exemption of $14,000 which can convert to a decent way of transferring wealth pre-death.   Then of course there is the doubling of these numbers in the case of married couples.  

I have yet to see much in Trump's plan the benefits anyone but his mega-rich pals,  It looks like tax cuts for them individually as well as bigger CEO bonuses as a result of corporate tax cuts.  I will not hold my breath waiting for it to trickle down to my pocket.

 

SC Wrangler - 2016-11-26 10:29 AM


I wonder if how many on this forum would benefit from abolishing the death tax.  Currently the exemption for 2016 stands at 5.45 million and is projected to raise to 5.5 million for 2017.  There also exists an annual gift tax exemption of $14,000 which can convert to a decent way of transferring wealth pre-death.   Then of course there is the doubling of these numbers in the case of married couples.  

I have yet to see much in Trump's plan the benefits anyone but his mega-rich pals,  It looks like tax cuts for them individually as well as bigger CEO bonuses as a result of corporate tax cuts.  I will not hold my breath waiting for it to trickle down to my pocket.

 

Bear - 2016-11-26 11:38 AM

Also, $5 million sounds like a huge amount of money, and yes it is, however, in Iowa, for example, $5 million will buy you about 500 acres of cropland. That's not huge, if you plan on farming it, particularly when you consider the costs of farming.

Bear - 2016-11-26 11:30 AM What, in your opinion, should be done to benefit middle class citizens? Let's see YOUR list.

SC Wrangler - 2016-11-26 12:16 PM What I would like to see in individual taxes is a simpler code based on gross income modified by the number of dependents.  Cut out deductions and loopholes that all to often bring the "effective tax rate" for the wealthy down to the single digits while the middle class continues to bear double digit rates.



As for corporate rates I agree with cutting them.  But a hard look needs to be takens at deductible "business expenses"  that end up effectively being another set of untaxed benefits for executives.



I am on the fence about death taxes, mostly because of the gazillion estate planning maneuvers that can (and do) greatly mitigate the effect of the current code. I think the exemption needs to continue to escalate and the rate on the taxable portion reduced but not totally eliminated.    

rodeomom3 - 2016-11-26 1:17 PM


  Not true that on personal income tax the wealthy are able to loophole down to single digits propaganda fed by the media.    On capital gains they do pay a lower percentage as an incentive to invest in the economy they were investing money that they have already paid taxes on so they get a break on the second time they are taxed on that money.    Below is from the pew research Center from 2014:

In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.

SC Wrangler - 2016-11-26 12:16 PM


What I would like to see in individual taxes is a simpler code based on gross income modified by the number of dependents.  Cut out deductions and loopholes that all to often bring the "effective tax rate" for the wealthy down to the single digits while the middle class continues to bear double digit rates.

As for corporate rates I agree with cutting them.  But a hard look needs to be takens at deductible "business expenses"  that end up effectively being another set of untaxed benefits for executives.

I am on the fence about death taxes, mostly because of the gazillion estate planning maneuvers that can (and do) greatly mitigate the effect of the current code. I think the exemption needs to continue to escalate and the rate on the taxable portion reduced but not totally eliminated.    

Three 4 Luck - 2016-11-26 12:11 PM


You can't make a living farming 500 acres...that's hobby farm size.

Three 4 Luck - 2016-11-26 12:11 PM


You can't make a living farming 500 acres...that's hobby farm size.

Bear - 2016-11-26 4:09 PM


If you rent it out, you can generate $100-150 K per year up there, depending on the land.

Bear - 2016-11-26 2:01 PM You said, "I've yet to see much in Trump's plan that benefits anyone but his mega rich pals...." Obviously, you are either blind, or you haven't even looked at his plan more than a cursory glance, so I will point out a few examples in his agenda which I believe will ultimately benefit the middle class: 1.) Getting rid of ObamaCare and implementing the changes he has laid out as a replacement. 2.) Child care tax credits PLUS dependent care savings accounts (two different things) for working people. The Child Care Credit will be available to people earning below a certain amount. This INCENTIVIZES work, rather than welfare. I think it will nudge people off welfare rolls back into productive society. The dependent care savings accounts are similar to FLEX spending accounts offered by employers, except you can set these up yourself and it doesn't have to be through an employer. It also is not limited to certain income levels. The contributions are tax deductible. 3.) Incentivizing re-patriation of up to $2 Trillion in offshore corporate capital by offering a tax amnesty or a markedly reduced one time tax rate of 10%. That is basically a huge stimulus, except those are REAL dollars, not borrowed. If you don't think that will have a positive effect on jobs and incomes, then you don't have a brain. Right now if companies like Pfizer, Apple, and Microsoft decided to bring those dollars back into the U.S., they would be facing a 40% tax hit. They will never do it under current circumstances. 4.) Lowering personal income taxes across the board. 5.) Lowering corporate taxes from 35% to 15% - this will also apply to small and medium businesses. 6.) Elimnating most of the crippling regulations. Again, it doesn't take a genius to see how this negatively effects incomes. 7.) Promoting energy independence......paving the way for things like the Keystone pipeline, etc... 8.) Eliminating the death tax, for God's sakes. So, you can see, you have either not done much reading, or you failed to see the benefits of these aspects of his plan. Now, this is his PLAN, not his edict. He has to get things through congress. He may have to pussify some things, so fewer people's feelings are hurt.

SC Wrangler - 2016-11-26 6:01 PM


I have done the in-depth reading and (god-forbid) I happen to have a different opinion than you.  I see a plan that is heavily weighted to benefit those who need it the least while throwing a few bones to a working middle class that is going down for the third time.  I truly hope, for the sake of this county, that what you perceive is the reality.  I personally will reserve judgement until a much later date.  

By the way, you will never be accused of "pussifying" things.  Seriously, a reply without an attempt to demean would just be too passe' in this day and age. 
 

Chandler's Mom - 2016-11-26 5:03 PM


That hasn't been the case very often in our area lately unfortunately. . . .

Bear - 2016-11-26 8:12 PM


I get it. I listed 8 specific plans where I see a great potential to benefit the middle class and I explained why, and you basically made an across-the-board, blanket condemnation of all of them. Your idea of something that would benefit the working middle class is to take steps to insure wealthier taxpayers pay more. In other words, you are of the school of thought that feels the "wealthy need to pay their fair share". That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that mantra before? It's not reality yet....it's his plan. I do hope it becomes reality. People earning over $190K are responsible for 60% of federal income tax revenues. They are also the risk takers who employ middle class earners. How much is enough for you? 80%?

I asked you to list some specific actions that benefit the working middle class, and your response is to basically increase the tax burden on upper income earners by "eliminating loopholes and deductions". So, explain how that helps the middle class. For your information, your solution would hit the people who own businesses that employ many of the "working middle class". How does that work in your utopia? That was Hillary's plan, basically. I'm sorry but your candidate was rejected.

The only way I see the uber wealthy paying more in income taxes is through a flat tax, something like Steve Forbes' plan. In that case, I'm all for it, but I'm afraid it's a very tall order in today's political environment. In that scenario, the uber rich will end up paying 17% income tax, and all deductions are eliminated. In other words, people will squawk because their Ox will be gored when they realize mortgage interest deductions will be eliminated. A single person earning $50K will pay 6.8% income tax, and someone earning a million will pay just a hair under 17%. Because the mortgage interest deduction is a sacred cow, and because of fears it would hit the real estate market hard, some people favor a preservation of a mortgage interest deduction, in exchange for a higher flat tax. Personally, I have always thought that buying a home for the purposes of a mortgage interest deduction is flawed anyway.
So Trump has decided that the modifying the current tax code to provides added benefits to the middle class, as I outlined, and incentivizing work. It's not my preference, but I sure like it more than the status quo.

One last point. While I am certainly not opposed to the $14K gift tax exemption that you mentioned, in reality many families have wealth on paper because of the value of their land and property, but they don't have the $14, 28, 42K laying around to "distribute" pre death. It sounds good, but the reality is much different in many cases. A family farm can easily be worth $10 million, but many of those farmers don't have much liquid capital sitting around to give away every year. Bottom line is I think the death tax is confiscatory, and immoral.

classicpotatochip - 2016-11-26 9:38 PM


Nailed it on the property value, liquid money.

My family sits very well on literally millions of dollars worth of real estate, BUT I went to college on student loans, grants, and scholarships, because there honestly wasn't enough money in the checking account to send me to college. I'll remind everyone that to qualify for grants, your family has to make at or below the poverty line.

To pay a huge tax on multiple millions would force me to sell a property that was homesteaded by my family in 1892. Eighteen ninety flipping two. I would be the one to lose it, six generations later. Well that wouldn't that be just an honor?

SC Wrangler - 2016-11-26 8:29 AM I wonder if how many on this forum would benefit from abolishing the death tax.  Currently the exemption for 2016 stands at 5.45 million and is projected to raise to 5.5 million for 2017.  There also exists an annual gift tax exemption of $14,000 which can convert to a decent way of transferring wealth pre-death.   Then of course there is the doubling of these numbers in the case of married couples.  

I have yet to see much in Trump's plan the benefits anyone but his mega-rich pals,  It looks like tax cuts for them individually as well as bigger CEO bonuses as a result of corporate tax cuts.  I will not hold my breath waiting for it to trickle down to my pocket.

 

Bear - 2016-11-26 4:09 PM If you rent it out, you can generate $100-150 K per year up there, depending on the land.

1DSoon - 2016-11-27 8:22 AM  want to complicate the issue?



Somone explain to me why I have to pay the Government every year to keep what I already own?





 

Three 4 Luck - 2016-11-27 8:09 AM


 Well, you did say "if you plan on farming it". 

I did the math, and you're right about land rent income in Iowa, BUT if you had to finance the land, that wouldn't cover the payment.  

1DSoon - 2016-11-27 8:22 AM

 want to complicate the issue?

Somone explain to me why I have to pay the Government every year to keep what I already own?


 

Bear - 2016-11-26 8:12 PM I get it. I listed 8 specific plans where I see a great potential to benefit the middle class and I explained why, and you basically made an across-the-board, blanket condemnation of all of them. Your idea of something that would benefit the working middle class is to take steps to insure wealthier taxpayers pay more. In other words, you are of the school of thought that feels the "wealthy need to pay their fair share". That sounds familiar. Where have I heard that mantra before? It's not reality yet....it's his plan. I do hope it becomes reality. People earning over $190K are responsible for 60% of federal income tax revenues. They are also the risk takers who employ middle class earners. How much is enough for you? 80%? I asked you to list some specific actions that benefit the working middle class, and your response is to basically increase the tax burden on upper income earners by "eliminating loopholes and deductions". So, explain how that helps the middle class. For your information, your solution would hit the people who own businesses that employ many of the "working middle class". How does that work in your utopia? That was Hillary's plan, basically. I'm sorry but your candidate was rejected. The only way I see the uber wealthy paying more in income taxes is through a flat tax, something like Steve Forbes' plan. In that case, I'm all for it, but I'm afraid it's a very tall order in today's political environment. In that scenario, the uber rich will end up paying 17% income tax, and all deductions are eliminated. In other words, people will squawk because their Ox will be gored when they realize mortgage interest deductions will be eliminated. A single person earning $50K will pay 6.8% income tax, and someone earning a million will pay just a hair under 17%. Because the mortgage interest deduction is a sacred cow, and because of fears it would hit the real estate market hard, some people favor a preservation of a mortgage interest deduction, in exchange for a higher flat tax. Personally, I have always thought that buying a home for the purposes of a mortgage interest deduction is flawed anyway. So Trump has decided that the modifying the current tax code to provides added benefits to the middle class, as I outlined, and incentivizing work. It's not my preference, but I sure like it more than the status quo. One last point. While I am certainly not opposed to the $14K gift tax exemption that you mentioned, in reality many families have wealth on paper because of the value of their land and property, but they don't have the $14, 28, 42K laying around to "distribute" pre death. It sounds good, but the reality is much different in many cases. A family farm can easily be worth $10 million, but many of those farmers don't have much liquid capital sitting around to give away every year. Bottom line is I think the death tax is confiscatory, and immoral.

Bear - 2016-11-26 2:01 PM


You said, "I've yet to see much in Trump's plan that benefits anyone but his mega rich pals...."

Obviously, you are either blind, or you haven't even looked at his plan more than a cursory glance, so I will point out a few examples in his agenda which I believe will ultimately benefit the middle class:

1.) Getting rid of ObamaCare and implementing the changes he has laid out as a replacement.

2.) Child care tax credits PLUS dependent care savings accounts (two different things) for working people. The Child Care Credit will be available to people earning below a certain amount. This INCENTIVIZES work, rather than welfare. I think it will nudge people off welfare rolls back into productive society. The dependent care savings accounts are similar to FLEX spending accounts offered by employers, except you can set these up yourself and it doesn't have to be through an employer. It also is not limited to certain income levels. The contributions are tax deductible.

3.) Incentivizing re-patriation of up to $2 Trillion in offshore corporate capital by offering a tax amnesty or a markedly reduced one time tax rate of 10%. That is basically a huge stimulus, except those are REAL dollars, not borrowed. If you don't think that will have a positive effect on jobs and incomes, then you don't have a brain. Right now if companies like Pfizer, Apple, and Microsoft decided to bring those dollars back into the U.S., they would be facing a 40% tax hit. They will never do it under current circumstances.

4.) Lowering personal income taxes across the board.

5.) Lowering corporate taxes from 35% to 15% - this will also apply to small and medium businesses.

6.) Elimnating most of the crippling regulations. Again, it doesn't take a genius to see how this negatively effects incomes.

7.) Promoting energy independence......paving the way for things like the Keystone pipeline, etc...

8.) Eliminating the death tax, for God's sakes.

So, you can see, you have either not done much reading, or you failed to see the benefits of these aspects of his plan. Now, this is his PLAN, not his edict. He has to get things through congress. He may have to pussify some things, so fewer people's feelings are hurt.

foundation horse - 2016-11-27 10:07 AM


Lowering the Corporate Income Tax from 35% to 15% can be done with a piece of paper (Executive Order) and the day after that happens Money will start moving again at a record pace. I.E. Businesses will spend the lower difference in expansion! Which means jobs!

jbhoot - 2016-11-27 10:38 AM


No he can't. He can not change the present law only congress has the power to tax and to change the law. He could choose to not enforce the law by EO. but that has to stand a court challenge. EO. have a vary poor record of prevailing a court challenge. A prime example is that none of Obama's EO's that have been challenged in court have prevailed. All of his tax policy must go to congress for approval before coming law. Can this happen with in the next year sure. Can it happen on day one No.

Bear - 2016-11-27 9:05 AM No, of course not. Not even close. If you had to finance it, your monthly payment would be in the neighborhood of $20-25K, but what's your point? My point is exactly what so many others have been making. Imposing confiscatory death taxes on heirs to family property is immoral. We're talking about things like family farms and ranches that have been passed down for generations. These are basically family businesses that have been generating incomes and livelihoods. They have also been generating revenues to the government in property tax, income tax, sales tax on purchases of equipment, machinery and almost every expenditure related to that business. Often times, if you look back, the purchases of the property was made with after-tax dollars. A death tax imposes a double tax. In contrast, if you purchase a private disability insurance policy with after tax dollars, and you become disabled, typically the disability income from that policy is not taxable. If the disability income is from an employer benefit, that's a different story.

SC Wrangler - 2016-11-27 9:45 AM


I don't believe I ever disagreed with the entirety of Trump's plan.  That is what you choose to interpet.  Just like you choose to think Hillary was my choice.  I simply said that a portion of his plan gives the uber-wealthy a prime rib and barely throws a bone to a good portion of the middle class.  

 

Bear - 2016-11-27 11:05 AM I laid out several ways in which Trump's plan can benefit the middle class. I asked you what you would do, and you basically said nothing other than promote maneuvers that require professional accountants or tax lawyers. Now you are saying you don't disagree with all of his plan. Which ones? Why? I say eliminate the death tax. We shouldn't need complicated circuitous maneuvers by accountants and lawyers to keep family farms in the family. You are basically illustrating various maneuvers to obviate the death tax. I say kick out the middle man and eliminate the **** tax altogether.

Bear - 2016-11-26 8:19 PM


I don't doubt that. I was making a specific reference to farmland in certain areas of Iowa, as an example.

jd&ez - 2016-11-27 9:20 AM

All a bunch of posturing. The people that voted fro Trump bought a pig in a poke. His tax plan is designed to reward the wealthy. Not the super rich like Trump, he already doesn't pay income tax. I'm in the bracket to get a 2% federal reduction. We paid about $30K federal taxes last year so I'm in line to save $600. I guess that will soothe the soreness of having a racist bigot President? WooHoo!!

I do expect my $600 to not be the lasting windfall that it seems to be. Most of my clients are low income. If not on medicaid they are are getting extra help. They are the ones that will be hit hard by trumpinonmics. If my clients can't continue to be clients then my $600 windfall goes out the window.

As for fairness of taxes, there is only one true equalizer, a national sales tax and ditch the whole system we have now. We would all pay the same then. The low income, the middle class and the super rich. Don't want to pay taxes? Don't spend.  But, the drug money would be taxed then. The under the table cash payments that slip by today would be taxed. Of course there could be exemptions like for a home that you live in.

That's pie in the sky thinking as it will never pass because the rich will never let that pass.

Trump has been anti worker for 69 years. Why did anyone believe that he changed to be pro worker in the last year? 

Chandler's Mom - 2016-11-27 5:43 PM


May I ask what your profession is?

foundation horse - 2016-11-27 6:59 PM


While I am NOT jd&ez, I can answer as to his profession. Insurance Salesmen. Emphasis on SALES!

rodeomom3 - 2016-11-25 5:58 PM  Wow, agree-I don't understand this thought process at all.   Why should an inheritance be taxed at such a high rate when it has already been taxed through  out the years??? The government should get it through taxes????  Ridiculous.   

classicpotatochip - 2016-11-24 5:20 PM

I benefit from trickle down everyday.

Tax cuts allow for company expansion and profit, which allows them to retain me as a contractor. .

No profit, no worky. No worky, no money for groceries. Pretty simple illustration I think.

Right now, the bill that's kicking our ass in our household is healthcare. It's way over what a 2% increase in taxes would be. Change the healthcare and keep the 2%, I'm still keeping more money. Bring on the Trump!! I'm so ready.

jd&ez - 2016-11-27 9:20 AM ....

As for fairness of taxes, there is only one true equalizer, a national sales tax and ditch the whole system we have now. We would all pay the same then. The low income, the middle class and the super rich. Don't want to pay taxes? Don't spend.  But, the drug money would be taxed then. The under the table cash payments that slip by today would be taxed. Of course there could be exemptions like for a home that you live in.



 

SC Wrangler - 2016-11-26 10:29 AM 

I have yet to see much in Trump's plan the benefits anyone but his mega-rich pals,  It looks like tax cuts for them individually as well as bigger CEO bonuses as a result of corporate tax cuts.  I will not hold my breath waiting for it to trickle down to my pocket.

 

TXBO - 2016-11-28 1:58 PM


 1) If you're not paying much, you can't save much from a tax cut.
2) After Japan lowered it's corporate tax rate a few years ago, we now have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrial world.  If you want to see industry return to the US, corporate rate cuts are a good start.
3) Anyone who hold stocks in their 401K or other retirement plan benefits from the corporate earnings increases created by lower tax rates.  It's not just the CEO.
4) To understand the benefit of tax cuts better, read up on the "Laffer Curve".  It's an economic concept, not theory, that Reagan and Kennedy knew very well.