Trump's tax plan.....You judge!

[hunarcy]

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

 

[AntonToo]

Let's be real. Who else is paying taxes?

If only we had some way to answer this question...if only.

 

[hunarcy]

Let's be real. Who else is paying taxes?

If only we had some way to answer this question...if only.

Funny how you take a discussion about income tax and post a table concerning ALL tax revenue. Almost as if you can't honestly discuss the subject.

 

[AntonToo]

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

Nope, JFK cut taxes from [ridiculously high] to just [high]. Top marginal from 91% to 65% and corporate tax from 52% to 47%

JFK's legacy suggests cutting taxes is a good idea no more then it suggests that current tax rates are way too low.

 

[AntonToo]

Let's be real. Who else is paying taxes?

If only we had some way to answer this question...if only.

Funny how you take a discussion about income tax and post a table concerning ALL tax revenue. Almost as if you can't honestly discuss the subject.

Two are inseparable unfortunately since progresivity of Federal income tax is structured around the regressive nature of payroll and state/local taxation.

 

[edthecynic]

Let's be real. Who else is paying taxes? When the bottom 50% effectively pay no income taxes, they can't be given a tax cut...and since the top 1% pay 37.8% of the total income tax, they probably deserve a cut.

Again, it is the top 1% of WAGE EARNERS that are paying 37.8%, not the truly wealthy like Tramp, who do not work for the common wage and pay nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

No what brought in more money during the JFK/LBJ years was the growth spurred by the increase in government spending. JFK's formula was tax cuts AND spending increases.

 

[nat4900]

When the bottom 50% effectively pay no income taxes, they can't be given a tax cut...and since the top 1% pay 37.8% of the total income tax, they probably deserve a cut.

........If one cares to move one's eyes slightly down the page at the Tax Policy Center web site, one will find that 73.1 percent of all tax units (in 2015) do pay either federal income taxes or federal payroll taxes. In other words, plenty of people who don't pay the "income tax" pay taxes on income via the payroll tax. That income tax is assessed at a flat and regressive rate of more than 15 percent, once both worker and employer shares are included. (The employer share negatively impacts the employees' wages, of course.) In 2014, payroll taxes combined for a total of 34 percent of all federal revenues in 2014, or one trillion dollars. (Those who don't get a paycheck pay the aptly-named "self-employment tax" in its place.)

 

[JoeNormal]

If you had a trust fund, would you put the assets in a safe deposit box or invest them?

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

It isn't invested in any way, it's spent as it comes in. You're just making that up

It was explained to me on this board a while back by someone who knows a lot more about it than you do.

Wow, a moron explained it to an idiot. Actually congress passed a law preventing any money from being saved. It must all go into the general fund. Loaning yourself money isn't an asset. Google can cure your ignorance. If any of the money goes anywhere else, it's illegal. So I wouldn't listen to the genius who claimed social security is breaking the law and making other investments

If anything, Google can cure your ignorance (but only if you want to be cured).

Social Security Trust Fund Cash Flows and Reserves

Since you apparently need everything explained to you, it shows a current reserve of about 2.8 trillion dollars.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothing is safe. SS bonds without Gore's lock box can be reneged on and Trump will renege on them.

The 1960 Flemming vs. Nestor Supreme Court decision said citizens don’t have a right to Social Security benefits, no matter how long they paid into the system. Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

No they didn't. We had 2 billion dollar surplus in 1960. That was followed by 8 straight years of deficits,
until 1969, when we had a surplus.

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

 

[BuckToothMoron]

BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.

Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.

I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.

I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

First, you didn't "explain" anything. Everybody knows why taxes are collected. So don't break your arm patting yourself on the back because you final figured out why taxes are collected.

Second, the only way to help the bottom 50% of workers, those who pay little to nothing in income tax now, is to exempt them and their employers from the payroll tax, and incentivize their employers to increase their employees pay by the amount of the tax savings. This would increase the income For people making less than $118k per year by over 14%. However, it would in the view of FDR, remove the moral, legal and political right those people have to social security and Medicare benefits.

In 1941, President FDR explained why he chose to fund Social Security through a payroll tax in as follows:

“We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program”

I have repeated in this thread, regardless of the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 20% on their income, their overall share of total taxes collected has continually increased, while the bottom 20% share has decreased, and we should be focused on reversing the growing income gap rather than try to decide the percentage of income tax collected by different income groups.

 

[kaz]

Invest them. What does that have to do with the discussion? Gore never proposed either since he never proposed having actual assets

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

It isn't invested in any way, it's spent as it comes in. You're just making that up

It was explained to me on this board a while back by someone who knows a lot more about it than you do.

Wow, a moron explained it to an idiot. Actually congress passed a law preventing any money from being saved. It must all go into the general fund. Loaning yourself money isn't an asset. Google can cure your ignorance. If any of the money goes anywhere else, it's illegal. So I wouldn't listen to the genius who claimed social security is breaking the law and making other investments

If anything, Google can cure your ignorance (but only if you want to be cured).

Social Security Trust Fund Cash Flows and Reserves

Since you apparently need everything explained to you, it shows a current reserve of about 2.8 trillion dollars.

So if you loan yourself money, you consider that an asset?

Do you understand that if you get a social security check, the money to fund that check some entirely out of taxes paid by your children? Do you grasp that?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.

I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

BuckToothMoron, we have bills to pay. Bills that include assistance to the poor and elderly like food stamps, education, medical coverage etc.

Given that, we have to decide how to distribute that burden in a way that makes most sense and is most fair, as vague as that term is.

I understand we have bills to pay. And I also understand we don't pay them now since our debt is increasing. The facts are that the top 20% have continued to pay a higher and higher % of the tax burden while the bottom 50% pay less and less. There is a clear disconnect between taxes and the wealth/income gap. In other words, collecting more taxes from the top does not help the bottom earn more.

I don't know the solution, but we need to examine something other than tax brackets and rates. The wealth gap is higher now than it was just before the Great Depression, and has been increasing since the 1970's. This wealth gap is not a good thing, and it transcends party lines.

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

It funds a safety net for them but I will agree with you that the income gap is way too large. That's why I favor a system in which the highest paid members of a corporation can be paid a maximum of some factor of the average wage in their organizations. That factor is 20x in Japan. Could be some other factor here but not the 300x that it is now.

Thank you for being the first person besides me on this thread that I have seen address the real problem of income gap.

I agree some financial engineering has to be done to correlate the income of high earners to the lower and middle class earners.

 

[JoeNormal]

The funds which people who want to believe that SS was plundered are invested in various ways. That doesn't mean they have somehow evaporated.

It isn't invested in any way, it's spent as it comes in. You're just making that up

It was explained to me on this board a while back by someone who knows a lot more about it than you do.

Wow, a moron explained it to an idiot. Actually congress passed a law preventing any money from being saved. It must all go into the general fund. Loaning yourself money isn't an asset. Google can cure your ignorance. If any of the money goes anywhere else, it's illegal. So I wouldn't listen to the genius who claimed social security is breaking the law and making other investments

If anything, Google can cure your ignorance (but only if you want to be cured).

Social Security Trust Fund Cash Flows and Reserves

Since you apparently need everything explained to you, it shows a current reserve of about 2.8 trillion dollars.

So if you loan yourself money, you consider that an asset?

Do you understand that if you get a social security check, the money to fund that check some entirely out of taxes paid by your children? Do you grasp that?

Maybe 'Reserves' is too complex a concept for you to grasp.

 

[hunarcy]

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

Nope, JFK cut taxes from [ridiculously high] to just [high]. Top marginal from 91% to 65% and corporate tax from 52% to 47%

JFK's legacy suggests cutting taxes is a good idea no more then it suggests that current tax rates are way too low.

When the bottom 50% effectively pay no income taxes, they can't be given a tax cut...and since the top 1% pay 37.8% of the total income tax, they probably deserve a cut.

........If one cares to move one's eyes slightly down the page at the Tax Policy Center web site, one will find that 73.1 percent of all tax units (in 2015) do pay either federal income taxes or federal payroll taxes. In other words, plenty of people who don't pay the "income tax" pay taxes on income via the payroll tax. That income tax is assessed at a flat and regressive rate of more than 15 percent, once both worker and employer shares are included. (The employer share negatively impacts the employees' wages, of course.) In 2014, payroll taxes combined for a total of 34 percent of all federal revenues in 2014, or one trillion dollars. (Those who don't get a paycheck pay the aptly-named "self-employment tax" in its place.)

Another dishonest poster. The PAYROLL tax is social security and medicare and is not part of the income tax. Since you don't want to deal with reality, there's no point in talking to you.

While each should contribute according to their means, all should contribute to the common good.

 

[hunarcy]

Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

No they didn't. We had 2 billion dollar surplus in 1960. That was followed by 8 straight years of deficits,
until 1969, when we had a surplus.

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

I gave you a link to the NPR article and you obviously ignored it.

 

[paulitician]

Ah, y'all Safe Space Moochers are just gonna have to get back to work. Time to get a job. So don't worry about complex tax issues you can't understand. First things first. GET A JOB!

 

[kaz]

They pay higher and higher % of total taxes paid because they make more, while gains were small for everyone else.

When you look at actual % of income taxation they don't pay more than middle class when overall taxation is considered:

The one tax graph you really need to know

Watch these facts get ignored again by the people who want to believe the wealthy pay too much.

What the wealthy pay and if it is too little or too much is not what we should be focused on. Let's assume for a moment that you taxed the wealthy at 99% of their income and that constitute 99% of all taxes collected. How does that help the bottom 50% who already don't pay taxes? We need to look at the INCOME GAP. Taxing the shit out of the wealthy does not increase income for the bottom 50%.

....but I already explained that bills need to be paid and all that stuff, you are back at your original argument as if nothing happened.

The point of taxing rich is not that it increases anyone's salary(on the contrary it may even shrink it some), the point is to pay the bills (portion of which helps the poor) that we increasingly cover less and less of due to under-taxing and over-spending.


Let's go at it from the other direction - I will now use your very logic to say that we should change tax code to not tax any income above $100,000. That would help or at least not hurt the poor, right? Sounds sane?

A little math lesson then I will make my statement.
If you could spend 1 dollar a second, how long would it take you to spend 1 trillion dollars?
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minutes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365 = $3,153,600 a year. That is over 3 million dollars a year, how many people spend that much?
$3,153,600 x 1000 = 3,153,600,000. That is over 3 billion dollars for a 1000 years, still not 1 trillion dollars.
$3,153,600,000 x 31.71 = $1,000,000,000,000 That is just over 31,710 years to spend 1 trillion dollars.

So the government takes in over 3.2 trillion dollars and spends almost 3.9 trillion dollars in 1 year. Why doesn't the government not spend as much by cutting 1/2 of the budget that most goes to entitlements and those agencies that support those entitlements. If you have a "FAIR" flat tax, everyone pays their fair share, don't need the IRS, and when there is less government there is more money for people who work to spend and create jobs, as this isn't trickle down economics(Liberal term) but supply side economics. See a need, fill a need.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I like the flat tax idea, but the income taxes collected don't really go to entitlement spending of Social Security and Medicare. Those are funded by the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the employer.

A distinction without a difference. All income and social security taxes are paid into the general fund. All social security payments are made out of the general fund. There is no different source of money. Today's taxpayers are funding all social security payments, just like any other welfare program.

As for employer and employee sides of social security, it's all actually paid by the employer. It's just which line of a form it's on. We pay both sides at the same time, the employee never sees the money. When we look at it in our accounting systems, it's all lumped together as well as the technical distinction is irrelevant.

On the other hand, it's all part of an employee's pay. We subract it all from your salary. We look at the total cost of employment, we don't just count their direct salary. Politicians want to get Americans to overthink it so you have distinctions in your mind that don't exist in reality. Just different lines on forms, that's all they are

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you!

The court said Congress had the power to modify the rules, which it has done several times -- such as gradually raising the full retirement age over time.

The Supreme Court never said "due process" is a legislative process, you're full of shit

Here is what SCOTUS said:

Congress can change the rules how they see fit, as long as they follow due process.

Show the actual quote because "due process" doesn't make sense in that sentence. Due process is a judicial process, not a legislative one.

Note the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee due process of JUSTICE

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

If you can legislate due process, that would mean that congress can pass a law saying to kill every first born son because you cannot lose your life without DUE PROCESS. You're arguing their passing a law is due process.

Why after going back and fourth are you not googling this? Lazy or just indifferent to knowledge?

Don't forget, Trump has to find a trillion dollars in new revenue for his infrastructure plan. You don't find that cutting revenues from taxes.

John Kennedy found that cutting tax rates brought in MORE money.

JFK's Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates

No they didn't. We had 2 billion dollar surplus in 1960. That was followed by 8 straight years of deficits,
until 1969, when we had a surplus.

Why did we have a surplus in 1969. Because the president and Congress imposed a 10% income tax surcharge,

to pay for the Vietnam War.

A History of Surpluses and Deficits in the United States

I gave you a link to the NPR article and you obviously ignored it.

I gave you the mathematical facts. If you like Kennedy's marginal tax rates, then you should advocate for putting them back into place.