What do you think of Trumps tax reform proposal?

It’s bogus. Utterly vapid.

It lowers taxes with no concomitant cuts in anything. It does all this by doubling the national debt by 12 trillion dollars.

This is beyond silly. It doesn’t have a chance of passing, and zero chance of working in any sensible way.

The real question is this:
What effect will this have on government revenue, and thus the state’s ability to fund imperative public services?
Because it sounds like it would massively decrease revenue, and thus cripple the state’s ability to fund public education, the justice system, welfare programmes, regulatory enforcement, public works, etc. etc.
In essence, this will further ram spiked shafts up the already battered poor’s arses (who, because of their low income, already do not pay income tax), while pumping even more butter into the fat cats’ esophagi.

Yet another Trump dump.

Another Reagan/Bush tax cut- lower taxes to make people happy, increase debt.

@ragingloli Thanks for the two mental images while I was eating pudding.

I’m too lazy to refute all of the points (I’m sure others will), but this is basically more voodoo economics. You cut taxes, to stimulate growth that makes everyone so wildly successful that the government actually brings in more revenue even with smaller percent taxes, and the wealth “trickles down.” The reality is that it doesn’t work, income inequality gets much bigger, the government takes on massive debt, and the wealth flows up, not down. Regan tried it, Bush2.0 tried it, and both times it’s failed miserably. Economic theory debunked, objectively, conclusively.

Regarding the death tax. You currently only pay estate tax on money over something like $5 million (and 0% if it’s going to your spouse). So let’s not pretend that this is to help out the average hard-working American leaving a little something to her kids. The whole point of America is that you work hard and do well, and your fortunes should reflect your efforts. As a country we rejected the principle of dynastic wealth like the English monarchy had at the time of our founding. Dynastic wealth is the antithesis of the American dream.

Sounds good to me. I hate taxes. The less the better for me.
At least the moron put something on the table.
Haven’t heard anybody else make a tax policy proposal. Even the Tea Party guys who claim to want to shrink government.
Or Hillary Clinton, who has no real agenda other than to further feather the Clinton nest.
People bitch when politicians do not give specifics.
Then they bitch when politicians do indeed give specifics.
Go figure.

@josie

Yeah, people aren’t “bitching” because specifics have been given. They’re “bitching” because the specifics given have been tried before and have been proven to be a failure.

Don’t worry. He is such a good negotiator China will pay for it.

I think many here are missing the points that only Donald could campaign on….

“In particular, I am proposing ending the current treatment of carried interest for hedge funds and other speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs.”

AND

“This low rate will make corporate inversions unnecessary and will make America one of the most competitive markets in the world. This plan will also require companies with capital offshore to bring that money back to the U.S. at a repatriation rate of only 10%. Right now, the money is not being brought back because the tax is so high.””

We are talking billions even trillions in lost tax revenues here. IF he could pull this off then the rest of the tax discounts for the job creators could very well work out. I know the tax increases I have had since Barry took office has hoovered dollars out of my bank that I had planned to use to hire 3 new employees. A 15% flat business tax will allow me to easily hire those 3 and a very expensive haz mat expert to take over the tedious regulation compliance I am saddled with! I would vote for Trump because it is the only platform that any legitimate candidate has tabled that makes even a lick of sense for creating jobs and lots of jobs in a New York Minute!

As others have mentioned, this is just a gift to the uber-rich, and it’s selling the old trickle down garbage again.

@Cruiser: “A 15% flat business tax will allow me to easily hire those 3 and a very expensive haz mat expert to take over the tedious regulation compliance…”

A 10% flat business tax will probably allow you to hire another couple. Actually, let’s make it 5% to add some more jobs. Let’s make it 0%. If you need a tax break to hire more people, then you’re not ready to hire new people.

I really don’t get the whole anti-tax attitude that most people seem to have. How much are you people paying in taxes? My effective federal tax rate in 2014 was 11.24% (or $16,624) and I’d easily pay far more if we were to focus on things like universal healthcare, etc. I support a highly-progressive tax system – something Trump’s is not.

@DoNotKnow I pay a lot in taxes an have no problem paying my fair share. But when the Government takes my hard earned money and jut pisses it away the way they have the last 7 years….yes I get my undies in a bunch. I KNOW I could have done a LOT with the $66,000 per year of EXTRA taxes I am now paying thanks to Obama. That money would be at least 2 good paying jobs with benefits and my company could grow and pay more taxes. Now with that money taken from me I am in a holding pattern. It is not rocket science to see what Trump is saying would mean more jobs and lots of jobs. Under Trumps plan I could add 3 jobs and lots of new processing equipment. But I guess Liberals would much rather see their Government Grow and my business stagnate. Makes no sense at all. Only uniformed idiots would support Bernie Sanders and what our government is doing to destroy the strength and innovation potential our country once thrived under.

Some of it I like. I like simplifying the tax code.

I don’t like eliminating estate taxes, and I think we should bring the exemption back down below $5million. $2, maybe $3 million sounds better to me.

I would need to see the actual data on how the numbers would all role out to have a string opinion on the details. Does the government make more money or less on his plan?

@Cruiser If our business had more money at the end of the year, we wouldn’t hire more workers; our practice’s president would simply get a bigger bonus at the end of the year. The only time we hire more people is when we’re too busy to keep up with demand and have no choice but to expand or loose business. The “job creators” aren’t the CEO’s, they’re the middle-class people who buy products and services thereby increasing demand beyond what the current capacity of a company can handle.

As for being an uninformed idiot liberal, I do know that in the 1950’s (that time when the US economy was booming and we were the leaders in global innovations) the top tax bracket was 90%. I’m not arguing that it should return to those levels, but give me a fucking break with this taxes crush the economy bullshit. In fact, if you look at that chart and compare every major drop in the top tax rate with our national deficit spending and you’ll see that deficits spike every time that rate plummets.

@JLeslie The Government should not “make” money on anyone’s tax plan. First thing you need is a budget (something we have not had in years) with a budget then on can forecast the revenue a Government needs or the tax increases in may need to make or the budget cuts a Government will need to make to execute a balanced budget. Ideally a Government should not make nor lose money with a fiscally sound budget.

@gorillapaws You make valid points but your points are lacking in details that see that the effective high tax rates are really not much higher then than they are today. Tax rates reaching that high towards 95% are for one, tiered and only applied on the super excesses above many millions in income. Even with a top tier 95% tax rate their overall effective tax rates could still be well below 35% Hence why people like Buffet have effective tax rates less than their secretaries because most of their income is capital gains and taxed at 15%. All of my income is from my paycheck and I get hammered there and my effective tax rate is 30% largely in thanks to Illinois 6% income tax.

The big money still controls our policies especially our tax code policies. If taxes are raised you can bet your last dollar there are sufficient loop holes created that offset these increase the big money might have to endure. IMO only Trump has the balls to take on his cronies to close loopholes for the uber rich and then lower taxes for true job creators like me and my small company.

@Cruiser Please detail what tax increase you are talking about. Outside of implementation taxes for healthcare, what tax increase from the Feds have hit you? Or have hit your business?

@zenvelo My Fed income taxes went from 30% to 35%, Illinois income taxes went from 4% to 6% and why Indiana is now flying high with all the companies that have relocated there. In 4 short years my health care expense has gone from $70,000 a year to now over $145,000 for 2016.

Most any companies would kill for a 7% profit and my Government felt I could endure a 7% tax hit on my profits. In my case they were right there but because of these tax increases, there a 4 people still collecting unemployment that should be employed by my company and sadly I cannot now afford to.

@Cruiser Can’t blame Obama for Illinois. California’s rates went up but it has turned our state around to where unemployment in the Bay Area is about 4%.

And Obama didn’t raise taxes, the time limited Bush cuts expired. And one reason they expired without being renewed was because we were digging out of Bush’s 8 years of spending money like water.

@zenvelo I can blame Obama for the tax increase in Illinois as he was our Senator that voted absent 54% of the time in the 2 weeks he actually was not out campaigning. He should have done the duty as the Senator he was sworn in to do yet he was too busy campaigning and the deficit and lost jobs here in Illinois bear stark testimony to the lack of effort exerted by Mr Obama to the constituents who elected him Senator. Thank you very little Mr. Obama.

Still trying out figure out how it is gonna work. Cut money from here and pray that things will get better and provide more taxes? Not gonna happen. Besides, I am one of those who believes that anything over $500k should be taxed at 100%.

It is not a good plan. His top bracket is too high and his bottom bracket is at zero. Capital gains should be at zero, not income brackets. There should only be one income bracket at no less or higher than 10%. Everyone should have skin in the game. No exceptions. Spending cuts to be done accordingly to avoid a deficit.

Capital gains should be taxed as straight income. Why is money earned actually working taxed at a higher rate than money making money.

PS don’t waste your time explaining how capital gains makes jobs. That is crap.

Risk.

I won’t be explaining anything. I’m not here to convince anyone. Just sharing my views.

Risk? Not even close to a reason. Risk is digging out tons of coal far underground, Risk is tying in high voltage lines to a building, Risk is fishing in the North Sea; Risk is trying to raise a crop to feed the nation while using antiquated equipment because the new stuff is way out of your price range; Risk is catching a bus in downtown New York to get to a minimum wage job because your kids might like to eat this week.

Risk is not putting up a couple of bucks and hoping to make several more. Try again.

Don’t take this personally, but you’re not important enough for me to educate you on the risks involved in investing.

Fair enough.

Ok, don’t use the word “make,” use the phrase “take in.” Even if we get a competent budget it’s important the taxes are actually going to be sufficient to meet the funds necessary for the budget.

At best, it’s idealistic. I know the math too well to see it as a viable solution.

Then again, it seems that Conservatives seem to really have a thing for economic policies that were discredited over a century ago and have a bad history. I don’t understand the sort of cognitive dissonance there is in the, “That didn’t work, so lets try the same thing again only harder!”, philosophy of repeating past mistakes in the hope that the sheer magnitude of a fuck-up will cause a pole reversal and become a good thing.

@pinc Most who don’t pay taxes right now have all their skin in the game whereas those that get their business costs subsidized at taxpayer expense have far less at stake than those who are barely surviving.
Now, how many investors actually died as a direct result of the value of their portfolio tanking? While I can see a few committing suicide as their fortunes crumble, I’m pretty sure that that number is a few orders of magnitude lower than the number who have died to pay the Walton family’s share.

But trumps plan won’t have everyone in the game. Those making 25k or couples with a total of 50k will have a zero tax rate. I’m against that.

I see you have the same concern with risk as rojo, so I will give a brief explanation.

Statistically, 90–95% of investors are doomed to complete financial failure and when I say investors that includes the laborers who work at these high-risk jobs because they too risk some of their money in investments to increase their savings. A capital gains tax would take a chunk of their extra savings away from them.

With only a 5–10% success rate on all investments and the chain of events that spring fourth from risk-taking innovating investors – from job creation to new ideas raise the standards-of-living, it would be unwise to set the rate to anything but 0% for capital gains.

Risk isn’t a completely valid reason for capital gains to be so much lower. Let’s see, I can do a deal and make $45k in one transaction. If my tax rate is going to be at my tier rather than a lower rate I don’t want to do the deal. I don’t think so.

Also, the average lower middle class guy rarely takes advantage of capital gains rates. Interest earned typically is taxed like regular income. Some gains on investments like funds in a 401k might get only a capital gains tax, but I would bet the majority of the average guy’s money is kept in a bank if he saves. People at higher salaries have more discretionary income and can take advantage of capital gains take more readily. Plus, they have family and peers who tell them about how the tax law works, let alone hire accountants and lawyers.

You say risk isn’t a good reason but you use an example that in no way shows why risk a not a good reason. You won’t take 45k in profits because you risk paying at your tier, but if the rate was at 0%, there is no progressive bracket. Problem solved.

Someone not having the means to take advantage of capital gains is not a valid reason for taxing those who could.

I made $45k on a property I bought. I held it a year to pay the lower tax, but if that option wasn’t available I’d still have bought the property to make the profit.

You knew you were making a profit regardless of the given rate, but that is not the entire nature of capital gains. As I quoted earlier, there is a 90–95% failure rate for investors. The nature of capital gains is the uncertainty, the non-guarantee. If I were to make a short-term investment into the stock market this past month, I would have lost my investment. I have no way of knowing whether the market is heading further down or up. Just speculation. Likewise for long-term investments. Similarly, if I were to work on a project for 10 years, there is no guarantee that someone would buy my patent, and there is no guarantee for the person who bought it from me that the public will buy enough of the product for him to gain back the expense he endured when he paid me for the rights.

After all this, if you happen to come out alive, you get slapped with a tax. That is why it needs to be at a rate of 0%..

[sniff]

@pinc “As I quoted earlier, there is a 90–95% failure rate for investors”
What’s your source?

Adjusted for inflation, the historical average annual return of the S&P 500 is about 7%. It’s one of the safest long-term things you can do with your money, especially if you diversify your portfolio with other holdings.

There are a lot of sources. It is broken down by investor type.. I’ll give you some, google the rest.

1
2
3
4

@pinc You’re talking about a 90–95% failure of STARTUPS. That’s very different from your statement:
“Statistically, 90–95% of investors are doomed to complete financial failure and when I say investors that includes the laborers who work at these high-risk jobs because they too risk some of their money in investments to increase their savings.”

Venture capital firms EXPECT high failure rates of their investments, but the few that succeed are supposed to more-than-offset those that fail. If I were to invest a hypothetical $1 million in 100 startups, with 95% failing, and the other 5% being acquired by companies like Google for a 50x return on investment, then I’m UP 150% on my initial investment even if most of my investments fail. The fact that I can write off my losses against my gains is actually an incentive to take on risky investments.

Furthermore, none of the articles you linked indicate that 90–95% of all investors experience “complete financial failure.”

Startups are investors. Fund mangers and traders are investors. Laborers invest in mutual funds. That was suppose to be obvious. I guess not.

You’re also fixating too much on the exact wording instead of the data. The articles do show 90%+ failure rates across the boards for various types of investors. One article said 86% which is close to 90%, so you’re just splitting hairs at this point.

If you want to convince me on why there should be a tax on gains you’re going to have to do a much better job at that.

Here – more on investor failure. This one puts on 80% failure rate. Link

Rojo, this is why I didn’t want to start with explanations with you. As you can see the conversations go no where. Rarely do people’s minds change on issues. It just becomes an unproductive argument. Questioning data and sources. She said. He said. I’m right. You’re wrong. My source is good. Yours is bad. Look where it got us. I’m still voting for Ted Cruz and I still want a 0% gains rate and 10% income tax rate across-the-boards.

It is maybe worthwhile to do this to someone important. Someone with a lot of influence.

Yeah, I read all your answers, gave them some consideration and still have my original mindset so you’re probably right; about the conversations anyway.

I still wouldn’t vote for Cruz if you beat me with a stick, I still want gains taxed at the same rate other sources of income are taxed and have a tax system that starts at 10% up to a certain amount, 20% on any amount above that up to the next level, 30% on the next increment, and so on until everything over a given sum is taxed at 95%. So I guess we have to agree to disagree.
PS while I am important (my mother says so) and am occasionally under the influence, I have not got a lot of political influence or financial clout.

@pinc Let me ask you, have you ever been homeless? Or suffered an illness/injury that cost more than you could afford so it went untreated? Also, do you like things like roads, or are you willing to be 150% independent and try buying EVERYTHING you need?

As for laborers investing in mutual funds, you really don’t get out of your ivory tower and look at the really real world where real people live much. This isn’t 1978 when minimum wage was still enough to pay rent and college was something that could be worked through instead of a luxury that only royalty can afford. Hell, unless you are in the top 10% economically, you probably aren’t able to both pay rent and eat without some sort of assistance, be it government or just a second job; households NEED more than one income these days.

Are you Christian, or would your mere existence be criminalized by a Cruz presidency? If you are Christian, are you “the right kind”, or are you from a different sect that would be a second-class citizen under Christian Sharia law?

Lastly, are you a one-issue voter, or do you actually have a broad base of agreement with Cruz beyond the freedom to invest tax-free? How much are you willing to put up with just to have that low tax rate? Do you agree with Cruz that science is false and women are (at best) second-class citizens?

I have never been homeless. I have never suffered an illness/injury that cost more than I can afford. I like roads, but I’m also a capitalist, so I think roads should be built and provided as a service by the market.

I don’t want to open up another extensive conversation so I will answer as I answered JLeslie. Someone not having the means to take advantage of capital gains is not a valid reason for taxing those who could.

I am not a Christian. I wouldn’t be voting for Cruz if I thought he would criminalize my existence.

I align with Cruz about 88% of the way. Economy is prioritized but not the only issue.

I believe in science but I also believe it suffers from political and funding bias which corrupts the peer communities and studies. I do not think women are second-class citizens.

If you’re trying to introduce the issue of poverty my answer is charity. If you’re trying to introduce the issue of economic failures, my answer is that it is part of the imperfect world and imperfect capitalist system, but it is the best we got. I also believe any government efforts to fix the imperfections of capitalism only contribute more problems than the ones that occur and are resolved naturally.

@pinc I’m not disagreeing with the fact that new businesses frequently fail, or your sources (which are fine). The reason I wanted a source is because I had no idea what you were referring to in your statement.

While I agree completely that there is a very high failure rate of new businesses, I disagree with your interpretation of the data. You seem to imply that because startups are individually very risky, that investing on the aggregate is likewise risky. This is false. Small cap stocks are only one (small) sector of the market. Furthermore, the high failure rate is offset by extremely high returns for those that succeed. It’s not risky if you diversify. I suspect (though I don’t have proof) that this only makes up for a modest fraction of the securities market on the whole.

Here’s a hypothetical: Let’s say I’m an idiot running a lottery. I have a $1,000 prize, and I’m printing 100 tickets for $1 each. Buying 1 of those tickets will give you a high risk of loosing your $1 investment, but buying all 100 give you 100% chance to profit $900. You’d be an idiot of you didn’t buy all 100. It’s obviously different in real life with startups, but the principle is the same. Diversity mitigates risk. Investing with a diverse portfolio isn’t very risky—much less so than stuffing cash in a well-defended vault.

Overall, you can be reasonably secure knowing that if you drop some money in an S&P 500 index fund for a decade or two, you’ll earn about 7% compounded annually when adjusted for inflation. That’s a pretty sweet deal, and one that isn’t all that risky if you have long timeframes to work with. I fail to see why the gains from that money shouldn’t be taxed like other income (beyond what’s allowed by a 401k or IRA).

This video by Jimmy Kimmel is brilliant! Asking Hillary supporters on the street about Hillary’s tax plan when in fact all the talking points are Trumps! LOL

@gorillapaws, you’re using rhetoric vs the actual data that contradicts your rhetoric. You’re also focusing on one style of investing while discriminating against the many others.The data does not support the gain from offsets and certainly doesn’t support the wonders of diversity. I’m sorry, but you’re arguments are not persuading me in the slightest.

@pinc “The data does not support the gain from offsets and certainly doesn’t support the wonders of diversity.”

What data? Diversity mitigating risk is a universally accepted principles of investing. I wasn’t using real examples, just pointing out how it’s possible for something to have a high individual chance of failure but also having a low aggregate risk.

The data in the links I provided. Practice > theory. I’m squashing this. Dragged out long enough.

@pinc “I am not a Christian. I wouldn’t be voting for Cruz if I thought he would criminalize my existence.”

If you honestly think that, then not only do we disagree irreconcilably, but you will have a long, long, long fight ahead of you to even convince me that you are knowledgeable enough about anything other than economics to truly have an informed vote. You might want to look at your boy’s social agenda first, then tell me if you still agree once you find out what sort of theocrat he really is. To show you how bad it is, there are many who are conservative enough to think that Boehner is a Socialist who think that Cruz needs to dial it down a bit; when you are more extreme than some of the extremists, you’re probably a bit too far out there to run a 7–11, let alone a nation.

You’re entitled to your opinion though, just as I am entitled to my opinion that Cruz is an overzealous ideologue whose blatant disregard for the rights of others represents nearly everything that is wrong with Conservatives, Republicans and Christianity. Hopefully we can deal with that difference of opinion in a mutually respectful manner, but while it may still be possible for me to respect you as a person, there is no way I can respect the opinion of someone who thinks Cruz is anything other than a danger to society.

@pinc there was no guarantee. The real estate was hot when I bought it. I sold that property for $346k and just over a year later it was worth $180k. The market plummeted. I got out at a good time. I actually sold for $10k less than a similar unit just a few weeks before, and some people were bothered I sold it for less.

@jerv, You have a misconception that I’m trying to convince you. I am not. It is ok for you to think I’m dumb or extreme or what have you. It doesn’t sway my vote because I primarily vote for my own interests. Naturally others might be disadvantaged in the process.

I know what he is about. I’m not worried and I’m certainly not bothered. Social issues are last thing I care about on my list. My order of importance starts with economics, then domestic policy, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare, education, social issues.

@JLeslie, then your story just continues to strengthen my view on why there shouldn’t be a tax on gains.

Why? Why would you only tax the guy dragging his ass into work every day?

@pinc Not really. It’s more just trying to understand. Maybe I’m just too human to comprehend that degree of callousness.