Trump Plan to Overhaul Tax Code.

[pErvinalia]

Sanders:

On the other hand, 99.8 percent of Americans would not benefit by one nickel under Trump’s plan to repeal the estate tax.

Well it serves them right.
They voted for the asshole.
Sometimes, you get what you voted for.

"99.8% of Americans" didn't vote for Trump.

[Forty Two]

The whole tenor of 42's posts here are really demonstrating how unfair it is that the 1%, in general, can use the immense leverage of their wealth to buy the best tax lawyers in town, and end up paying very little in tax, whether it is estate or any other tax...

Indeed, it is very unfair. It would be much better to simply have broad rates and few loopholes.

[Forty Two]

He's not giving HIMSELF a tax cut, he's also giving it to all his fatcat 1% pals.

How do you know this? What's his tax proposal specifically do that you believe is an unfair gift to "his 1% pals?"

[Forty Two]

Well, are they breaking any laws?

Probably not - and if they end up paying less tax as a proportion of their income than the sap who serves their breakfast then that just proves how smart they are.

Well, they don't pay less tax as a proportion of their income than the sap who serves them breakfast. Someone at the income of a waitress in a breakfast restaurant is almost certainly paying $0 in taxes. They may have taxes taken out of their paycheck, but at tax time with all the tax credits and deductions, they very likely $0, or very low, federal income tax, and they get a check from the IRS (sometimes for more than what was taken out of their checks). About 27% of income earners pay $0 in federal tax. The next 17% of income earners pay about $0 or near $0 in income tax, but will pay some "payroll tax." And, then the remaining about 55% pay the bulk.

The top 20% of income earners pay 84% of the taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes.

So, whatever one thinks about the tax code, it is heavily weighted toward getting the money from the top income people. 80% of the taxpayers pay about 16% of the taxes.

What would be more fair? if the top 20% payed 90% of all the income taxes?

Honestly, I'm in your camp here, as far as making sure the income tax is heavily weighted to the rich. When the income tax was sold to the American people 100 or so years ago, it was sold on the notion of the top taxpayers paying the bill, and the average person paying no more than 1 or 2% of their income in taxes.

I am in favor of eliminating the income tax for the bottom 80% altogether. And, only taxing the top 20%, and graduating up with marginal income tax on incomes over that level. What say you? Would you eliminate the income tax for those in the bottom 80%?

[pErvinalia]

He's not giving HIMSELF a tax cut, he's also giving it to all his fatcat 1% pals.

How do you know this? What's his tax proposal specifically do that you believe is an unfair gift to "his 1% pals?"

Welfare will have to be cut to fund the massive corporate tax cuts. While not a gift to the wealthy, it makes their positions relatively better.

[Svartalf]

plus where do you think the money corps save in taxes will go? into the pockets of the stockholders.

[Forty Two]

He's not giving HIMSELF a tax cut, he's also giving it to all his fatcat 1% pals.

How do you know this? What's his tax proposal specifically do that you believe is an unfair gift to "his 1% pals?"

Welfare will have to be cut to fund the massive corporate tax cuts. While not a gift to the wealthy, it makes their positions relatively better.

It will? Is that something in his proposed tax policy? Or, is it something you think it necessitated by his tax policy? If the former, please show some evidence of that. If the later, please provide some evidence of that.

[Forty Two]

plus where do you think the money corps save in taxes will go? into the pockets of the stockholders.

You object to the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%? By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent. The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.5 percent. The United States Has the Third Highest Corporate Tax Rate among 188 Nations, and if you combine US state corporate income tax with the federal corporate income tax, the total averages about 38.9%.

Ireland and Liechtenstein have a 12.5% corporate income tax rate. Gibralter has 10% rate. In Canada, they have a graduated federal corporate income tax, ranging from 15% to 26%.

Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Guernsey and Jersey have no corporate income tax....guess what goes on there?

[pErvinalia]

He's not giving HIMSELF a tax cut, he's also giving it to all his fatcat 1% pals.

How do you know this? What's his tax proposal specifically do that you believe is an unfair gift to "his 1% pals?"

Welfare will have to be cut to fund the massive corporate tax cuts. While not a gift to the wealthy, it makes their positions relatively better.

It will? Is that something in his proposed tax policy? Or, is it something you think it necessitated by his tax policy? If the former, please show some evidence of that. If the later, please provide some evidence of that.

It's basic maths. If you massively cut government revenue, then that shortfall needs to be made up in some way, unless Trump is planning to borrow money to fund his tax cuts. I know you are going to blab on about some naive Laffer Curve argument here, so I'd ask you to provide evidence if you do. And the shortfall has been made up at the expense of welfare, health, education and other social spending since the advent of neoliberalism in the 80's. And the rhetoric from conservative governments has been consistent and remains consistent, that welfare and social spending needs to be cut and left to the free market to "work out".

[pErvinalia]

plus where do you think the money corps save in taxes will go? into the pockets of the stockholders.

You object to the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%? By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent. The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.5 percent. The United States Has the Third Highest Corporate Tax Rate among 188 Nations, and if you combine US state corporate income tax with the federal corporate income tax, the total averages about 38.9%.

Ireland and Liechtenstein have a 12.5% corporate income tax rate. Gibralter has 10% rate. In Canada, they have a graduated federal corporate income tax, ranging from 15% to 26%.

Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Guernsey and Jersey have no corporate income tax....guess what goes on there?

What does this have to do with your rhetorical implication that the 1% won't benefit from these tax cuts? As Svarty says, this will lead to increased profits for shareholders (at least initially, until the bottom falls out of the system), most of which are institutional and represent the uber wealthy.

[Forty Two]

plus where do you think the money corps save in taxes will go? into the pockets of the stockholders.

You object to the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%? By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent. The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.5 percent. The United States Has the Third Highest Corporate Tax Rate among 188 Nations, and if you combine US state corporate income tax with the federal corporate income tax, the total averages about 38.9%.

Ireland and Liechtenstein have a 12.5% corporate income tax rate. Gibralter has 10% rate. In Canada, they have a graduated federal corporate income tax, ranging from 15% to 26%.

Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Guernsey and Jersey have no corporate income tax....guess what goes on there?

What does this have to do with your rhetorical implication that the 1% won't benefit from these tax cuts?

This post was not addressed to that issue. I'm still waiting for proof of the claims about the tax plan, and an explanation as to how the 1% benefit. I've heard the allegation that they will, but I haven't seen the explanation based on the proposal.

As Svarty says, this will lead to increased profits for shareholders (at least initially, until the bottom falls out of the system), most of which are institutional and represent the uber wealthy.

That would, it seems to me, result in increased revenue, because if shareholders profit, that profit is reported by the company to the shareholders on a schedule K-1. They have to pay income tax on that at their individual income tax rate.

The purpose of reducing the corporate rate is to compete with the 186, give or take, other countries that have lower corporate tax rates than the US. In a global economy, companies with the flexibility to choose a tax domicile will try to pick the lowest cost, most beneficial environment they can find. If you're double the rate of some other place, companies will look to that other place. If you want to incentivize companies to stay in the US, then a low corporate tax rate is one thing that can be done.

So, if companies are leaving the US to other tax domiciles, then the IRS loses lots of tax revenues as a result. If the US can keep them here, and even draw others here, then ultimately the tax revenues could conceivably go up, by increasing the number of companies here paying taxes over time.

[Forty Two]

It's basic maths. If you massively cut government revenue, then that shortfall needs to be made up in some way, unless Trump is planning to borrow money to fund his tax cuts. I know you are going to blab on about some naive Laffer Curve argument here, so I'd ask you to provide evidence if you do.

The Laffer Curve is basic maths.

If you want to produce evidence that the Trump tax proposal necessitates cuts in welfare, then please do, and let's see your basic maths.

And the shortfall has been made up at the expense of welfare, health, education and other social spending since the advent of neoliberalism in the 80's.

Where did the cuts in welfare, health and education occur which offset any tax reductions?

And the rhetoric from conservative governments has been consistent and remains consistent, that welfare and social spending needs to be cut and left to the free market to "work out".

Where is that rhetoric under Trump's plan? Or, from the Trump administration?

One area where Trump is cutting is the Department of State, where they're looking to downsize it about 10%, including cutting out 2,300 jobs. Trumps proposals are requiring some deep cuts, and that's in line with his commitment, at least his stated commitment, to cutting the fat and eliminating waste.

[Hermit]

The top 20% of income earners pay 84% of the taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes.

I wonder what percentage of Sundar Pichai’s $US198.7 million remuneration package will finish up being paid to the IRS. Warren Buffet had something interesting to say about that topic.

[Alan B]

Bill Maher - Elizabeth Warren

I found this interesting.

[Forty Two]

The top 20% of income earners pay 84% of the taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes.

I wonder what percentage of Sundar Pichai’s $US198.7 million remuneration package will finish up being paid to the IRS. Warren Buffet had something interesting to say about that topic.

If you're actually interested in discussing it, why don't you set forth what his remuneration package consists of? Obviously, it's important to know what part of that represents stock holdings and other non-monetary remuneration, but it shouldn't be too hard to estimate. His remuneration is individual income, subject to the individual income rate, and then he'd get normal deductions for things like mortgage interest and such. I would bet he'd pay something like $35 or $40 million in taxes.