User Tag List

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567
Results 91 to 95 of 95

Thread: Trump Tax Reform

  1. #91
    Over 500 post club DavidK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Michigan, US
    Posts
    503
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 226 Times in 159 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    53766
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    I know where I'd start cuts. It seems rather obvious once it's laid out in front of you
    Definitely food and agriculture. Definitely.


    Anyone else find it weird that "veteran's benefits" is considered as something separate from the military?
    Maranatha!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DavidK For Your Post:

    Rusha (November 14th, 2017),WizardofOz (November 13th, 2017)

  3. #92
    Silver Member kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    10,353
    Thanks
    1,175
    Thanked 2,417 Times in 1,281 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1157437
    Been reading some news about the tax proposals and it seems hard to pin down where people will fall.



    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/se...insurance-loss
    — Many families making less than $30,000 a year would face tax increases starting in 2021 under the Senate bill, according to Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. By 2027, families earning less than $75,000 would see their tax bills rise while those making more would enjoy reductions, the analysts find. The individual income-tax reductions in the Senate bill would end in 2026.



    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...nefit-n2410519
    Even the liberal Tax Policy Center's analysis -- which found that the benefits aren't as middle-class centric -- determined that "the legislation would reduce taxes on average for all income groups in 2018 and 2027"


    That's right: About 70 percent of all US taxpayers currently take the standard deduction, which would approximately double under the House-passed bill. So right out of the gate, the vast majority of American taxpayers already stand to benefit from the bill. Analysts predict that if the standard deduction increases dramatically, the percentage of filers who claim it (i.e., eschewing itemizing) will rise to the ballpark of 90 percent. A liberal activist on Twitter objected to my argument above, reasoning that some number of the new additions to the standard-deduction-taking ranks would still be worse off than they would be under the current system. I replied by thanking him for confirming that at a minimum, somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of all Americans will be winners under the Republican proposal

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...-jobs-act/full
    The Tax Policy Center has produced preliminary distributional estimates of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Actas introduced on November 3, 2017.We findthe legislation would reduce taxes on average for all income groups in 2018and 2027.The largest cuts,in dollars and as a percentage of after-tax income,would accrue to higher-income households.However, not all taxpayers would receive a tax cutunder this proposal—at least 7 percent of taxpayers would pay higher taxes under the proposal in 2018 and at least25percent of taxpayers would pay more in 2027.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kmoney For Your Post:

    patrick jane (November 18th, 2017),WizardofOz (November 19th, 2017)

  5. #93
    Silver Member kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    10,353
    Thanks
    1,175
    Thanked 2,417 Times in 1,281 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1157437
    Alternatives to the GOP plans.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-plan-gop-mess
    The Republican tax bill is far, far, far worse than it had to be





    Suppose Republicans wanted an across-the-board tax cut that helped both middle-class and rich people. They could’ve simply cut the 10 percent tax bracket to 8 percent, or that plus cut the 15 percent bracket to 12 percent. That helps middle- and upper-class people (though not the poor) and creates no losers. If they wanted to conform to Senate rules, they could have it all expire after eight or 10 years, just as the current legislation does. If they wanted to make it permanent, and cared deeply enough, they could’ve gone nuclear on the filibuster and passed a permanent cut with 51 votes.

    But Republicans also want a lower, permanent corporate tax rate. Also doable: You can finance substantial rate cuts by removing tax breaks from the corporate code. Robert Pozen at Harvard Business School has estimated that eliminating the deductibility of interest payments on corporate debt would enable a cut in the corporate rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. If you wanted to, at the same time, allow 100 percent deductibility of all investments at the time they’re made, the rate would have to go up somewhat. But you could definitely cut the corporate rate, and pay for it permanently, by eliminating certain deductions and broadening the base. You don’t have to raise taxes or take away health care from middle-class people.

    Republicans have grander aspirations than that, however. If you read the “Better Way” tax framework released by House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady in 2016, you’ll see page after page of arguments for transitioning away from taxing income to taxing consumption. A lot of economists agree with that goal, even progressive ones (though others insist taxing consumption is inherently regressive).

    Luckily there’s a plan in Congress that achieves that goal, is revenue-neutral, and doesn’t raise taxes on the poor or middle class. It’s Sen. Ben Cardin’s (D-MD) Progressive Consumption Tax Act. Cardin would exempt the first $100,000 of income for couples from income tax ($50,000 for singles, $75,000 for single parents), meaning that the vast majority of people would no longer pay income taxes. He'd consolidate rates to three — 15, 25, and 28 percent — and cut the corporate tax to 17 percent. That's a lower top individual rate, and a lower corporate rate, than the Senate is proposing. To pay for it, he'd introduce a value-added tax, the kind of consumption tax used in most other rich countries, and add a rebate so that poor people don’t see their taxes go up.

    The plan, based on a proposal by Columbia tax law professor Michael Graetz, accomplishes basically all of Republicans’ substantive tax reform goals. It lowers income tax rates, and dramatically lowers the corporate tax. By exempting the majority of Americans from income taxes, it reduces the importance of deductions and credits. And it shifts the tax burden to consumption by adding a VAT.

    But unlike the Senate or House tax bills, it doesn’t increase the deficit, and it’s not regressive. The Tax Policy Center modeled the Graetz plan back in 2013 with a VAT rate of 12.9 percent, and slightly tweaked individual tax brackets (14, 27, and 31). TPC found that it would cost $0. It’s completely revenue-neutral. And it's progressive. The top 0.1 percent would see their income fall by 0.9 percent, and the poorest fifth would see their income grow by 1.2 percent.

    If Republicans really want to give needy people a tax cut while shifting the tax code to consumption and lowering individual and corporate tax rates, there’s your plan. You can work with Cardin on putting together a passable version right now.

    Perhaps a VAT is too dramatic a step. I have a plan for then, too! Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden has for years put out bipartisan tax reform plans, first with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and then with Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN), who have both since left the body. The plan sets a top rate of 35 percent, lowers the corporate tax rate to 24 percent, and, according to a 2010 analysis from the Tax Policy Center, would have made the tax code slightly more progressive. That analysis came before some of the high-income Bush tax cuts were revived, so the effect relative to today's laws would be different. But it’s a model for a way to cut corporate rates and simplify the code while not making the tax code more regressive.


  6. #94
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,398
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,112 Times in 793 Posts

    Blog Entries
    11
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    316775


    Trump Tax Reform

    - American voters oppose the Republican tax reform plan by a two-to-one margin,

    - 52% of Americans disapprove of the GOP tax plan

    - only 25% approve

    - 52% believe the tax plan would not create an increase in jobs or economic growth

    http://time.com/5026846/gop-tax-refo...l-disapproval/
    Last edited by jgarden; November 19th, 2017 at 03:59 PM.

  7. #95
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,742
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 724 Times in 496 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    210994
    Are you ceding such massive power to the dems that they needn't even control a single branch of government in order to hold sway?
    The problem is that while the republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, the American people are completely disgusted with all of them. So they're afraid of passing some of the crazier things the brown shirt faction of the party is tossing up.

    Add that to the fact that the republicans have had years of doing nothing but posturing and passing legislation they knew would not become law, and the result is a party too extreme to compromise and too weak to govern.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us