$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 109

6,752 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
42.5% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
49 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The Trump Tax plan rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
After analysis some not surprising facts have come up

Quote:
President-elect Donald Trump's proposals would modestly cut income taxes for most middle-class Americans. But for nearly 8 million families — including a majority of single-parent households — the opposite would occur: They'd pay more.

Most married couples with three or more children would also pay higher taxes, an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found. And while middle-class families as a whole would receive tax cuts of about 2 percent, they'd be dwarfed by the windfalls averaging 13.5 percent for America's richest 1 percent.


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/middle-class-trump-plan-m...

For example

Quote:
....Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center and former deputy director of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, estimates that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes under his proposals. About 5.8 million are led by single parents. An additional 2.1 million are married couples.

Other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions.

Here's what her analysis finds:

Right now, a single parent with $75,000 in income and two children can claim a head of household deduction of $9,300, plus three personal exemptions. Those steps would reduce the household's taxable income by $21,450, to $53,550.

Trump's plan would more than double the standard deduction to $15,000. But that change would be outweighed by his elimination of personal exemptions and head-of-household status. So the family's taxable income would be $60,000, and their tax bill would be $2,440 more than it is now.

A married couple with four children and income of $50,000 would absorb a tax increase of $1,090 because of their loss of personal exemptions.


So basically middle class families with children get a tax increase, while the 1% get the biggest windfall.

And for a more personal example

Quote:
Kelly Rodriguez, 47, who lives in Tampa, Florida, voted for Trump and is a single mother who claims two of her four children as dependents. (Her ex-husband claims the other two.) She made roughly $90,000 last year, including alimony payments. Her taxes would likely rise under Trump's plan, according to Batchelder's analysis.

"I would want him to explain that to me," she said. "Taxes have to make sense to the people paying them."


So basically those folks who supported him because they thought he cared about them are getting the shaft whilst the 1% are laughing their asses off.

16 
 Thumb up
1.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ImaSokpupet wrote:
They should start paying their fair share.


That makes no sense. A single mom is already short on money... so tax her more? You really suck.

The 1% should be paying more, not less.

Your idea of "fair" is fucked.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
Quote:
Kelly Rodriguez, 47, who lives in Tampa, Florida, voted for Trump and is a single mother who claims two of her four children as dependents. (Her ex-husband claims the other two.) She made roughly $90,000 last year, including alimony payments. Her taxes would likely rise under Trump's plan, according to Batchelder's analysis.

"I would want him to explain that to me," she said. "Taxes have to make sense to the people paying them."

So basically those folks who supported him because they thought he cared about them are getting the shaft whilst the 1% are laughing their asses off.

In at least one of the debates, he fucking said he was going to cut taxes on the rich. He also said it was the government's fault (or, more specifically, Hillary's fault) he hadn't paid income tax for many years; for what possible reason would someone think he would change that if he were given more control over his own tax rate?

They voted for the shaft. They knew they were voting for the shaft. I don't see how anyone can credibly claim to be surprised that he doesn't care about them.
25 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
I suspect cherry picking here. The single mom quoted in the article made $90,000 last year. The example uses a single-parent family making $75,000. These are hardly low-income. Methinks that the author is using edge cases to make the proposal look as bad as possible. Oh, and he's also ignoring the (above-the-line) child care deduction and the Earned Income Tax credit, which remains.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
This demonstration is not authorized and is in clear violation of Mall of America policy.
badge
Those who continue to demonstrate will be subject to arrest.
mbmb
SPIGuy wrote:
I suspect cherry picking here. The single mom quoted in the article made $90,000 last year. The example uses a single-parent family making $75,000. These are hardly low-income. Methinks that the author is using edge cases to make the proposal look as bad as possible. Oh, and he's also ignoring the (above-the-line) child care deduction and the Earned Income Tax credit, which remains.



How unreasonable is that, though? Which of Trump's proposals will make it into a bill that hits his desk?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SPIGuy wrote:
I suspect cherry picking here. The single mom quoted in the article made $90,000 last year. The example uses a single-parent family making $75,000. These are hardly low-income. Methinks that the author is using edge cases to make the proposal look as bad as possible. Oh, and he's also ignoring the (above-the-line) child care deduction and the Earned Income Tax credit, which remains.



Methinks you missed this part of the article

...Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center and former deputy director of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, estimates that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes under his proposals. About 5.8 million are led by single parents. An additional 2.1 million are married couples.

Other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions.


Also does not look like the study is ignoring anything. The ignorance seems to be on those Trumpniks who still don't get it. He's about to enrich the 1% at a cost to the rest of us.

But try to rebut the study, because 7.9 million families are an awful lot of "cherries". And isn't it amazing how the 1% seem always to get the most out of any of Trump's tax plans

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
rinelk wrote:
SPIGuy wrote:
I suspect cherry picking here. The single mom quoted in the article made $90,000 last year. The example uses a single-parent family making $75,000. These are hardly low-income. Methinks that the author is using edge cases to make the proposal look as bad as possible. Oh, and he's also ignoring the (above-the-line) child care deduction and the Earned Income Tax credit, which remains.



How unreasonable is that, though? Which of Trump's proposals will make it into a bill that hits his desk?

It's unreasonable because when tax law is changed, there will always be an unlucky few who inch into the wrong bracket with the wrong set of deductions (edge cases). The OP's premise is that Trump supporters are about to get the shaft. The article says nothing of the sort. It states that some taxpayers will pay a little more, and the author only arrives at that claim by ignoring one new proposed benefit (childcare deduction) and setting the income level high enough that it ignores a benefit which carries over (EITC).

And, of course, it's only a proposal at this point. Congress has its own tax plan in preparation, and Ryan's plan is "softer" in some ways than Trump's.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
SPIGuy wrote:
I suspect cherry picking here. The single mom quoted in the article made $90,000 last year. The example uses a single-parent family making $75,000. These are hardly low-income. Methinks that the author is using edge cases to make the proposal look as bad as possible. Oh, and he's also ignoring the (above-the-line) child care deduction and the Earned Income Tax credit, which remains.



Methinks you missed this part of the article

...Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center and former deputy director of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, estimates that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes under his proposals. About 5.8 million are led by single parents. An additional 2.1 million are married couples.

Other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions.


Also does not look like the study is ignoring anything. The ignorance seems to be on those Trumpniks who still don't get it. He's about to enrich the 1% at a cost to the rest of us.

But try to rebut the study, because 7.9 million families are an awful lot of "cherries". And isn't it amazing how the 1% seem always to get the most out of any of Trump's tax plans


You realize that there are over 80 million family households in this country? Over 50 million of them have children? There are also 17 million, not 11 million, single-parent households. And yet, you're basing this on an article which quotes a former Obama administration official's estimates, backed up by the curiously-worded phrase "other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions." Which ones? The total numbers given by Batchelder, or the specific examples given? We aren't told.

You can look up the Tax Foundation and AEI analyses, and they aren't painting this particular picture. AEI is screaming because the budget deficit will explode. The Tax Foundation says largely the same thing. That's a valid subject for another thread, but both agree that after-tax incomes will increase across the board regardless of income level. Hell, even the Tax Policy Center's analysis shows across-the-board increases in after-tax income.

The wealthy will do substantially better than the rest of us, but that's also a subject for another thread. Start that one and I'll probably agree with you. Trickle-down economics doesn't work.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
Kumitedad wrote:
After analysis some not surprising facts have come up

Quote:
President-elect Donald Trump's proposals would modestly cut income taxes for most middle-class Americans. But for nearly 8 million families — including a majority of single-parent households — the opposite would occur: They'd pay more.

Most married couples with three or more children would also pay higher taxes, an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found. And while middle-class families as a whole would receive tax cuts of about 2 percent, they'd be dwarfed by the windfalls averaging 13.5 percent for America's richest 1 percent.


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/middle-class-trump-plan-m...

For example

Quote:
....Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center and former deputy director of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, estimates that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes under his proposals. About 5.8 million are led by single parents. An additional 2.1 million are married couples.

Other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions.

Here's what her analysis finds:

Right now, a single parent with $75,000 in income and two children can claim a head of household deduction of $9,300, plus three personal exemptions. Those steps would reduce the household's taxable income by $21,450, to $53,550.

Trump's plan would more than double the standard deduction to $15,000. But that change would be outweighed by his elimination of personal exemptions and head-of-household status. So the family's taxable income would be $60,000, and their tax bill would be $2,440 more than it is now.

A married couple with four children and income of $50,000 would absorb a tax increase of $1,090 because of their loss of personal exemptions.


So basically middle class families with children get a tax increase, while the 1% get the biggest windfall.

And for a more personal example

Quote:
Kelly Rodriguez, 47, who lives in Tampa, Florida, voted for Trump and is a single mother who claims two of her four children as dependents. (Her ex-husband claims the other two.) She made roughly $90,000 last year, including alimony payments. Her taxes would likely rise under Trump's plan, according to Batchelder's analysis.

"I would want him to explain that to me," she said. "Taxes have to make sense to the people paying them."


So basically those folks who supported him because they thought he cared about them are getting the shaft whilst the 1% are laughing their asses off.



If one has paying more in taxes, it makes sense that with a tax cut they'd get back more as well.

Personally I'd like to see a flat 5% across the board (more or less--whether it's 3% or 7%, somewhere in there) but for now this is the best we've got.

Not sure of the issue here....



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve K
United States
flag msg tools
The 1% really took it in the teeth under Obama... They also overwhelmingly backed Hillary. And of course Warren Buffet can't figure out how to get his money in the US treasury or stop it pouring in. But throw some single mother puppets up and the seals start clapping...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SPIGuy wrote:
I suspect cherry picking here. The single mom quoted in the article made $90,000 last year. The example uses a single-parent family making $75,000. These are hardly low-income.


The article wasn't talking about "low-income", though. It was talking about middle-class. Those are solid middle-class numbers.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
SPIGuy wrote:


And, of course, it's only a proposal at this point. Congress has its own tax plan in preparation, and Ryan's plan is "softer" in some ways than Trump's.



Softer? Yeah, the way being beaten to death by a baseball bat that is NOT wrapped in barbed wire is softer than being beaten to death by Negan's bat WITH the barbed wire.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you make between 7,000 and 21,000 per year you would have to pay slightly more 16,000 gets hit the worst at 174 dollars in more tax that year. At 7,000 and 21,000 it's about 20 bucks a year more tax.
The brackets went from 10% for 0-10,000 and 15% for 15,000-38,000 to 12% 0-38,000 for single filers.

I wouldn't say it's hitting middle class incomes it's such a narrow field and the extra tax is, at most, less than $14.5 a month. There's also potential for paying less tax earning just a little bit more.

Here's the calculator so you can see how much less or more tax you would pay under Trump or Hillary. I'm personally going to pay 923 less under Trump and I would pay the same tax under Clinton. 70,000 household income with 2 kids above 5.

http://fortune.com/2016/10/27/how-much-tax-you-would-pay-und...

You can see the comparison of the tax brackets here.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/will-my-taxes-tax-bill-go-up-o...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve K
United States
flag msg tools

Maybe it's better for two parent black families? Gay couples? Exactly how many precious intersections did they have to ignore to arrive at single mothers? Maybe more math went into deciding what class of victimhood had the greatest political return over any other consideration? If this level of burden is so onerous why not consider a general reduction overall? I'm not sure the 1% care about income taxes... earning money is for suckers. Having the Feds print money into your account is the way to go.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SPIGuy wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
SPIGuy wrote:
I suspect cherry picking here. The single mom quoted in the article made $90,000 last year. The example uses a single-parent family making $75,000. These are hardly low-income. Methinks that the author is using edge cases to make the proposal look as bad as possible. Oh, and he's also ignoring the (above-the-line) child care deduction and the Earned Income Tax credit, which remains.



Methinks you missed this part of the article

...Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center and former deputy director of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, estimates that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes under his proposals. About 5.8 million are led by single parents. An additional 2.1 million are married couples.

Other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions.


Also does not look like the study is ignoring anything. The ignorance seems to be on those Trumpniks who still don't get it. He's about to enrich the 1% at a cost to the rest of us.

But try to rebut the study, because 7.9 million families are an awful lot of "cherries". And isn't it amazing how the 1% seem always to get the most out of any of Trump's tax plans


You realize that there are over 80 million family households in this country? Over 50 million of them have children? There are also 17 million, not 11 million, single-parent households. And yet, you're basing this on an article which quotes a former Obama administration official's estimates, backed up by the curiously-worded phrase "other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions." Which ones? The total numbers given by Batchelder, or the specific examples given? We aren't told.

You can look up the Tax Foundation and AEI analyses, and they aren't painting this particular picture. AEI is screaming because the budget deficit will explode. The Tax Foundation says largely the same thing. That's a valid subject for another thread, but both agree that after-tax incomes will increase across the board regardless of income level. Hell, even the Tax Policy Center's analysis shows across-the-board increases in after-tax income.

The wealthy will do substantially better than the rest of us, but that's also a subject for another thread. Start that one and I'll probably agree with you. Trickle-down economics doesn't work.



The Tax Foundation stated that

"...it was able to replicate Batchelder’s results. But again, on average, it found middle-income taxpayers would see a tax reduction. “Simply put, the middle class as a whole would see a tax reduction, but some middle class families would see a tax increase,” Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation, told us."

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trumps-tax-cut-claims/

Alan Cole worked for the GOP Study Committee in Washington.

So stating that at least the Tax Foudation is not "painting this picture"is disingenious since they stated they were able to replicate her results. They are just not pushing this point

The Middle Class gets a hit because to make The Donald's big gift to the 1% he had to eliminate the Head of Household filing status or else the math does not even begin to make sense. Again, the middle class getting the shaft to subsidize the wealthy. And some of those folksp were really stupid enough to believe The Donald actually cared about them. Amazing



4 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott O'Brien
United States
Connellsville
PA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see a problem with this...

#1, taxes should be designed so everyone pays their share to support our national infrastructure.
#2, taxes are important to reward people for following established positive outcome behaviors.



If a 2 child house pays less than a 3 child house because a 3 child house is a less desirable outcome --the US is overpopulated at the moment...

if a single parent household pays more taxes than a 2 parent household -- again the more desirable outcome should pay less taxes.

Then this is a win-win for everyone.
Finally people in low income neighborhoods will think again before having babies just to get more tax deductions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Even though I think all taxation is theft. This amount, 14.50 a month for single filers making exactly 15,000, less for everyone else, it's just crazy to get worked up about. Liberals thinking this is all about greed got bigger fish to fry.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually the 15,000 doesn't pay any tax that's covered in the standard deduction.
At the moment, there are seven income tax brackets. They are:

Single Filer Joint Filer Head of Household Rate
$0–$9,275 $0 – $18,550 $0 – $13,250 10%
$9,275–$37,650 $18,550–$75,300 $13,250–$50,400 15%
$37,650–$91,150 $75,300–$151,900 $50,400–$130,150 25%
$91,150–190,150 $151,900–231,450 $130,150-210,800 28%
$190,150–413,350 $231,450–413,350 $210,800–413,350 33%
$413,350–415,050 $413,350–466,950 $413,350–441,000 35%
$415,050 + $466,950 + $441,000 + 39.6%

Donald Trump’s plan, if enacted, will remove the Head of Household
filing status entirely, and it will reduce the number of tax brackets
down to three. The new tax brackets would be:

Single Filer Joint Filer Rate
$0–37,500 $0 – $75,000 12%
$37,501–112,500 $75,001–225,000 25%
$112,501 + $225,001 + 33%

This is how the standard deduction system is currently set up:

Filing Status Standard Deduction
Single $6,300
Joint $12,600
Head of Household $9,300
Personal Exemption $4,050

Trump will substantially raise the standard deduction for single and
joint filers but eliminate the head of household filing status. The new
standard deductions will be:

Filing Status Standard Deduction
Single $15,000
Joint $30,000
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
Amazing how a proposed tax hike on the 99% (and a cut for the 1%) when it comes from the mouth of Trump is all of a sudden hunky-dory.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve K
United States
flag msg tools
wifwendell wrote:
Amazing how a proposed tax hike on the 99% (and a cut for the 1%) when it comes from the mouth of Trump is all of a sudden hunky-dory.


The Democrat party created the 1%.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
Knewt wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Amazing how a proposed tax hike on the 99% (and a cut for the 1%) when it comes from the mouth of Trump is all of a sudden hunky-dory.


The Democrat party created the 1%.


I'm sure you have a raft of pretty legit evidence to support this intriguing, cogent talking point.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
Quote:
Kelly Rodriguez, 47, who lives in Tampa, Florida, voted for Trump and is a single mother who claims two of her four children as dependents. (Her ex-husband claims the other two.) She made roughly $90,000 last year, including alimony payments. Her taxes would likely rise under Trump's plan, according to Batchelder's analysis.

"I would want him to explain that to me," she said. "Taxes have to make sense to the people paying them."

So basically those folks who supported him because they thought he cared about them are getting the shaft whilst the 1% are laughing their asses off.

In at least one of the debates, he fucking said he was going to cut taxes on the rich. He also said it was the government's fault (or, more specifically, Hillary's fault) he hadn't paid income tax for many years; for what possible reason would someone think he would change that if he were given more control over his own tax rate?

They voted for the shaft. They knew they were voting for the shaft. I don't see how anyone can credibly claim to be surprised that he doesn't care about them.


Like Sarxis said in a different thread, "the man's a genius!" It certainly must seem that way to the fools that voted for him.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
SPIGuy wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
SPIGuy wrote:
I suspect cherry picking here. The single mom quoted in the article made $90,000 last year. The example uses a single-parent family making $75,000. These are hardly low-income. Methinks that the author is using edge cases to make the proposal look as bad as possible. Oh, and he's also ignoring the (above-the-line) child care deduction and the Earned Income Tax credit, which remains.



Methinks you missed this part of the article

...Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center and former deputy director of President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, estimates that roughly 7.9 million families with children would pay higher taxes under his proposals. About 5.8 million are led by single parents. An additional 2.1 million are married couples.

Other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions.


Also does not look like the study is ignoring anything. The ignorance seems to be on those Trumpniks who still don't get it. He's about to enrich the 1% at a cost to the rest of us.

But try to rebut the study, because 7.9 million families are an awful lot of "cherries". And isn't it amazing how the 1% seem always to get the most out of any of Trump's tax plans


You realize that there are over 80 million family households in this country? Over 50 million of them have children? There are also 17 million, not 11 million, single-parent households. And yet, you're basing this on an article which quotes a former Obama administration official's estimates, backed up by the curiously-worded phrase "other analysts, including economists at the conservative Tax Foundation and right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, have agreed with Batchelder's conclusions." Which ones? The total numbers given by Batchelder, or the specific examples given? We aren't told.

You can look up the Tax Foundation and AEI analyses, and they aren't painting this particular picture. AEI is screaming because the budget deficit will explode. The Tax Foundation says largely the same thing. That's a valid subject for another thread, but both agree that after-tax incomes will increase across the board regardless of income level. Hell, even the Tax Policy Center's analysis shows across-the-board increases in after-tax income.

The wealthy will do substantially better than the rest of us, but that's also a subject for another thread. Start that one and I'll probably agree with you. Trickle-down economics doesn't work.



The Tax Foundation stated that

"...it was able to replicate Batchelder’s results. But again, on average, it found middle-income taxpayers would see a tax reduction. “Simply put, the middle class as a whole would see a tax reduction, but some middle class families would see a tax increase,” Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation, told us."

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trumps-tax-cut-claims/

Alan Cole worked for the GOP Study Committee in Washington.

So stating that at least the Tax Foudation is not "painting this picture"is disingenious since they stated they were able to replicate her results. They are just not pushing this point

The Middle Class gets a hit because to make The Donald's big gift to the 1% he had to eliminate the Head of Household filing status or else the math does not even begin to make sense. Again, the middle class getting the shaft to subsidize the wealthy. And some of those folksp were really stupid enough to believe The Donald actually cared about them. Amazing




As has been shown here, most of the people subject to a tax increase are people on the low end who will no longer pay zero taxes but will instead pay $100 or $150 a year. That's bad news if you're barely scraping by, but lower marginal tax rates will stimulate capital investment and employment, leading to more jobs and higher wages overall. Or so says the Tax Foundation.

This is why the Tax Foundation has little interest in the Tax Policy Center's numbers. They're looking at dynamic rather than static tax figures. Trump's plan adds 5 million jobs and raises wages by 6% overall. Capital investment increases by 29%. GDP rises by 11.5%. After-tax income is therefore likely to be higher even if you're one of the unlucky ones whose taxes went up a little.

As long as Congress can pay for it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Knewt wrote:
The 1% really took it in the teeth under Obama... They also overwhelmingly backed Hillary. And of course Warren Buffet can't figure out how to get his money in the US treasury or stop it pouring in. But throw some single mother puppets up and the seals start clapping...


I sincerely hope the 1% comment is a joke. They didn't take it in the teeth during Obama's eight years (pretty hard to increase taxes on the 1% with a Republican Congress) and certainly don't need a tax cut now.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve K
United States
flag msg tools
wifwendell wrote:
Knewt wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
Amazing how a proposed tax hike on the 99% (and a cut for the 1%) when it comes from the mouth of Trump is all of a sudden hunky-dory.


The Democrat party created the 1%.


I'm sure you have a raft of pretty legit evidence to support this intriguing, cogent talking point.


Oh, you got me. Keeping clapping for the single mother puppet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.