TRUMP TAX PLAN

[MarAzul]

Give you all three guesses as to who wrote that.

I bite. Who?

 

[riverman]

I bite. Who?

Bite him, not me

 

[barfo]

I bite. Who?

Well, here's a hint, today he posted:

Basically trump tells the majority that they won't have to pay tax. That's like giving them a 20% raise. Not bad.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Well, here's a hint, today he posted:



barfo

Your mother posts here?

 

[magnifier661]

Romney 2012: "47% of Americans don't pay any taxes, those damn freeloaders"
Trump 2016: "47% of Americans shouldn't have to pay any taxes, and I'll make sure they don't"

Republican candidates are getting smarter. Republican voters, not so much.

barfo

yes, because democrats for Bernie are totally supportive of a 35-49% tax on GOP. Smart

 

[barfo]

Your mother posts here?

Not since you banned her.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

That last post of mine made me think back to 2012, when the conservative mantra was that everyone has to "have skin in the game", meaning poor people should all pay taxes.

For example,



Give you all three guesses as to who wrote that.

barfo

I still believe everyone should be taxed. I don't have to agree with everything Trump wants to pass to support him.

 

[magnifier661]

Rush said that lowering taxes actually generated more tax revenue because the rich will claim more income, instead of hiding it. Less tax, but more wealth equals more taxes revenue.

It reminds me when I was negotiating a deal with our Chinese partner. One in the group was trying to justify a higher mark-up because the profits give you a better return. The main negotiator replied "do you want 80% of $100 or 10% of a hundred thousand? That resonated with all and the end baseline was 35% gross profit.

 

[magnifier661]

Well, here's a hint, today he posted:



barfo

The not bad statement was discussing the entire policy without a "trump supporting eye". Do you disagree with that statement?

 

[barfo]

The not bad statement was discussing the entire policy without a "trump supporting eye". Do you disagree with that statement?

Sorry, didn't really mean to pick on you Mags, it's just that the Republicans don't debate often enough. I need some entertainment! A rich guy proposing to cut taxes on the rich is not exactly fun anymore. Trump is just like Romney, except that Romney wasn't raised by wolves.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

Sorry, didn't really mean to pick on you Mags, it's just that the Republicans don't debate often enough. I need some entertainment! A rich guy proposing to cut taxes on the rich is not exactly fun anymore. Trump is just like Romney, except that Romney wasn't raised by wolves.

barfo

All good bro. You keep up the liberal fight! The world would be boring if we all agreed

 

[riverman]

Rush said that lowering taxes actually generated more tax revenue because the rich will claim more income, instead of hiding it. Less tax, but more wealth equals more taxes revenue.

It reminds me when I was negotiating a deal with our Chinese partner. One in the group was trying to justify a higher mark-up because the profits give you a better return. The main negotiator replied "do you want 80% of $100 or 10% of a hundred thousand? That resonated with all and the end baseline was 35% gross profit.

Commie!

 

[donkiez]

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

Taxpayers in the bottom deciles (the 0-10 and 10-20 percent deciles), would see increases in after-tax adjusted gross income (AGI) of 1.4 and 0.6 percent, respectively. Middle-income taxpayers with incomes that fall within the 30th to 80th percentiles would see larger increases in their after-tax AGI, of between 3.0 and 8.3 percent. Taxpayers with incomes that fall in the highest income class (the 90-100 percent decile) would see an increase in after-tax income of 14.6 percent. The top 1 percent of all taxpayers would see a 21.6 percent increase in after-tax income.

Conclusion
Donald Trump’s tax plan would enact a number of tax reforms that would both lower marginal tax rates on workers and significantly reduce the cost of capital. These changes in the incentives to work and invest would greatly increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run, leading to higher incomes for taxpayers at all income levels. The plan would also be a large tax cut, which would increase the federal government’s deficit by over $10 trillion, both on a static and dynamic basis.[/QUOTE]

 

[Denny Crane]

Cut federal spending by $10T over the next 10 years and we all win.

 

[Denny Crane]

We like 29% larger capital stock, 6.5% higher wages, 11.5% GDP Growth, 5.3M more jobs, and more take home pay.

 

[magnifier661]

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

I think some strategists believe a lot of high income earners are using loop holes in tax code to circumvent paying the higher taxes. If you simplify code and eliminate these loop holes, the rich would be more inclined to claim their income. The more infusion of claimed income will have a higher amount taxed.

I think bringing in the estimated 2.5 trillion would add a $250 bill in tax revenue, but more importantly, that money would be reinvested in a country that has a lower corporate tax on business than any other country, generating more jobs that won't be taxed until they reach the 50k mark.

 

[magnifier661]

Cut federal spending by $10T over the next 10 years and we all win.

View attachment 6044

Nice find!

 

[donkiez]

Nice find!

Thats part of my same article, where the conclusion of all the key objectives is that Trumps plan will add 10 trillion to the deficit. I thought the conclusion was much more important....... according to this taxorg group Rand Paul's plan is the cheapest Republican plan, only costing use around 3trillion.

 

[magnifier661]

Thats part of my same article, where the conclusion of all the key objectives is that Trumps plan will add 10 trillion to the deficit. I thought the conclusion was much more important....... according to this taxorg group Rand Paul's plan is the cheapest Republican plan, only costing use around 3trillion.

When I say, "Nice find!" I am referring to what he found from the article. I didn't catch that.

The conclusion of that article says there would be a large deficit unless we can budget costs down. Do you think Trump, Carl Icahn and probably a few other high profile businessmen won't be able to trim the fat?

 

[magnifier661]

Just looking at the economics, I think there is a ton of wasted costs.

 

[donkiez]

Where do you propose we make 10 trillion of cuts? "major entitlements?" Those are necessary services to a huge portion of the population, who are only expecting a 1% after tax income improvement with this plan.

 

[magnifier661]

Where do you propose we make 10 trillion of cuts? "major entitlements?" Those are necessary services to a huge portion of the population, who are only expecting a 1% after tax income improvement with this plan.

10 trillion in cuts? That is for the next decade (1T average per year) right? I think just trimming the fat on existing policies could do it.

 

[barfo]

10 trillion in cuts? That is for the next decade (1T average per year) right? I think just trimming the fat on existing policies could do it.

So, according to your charts, discretionary spending is about $1.1T/year. You think 'just trimming the fat' will remove $1T of that? Please elaborate!

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

So, according to your charts, discretionary spending is about $1.1T/year. You think 'just trimming the fat' will remove $1T of that? Please elaborate!

barfo

Just at quick glance of last year, you can trim a shit ton right off of Healthcare (200-400). I think another good start is fire a lot of bureaucrats that aren't doing their job efficiently and hire ones that can. Micromanage where exactly all the spending is going, where to, how much, etc.

Our country has spent less with the exact same population.

 

[barfo]

Just at quick glance of last year, you can trim a shit ton right off of Healthcare (200-400). I think another good start is fire a lot of bureaucrats that aren't doing their job efficiently and hire ones that can. Micromanage where exactly all the spending is going, where to, how much, etc.

Our country has spent less with the exact same population.

That's not good enough, Mags. You have to find $1T of spending that you want to eliminate. Otherwise, you are advocating for increasing the deficit & debt.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "Our country has spent less with the exact same population." The population has been increasing, we've never had this large a population before.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

That's not good enough, Mags. You have to find $1T of spending that you want to eliminate. Otherwise, you are advocating for increasing the deficit & debt.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "Our country has spent less with the exact same population." The population has been increasing, we've never had this large a population before.

barfo

Not by much http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Today, 321 mil. One year ago, we by 318 million. 5 years ago, it was 309. It's not growing as much as you think, especially when the GDP growth took a hit. What, aren't we like a 1.8% GDP average? That won't sustain the amount of growth we have will it.

And the 10 trillion they talk about is average on a per year basis. 1 trillion a year ago is much less than the value of 1 trillion 10 years ago. So we may have deficit in the first couple years, but if we can get a 6% growth in GDP, 1 trillion won't be nearly as much.

I will try and look for the economist that broke down 1% increase or decrease amounts to 2% jobs. The GDP growth average right now is 1.8%, which means we created 3.6 million jobs. What it doesn't tell you is that our population increased 3 million, leaving only 600k available for the ones without work. This is not sustainable and will create a backwards trend. We need a 3-4% to sustain the population growth.

 

[donkiez]

Just at quick glance of last year, you can trim a shit ton right off of Healthcare (200-400). I think another good start is fire a lot of bureaucrats that aren't doing their job efficiently and hire ones that can. Micromanage where exactly all the spending is going, where to, how much, etc.

Our country has spent less with the exact same population.

Out of the 597B in medicare costs, where should we be cutting 200b-400b?

 

[barfo]

Not by much http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Today, 321 mil. One year ago, we by 318 million. 5 years ago, it was 309. It's not growing as much as you think, especially when the GDP growth took a hit. What, aren't we like a 1.8% GDP average? That won't sustain the amount of growth we have will it.

And the 10 trillion they talk about is average on a per year basis. 1 trillion a year ago is much less than the value of 1 trillion 10 years ago. So we may have deficit in the first couple years, but if we can get a 6% growth in GDP, 1 trillion won't be nearly as much.

Yeah, let's not worry about running a deficit
Funny how that doesn't matter so much when it's your guy proposing it.

Tell me, when was the last time the US had 6% GDP growth for a decade?

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

Yeah, let's not worry about running a deficit
Funny how that doesn't matter so much when it's your guy proposing it.

Tell me, when was the last time the US had 6% GDP growth for a decade?

barfo

It has never grown at that rate in a full decade, but 1984, it had a GDP growth of 6.8% and 20 million new jobs came from that growth. You just need a spike like that and a level off of 3.5-4% and you'll be fine.

As for the deficit.... Obama hasn't once worried about the deficit for the entire time in office. He's still spending 850 billion more than we take in. One year I believe it was a 1.3 trillion deficit in 2010 and 2011. Obama had a 1.1 tril deficit in 2010

 

[donkiez]

It has never grown at that rate in a full decade, but 1984, it had a GDP growth of 6.8% and 20 million new jobs came from that growth. You just need a spike like that and a level off of 3.5-4% and you'll be fine.

As for the deficit.... Obama hasn't once worried about the deficit for the entire time in office. He's still spending 850 billion more than we take in. One year I believe it was a 1.3 trillion deficit in 2010 and 2011. Obama had a 1.1 tril deficit in 2010

So if I have this right then you actually need to cut 2 trillion from current spending to balance the budget. One to get us back in the black and another one to get us to Trump tax and spending levels?