Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"Trump Calls for Deep Cuts in Business Taxes, Changes for Individuals
Broad package seeks to spark sustained 3% economic growth; Democrats hint at objections

....The plan largely hews to tax-cut proposals Mr. Trump made during his presidential campaign last year, but it includes several crucial changes.

Most notably, the GOP president is proposing to repeal a provision of the tax code that allows individuals to deduct the state and local taxes they pay from their reportable income. That will hurt residents of high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California, and spur objections from some Republican lawmakers in those states.

Mr. Trump also is proposing a 35% top tax rate for individuals, down from the current 39.6% rate but above the 33% rate he backed during the campaign. Lower brackets would be set at 10% and 25%. The standard deduction for all individuals would be doubled, but all other deductions—except for mortgage interest and charitable contributions—would be eliminated.

The corporate tax rate would drop to 15% from 35%, and U.S. companies would owe little or no U.S. tax on their future foreign profits. The tax rate on business income reported on individual returns also would drop to 15% instead of being taxed at individual tax rates.

The estate tax and alternative minimum tax would be repealed.

Mr. Trump’s plan leaves several crucial issues unresolved: whether companies could immediately write off capital expenses; what happens to personal exemptions; where to set the one-time tax rate on U.S. companies’ stockpiled foreign earnings; how a break for child care would be structured; and where the tax brackets for individuals would be set.

Because of those omissions, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to calculate the total fiscal impact of the plan and how it would affect individual households

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, the director of Mr. Trump’s National Economic Council, said those issues would be worked out later, partly in negotiations with Congress........

......Among the biggest changes is the repeal of the state and local tax deduction; the effect of that would be to shift the tax burden from low-tax states such as Texas and Florida to high-tax states such as New York and New Jersey. Eliminating the deduction could raise more than $1 trillion over a decade, and it brings Mr. Trump’s plan closer to a plan advanced in the House.

“It’s not the federal government’s job to be subsidizing the states,” Mr. Mnuchin said. “We’re not looking to necessarily raise taxes on the top 1% but we want to get the federal government out of the business of what’s the state’s business.”......
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mnuchin-sa ... 1493213275

Will be interesting to see if Trump ever gets a piece of legislation through.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Will be interesting to see if Trump ever gets a piece of legislation through.

Derek Jeter went 0-5 in his first career major league game.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Will be interesting to see if Trump ever gets a piece of legislation through.

Derek Jeter went 0-5 in his first career major league game.

He didn't play 12 career games either

CAA Flagship wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Will be interesting to see if Trump ever gets a piece of legislation through.

Derek Jeter went 0-5 in his first career major league game.

Obama, who was dealing with much bigger majorities in both houses and a sycophant media, only got 1 significant accomplishment/piece of legislation through in his 1st 100 days- the 787 billion so called stimulus plan.

Trump does have 1 significant accomplishment in his 1st 100 days, which is getting Gorsuch confirmed..

And surely Trump will have over 11,000 attempts at legislation.

Skjellyfetti wrote:And surely Trump will have over 11,000 attempts at legislation.

The # of attempts is secondary to # of things that gets done.

BDKJMU wrote: Obama, who was dealing with much bigger majorities in both houses and a sycophant media, only got 1 significant accomplishment/piece of legislation through in his 1st 100 days- the 787 billion so called stimulus plan.

And Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Skjellyfetti wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Obama, who was dealing with much bigger majorities in both houses and a sycophant media, only got 1 significant accomplishment/piece of legislation through in his 1st 100 days- the 787 billion so called stimulus plan.

And Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

You must have missed where I said "significant"

And, that is wholly subjective. More significant than anything Trump has even put up to vote so far.

Skjellyfetti wrote:And, that is wholly subjective. More significant than anything Trump has even put up to vote so far.

If the Lilly Ledbetter Act is the bar for significant then I could count several of the close to 30 pieces of legislation signed by Trump as significant..You know wholly subjective...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... e=0&page=1

Trump's tax plan seems pretty straight forward. He'll see plenty of opposition from the status quo on this. Had this been in place in 2016 my wife and I would have had at least an additional $5k in our pockets. That is a good amount of coin going towards retirement, home improvement projects, entertainment, etc...

I realize you can find an economist to support just about any position, so with that given, generally it is my opinion that lower taxes stimulate the economy and eventually pay for themselves, but......

Also, I have no problem with lowering the tax rate on business owners, but.........

It is probably the start of the negotiation but 15% business tax seems a tad low. First it puts ordinary income under the capital gains rate. I realize that C corps are taxed twice, but the tax is a lot more minimal than most think since the vast majority of C Corp net income is not passed along through dividends (taxed at ordinary tax rates) and are paid when people sale the stock (capital gains 20%). But it would seem that the more logical thing to do would be to set the tax rate at 20% for any business ownership earnings; operations, dividends or capital transactions.

A little concerned about the some of the estimates of the overall dollar amount on an annual basis of the cuts considering that the Prez doesn't seem to be concerned with lowering total expenditures, just re-allocating them. The estimates I have heard are around $500M to $700M per year. And while I do believe lower taxes with simplification would stimulate the economy and eventually raise tax revenues, that's a lot of catching up.

On the deductions, personally, I've always favored increasing the standard and eliminating specific deductions (with the possible exception of medical expenses). I realize that most don't want the mortgage interest deduction to disappear but I really don't think the government should incent behavior through the tax code.

Also, I realize the problem of raising the standard deduction takes more people off the tax roles which isn't good since they no longer have a personal stake in tax policy, but, oh well, what you gonna do about those 47%ers any way.

We don't need to fix our tax structure...
We need to fix our spending and budgeting process

We need to focus on getting ONE THING FIXED and that's spending
not throw a half dozen balls in the air and then drop them all

SDHornet wrote:Trump's tax plan seems pretty straight forward. He'll see plenty of opposition from the status quo on this. Had this been in place in 2016 my wife and I would have had at least an additional $5k in our pockets. That is a good amount of coin going towards retirement, home improvement projects, entertainment, etc...

BDMBFK is making it seem much more complicated than it really is - he's turning into JSO in his dotage..

Here's the plan: Trump gets a tax cut. You don't.

OL FU wrote:I realize you can find an economist to support just about any position, so with that given, generally it is my opinion that lower taxes stimulate the economy and eventually pay for themselves, but......

Also, I have no problem with lowering the tax rate on business owners, but.........

It is probably the start of the negotiation but 15% business tax seems a tad low. First it puts ordinary income under the capital gains rate. I realize that C corps are taxed twice, but the tax is a lot more minimal than most think since the vast majority of C Corp net income is not passed along through dividends (taxed at ordinary tax rates) and are paid when people sale the stock (capital gains 20%). But it would seem that the more logical thing to do would be to set the tax rate at 20% for any business ownership earnings; operations, dividends or capital transactions.

A little concerned about the some of the estimates of the overall dollar amount on an annual basis of the cuts considering that the Prez doesn't seem to be concerned with lowering total expenditures, just re-allocating them. The estimates I have heard are around $500M to $700M per year. And while I do believe lower taxes with simplification would stimulate the economy and eventually raise tax revenues, that's a lot of catching up.

On the deductions, personally, I've always favored increasing the standard and eliminating specific deductions (with the possible exception of medical expenses). I realize that most don't want the mortgage interest deduction to disappear but I really don't think the government should incent behavior through the tax code.

Also, I realize the problem of raising the standard deduction takes more people off the tax roles which isn't good since they no longer have a personal stake in tax policy, but, oh well, what you gonna do about those 47%ers any way.

Are there not so many deductions available that nobody pays the official rate anyway?

How about letting corporations deduct the cotss of wages and benefits paid to American workers in America-located businesses at some amount greater than what they actually are, say 125%?

houndawg wrote:

OL FU wrote:I realize you can find an economist to support just about any position, so with that given, generally it is my opinion that lower taxes stimulate the economy and eventually pay for themselves, but......

Also, I have no problem with lowering the tax rate on business owners, but.........

It is probably the start of the negotiation but 15% business tax seems a tad low. First it puts ordinary income under the capital gains rate. I realize that C corps are taxed twice, but the tax is a lot more minimal than most think since the vast majority of C Corp net income is not passed along through dividends (taxed at ordinary tax rates) and are paid when people sale the stock (capital gains 20%). But it would seem that the more logical thing to do would be to set the tax rate at 20% for any business ownership earnings; operations, dividends or capital transactions.

A little concerned about the some of the estimates of the overall dollar amount on an annual basis of the cuts considering that the Prez doesn't seem to be concerned with lowering total expenditures, just re-allocating them. The estimates I have heard are around $500M to $700M per year. And while I do believe lower taxes with simplification would stimulate the economy and eventually raise tax revenues, that's a lot of catching up.

On the deductions, personally, I've always favored increasing the standard and eliminating specific deductions (with the possible exception of medical expenses). I realize that most don't want the mortgage interest deduction to disappear but I really don't think the government should incent behavior through the tax code.

Also, I realize the problem of raising the standard deduction takes more people off the tax roles which isn't good since they no longer have a personal stake in tax policy, but, oh well, what you gonna do about those 47%ers any way.

Are there not so many deductions available that nobody pays the official rate anyway?

How about letting corporations deduct the cotss of wages and benefits paid to American workers in America-located businesses at some amount greater than what they actually are, say 125%?

I'm assuming you mean use the standard deduction. Unless you are near the cutoff on one of the brackets, deduction aren't going to get you out of paying "the official rate"...whatever the fuck that means.

That said, I think it's safe to say the common folk's biggest itemized deduction is home loan interest, unless they had enough medical bills to surpass that (not hard to do if you don't have insurance). Home loan interest remains deductible under Trumps plan (although you have to be really house poor if that would exceed his proposed standard deduction amount), medical expenses do not (at least based on what I've read on this proposal).

houndawg wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Trump's tax plan seems pretty straight forward. He'll see plenty of opposition from the status quo on this. Had this been in place in 2016 my wife and I would have had at least an additional $5k in our pockets. That is a good amount of coin going towards retirement, home improvement projects, entertainment, etc...

BDMBFK is making it seem much more complicated than it really is - he's turning into JSO in his dotage..

Here's the plan: Trump gets a tax cut. You don't.

I just pasted a handful of paragraphs off of thw WSJ. You think that was complicated. I forgot there's one person on here who needs things dumbed down. Well, tough shit this class doesn't slow down for the one slow kid on here...

SDHornet wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Are there not so many deductions available that nobody pays the official rate anyway?

How about letting corporations deduct the cotss of wages and benefits paid to American workers in America-located businesses at some amount greater than what they actually are, say 125%?

I'm assuming you mean use the standard deduction. Unless you are near the cutoff on one of the brackets, deduction aren't going to get you out of paying "the official rate"...whatever the **** that means.

That said, I think it's safe to say the common folk's biggest itemized deduction is home loan interest, unless they had enough medical bills to surpass that (not hard to do if you don't have insurance). Home loan interest remains deductible under Trumps plan (although you have to be really house poor if that would exceed his proposed standard deduction amount), medical expenses do not (at least based on what I've read on this proposal).

I meant corporate taxes, what I'm seeing says that we have a high corporate rate but that nobody pays that rate in reality. I'm fucked for itemizing - good health, no mortgage, and my deductions moved away to start their own lives..

Chizzang wrote:We don't need to fix our tax structure...
We need to fix our spending and budgeting process

We need to focus on getting ONE THING FIXED and that's spending
not throw a half dozen balls in the air and then drop them all

Agreed. While I think i pay too much in taxes I'll keep paying the higher rate for a while if they get spending under control first.

But we all know that won't happen.

houndawg wrote:

SDHornet wrote: I'm assuming you mean use the standard deduction. Unless you are near the cutoff on one of the brackets, deduction aren't going to get you out of paying "the official rate"...whatever the **** that means.

That said, I think it's safe to say the common folk's biggest itemized deduction is home loan interest, unless they had enough medical bills to surpass that (not hard to do if you don't have insurance). Home loan interest remains deductible under Trumps plan (although you have to be really house poor if that would exceed his proposed standard deduction amount), medical expenses do not (at least based on what I've read on this proposal).

I meant corporate taxes, what I'm seeing says that we have a high corporate rate but that nobody pays that rate in reality. I'm **** for itemizing - good health, no mortgage, and my deductions moved away to start their own lives..

The problem with the carve outs for business is that some businesses pay zero and some businesses pay the highest marginal personal rate (specifically pass through LLCs). It varies depending on the nature of the business and the carve outs bought through campaign contributions. That's why generally I favor lower the rates and eliminating the carve outs on businesses.

And while I understand the 125% deductions for salaries in the US. not sure it would accomplish anything. Certainly businesses would be inclined to hire more but I don't think much more. The only way you could accomplish that would be to make the deduction a much higher percentage.

Chizzang wrote:We don't need to fix our tax structure...
We need to fix our spending and budgeting process

We need to focus on getting ONE THING FIXED and that's spending
not throw a half dozen balls in the air and then drop them all

clitz is the stealth cid1990

Clitz sez we have a spending problem and its mostly crickets

Cid sez we have a spending problem and:

JSO posts 6 paragraphs how much worse it will be under Trump

Here comes SK with an unreadable graph and coffee

and 3 weeks later houndawg discovers the thread and adds something unintelligible about Bush, banks, and Ayy-Rab oil

I'm just gonna drop out and let clizz do the heavy lifting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We don't need to fix our tax structure...
We need to fix our spending and budgeting process

We need to focus on getting ONE THING FIXED and that's spending
not throw a half dozen balls in the air and then drop them all

clitz is the stealth cid1990

Clitz sez we have a spending problem and its mostly crickets

Cid sez we have a spending problem and:

JSO posts 6 paragraphs how much worse it will be under Trump

Here comes SK with an unreadable graph and coffee

and 3 weeks later houndawg discovers the thread and adds something unintelligible about Bush, banks, and Ayy-Rab oil

I'm just gonna drop out and let clizz do the heavy lifting

You know it's true...

"Fixing" the Tax structure is CART before HORSE thinking
It's just simple "Next logical step" cognition

Today at this exact moment the federal government has a pile of money
it's sitting there waiting to be allocated

Lets just get really focused on THAT
Because that is actually the only real problem
Once we can consistently (annually) turn the existing pile of money into a surplus

THEN we address the surplus by fixing the tax structure
but NOT UNTIL THEN

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
clitz is the stealth cid1990

Clitz sez we have a spending problem and its mostly crickets

Cid sez we have a spending problem and:

JSO posts 6 paragraphs how much worse it will be under Trump

Here comes SK with an unreadable graph and coffee

and 3 weeks later houndawg discovers the thread and adds something unintelligible about Bush, banks, and Ayy-Rab oil

I'm just gonna drop out and let clizz do the heavy lifting

You know it's true...

"Fixing" the Tax structure is CART before HORSE thinking
It's just simple "Next logical step" cognition

Today at this exact moment the federal government has a pile of money
it's sitting there waiting to be allocated

Lets just get really focused on THAT
Because that is actually the only real problem
Once we can consistently (annually) turn the existing pile of money into a surplus

THEN we address the surplus by fixing the tax structure
but NOT UNTIL THEN

But but Clinton already did that

The End

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We don't need to fix our tax structure...
We need to fix our spending and budgeting process

We need to focus on getting ONE THING FIXED and that's spending
not throw a half dozen balls in the air and then drop them all

clitz is the stealth cid1990

Clitz sez we have a spending problem and its mostly crickets

Cid sez we have a spending problem and:

JSO posts 6 paragraphs how much worse it will be under Trump

Here comes SK with an unreadable graph and coffee

and 3 weeks later houndawg discovers the thread and adds something unintelligible about Bush, banks, and Ayy-Rab oil

I'm just gonna drop out and let clizz do the heavy lifting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awwww...gee, little buddy...we didn't mean it like that, we know that you're saying the same thing, albeit in a duller, less interesting way. We really do appreciate you sharing your insider perspective into the inner workings of our system. Some people are just quicker-witted than others, that's all..