Quantcast
Trump's tax proposal: raise taxes on the poor, give to the rich

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump's tax proposal: raise taxes on the poor, give to the rich

I have yet to read about the plan, maybe later. I certainly won't take your word for it though.



Around the Network
Superman4 said:
monocle_layton said:

Minute I saw 'liberal media' I knew this would be bullshit again.

 

Stop using whataboutism. For fuck's sake, do I look like the guy who jerks off to Obama or any specific person? I don't care if Starocean calls Trump Hitler or a communist. I clearly avoid doing that, and actually criticize people.

 

However, as long as you continue to use 'liberal media' in your arguments, it'll forever be viewed as idiotic. It's as impetuous as blaming Fox News for every issue.

StarOcean said:

That's their only defense. Whataboutism. Since they can't defend their Nazi leader, they attack anyone else. They're basically saying, "Since Person A broke the rules, it's okay for ME to break the rules." Which isn't how the world works but it the crux of their political ideology. It's weak and pathetic, like Trump. 

They seem to not understand that you can condem more than one group at a time. For example one of the most infuriating things is when I hear people go, "This is what science is focused on? Why do we fund them?" When they see an article about a minor and sometimes stupid study. While ignoring that "science" is not an organization and has millions of people studying different things in each respective branch of said subject. 

Whataboutism is another way of saying "I can't find a way to justify his actions."

Ill just leave this here....

 

"Since they can't defend their Nazi leader, they attack anyone else"

I'll just leave this here as well

 

"Stop using whataboutism. For fuck's sake, do I look like the guy who jerks off to Obama or any specific person? I don't care if Starocean calls Trump Hitler or a communist. I clearly avoid doing that, and actually criticize people."



LurkerJ said:
I have yet to read about the plan, maybe later. I certainly won't take your word for it though.

This is without a doubt the best possible desicion.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

TheWPCTraveler said:

I'm quite annoted at the substance of the original post, or the lack thereof. Let's fix that.

First off is a direct link to the paper: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/144971/a_preliminary_analysis_of_the_unified_framework_0.pdf [1]

All emphases going forward are added by me, to denote a direct quote. Bolding is for emphasis.

Page 3:

In 2018, the average tax bill for all income groups would decline. Taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution would see average after-tax incomes increase between 0.5 and 1.2 percent. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent (incomes above $730,000), would receive about 50 percent of the total tax benefit; their after-tax income would increase an average of 8.5 percent. Between 2018 and 2027, the average tax cut as a share of after-tax income would fall for all income groups other than the top 1 percent. In 2027, taxpayers between the 80th and 95th percentiles of income (between about $150,000 and $300,000) would experience a slight tax increase on average.

In other words, all groups will receive a boost in after-tax income. It's just that the rich would receive most of the benefit (though getting billionaires to relocate to America and (ideally) preventing them from using offshore tax havens would actually be a reasonable revenue-raising plan in my eyes; ditto with corporations and their offshore subsidiaries)

The WaPo article appears to be referring to the referring to Table 3, in particular the columns under "Tax units with tax cut or increase."
In particular, the average tax increase for certain tax units is larger than the average tax cut for other tax units. The issue with using that as a metric is that the percentage of tax units is already given - and the fact is that they still get a tax cut, contrary to what the OP states.

EDIT: The article actually refers to the (upper) middle class - those within the 80th to 95th percentiles.
And, the paper does, indeed state this, a net tax increase.

In 2018, about 12 percent of taxpayers would face a tax increase of roughly $1,800 on average. More than a third of taxpayers making between about $150,000 and $300,000 would pay more, mainly because most itemized deductions would be repealed.

In 2027, the overall average tax cut would be smaller than in 2018, increasing after-tax incomes 1.7 percent (table 3). Taxpayer groups in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution—those making less than about $150,000—would receive average tax cuts of 0.5 percent or less of after-tax income. Taxpayers making between about $150,000 and $300,000 would on average pay about $800 more in taxes than under current law. About 80 percent of the total benefit would accrue to taxpayers in the top 1 percent, whose after-tax income would increase 8.7 percent. An alternative presentation of the distributional effects of the framework is available in appendix B.

"In 2018, the average tax bill for all income groups would decline."

So he is not cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor, but instead he is cutting them for both but more for the rich? did i got that right?.



betacon said:
So tiring reading people attack Trump mindless without doing any research them self, did any of you read anything but article headlines and biased opinion pieces?

Attack Trump on what he deserves to be attacked, you just weaken your argument when you go after him on stuff like this.

He deserves to be attacked on his tax redestribution of wealth to the most wealthy in the country.

They're getting a multi trillion dollar tax break.
~80% of the tax benefits of Trump's plan go to the top 2% in the country.
To fund this, they are (among other things) cutting Medicare by $473 billion, and Medicaid by $1 trillion.
Taking form the poor and giving to the disgustingly rich.
It's like Robin Hood, but backwards.

Oh but the poor get a little bit of this as well, so they can buy a coffin when they can't afford healthcare any more.

But it's not like Trump promised there would be no cuts to medicare and medicaid, right?



Around the Network
estebxx said:

"In 2018, the average tax bill for all income groups would decline."

So he is not cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor, but instead he is cutting them for both but more for the rich? did i got that right?.

More for the rich is an understatement. About 80% of Trump's tax benefit go to the top 2% most wealthy in the country.
1% for an average minimum wage person is like $14 dollars.
1% for Bill Gates is a whole lot more than that. Many trillions of dollars are taken out of the tax economy, and majorly funneled towards the most wealthy. And the poorest in the country are footing the bill for this, with for example cuts to Medicare by $473 billion, and Medicaid by $1 trillion.

Republican's call this system "trickle-down economics".

It's the (absurd) idea that if you pile up most of the nations wealth on the most wealthy, it will eventually "trickle down" on the middle and lower class.
Problem is this has never worked in the US.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcsJGOTnQ1E

This is why the rich mostly fund the republican party, because they want these big tax breaks.
To get the people on board, they tell them that they will cut taxes for them as well. Yeah, 1 dollar extra a month for you Timmy, and 500k extra a month for you, Mr Rockefeller. Just don't tell Timmy that he is paying for this in other ways.



Hiku said:
estebxx said:

"In 2018, the average tax bill for all income groups would decline."

So he is not cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor, but instead he is cutting them for both but more for the rich? did i got that right?.

More for the rich is an understatement. About 80% of Trump's tax benefit go to the top 2% most wealthy in the country.
1% for an average minimum wage person is like $14 dollars.
1% for Bill Gates is a whole lot more than that. Many trillions of dollars are taken out of the tax economy, and majorly funneled towards the most wealthy. And the poorest in the country are footing the bill for this, with for example cuts to Medicare by $473 billion, and Medicaid by $1 trillion.

Republican's call this system "trickle-down economics".

It's the (absurd) idea that if you pile up most of the nations wealth on the most wealthy, it will eventually "trickle down" on the middle and lower class.
Problem is this has never worked in the US.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcsJGOTnQ1E

This is why the rich mostly fund the republican party, because they want these big tax breaks.
To get the people on board, they tell them that they will cut taxes for them as well. Yeah, 1 dollar extra a month for you Timmy, and 500k extra a month for you, Mr Rockefeller. Just don't tell Timmy that he is paying for this in other ways.

So he IS cutting taxes for both.



Hiku said:
estebxx said:

"In 2018, the average tax bill for all income groups would decline."

So he is not cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor, but instead he is cutting them for both but more for the rich? did i got that right?.

More for the rich is an understatement. About 80% of Trump's tax benefit go to the top 2% most wealthy in the country.
1% for an average minimum wage person is like $14 dollars.
1% for Bill Gates is a whole lot more than that. Many trillions of dollars are taken out of the tax economy, and majorly funneled towards the most wealthy. And the poorest in the country are footing the bill for this, with for example cuts to Medicare by $473 billion, and Medicaid by $1 trillion.

Republican's call this system "trickle-down economics".

It's the (absurd) idea that if you pile up most of the nations wealth on the most wealthy, it will eventually "trickle down" on the middle and lower class.
Problem is this has never worked in the US.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcsJGOTnQ1E

This is why the rich mostly fund the republican party, because they want these big tax breaks.
To get the people on board, they tell them that they will cut taxes for them as well. Yeah, 1 dollar extra a month for you Timmy, and 500k extra a month for you, Mr Rockefeller. Just don't tell Timmy that he is paying for this in other ways.

Actually, by taxing the top 1% at a much higher rate than everyone else you are propping up your econemy based on their income. Income that they then move out of the country and have the means to avoid paying on which in turn means the goverment has less money. If you eliminate the loopholes for those 1% and lower the tax rate they will end up paying more in taxes ( while still taking home the same amount possibly a little more) which allows you to lower taxes accross the board and "prop up" your economy on the middle class who now have more money to spend. The Democrats like to take one buzzword and twist it into what they want you to believe. You can raise taxes on business and 1%  class to 4000% if you like, all that will happen is those companies will all move out of the country and they will find every tax loophole they can to not pay it. You will then need to raise taxes on the middle class who cant get out of paying it......the Democratic way.



Superman4 said:

Actually, by taxing the top 1% at a much higher rate than everyone else you are propping up your econemy based on their income.

As it should be to a reasonable extent. The billionaires will still be billionaires.

Income that they then move out of the country and have the means to avoid paying on which in turn means the goverment has less money.

They still do this when they get their big tax breaks, as well as outsource workforce to cheaper foreign labour, etc. This is not solved by giving millionaires tax breaks they don't need.

If you eliminate the loopholes for those 1%

Elliminating the loopholes, yes. I'm all for that. You can do that without giving them tax breaks funded by cuts to medicare and medicaid, etc.



Puppyroach said:
Locknuts said:
Cut taxes for everyone. Shrink the government.

Why is a shrinking government good? 

Government is a necessary evil. There is always the risk a government could become tyrannical (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Venezuela, original Britain/US situation) therefore it is in the best interests of the people to limit the power and size of their government.

The idea of the USA was born from tyranny from Britain and the US forefathers understood that big government is a really bad idea.

If you've ever worked in government, you'll know how hoplessly inefficient it is too. They waste money like you wouldn't believe, and like you never would with your own money. But they do it with everyone elses money. Money they get via coercion. You may agree with some of the things the government does with tax money, but even if you find yourself disagreeing with those in charge, they will still send men with guns eventually to take your 'fair share'. If you resist men with guns, you get shot.