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

Snoopy said:
SpokenTruth said:

Those that believe they will repatriate money because we cut taxes are foolish.  As are those that think they will push any tax savings onto their employees versus their shareholders.

As for taxing them to death?  Do you not realize that the rich and corporations now pay far less than they did during the 1930s-1980s?  And when was our greatest growth periods?  When the top tax rate was over near 90%.  Further, the loop holes that allow a multibillion company to pay $0 taxes are still on the books. 


And yes, we could cut back on spending.  Quite a bit, actually.  But that's damn hard to do when you have a president that is pushing for a $50 billion wall plus another $50 billion for the military. 

1. No one paid 90% tax rate back then. There was a lot of loopholes and more than you think back then. Second, a strong defense in military spending is necessary for not only protection, but it pushes technology further for us and generated us a lot of money.

2. We spend over a hundred billion dollars on illegal immigrants a year as it is. If the wall can stop them from coming in (or at least make it harder) it can benefit us greatly. 50 billion for one year an estimated 150 million a year to maintain can benefit us in the long run.

 3. Other countries don't tax as much on their companies like we do that's why we see a lot of companies building their HQ in other countries to avoid higher taxes. Which means we get nothing at all. 

There is also something called the Laffer curve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s

1. Our military is already strong enough for protection.  Way more so than needed.  And how does it generate money?  Taxes spent is not new money nor is the military a revenue generating entity.  Further, a lot of our military spending goes to foreign nations.

2.  Illegal immigrants generate a net positive on the economy.  The Center for Immigration Studies suggests the wall could reduce tax burden by $12 - $15 billion but we would lose the economic benefit and other taxes they generate thereby creating a net loss.  They pay $12 billion per year according to the Social Security Administration and a further $11.6 billion in sales tax, property tax, etc...   Oh, any get ready for prices to increase because illigeal immigrants make up 40% of all Brickmasons, blockmasons, and stonemasons, 37% of all Drywall installers, ceiling tile installers and tapers, 31% of all roofers, 30% of agricultural workers, 27% of construction laborers....and more according to the Pew Research Center.

3. Given we just agreed that corporations do not pay the actual 35% rate, it's irreelvant where they move their HQ to.  Further moving money offshore to a tax haven like the Cayman Islands with a 0% rate is just as damaging to us as moving their HQ to elsewhere.  Canada has a 31% rate, Belgium has a 34% tax rate, Ireland is 12.5%, Switzerland is 18%, Panama is 25%, UK is 19%.  I mention them because they are the most common places they move to.  Canada and Belgium probably cost more to move to than the tax they save but the real issue is that we seem to care far more about competive rax rates than fixing loop holes. 

And yes, I'm familiar with the Laffer Curve...are you familiar with it being discredited?  Presuming taxes and revenue curve equally only looks good in graphics.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:

1. No one paid 90% tax rate back then. There was a lot of loopholes and more than you think back then. Second, a strong defense in military spending is necessary for not only protection, but it pushes technology further for us and generated us a lot of money.

2. We spend over a hundred billion dollars on illegal immigrants a year as it is. If the wall can stop them from coming in (or at least make it harder) it can benefit us greatly. 50 billion for one year an estimated 150 million a year to maintain can benefit us in the long run.

 3. Other countries don't tax as much on their companies like we do that's why we see a lot of companies building their HQ in other countries to avoid higher taxes. Which means we get nothing at all. 

There is also something called the Laffer curve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s

1. Our military is already strong enough for protection.  Way more so than needed.  And how does it generate money?  Taxes spent is not new money nor is the military a revenue generating entity.  Further, a lot of our military spending goes to foreign nations.

2.  Illegal immigrants generate a net positive on the economy.  The Center for Immigration Studies suggests the wall could reduce tax burden by $12 - $15 billion but we would lose the economic benefit and other taxes they generate thereby creating a net loss.  They pay $12 billion per year according to the Social Security Administration and a further $11.6 billion in sales tax, property tax, etc...   Oh, any get ready for prices to increase because illigeal immigrants make up 40% of all Brickmasons, blockmasons, and stonemasons, 37% of all Drywall installers, ceiling tile installers and tapers, 31% of all roofers, 30% of agricultural workers, 27% of construction laborers....and more according to the Pew Research Center.

3. Given we just agreed that corporations do not pay the actual 35% rate, it's irreelvant where they move their HQ to.  Further moving money offshore to a tax haven like the Cayman Islands with a 0% rate is just as damaging to us as moving their HQ to elsewhere.  Canada has a 31% rate, Belgium has a 34% tax rate, Ireland is 12.5%, Switzerland is 18%, Panama is 25%, UK is 19%.  I mention them because they are the most common places they move to.  Canada and Belgium probably cost more to move to than the tax they save but the real issue is that we seem to care far more about competive rax rates than fixing loop holes. 

And yes, I'm familiar with the Laffer Curve...are you familiar with it being discredited?  Presuming taxes and revenue curve equally only looks good in graphics.

1. We have ourselves and our allies to protect. With countries like Russia and China we need to keep investing in our military and make sure we have the best technology available. Having the best military and teaming up with NATO makes it where no country wants to mess with us so it saves us a lot of money and lives in the long run. The military has helped innovate and create a lot of technology we use today. GPS, microwaves, air travel,ect.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/modern-civilian-tech-made-possible-wartime-research-development/

 

2. Illegal immigrants cost American taxpayer jobs. We have to spend 135 billion dollars for illegal immigrants and they hurt our education system since we have to lower the standard and spend more resources on them (I know from personal experience). They only make up a good chunk of the workforce due to cheap labor because they don't pay taxes or do the simple things like getting car insurance/register their cars. More Americans would get those jobs if they paid a little more or if we have a shortage for some reason we could easily create a similar H-2B program for it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757

3. We waste so much money in the government we could easily eliminate high taxes on companies. Big companies or billionaires wouldn't move to those countries if we were more competitive. Since we both agree companies and people move their money elsewhere we get nothing from it. Offshore accounts aren't just for taxes, but for protection to diversify your portfolio. Some Countries also use the U.S as an offshore banking so it's a mutual thing. 

 

The laffer curve is an economic theory that some disagree while some agree with. I personally agree with it because why couldn't a company or a billionaire move their money else where if they start getting taxed a lot.



Snoopy said:

1. We have ourselves and our allies to protect. With countries like Russia and China we need to keep investing in our military and make sure we have the best technology available. Having the best military and teaming up with NATO makes it where no country wants to mess with us so it saves us a lot of money and lives in the long run. The military has helped innovate and create a lot of technology we use today. GPS, microwaves, air travel,ect.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/modern-civilian-tech-made-possible-wartime-research-development/

 

2. Illegal immigrants cost American taxpayer jobs. We have to spend 135 billion dollars for illegal immigrants and they hurt our education system since we have to lower the standard and spend more resources on them (I know from personal experience). They only make up a good chunk of the workforce due to cheap labor because they don't pay taxes or do the simple things like getting car insurance/register their cars. More Americans would get those jobs if they paid a little more or if we have a shortage for some reason we could easily create a similar H-2B program for it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757

3. We waste so much money in the government we could easily eliminate high taxes on companies. Big companies or billionaires wouldn't move to those countries if we were more competitive. Since we both agree companies and people move their money elsewhere we get nothing from it. Offshore accounts aren't just for taxes, but for protection to diversify your portfolio. Some Countries also use the U.S as an offshore banking so it's a mutual thing. 

 

The laffer curve is an economic theory that some disagree while some agree with. I personally agree with it because why couldn't a company or a billionaire move their money else where if they start getting taxed a lot.

1. This site you listed does not validate their numbers.  The do not list any of their sources on how they get their calculations.  Also when I say list I mean a link that I can go to to verify their data.  Without the links those numbers are pretty much made up.

2.  If we waste so much money in the government then we do not need to spend so much like 65% just on our Military.  With the amount of money we spend on the Military right now we could improve every school in America twice over.  Hell, we could give free rides to any college for all kids so all our children has a chance to have a higher education which would put them all to work, creating Jobs improving the economy.  I have no problems with improving the tax code, I have a problem just giving the rich a free ride and believe somehow they will put back into the US.  This has already been done multiple times and each time the corporations just repurchase their stock, pay their CEOs more and just purchase bigger items and still move their assets to even cheaper countries.



Machiavellian said:
Snoopy said:

1. We have ourselves and our allies to protect. With countries like Russia and China we need to keep investing in our military and make sure we have the best technology available. Having the best military and teaming up with NATO makes it where no country wants to mess with us so it saves us a lot of money and lives in the long run. The military has helped innovate and create a lot of technology we use today. GPS, microwaves, air travel,ect.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/modern-civilian-tech-made-possible-wartime-research-development/

 

2. Illegal immigrants cost American taxpayer jobs. We have to spend 135 billion dollars for illegal immigrants and they hurt our education system since we have to lower the standard and spend more resources on them (I know from personal experience). They only make up a good chunk of the workforce due to cheap labor because they don't pay taxes or do the simple things like getting car insurance/register their cars. More Americans would get those jobs if they paid a little more or if we have a shortage for some reason we could easily create a similar H-2B program for it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757

3. We waste so much money in the government we could easily eliminate high taxes on companies. Big companies or billionaires wouldn't move to those countries if we were more competitive. Since we both agree companies and people move their money elsewhere we get nothing from it. Offshore accounts aren't just for taxes, but for protection to diversify your portfolio. Some Countries also use the U.S as an offshore banking so it's a mutual thing. 

 

The laffer curve is an economic theory that some disagree while some agree with. I personally agree with it because why couldn't a company or a billionaire move their money else where if they start getting taxed a lot.

1. This site you listed does not validate their numbers.  The do not list any of their sources on how they get their calculations.  Also when I say list I mean a link that I can go to to verify their data.  Without the links those numbers are pretty much made up.

2.  If we waste so much money in the government then we do not need to spend so much like 65% just on our Military.  With the amount of money we spend on the Military right now we could improve every school in America twice over.  Hell, we could give free rides to any college for all kids so all our children has a chance to have a higher education which would put them all to work, creating Jobs improving the economy.  I have no problems with improving the tax code, I have a problem just giving the rich a free ride and believe somehow they will put back into the US.  This has already been done multiple times and each time the corporations just repurchase their stock, pay their CEOs more and just purchase bigger items and still move their assets to even cheaper countries.

I actually have a little bit of insight in a few of the things you guys are discussing if you don't mind me jumping in.

1) So I did a bit of reading on how military spending affects GDP a few weeks back. Obviously being an economic question, theres a lot of disagreement as to the effects (economists never agree on anything), but the common consensus that I found was that, in the USA, military spending has a close to neutral effect of GDP. Some papers show it with a slight negative effect (dampening GDP due to increased federal debt) while others show it with a slight positive effect (increasing GDP due to the economic contributions of military development and R&D). 

What this largely means, is that while the effect of the spending itself is relatively neutral, it is inefficient. Spending a portion of that money elsewhere (say, education or infrastructure) would likely produce a greater positive effect on GDP (without ballooning the federal debt which would be the effect of increasing spending everywhere). 

Sources: 

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07388940490463906 - "Findings are robustly substantiated and reveal that military spending and growth have neither a statistical nor an economic impact on each other. This suggests that current U.S. political debates opposing or favoring military spending on the grounds of its economic merit are irrelevant."

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/defense-spending-and-economy - "The existing studies found that a dollar increase in federal defense spending results in a less-than-a-dollar increase in GDP when the spending increase is deficit financed. Combining this with a tax multiplier that is negative and greater than one, the authors estimate that over five years each $1 in federal defense-spending cuts will increase private spending by roughly $1.30. "

 

2) Illegal immigrants do cost the government much more in output than they pay in taxes. However, the question is a lot more complicated than that when you take in the effects of how they spend their money.

First of all, the cost to taxpayers. Yes, there is a cost. What that number is however, isn't quite as clear. What was provided above (roughly $100billion after factoring in taxes paid) is pretty much the highest estimate out there. Other estimates range from $6billion to $50billion to $85billion (after roughly adjusting for population changes). So yeah, there is a cost, but I'd say an average estimate would be closer to $70billion than $130billion.

Next comes unemployment. The typical logic is that immigrants take jobs, but that isn't factoring in the demand they create. Because of this, the impact on unemployment is basically null.

Finally, wages. Again, the effect isn't as strong as many people think. Most studies find a small decrease in wages of the high school dropout demographic and basically no impact, or even a slightly positive impact elsewhere.

Then there are the positive effects. Most notably, illegal immigration helps keep costs down. This goes for pretty much everything from food to houses. Because of this, the spending power of American families increases, meaning their earnings go further. This leads to overall, illegal immigration largely being a wash. You have slightly higher government spending but reduced consumer costs, increasing spending power and helping businesses. Because of this, high cost efforts to reduce illegal immigration largely are harmful economically.

Sources:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-illegal-immigration-costs-113-bi/ - Presents numerous estimates for taxpayer cost of illegal immigration.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/05/04/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/ - Summary from Brookings about the effects of immigration.

3) I don't have any real academic information to share about this last point, but I want to say that reducing government waste would be great. However, that needs to come before or alongside tax decreases. Decreasing taxes without also reducing unproductive government spending inflates the budget which creates longterm woes far outweighing short term gain (that information is from a CBO report somewhere but I can't remember which one and it seems like common sense so I don't think I need to source it). 

4) Finally, quick note about the Laffer curve. It is a full parabola. That means just decreasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue. There is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. Proof needs to be put forward to show that decreasing taxes will increase revenue in order to use the Laffer Curve in your argument (assuming anyone puts any stock in the Laffer Curve at all). 



Snoopy said:
SpokenTruth said:
Must be hard living with just $6 million instead of $7 million on a $10 million income. Now way to hire anyone now. Time to move everything off shore.

The problem is if you tax the rich too much they would just leave which means we get nothing. A lot of companies move their company to Canada and other countries. 

Taxing the rich to death means they will leave and you'll miss them when they're gone. Besides, Government wastes a lot of money they could easily cut back on certain things.

Yea like the fucking military.  So much fucking waste in military but republicans give the military a blank check...  Amazing what 43 million dollar natural gas station in Afghanistan can do...  Where they had to spend most of the money converting vehicles to natural gas in order to use the damn thing...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-burns-43-million-to-build-gas-station-in-afghanistan-2015-11-02

 

But no let us just cut social programs in USA and let the military waste all the fucking money in the world.  I am so fucking proud of all the money wasted by our military.  If your against it then you are a fucking traitor and a pussy!



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
Snoopy said:

1. No one paid 90% tax rate back then. There was a lot of loopholes and more than you think back then. Second, a strong defense in military spending is necessary for not only protection, but it pushes technology further for us and generated us a lot of money.

2. We spend over a hundred billion dollars on illegal immigrants a year as it is. If the wall can stop them from coming in (or at least make it harder) it can benefit us greatly. 50 billion for one year an estimated 150 million a year to maintain can benefit us in the long run.

 3. Other countries don't tax as much on their companies like we do that's why we see a lot of companies building their HQ in other countries to avoid higher taxes. Which means we get nothing at all. 

There is also something called the Laffer curve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s

1. Our military is already strong enough for protection.  Way more so than needed.  And how does it generate money?  Taxes spent is not new money nor is the military a revenue generating entity.  Further, a lot of our military spending goes to foreign nations.

2.  Illegal immigrants generate a net positive on the economy.  The Center for Immigration Studies suggests the wall could reduce tax burden by $12 - $15 billion but we would lose the economic benefit and other taxes they generate thereby creating a net loss.  They pay $12 billion per year according to the Social Security Administration and a further $11.6 billion in sales tax, property tax, etc...   Oh, any get ready for prices to increase because illigeal immigrants make up 40% of all Brickmasons, blockmasons, and stonemasons, 37% of all Drywall installers, ceiling tile installers and tapers, 31% of all roofers, 30% of agricultural workers, 27% of construction laborers....and more according to the Pew Research Center.

3. Given we just agreed that corporations do not pay the actual 35% rate, it's irreelvant where they move their HQ to.  Further moving money offshore to a tax haven like the Cayman Islands with a 0% rate is just as damaging to us as moving their HQ to elsewhere.  Canada has a 31% rate, Belgium has a 34% tax rate, Ireland is 12.5%, Switzerland is 18%, Panama is 25%, UK is 19%.  I mention them because they are the most common places they move to.  Canada and Belgium probably cost more to move to than the tax they save but the real issue is that we seem to care far more about competive rax rates than fixing loop holes. 

And yes, I'm familiar with the Laffer Curve...are you familiar with it being discredited?  Presuming taxes and revenue curve equally only looks good in graphics.

Sounds like we will have some trades open up to citizens. 



Superman4 said:
SpokenTruth said:

1. Our military is already strong enough for protection.  Way more so than needed.  And how does it generate money?  Taxes spent is not new money nor is the military a revenue generating entity.  Further, a lot of our military spending goes to foreign nations.

2.  Illegal immigrants generate a net positive on the economy.  The Center for Immigration Studies suggests the wall could reduce tax burden by $12 - $15 billion but we would lose the economic benefit and other taxes they generate thereby creating a net loss.  They pay $12 billion per year according to the Social Security Administration and a further $11.6 billion in sales tax, property tax, etc...   Oh, any get ready for prices to increase because illigeal immigrants make up 40% of all Brickmasons, blockmasons, and stonemasons, 37% of all Drywall installers, ceiling tile installers and tapers, 31% of all roofers, 30% of agricultural workers, 27% of construction laborers....and more according to the Pew Research Center.

3. Given we just agreed that corporations do not pay the actual 35% rate, it's irreelvant where they move their HQ to.  Further moving money offshore to a tax haven like the Cayman Islands with a 0% rate is just as damaging to us as moving their HQ to elsewhere.  Canada has a 31% rate, Belgium has a 34% tax rate, Ireland is 12.5%, Switzerland is 18%, Panama is 25%, UK is 19%.  I mention them because they are the most common places they move to.  Canada and Belgium probably cost more to move to than the tax they save but the real issue is that we seem to care far more about competive rax rates than fixing loop holes. 

And yes, I'm familiar with the Laffer Curve...are you familiar with it being discredited?  Presuming taxes and revenue curve equally only looks good in graphics.

Sounds like we will have some trades open up to citizens. 

Yes and no.  American citizens will not be willing to take those jobs for the same pay and lack of benefits that the illegal immigrants were.  That means fewer will be hired and/or costs will go up for construction, labor, food, trasnportation, etc...  Even worse is the fact we do not have enough expereinced or qualified workers to fill those lost jobs.

Americans want their cheap housing and food.  Americans also want their higher wages.  Americans can't get both by deporting illegals/stopping illegal immigration.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Superman4 said:

Sounds like we will have some trades open up to citizens. 

Yes and no.  American citizens will not be willing to take those jobs for the same pay and lack of benefits that the illegal immigrants were.  That means fewer will be hired and/or costs will go up for construction, labor, food, trasnportation, etc...  Even worse is the fact we do not have enough expereinced or qualified workers to fill those lost jobs.

Americans want their cheap housing and food.  Americans also want their higher wages.  Americans can't get both by deporting illegals/stopping illegal immigration.

So what you are saying is that the Democrats new and improved Slavery by using illegals is OK because it saves money. We dont have the trained people because the current platform isnt designed for US citizens, its designed for illegals. Forcing companies to follow the law and hire Americans will give them the opportunity to learn a trade and provide for their family in a way that wasnt available to them before. Perfect candidates are recent High school graduates and trade schools designed for construction, farming etc.  If the ACA stays, everyone is required to have insurance. HIring illegals, paying them low wages and no benefits is and should be a crime. Anyone caught doing it should be fined at minimum 2 million per employee and any employees caught get deported immedietly with no option to return legally.



Superman4 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Yes and no.  American citizens will not be willing to take those jobs for the same pay and lack of benefits that the illegal immigrants were.  That means fewer will be hired and/or costs will go up for construction, labor, food, trasnportation, etc...  Even worse is the fact we do not have enough expereinced or qualified workers to fill those lost jobs.

Americans want their cheap housing and food.  Americans also want their higher wages.  Americans can't get both by deporting illegals/stopping illegal immigration.

So what you are saying is that the Democrats new and improved Slavery by using illegals is OK because it saves money. We dont have the trained people because the current platform isnt designed for US citizens, its designed for illegals. Forcing companies to follow the law and hire Americans will give them the opportunity to learn a trade and provide for their family in a way that wasnt available to them before. Perfect candidates are recent High school graduates and trade schools designed for construction, farming etc.  If the ACA stays, everyone is required to have insurance. HIring illegals, paying them low wages and no benefits is and should be a crime. Anyone caught doing it should be fined at minimum 2 million per employee and any employees caught get deported immedietly with no option to return legally.

There is plenty of demand for jobs in areas such as agriculture and the trades. If Americans want those jobs, they can get them. I worked in the trades for a while and I was pretty much constantly told that no one my age was getting into the trades, and its not because they don't have experience or training. I got in making a solid paycheck with no knowledge of the work whatsoever. Half my coworkers were living in a halfway home. No one else would hire them but the trades need the laborers. There is a pretty dire labor shortage even with illegal laborers. 

A big part of the problem is that the US school system is pushing everybody into college instead of being focused on the demand for jobs. Illegal workers are typically filling a dire need in areas where US workers aren't picking up the slack, not forcing US workers out. 

Further, while I agree that companies shouldn't be paying anyone below minimum wage (and many illegal immigrants do make above minimum wage), the purpose of the minimum wage is to protect workers. Getting rid of someone's income and sending them out of the country isn't protecting them. If the goal is actually to protect workers, it can easily be done through amnesty. Otherwise, I find the appeal to emotion to ring a bit hollow.



KManX89 said:

Whadd'ya know? Another day, another conning on campaign promises by our Narcissist-In-Chief. Remember when Trump said he was "going to fight for the little guy" in regards to his tax plan? Low and behold, his latest tax plan actually RAISES taxes on the poor and middle class while giving insane tax cuts to the rich (as usual per the GOP)! So much for Trump being the "working man's best friend", eh? LOL! This is what happens when you let a known con man run your country, it's "everybody's going to be covered" all over again.

Please explain how raising the level of zero tax to 24K, doubling the standard deduction for both single and married while lowering the majority of americans tax bracket from 15% to 12% is raising taxes? Also increasing the child tax credit from 1K to 1600 and adding a $300 per person credit per adult dependant is raising taxes? This will lower taxes for all true middle class people, not the BS ones that have a million dollar home and say they are middle class.