Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 28 Sep '15 22:00
    Released today,
    "Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate."

    continue reading here for more details:
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plan-cuts-taxes-for-millions-1443427200?mod=trending_now_9
  2. 28 Sep '15 23:34
    I'm not sure this will sway anyone about anything.

    People are already ideologically polarized/paralyzed here to the point that they are unable to be open to anything Trump has to say.
  3. 28 Sep '15 23:41
    Originally posted by whodey
    I'm not sure this will sway anyone about anything.

    People are already ideologically polarized/paralyzed here to the point that they are unable to be open to anything Trump has to say.
    I dunno.
    Seems like a pretty savvy move. Which will certainly sure up his base if nothing else.
  4. 29 Sep '15 05:39
    So a tax cut across the board, then? How will he pay for it? And why does he think that cutting the already far too low top tax rate even further is a good idea?
  5. 29 Sep '15 05:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So a tax cut across the board, then? How will he pay for it? And why does he think that cutting the already far too low top tax rate even further is a good idea?
    according to the article :

    To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition. Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

    A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money, even if the money stays overseas, but allow a few years for the tax to be paid. The Trump campaign estimates that many companies would choose to bring their money back home, boosting jobs and investment in the U.S.

    Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred. All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.
  6. 29 Sep '15 05:58
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Go to the link and read . I believe it is addressed there.
    The link is behind a paywall but I found the relevant proposals elsewhere and the answer seems to be that the tax cuts will be largely unpaid for (or at least Trump isn't saying which costs he will cut to pay for them) aside from the vague "cutting loopholes and deductions."
  7. 29 Sep '15 06:00
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The link is behind a paywall but I found the relevant proposals elsewhere and the answer seems to be that the tax cuts will be largely unpaid for (or at least Trump isn't saying which costs he will cut to pay for them) aside from the vague "cutting loopholes and deductions."
    Yes . I just noticed that so see my edit above.
  8. 29 Sep '15 06:08
    I don't think I know sufficient about the US tax code to conclusively say anything about these overseas profits, but couldn't companies evade this tax by just moving their headquarters?
  9. 29 Sep '15 06:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I don't think I know sufficient about the US tax code to conclusively say anything about these overseas profits, but couldn't companies evade this tax by just moving their headquarters?
    Honestly, I am far from a expert myself. Its very confusing to most americans.
    It is deliberate. To be as confusing as possible to the common man.

    But to answer your question I don't believe moving your headquarters will do it.
    sh76 I am sure is more knowledgeable on this than I am. Maybe he will chime in.


    I am not endorsing this Trump plan.
    Personally, I feel its a "pie in the sky" sort of thing.
    I am just curious what others like you think about it.
  10. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    29 Sep '15 09:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Released today,
    "Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25 ...[text shortened]... :
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plan-cuts-taxes-for-millions-1443427200?mod=trending_now_9
    This all sounds great, but it won't work for 2 reasons:

    1. If elected president, Trump will never get this through Congress. The 1% loves their tax loopholes, and won't give them up without a fight, and since the 1% owns and operates many conservative lawmakers, they will vote against it.

    2. If by some miracle this passes Congress and is signed into law, the amount of tax revenue collected will be reduced, and like all good politicians, Trump gives no details about what government services will be cut in order to balance the budget. America's national debt is very large now, Trumps plan will only make it worse.
  11. 29 Sep '15 10:51
    Originally posted by bill718
    This all sounds great, but it won't work for 2 reasons:

    1. If elected president, Trump will never get this through Congress. The 1% loves their tax loopholes, and won't give them up without a fight, and since the 1% owns and operates many conservative lawmakers, they will vote against it.

    2. If by some miracle this passes Congress and is signed into la ...[text shortened]... ance the budget. America's national debt is very large now, Trumps plan will only make it worse.
    After the GOP train wreck after being swept into office in 2014 to oppose Obama, but instead opting not to, I'd say Dims may retake both Houses.

    If so, then you will see Dims oppose the plan for the exact same reason. Will this open your eyes finally Bill?
  12. 29 Sep '15 13:34
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    according to the article :

    To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition. Mr. Trump also would end the “carried ...[text shortened]... l—neither raising nor lowering federal revenues—by the third year and then begin adding revenue.
    It is an appealing idea. He would not eliminate the mortgage tax deduction. Of course the difficult part is eliminating the numerous tax deductions that go to the wealthiest. In theory, I do believe this could work but in truth, I am not optimistic that enough deductions could be eliminated due to the political influence the 1% have purchased from both sides of the aisle.
  13. 29 Sep '15 13:46
    Originally posted by Phranny
    It is an appealing idea. He would not eliminate the mortgage tax deduction. Of course the difficult part is eliminating the numerous tax deductions that go to the wealthiest. In theory, I do believe this could work but in truth, I am not optimistic that enough deductions could be eliminated due to the political influence the 1% have purchased from both sides of the aisle.
    Trump sounds very much like a Progressive.
  14. 29 Sep '15 14:59
    Originally posted by whodey
    Trump sounds very much like a Progressive.
    Who's not a "progressive" in your book?
  15. 29 Sep '15 15:23
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So a tax cut across the board, then? How will he pay for it? And why does he think that cutting the already far too low top tax rate even further is a good idea?
    How did we get to the vocabulary of "paying for tax cuts"? Do they ever ask, about a new federal program, "how are we going to pay for it?"

    The question ought to be worded what programs will have to be cut, to balance the budget, with or without tax cuts?