Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions
While this is somewhat of an improvement I still favor a small fair tax or flat tax.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
As for lawlessness, so far the entire MSM, the RNC, and the DNC has yet to show that Trump has done anything illegal in his business dealings (you know they damn well have tried). What in his very long and public history makes you think he's about to start working outside the law now?
You may be right, I just don't see him that way.
he will play inside the law and he would be more than happy to adjust the law to do his bidding for him.
After all he has taken government handouts, welfare for business, over and over. Even defaulted on his agreements completely 4 times in his life. While not illegal it shows a continual disregard for any kind of ethical or philosophical compass in his life. The man has proven he will do whatever to get what he wants, and right now he wants to have a show and be the center of attention.
When he is done with the center of attention and if he is president he will want power. That drive will cause him to shift with the whims of people, double deal, cheat lie and steal anywhere where it is legal to do so. Where its not he will be happy to change that.
That is the person he has been so why expect a different man that he exhibits to the public now?
Cruise says he will use executive order to undo everything that was done by executive order, and the few things that needed to be done would then need to go through proper process. That would be an exceptional use of the executive order and would set up an attitude and environment of executive order = bad.
My options remain open about who I vote for, though.
Sanders scares the hell out of me.
I'll just have to see how it pans out.
Hear, hear. I favor the Fair tax, but a flat tax would be a vast improvement. Everyone should have some skin in the game otherwise divide and conquer will prevail and those that pay little or nothing will continue to vote tax increases on others. Ultimately I would like to see no direct taxation and the federal government fund itself as it did prior to the 16th amendment.
It is a dream... a golden bygone era...
Regards,
O.A.
It is the basic postulate of economics that incentives matter. In this case as in so many human endeavors, incentives affect human decisions. It is this human nature many politicians have recognized and often obfuscated for the furtherance of their own ends at our expense. Buying votes and appealing to the greed and ignorance of a segment of a constituency has become an art form. Ignorance of macro economics, and future implications provide opportunity for short term gain and powerful inducements for politicos.
We must find a way to remove the palette and brush or forever find ourselves painted into a corner.
Respectfully,
O.A.
" Ignorance of macro economics, and future implications" If only that was the problem....Ignorance can at least be overcome! Blatant disregard of facts and greed are more difficult.
We really need to find a way to de-fund the politicos vote buying machine!
Of course the best tax policy would be to eliminate both corporate and individual income taxes entirely and fund the federal government based on trade tariffs, but in the meantime...
Can you say "Votes for sale! Cheap!"....
If any tax is really needed above voluntary user fees, I'd rather see a tax on consumption excluding real necessities (e.g., food, water, basic shelter, vitamins/supplements/drugs, transportation, utilities.) That makes payment closer to voluntary albeit still an imposition on liberty. Any tax gives unearned power to the government that imposes it, and transfers power from individuals to government. User fees are preferable because market forces are used to either feed or starve the government's necessary programs.
Protectionism only means that you are going to pay for bloated salaries and benefits. Ayn Rand would not care for that approach would she?
Any tax scheme can be manipulated to serve the ends of government. But our current tax policies encourage US companies to go outside the US for manufacturing and production. That has to change. We have to get back to manufacturing things inside our own borders. That's not protectionism, that's the basis of the power. If we can provide the needs of our own citizens, we don't give up the power of trade to other nations in times of disagreement, and any economic or other treaties we sign are done so from a position of power. Case in point: China. Because China controls a large part of our manufacturing base, they also control a large portion of our economy and have power over us - despite being a communist and anti-capitalist government! You really want them to have control over us? Tariffs give us the ability to penalize those who try to take advantage of us economically. Tariffs are the perfect tool for international trade relations!
I tend to start with the assumption that taxes are what we agree to pay in order to get something we couldn't practically do as individuals.
A sort of... if I want it, what am I willing to pay for it.
The concept of trade tariffs implies to me that whatever they're going to 'pay for' would be funded by taxes (tariffs, charges, costs) levied on goods that cross (national?) borders. Yes?
Well, if that pays for nothing but basic 'government expenses' that might work, but what 'should' the source of 'pay for what you're getting' be for national defense, various infrastructure creation and maintenance, etc.?
Charging for 'services' closest to the consumer of them seems logical to me, but trade tariffs seem to just be moving the consumer further from the delivered product or service.
Not to mention the somewhat obvious risk of world-wide "tariff wars" between countries?
Thanks for raising the point!
+afdotcom.
After reviewing his tax plan I'm sure of it. That piece of junk has two objectives. Fool people into voting for him so he can raid, rape and loot is first on the list.
Second it's a form of wealth distribution designed to give some people a tax break while charging everyone through higher prices on everything.
Anyone still thinking of serious voting for Trumpty Dumpty remember his only success has been somehow coming up smelling like a money pit to the disadvantage of the fools who believed him.
If you are in that category get the same book and grow up. For those who think he must be doing something right he's a billionaire you are right 100% completely no question. He figured out out how to do reverse wealth distribution with the final resting place of the loot in his pocket instead of in the pocket of the moochers. Lewis of Progressive Insurance and George Soros do the same thing. Trump is not only a left wing corporatist he's a one man secular progressive.
I own the book; I read it at least a decade or two ago and I recommend The Lesson Page of the book (at least) to anyone who I think doesn't understand The Basic Lesson. The rest of the book is a collection of examples to help folks who can't get the concept from the first pages.
I have another belief, too... anyone who thinks they can 'distribute wealth' (or income or money) in ANY way that will 'solve the problems of inequality' (of money, wealth or whatever) is a loon.
When the "Fair Tax" was first talked about, I found some of the original claims on the web and reviewed them in detail.
When I was done, I'd found enough errors and loopholes to drive a large truck through and concluded that, in "reality" if it were enacted, virtually ALL of the same problems we bitch about with regards to Current Tax Laws would inevitably find their ways into such a "Fair Tax" system, too.
The parts of it that are vague or poorly or inadequately defined would bring it down eventually.
Back around 1970 or so, I did some math on "what tax on ALL INCOME with NO Deductions for Anything, PLUS a 'poverty floor' below which nobody would pay any income tax" would be needed, and I discovered almost exactly what Trump mentioned recently....
7% with no floor or about 13% with a floor of about 3-4 times whatever the current "poverty level income" is... would either stop increasing US deficits OR, in the case of the higher number, reduce the debt over some decades to zero.
Of course, NOBODY suggests eliminating ALL 'deductions' or subsidies as such. Even if home mortgage interest deductions artificially inflate the True Value (prices) of private homes...
There are So Many oxen which would be gored if all deductions were removed that That Will Never Happen.
But Fair Tax ideas need more thinking and Trump is Nowhere Near "original" (nor are his advisers) on what he's announced.
Real Critical Thinking is needed to ATTACK this problem, let alone try to solve it, and Problems that have Taken Decades or Scores of Years to Develop Will NOT be solved in ANY President's Term... maybe in five or ten terms, but certainly not 4 or 8 years.... But that's what politicians offer and that's what the voters think they can get.
Massive Group Failure of Thought.
In the meantime, enjoy Life as much as you can for as long as you have.
But wait... what about ALL the other Candidates To Be Candidates?!
They're Different from that?
I must have missed something...
:)
"The concept of trade tariffs implies to me that whatever they're going to 'pay for' would be funded by taxes (tariffs, charges, costs) levied on goods that cross (national?) borders. Yes?"
Yes. That means taxes (properly referred to as import tariffs) on imported goods - everything from automobiles to those crappy toys you get from the dollar store with "Made in China" on them.
"Well, if that pays for nothing but basic 'government expenses' that might work, but what 'should' the source of 'pay for what you're getting' be for national defense, various infrastructure creation and maintenance, etc.?"
Again, prior to 1916, it was enough. Since the creation and subsequent tax base expansion, government has found more than enough ways to spend money because they don't have to focus on prioritization and efficiency. I'm all for "skin in the game" as a first step, but the larger problem is the total lack of government restraint on spending.
I would also point out that this applies to the Federal Government only, and it has few enumerated responsibilities, of which I can think of only a few: national defense, international relations (embassies, etc.), and the postal service. One can also argue for the FBI and CIA/NSA I suppose. Everything else was added by Congress and can just as easily be revoked by Congress.
Forest Service? Turn the land over to the States in which the land is found to manage. Bye bye Secretary of the Interior.
IRS? It would only be responsible for collecting tariffs - it wouldn't be this monstrosity that threatens every taxpayer in the nation.
Education? It shouldn't be a federal program at all!
Housing? Ditto like Education. Economists have shown repeatedly that all these programs do is artificially raise the costs of housing!
...
I could go on and on.
Mr. Trump spouts a lot of Populist rhetoric however has absolutely no history a backing 90% of it! He is telling angry people what they want to hear however probably has little or no intention on following through on any of this "Populist" stuff!
Crony capitalism is the only thing of which he has a real track record including paying off both sides to get "favorable" treatment at the hands of elected officials. I challenge everyone to look beyond the hype and remember, it is the true conservatives who have been falling by the road side not Bush or the other RINOs.
For what its worth!!
For some reason that fact drives people nuts. When Mitt Romney stated it, his critics said, "wait, some of those people are military, firefighters, etc". Yes. That doesn't change the facts. He's not saying they're bad. He's saying they don't pay income tax. But people perceive stating this fact as a condemnation of people.
Trump saying he has a plan that will result in half the country not paying taxes is brilliant. If his opponents state the fact, "So what, that's already true today," he can have people jump on them as they did on Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney was talking about who would vote for him. He was in essence saying that 49% don’t count. It was dismissive.
Trump is saying half of all americans won’t pay any taxes under his plan, but he also said in one interview that the subsidies would be going away. like tax credits for those who pay no taxes. I haven’t heard him repeat that bit, but he did say it. He hasn’t as far as I know pointed to a certain group and stated that he doesn’t care what they think because they weren’t going to vote for him anyway, like Mitt Romney did. In fact, the only thing I have heard Trump say is how well he is doing in the polls and how much we all love him. Mexicans love him. Women love him. We all just love him. :) (It’s a Trump-thing.)
My reading of Romney's comments was that a promise to cut taxes wouldn't matter to half the country because they don't pay taxes. So this particular issue would not affect them personally.
My point is Trump can come along and say, "I have an amazing plan where half the people won't pay taxes. Opponents will be afraid to say that that's already the case now because people might think they mean the people who don't pay taxes don't matter.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…” ~Mitt Romney
I think I’m right, what say you?
On Trump: he is pulling a hat trick. You have to scratch your head (maybe in marvel) that he is being applauded for stating he won’t change a thing just because he found a creative way to say it. It is the art of the deal at work. He is a natural salesman, (I’ll give him that much) even if he doesn’t get the finesse of politics yet. He goes up in the polls and earns a few of the votes of those 47%ers Romney couldn’t capture by basically promising nothing will change for the 47-49%. Not technically true if Trump goes after the subsidies tax-credits but...there you go.
I agree with what you're saying on the Trump hat trick. I'm adding that it has the added benefit that if another candidate criticizes him on it, that candidate might come off as being like Romney.
Most of us in the other fifty percent are in the 15% to what ever is next bracket. Add to that 30% of embedded or indirect taxes also state and local direct taxes.
don't confuse income tax as a money raising method for congress but think of it as a way to control citizens. Makes more sense that way.
Trump will spout anything to get more access to the spigot in that he's no different than any left wing corporatist looter and in that category some of you have listed the rest of them.
What you get for supporting a one party system of government. Deal with it. You sure as hell are going to have to live with it. i had to laugh at one comment. What he will work at is what does best. Income Distribution with one bank account in mind. his own. Everything else is sucking hind tit behind the only thing he knows how to do.
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#33rd
Again? :)
Trump supporters should ask themselves why this "outsider" didn't go with the fair or flat tax. This will be one of those nagging thoughts that his superficial rhetoric can't cover.
alleged actions regarding eminent domain, I do not
consider him a free-enterprise man, nor do I trust
him. And he couldn't get those things passed by
himself.
--What I would be for, is cutting the size of
government, and abolishing many departments.
Such as the EPA, National Endowment for the
Arts, Department of Education, Department of
Energy, etc. --If we could get the government
chopped down to its proper functions, we could
have something like a sales tax; nearly every-
one goes to the store; but make it voluntary.
Upon a store's being open a certain number of
days, the owner would be called upon to make
his arrangement with the local government, to
pay his Law Enforcement Fee. If he declined,
he would not be given the state's "protected"
sticker to put in the window. And if somebody
broke into the store while it was closed and
robbed it, the cops would refuse to come and
do anything about it. And if a robber broke in
and held the storekeeper up, and if the store-
keeper called, 911, the police would refuse to
come, because the store, and its address, would
be on record as having refused to make its ar-
rangements for paying for the law's protection.
(Same with a website and identity theft).--
(This would not apply to new stores which had
not been open the requisite number of days in
which to make the arrangements).--That, and
the contract premiums Ayn Rand mentioned,
plus lotteries, and court fees paid for civil mar-
riage ceremonies and such, could pay for the
legitimate operations of state and local govern-
ments. As to the Federal, it could be handled
by having a certain percentage of whatever was
in the states' coffers (perhaps 25%) go to the
Federal government, and so, when a citizen paid
for local law enforcement, he would know he was
also paying for national defense.--All this re-
placement of taxation is utopian, and not some-
thing to be attempted now or in the near future,
of course; I don't know that people (such as
myself) in that low-income class Trump men-
tioned should be priveledged over other people in
not having to finance the government at all. A
0% bracket, while others have to pay, does not
seem fair. A flat tax seems better.
When they're on point, the opponents mention that lots of OTHER taxes, like sales taxes or use taxes are rather inescapable by anyone and everyone!
Perhaps, we should stop talking about Federal Taxes, whether Income, Fair or Flat, and take a harder look at Universal Use Taxes, where some kind of surcharge reminds Everyone that they're not getting Anything For Free and that they've Really Got Skin In The Game...
Just askin'....
without the hyphen, I misunderstood initially.
Yep, that might work... but remember who the morons are who would have to vote to enact, implement and enforce such a drastic change...
Never happen.
Sad.
Someone guaranteed to make things so bad and in a very short time period it incites a revolution hopefully a the ballot box if such a thing still exists. It's called the Devil's Advocate Strategy. The reasoning is why drag it out for a hundred years. Get it over with by turning the screws and putting on the pressure.
Wait for the children or grand children to grow up they may not recognize words like Freedom. Look at South Dakota. Who would have thought that this time last week.
The Devil's Advocate says if you can't fix it and it's broken add fuel to the fire. Do everything Hillary has been promising. But add some enhancements.
Couple more points but that's the main idea.
It worked with King O. why not finish the job?
The reference and there are very few of them except in used book stores Devil's Advocate Taylor Caldwell. It seems particularly suited in a situation where the elections are rigged for only the one party system to 'win?' Or make shoe pretending to win. Unfortunately it isn't on Kindle or in ebook form. I suppose I made it samzidat just with this post. Neat thing is how are they going to complain when you are supporting their candidate?
Donald Trump, you're no Midas Mulligan, nor any Henry Rearden, either. Not with this plan, as you have laid it out.
Rock and a hard place.
I do wonder how many of our options are actually seeded by a nefarious entity in order to control the direction of the nation...All the D's are laughable (Sanders is quite telling), Trump (?), Fiorina(?), Bush, Rubio (?), Kasich(?), Christie(?), Graham(?), Pataki(?)... really, could you honestly say none of those are somehow linked to Soros or the some ruling elite?
**Bush doesn't have a ? because he's, to me, definitely in someone's pocket.
I want a government without such powers, regardless who sits at the top.
And no one has challenged the government's income based on his system. It might be great only if the government just had to reduce in size in order to achieve a balanced budget based on it's income. Today we've got to decide if we just want free stuff and no (or low) taxes, or if we want a smaller group of people controlling our freedom. Controlling our freedom, now is that even possible, freedom and control, can they co-exist?
My entire non-government provided taxable income is $1704 a year. precisely. Less than the deductible or whatever they call it. $255 in my tax bracket. If we have to have a fascist tax I would cheerfully send $255 every year just to cut the crap. The rest is gobbledegook garbled garbage.
http://DonaldJTrump.com/positions/tax...