Trump says 'massive tax cut' plan coming as soon as Wednesday

Did you actually take the bait on dmoney's rabbit trail? LOL

The corporate tax rate is too high.

 

Thanks you. Funny how bigtexx was afraid to answer the question. I guess he knew the average corporate effective tax rate was low. I wonder what the effective tax rate is for the average American? Perhaps google will provide that answer?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...hats-the-average-americans-tax-rate/98734396/

 

This is a rabbit trail and does not refute the fact that the corporate tax rate is too high.

 

LOL. The rabbit hole of understanding what the effective rate is? Sad!

 

Corporate rate for all? As it clearly depends.

 

Lining up, waiting on the trickle down
Something's up, taking time to get around
Belly up, all the drinks are on the crown
It's just a matter of the trickle down

 

Funny, even the architect of "trickle down" thinks the concept of lowering taxes is folly:

http://billmoyers.com/content/david-stockman-on-the-folly-of-anti-tax-crusades/

 

Is Trump’s tax plan good for homeowners? Nope, says NAR

http://www.inman.com/2017/04/26/is-trumps-tax-plan-good-for-homeowners-nope-says-nar/

 

A doubled standard deduction would benefit most of us. Depends on what income range the brackets fall on to if they would help.

 

That is misguided BS. Cutting your taxes so you don't even need your mortgage interest deduction isn't hurting homeowners.

Good to see some sense. Tax reform is good, but it can't count on unknown growth to be revenue neutral. We have a long way to go to balancing the budget.

 

Given that the economic recovery started in 2009, could the 2010 results be skewed by net operating loss carryforwards from 2008?

 

More details are needed, but one realtor in the discussion below said:

and later:

 

The point is, so? That is like saying you'd rather give me $10 and get $20 back then me just giving you the $10...

The tax benefit would disappear for most of us, but we wouldn't need it. I don't know why realtors even really fight for the mortgage interest deduction. They should want a tax credit all homeowners would benefit from (like the first time home-buyer credit eventually did). Not that I'm a big fan of giving a tax benefit to home ownership. Never buy a house for the tax benefits.

Edit: Charities would have the much bigger gripe, IMO.

 

I guess my question is... if you get a x% tax reduction, but lose a x% tax deduction, if the lost deduction counters the tax reduction, then what is the benefit to me as a tax payer? I know Trump and businesses benefit, but will the middle class person like me benefit?

 

Some mixture of both it appears. Like Dick Cheney with a 70 IQ.

 

Trump supporter here. Not thrilled with the tax plan laid out yesterday. I was hoping for something along the lines of a permanent cut in the payroll tax.

Doubling the standard deduction will help me, but I suspect that most or all of the added tax savings for me will be offset by a smaller (if any) homeowner's tax deduction.

Will take a wait & see approach. Need to see the actual income tax bracket thresholds in the final voted legislation before I will know if I like this plan or not.

 

Big break for the rich, small breaks for the rest, increases deficit, that is my guess.

 

That is the current Republican philosophy so I would be surprised if it wasn't the case.

Still waiting for that dynamic growth to offset the loss of revenue (or actual substantial cuts; not meals on wheels)

 

Obviously, not nearly enough information to know, but I'm guessing the changes to "simplify" the tax code will offset the standard deduction benefit and I'll come out just about the same. Well, the same except with big cuts to the services my government provides and a ballooning deficit for my children to someday contend with.

More generally, I'm looking at a future where capital is in great ascendancy over labor as industries digitize and mechanize. The key to being able to provide value to the economy will be more and more highly dependent on high education and the ownership of assets. While we'll have robots and computers that can make our lives easier than ever, we'll have a large useless class that elites don't know what to do with and don't want to have anything to do with -- people in whom we've underinvested in education and who don't own any of the means of value creation. In this future, do I want a tax policy that rewards and facilitates the owners of capital to horde yet more capital? Even the status quo is creating a widening divide in wealth. If we're going to do tax reform, I don't want to make the divide worse with it, I want policies that empower people and spread the benefits of our innovation.

Futurists from the last midcentury were predicting stuff like the 10-hour work week. They figured with all the productivity gains we were making, people could share in the spoils of progress by taking it easy and enjoying life a little. Instead, we kept right on working, drove productivity higher and higher, and the shareholders took the benefits. If we're going to "progress" all the time, if we're going to have a society that respects property and trademark and patent and concede to arguments about rising tides lifting all boats and the tricke down, shouldn't we see the great mass of people gain considerable quality of life benefits? Sure, people are still benefiting directionally, but not proportionately, and recently by less and less. Taxes are just one tool to address these issues and might not even be the right one. But, let's start by not changing the tax law to make everything worse. I'm really not interested in stimulating economic growth just so companies can create more **** jobs and pay just enough that people don't starve while the investors make millions. Fix economic disparity first, then think about growth.

 

That was Bush Jr. On the surface, this looks to take that even further. Might be looking at Bush Jr tax policy on steroid. How did that end up for the economy and the debt?