Trump tax plan ends subsidizing states, reduces three tax brackets and slashes small biz tax rates
 

Trump proposes dramatic tax cuts for companies big and small - Breitbart

As Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin explained it in an interview, the plan would reduce the number of personal income tax brackets to three from seven: rates of 10 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. It would double the standard deduction for married couples to $24,000, while keeping deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest payments. The administration plans to provide tax relief for families with child care expenses, too, although the specifics have yet to be included.

On the other hand, the proposal would also trim other deductions utilized by wealthier Americans. This would include deductions for state and local tax payments, a change that could alienate support from lawmakers in states such as California and New York with higher state taxes.

?It?s not the federal government?s job to be subsidizing the states,? Mnuchin said.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...963359ca92.jpg

Every state on that list that gets more back than they put in would turn into a 3rd world country. Pretty much every state on the right column. Most being Republican controlled.. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Another fail for Trumph: Hill Republicans skeptical of Trump's tax announcement - CNNPolitics.com

This will do nothing more than make the rich even richer while increasing the deficit in a big way.

Thanks Trump.

Those giver/taker charts are deceiving.

Blue states are blue because the major cities and near suburbs are blue. Those populations tip the state blue. The rest of the state is always red (aside from border state anomalies where the mexicans are taking over).

So why are the big cities and near suburbs blue? Because they have social programs that attract blacks and mexicans.... two groups who almost always vote blue.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...C_2016.svg.png

The devil is always in the details -- these will be revealed in the great debate to come.

You mean why suburbs are blue and hillbilly counties are red? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Well, where do I start.. Education, income, dental work, hygiene..

http://politicsthatwork.com/img/trump.gif

He don't need no education, teachers throw them books away, ok.. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

This isn't tax policy, it's a Donald Trump-led heist


The Tax Policy Centrehaexamined Trump's campaign tax plan and found it would cause the federal debt to rise by at least $US7 trillion in the first decade, and more than $US20 trillion by 2036 -haslowing growth, not raising it. To put the latter number in perspective, that's additional borrowing of about $US160,000 per American household.

You clearly miss the real picture. Poor people see the Republicans as the only ones who will look after them. So they vote Republican. As the poor increase in numbers, this trend will continue. Until a Government that is so reliant on getting the poor vote, it sends the country bankrupt. Because people will only vote for the party that spends the most.

Because coloured people vote Democrat. Once they wise up to see it's about wealth or lack of it and not colour. Or Republicans attract the coloured vote based on giving more benefits. They will vote Republican.

Look at it in terms of earning potentials.

It will come down to earnings eventually. Ethnic minorities will realise that voting for Governments that only cater to the 1%. Isn't going to make their life better. And as more people shift towards the bottom of the pay scale, more people will vote for governments that promise to change everything.

Why present a false narrative? Gerrymandering is cheating to give the red minority more sway per vote. This is how the majority voted blue in a massive 3 million vote surplus, but Trump was announced POTUS.

The powers that be switch power from blue to red every 8 years to a kid s other civil war. Trump was right, our voting system is rugged and we should eradicate the electoral college

Poor people don't see Republicans as the ones who will look after them. You have that backward. In the last election, 53% of those who made less than $50K per year voted Democrat as opposed to 40% of them who voted Republican.

Here is also an article from Pew Research that shows that poor people tend to not vote at all, but those who do tend to vote Democrat.

Take away the illegal immigrants and their voting age children and grandchildren and I'll bet those 3 million votes disappear.

JoushaMo, why do you keep changing nicks and pretending you are not the last one you abandoned? Do you have a mental illness?

A shinning example of your ignorance.

I bet you think everyone who disagrees with you is a far left liberal, and that your weakness, just like denying the fact Tru.p legally list the popular vote.

Upgrade your ghost nic persona please, this one is a carbon copy of the onwebcam ghost nic :2 cents: thank you

So why are poor people voting Republican? Or should I have qualified it and said, poor white people?

I do agree with you about poor people not voting in the same numbers as rich. But that won't make any difference as the numbers of poor increase.

This is misleading.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...h-Politics.png

10%of 10 is 1.
5% of 90 is 4.5.

Inner cities with a lot of black, Latino and other ethnic minorities did vote Democrat. In the Mid-West did poor white people swing it for Trump?

Can a candidate unite Americans on the income level rather than the colour of their skin?

Or should that be when will a candidate unite Americans on the income level rather than the colour of their skin?

I don't believe Democrats have done much to look after the poor and up to the lower middle-class Americans. They want decent paying jobs not handouts.

People vote for different candidates and parties for different reasons. Just because a poor person votes for one party or the other doesn't mean that they are doing so only because they think they can help them not be poor. Some may vote for the candidate who they think will help them financially, but there are also other social and political issues people take into consideration. For example, there are a good number of Republicans who will never vote for a pro-choice candidate so they will never vote Democrat no matter if they are rich or poor.

Can a candidate unite Americans on income level? I doubt it because this country is so divided among many other political lines they won't be able to look past those.

Why not grand and grand children? This would take care of 87% of Trumps trailer park voter base.

The problem with your little chart here is that the people in the blue states that make them blue are not the ones contributing the tax revenue. They are the ones on the government teet

Americans may soon have to kiss these lucrative personal tax deductions goodbye - MarketWatch

Since there is so little detail ironed out most of this is speculation -- so I hope they are wrong.

You say that like you think poor people who pay no taxes in red states aren't voting Republican.

paul you target again the wrong matter.

IF people with low education vote for the wrong thing you should not call them guilty you should change the education level.

we all know that good education in USA is not available for all - it is available for the rich only they are mainly white.

all effords to change that in the past were prevented by the republicans because they are representing the rich elite what could not survive without all this low educated.

this elite wants you to work hard and spend all your money right away. they want you to believe in advertising and give them easy answers for they low educated minds.

US does not really have a tax problem - it has a society problem were rich people can steal everything and make whoever guilty for it.
and it have an education problem because people get teached to believe that bullshit.

look at all the big US companies and where they make their money. they don´t make it inside US. if they have to survive with the US market you can close Amerca within 2 month and give it back to the indians.

only the value of the 3 biggest US companies is higher than the US household but they pay less tax than anyone else. Why is it like that?
I will tell you why. Because these companies make the MAYOR PART of their income OUTSIDE of US. they pay taxes in this countries (what makes sense) and they make profits.
BUT - if they bring this profits back to US they have to pay THE FULL TAX AGAIN on profits what have been already taxed in the countries where thy made.

so they do a fuck and bring them back. Just Google and Amazon have (legally) trillions of profits outside the US and they would bring this money back in to the country if they would have the same right as a natural person who is wideley protected from double tax payment.

from my point of view it does not even make sense to charge ANY tax on such money. because it is realized (and taxed) in another country - so if this money comes back to united states it has for me the same quality as money what is brought by a tourist who travels to USA and spend his money there for hotel, food, car-rental and whatever.

if I would be the "king of USA" i would not charge a cent on that money if I know that this money from outside find it´s way to the US inner money circle and produce work and prosperity there.

for me THIS is the final goal of a global market. pay tax where you make it and spend it wherever you want.
THAT would bring countries in competition with PROSPERITY !!!!

i think, that the real goal for the human world is not in any extreme direction - it is in the middle between all extemes.

ALL problems of the world would be resolved, if countries would not compete with throwing people out but bringing people in.
every living person - no matter if rich or poor - need to spend money and as long it is not burned down in the garden it will bring prosperity to the next who receives it.

if you and all other amateur economists would understand that facts one day you would see the political mistakes clearer as you do now.

You don't know WTF you are talking about
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cma.asp

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmb.asp
$12,509 per public school student enrolled

All K-12 schools get the same Federal stipend.
A large part of school revenue paid by the states and also raised by property taxes paid by homeowners to their local school district whose board members (or Regents) are elected by the voters in that district. If there is any inequality it is at the state and local level.

Generally speaking, people that live in better areas pay more property taxes to have better schools for their community.

Whither you live in a battle zone inner city area or a wealthier suburban community, you get an equalized stipend from the federal government -- and not proportionate to any federal taxes that you pay. The USA version of egalitarianism is not the social state theory of Europe and will never be that way -- get used to it.

I am not so sure that spending more money is the answer but government supported higher education for persons that QUALIFY on a merit basis would be a worthy thing to do however the money has to come from somewhere -- and we are talking a lot of money.

https://s29.postimg.org/8at5uhezr/ur...30499b224f.png

These tax cuts are not intended to further any social benefit.
Most of this proposal is a non-starter in the congress and part of Trump's 100 days of do nothing.

Bitch bitch bitch whine whine whine.

Hillary lost get over it.

Mr. Moron Speaks Out!



The smartest and brightest are running America,Inc ...:upsidedow

the keyword in the 2nd slide is "invest", so while it's true that investing generates $$ for the investor, it also does social good... investment leads to new technologies, new processes that lead to lower prices and higher quality goods, etc, and also new job...

one perhaps good example might be Tesla, "investment" in that company lead to advances in electric car tech, battery tech, etc as well as opening of numerous plants, research centers, etc that employ countless number of people...

if you compare that strategy to instead letting the government steal the $$ via taxation so it can then redistribute it to some peasants (who will piss it away on some useless widget from walmart), it seems pretty clear that "investment" strategy is better...