Patterico's Pontifications

9/28/2017

New York Times Hit Piece: Trump Would Save Over $1 Billion Under New Tax Plan

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:30 pm

New York Times:

President Trump could cut his tax bills by more than $1.1 billion, including saving tens of millions of dollars in a single year, under his proposed tax changes, a New York Times analysis has found.

On Wednesday, the White House announced a sweeping plan to cut a variety of taxes that would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. The estimate of Mr. Trump’s savings is based in part on information from his 2005 federal tax return. The analysis compares what his tax burden would be under current law with what it would be under the proposal.

Mr. Trump’s 2005 return is the most recent available publicly and was released in March by David Cay Johnston, a former New York Times reporter. The Times’s figure also relies on an estimate of Mr. Trump’s net worth, calculated by the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index to be $2.86 billion.

“I don’t benefit. I don’t benefit,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday. “In fact, very, very strongly, as you see, I think there’s very little benefit for people of wealth.”

In fact, high-income earners like Mr. Trump are likely to benefit disproportionately if the White House proposal becomes law. The estimates, calculated with the help of Robert Willens, an accounting expert, and Stephen Breitstone, a tax lawyer, provide a view into precisely how.

My general reaction to this is: “So what?” Maybe even: “Good!”

Here’s the simple truth: the wealthy pay the overwhelming share of income taxes in this country. Here are the facts:

The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.

So guess what? If you relieve that burden, who’s going to benefit? The wealthy.

And yet Big Media will always attack every single effort to cut taxes by pointing out that the cut benefits the wealthy. And they will never, ever point out the context I just gave you. True to form, the New York Times article I link here does not say a word about how much the rich pay.

Trump shouldn’t lie about it, of course. But he lies about everything.

I should add: Democrats like to pretend that soaking the rich will solve our deficit problem. That is a dirty lie. You can’t tax your way out of this problem. You could take 100% of what millionaires make — and assume that they wouldn’t stop working if you did (which of course they would) — and it wouldn’t come close to solving the deficit problem we have.

Nor does cutting discretionary spending come close to solving the problem.

The only solution is cutting entitlements. Which Trump has taken off the table. (And, to be honest, so has the voting public.)

This is why we’re headed for a crash. But lowering taxes isn’t going to change things much at all. So this handwringing over rich people — even Trump! — benefitting from tax cuts is horse feces. It’s nothing more than Big Media’s usual excuse for opposing every tax cut ever proposed.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

140 Responses to “New York Times Hit Piece: Trump Would Save Over $1 Billion Under New Tax Plan”

  1. Dingalooski

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. it would of course be helpful in knowing how the tax bill would effect Trump’s taxes if we knew what his taxes were. But that of course is super secret information that must never be revealed.

    And if this tax reform bill adds to the deficit, which it probably would, isn’t that a problem even if it’s only part of the problem? Isn’t the deficit an issue that conservatives are supposed to care about?

    Eve (d7dde7)

  3. Nice essay, Patterico. I’m pretty sure you see a whole bunch of blocked posts soon.

    Simon Jester (d856de)

  4. The specific concern that DJT would use his office to create ways for his businesses and his estate to benefit was exceedingly well outlined. Any voter who was not aware of this potentiality was brain dead. DJT himself made ZERO apologies on multiple occasions as he insisted he would fight for corporate tax lowering and reform.

    This is all an absurd straw man. The man won. He gets to try to enact his agendae.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  5. Can you imagine no health care mitch cutting anything but his fingernails?

    mg (31009b)

  6. Govt. must change the rules of eligibility and benefits of entitlement programs. No Health Care for you but I have mine Ryan would never attempt cutting entitlements. His ideas are to punish the middle-class into oblivion.

    mg (31009b)

  7. Even if Trump wanted medicare, medicade and the military cut, Both sides would impeach him.

    mg (31009b)

  8. 78, no grandchildren, keep on keepin on spenders. Just the unfounded public pension liabilities are going to break us.

    Bang Gunley (5a4596)

  9. I am a Republican but let’s be honest.

    No, wealthy people do not pay the most in taxes. SOME wealthy folks do. Salaried people, for instance.

    If the estate tax is repealed, just when are the Waltons, Warren Buffet, the Hiltons etc. going to pay? They will not pay and neither will their descendants. As you know, they have unrealized capital gains in the tens of billions that have not been taxed. I, meanwhile, pay taxes at a much higher rate because I am salaried. And I am not even wealthy.

    What a ripoff. The estate tax already exempts the first 11 million dollars from taxes. 11 million! Lets acknowledge the truth here.

    Noel (b4d580)

  10. President Lincoln’s War established the federal government’s supremacy over the States. State’s Rights and 10th amendment limitations on federal prerogatives were ignored and rendered toothless over time

    Consequently, the Founders’ carefully constructed system of checks and balances failed to constrain the exponential growth in federal spending and it’s associated evils of ever higher taxes and the apparently endless growth of arrogant regulators masquerading as public servants.

    Unless and until the proper role of the States can be resurrected, their constitutional check over unlimited federal expansion will remain just fanciful words on paper, the solution to our national crisis ignored, no matter our desperate need, and no matter the wisdom revealed.

    ropelight (c4f62b)

  11. The top 1% of taxpayers pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group (around 23%, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.

    Taxpayers! You might as well say that the top 1% of MBA batters have a higher effective RBI average than any other group. The top 1% of attorneys have a higher win-loss average than any other group? The top 1% of obese people have a higher BMI than any other group?

    Which group will Trump be in with all the deductions the rich take, not the least of his being that nearly $1 billion NOL he’s carrying over? And which group will the lower middle class be in without their homeowners real estate tax deduction?

    I don’t care if the taxes of the rich are cut. But don’t cut their taxes and raise everybody else’s and say that everybody is getting a tax cut.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. As you know, they have unrealized capital gains in the tens of billions that have not been taxed.

    So, if I’m reading this correctly, we are looking at wealthy long-term investors who are using a well-understood tax exemption method to ensure the compounding of their wealth?

    How does that screw me as salary man? If anything I’d think it would make more sense to appeal for lower taxes across the board rather than punishing prudent investors.

    JP (f1742c)

  13. That last line is evergreen, nk. I concur with your satement. All it lacks is Margaret Thatcher responding “well of course…it is a tax on the mediocrity of your existence”

    urbanleftbehind (3c8eef)

  14. Wait wait, don’t tell me wasn’t Johnson, along with O’Brien, d’antonio, and the late Wayne Barrett an authority on trump, I’m so confunzzled.

    narciso (364166)

  15. On to the zapruder film coverage about price.

    narciso (364166)

  16. JP asks “How does that screw me as a salary man?”

    Well, if billionaires are not paying taxes for generations while you and your heirs are paying and you don’t object…. okey dokey. Good for you. But I object.

    If the estate tax is repealed, they will never pay significant income taxes on their wealth. How can anyone think a full estate tax repeal is rational tax policy?

    Noel (b4d580)

  17. Thanks, ulb. BTW, I found out why, in Chicago, you see one guy digging a hole in the street while three other guys are simply standing there watching him. Because it takes three supervisors to get a City worker to put in a full hour’s work per eight-hour working day.

    nk (dbc370)

  18. Tax everyone 18 years of age and over at the same rate. That is a reasonable “age of consent” and it would appear to be equitable. Every man and woman treated the same. Only the percentage is up for discussion.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3294)

  19. And starve Teh Beast.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3294)

  20. this is halloween everybody scream! won’t y’all please make way for a very special guy

    our man President Trump is king of the pumpkin patch!

    everyone hail to the Pumpkin King now

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  21. On which line on the 1040?
    Line 22, total income?
    Line 37, adjusted gross income?
    Line 43, taxable income?
    Which is not your real taxable income because there’s a whole bunch of other lines before you get to Line 78, “amount you owe”. There is no “this is what we’re really taxing you on” line.

    It’s all those other lines, between Line 22 and Line 78, which is the pickpocket’s partner distracting you by while he lifts your wallet.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. Lets use another example.

    Ted Turner and JP own ranches out in eastern Montana, side by side. Ted’s ranch is much bigger, of course. And a road needs to be paved through the area. Now, JP may be thinking, why tax Turner when you can take the whole amount out of my pocket? Lets not punish ol’ Ted’s success.

    Now that makes sense. As long as JP is his neighbor.

    Noel (b4d580)

  23. How can anyone think a full estate tax repeal is rational tax policy?

    Because the estate tax is a progressive tax. It taxes the transfer of funds instead of taxing an event that generates new income, and thus taxes people for not spending their money. But having the federal estate tax does benefit estate tax lawyers and accountants, and eliminating it will probably benefit Trump.

    PS – your $11M is per couple, not per individual. Estates valued over $5.49M will pay some tax on the excess.

    DRJ (15874d)

  24. Reducing the deduction for mortgage interest will hit us hard.

    If it were part of a genuine package to reduce the deficit, with all citizens pitching in and suffering a bit, I could deal with it.

    But it’s just another rearrangement of winners and losers. Those of you who win (or don’t lose) won’t much care about the losers, but the losers do.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  25. The very wealthy like Warren Buffet have deferred taxes by not selling assets. Businesses and stocks are not taxed until they are sold. Right? They have not yet sold them. This is important.

    Without the estate tax, that income will never be significantly taxed. Generation after generation. And the heirs receive the property at a new basis on top of that. Ridiculous.

    You can “transfer” funds by the billions and avoid calling it income if you wish but that is what it is. And, if by “progressive”, you mean the rich pay…. duh. The poor and middle class would be so lucky as to pay taxes on their billion dollar inheritance.

    Most Republicans don’t mind me paying those taxes but wow, they get their shorts in a bind when the rich have to pay. (I am a Republican. Still true.)

    Noel (b4d580)

  26. So you can put me down as a “hell no” as long as this provision is in place.

    Fortunately, people are already balking.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  27. My general reaction to this is: “So what?”

    Typical cultist.

    /sarc

    Dave (445e97)

  28. So now the left has screwed with people’s minds to the point where tax policy is determined on whether or not it benefit’s Trump?

    When I was in the financial business my specialty was farmers in New Jersey. I had many clients who owned thousands of acres purchased decades before for a few dollars that were then worth 100-200k per acre. They would loose all their land to pay the estate tax, Noel. It would be sold off at fire sale prices to developers who would pave over the farms and built condos. Many NJ farms disappeared that way. You seem to want to punish people with estate taxes, I don’t. They should be fair and no family should have to liquidate everything their parents built to pay them. Not Ted Turner, and not JP.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  29. It would be a clever stratagem for Democrats to say they will block this until Trump releases his tax returns, to show whether he personally benefits or not.

    Again: for me, it is not the issue whether wealthy people benefit from a tax cut. They always will, and should.

    But Trump is a lifelong self-dealer, and so it would be smart of Dems to exploit that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  30. Has Trump paid income tax in the last twenty years?

    Subsidised failure

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  31. At Patterico’s 26. I think a second round of this might be a single “combined sub-federal taxes deduction” with a not-to-exceed number that satiates the blue/nurse and tradesman/teacher households. Of course that wont help the coasts very much but if it renders no harm to their exurbs and to upper-middle incomes elsewhere it might squeeze through.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  32. Wait … I thought Trump was nowhere near as wealthy as he said he was? Mark Cuban said so.

    Confused.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  33. And the number one problem Republicans created with “Tax Cuts” is they have left 50% of the Country off the hook from their moral obligation to pay into the monstrosity they created.

    Not that Payroll Tax, Usage Taxes (Tolls) and Property Tax doesn’t matter but a good idea to get those people putting in something.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  34. strike something … use MORE.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  35. #24 … wait if getting rid of the Deduction hurts NY and CA more then that means the rest of the Country has been subsidizing very expensive RE for years on the Coasts.

    Frankly, screw the Coasts. They have benefited the most from the perversion of the tax system. Getting rid of those perversions is a return to fairness.

    Why should high tax states get the benefit of the doubt plus all that Govt largesse at the expense of the low tax states.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  36. Some, more cynical than myself, think his primary motivation is to get himself to that magical $6billion. That’s a lie he wants to rectify.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  37. Rev.Hoagie,

    Farms are not liquidated to pay the estate taxes. Today, there is already an 11 million dollar exemption before any taxes are paid at all.

    Lets get real. I pay a lot of taxes on a $100,000 dollars income… from labor. You want people to pay nothing when they are given a billion dollars? Or a hundred billion? And then their kids don’t have to pay either? That is truly mad.

    Noel (b4d580)

  38. It requires a nation of gullible knobs – and the Democrat operatives with bylines media – to deem the Democrats “clever”.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3294)

  39. ‘Family farms and small business”

    Heh. Old memes resurrected daily..

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  40. The line of thinking that somehow we should be concerned about Trump Self Dealing on this is laughably stupid.

    1) He does not pass laws, he signs them. Blame the guys who write it.
    2) Whether one man benefits, or loses, is irrelevant to the discussion of “goodness” or lack thereof on the proposal

    This line of thinking reminds me of the “My belly is full therefore the world is full” thinking that permeates our perverted, corrupt society. In this case, one guy benefits (maybe) that we don’t like ergo let us not think of how much this makes things better for everyone.

    Mental illness gone main stream.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  41. I question teh timing..

    Mark Felt the Movie out today.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  42. The 10th Commandment is weeping.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  43. Mark Felt, a criminal, lionized for setting up a President. May he rot in hell.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  44. What a ripoff. The estate tax already exempts the first 11 million dollars from taxes. 11 million! Lets acknowledge the truth here.

    The main effect of the estate tax is to prevent competition with corporations, which never pay an estate tax yet can hold, and utilize, unrealized capital gains forever.

    Think of all the shares of companies that Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Cadence and other serial acquirers hold. Sure, they pay on current profits, assuming they can’t export or offset them, but they pay LESS than a similar company owned by humans. And they have uimmunities humans don’t have.

    Getting rid of the estate tax is PROGRESSIVE. It allows family-owned companies and non-corporate partnerships to compete more fairly with the inhuman corporations.

    Trump’s pass-through provisions are similarly progressive.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  45. Mark Felt the Movie out today.

    Prediciton: they don’t show him as a disgruntled employee out to ratfuk the big boss for passing him over.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  46. Estate tax is redistribution and to call it progressive, in light of the obscene concentration of wealth is, well Orwellian

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  47. The NY Times provides analysis on the tax proposal toeing the Dem line:

    “The plan would not benefit lower-income households that do not pay federal income taxes.”

    Thanks to Powerlineblog.

    AZ Bob (8784fc)

  48. The only solution is cutting entitlements. Which Trump has taken off the table. (And, to be honest, so has the voting public.)

    This is why we’re headed for a crash.

    If you can’t solve things by jumping up taxes (decreasing economic output), and you can’t solve things by decreasing spending directly, then you have to do it by ramping up economic output so you get more taxes that way, and some of your spending (e.g. support for the unemployed) is reduced. Tax cuts can do this. So can regulatory changes. A federal smackdown of California’s insane Green agenda wouldn’t hurt.

    The balanced budgets of the mid-90’s would not have been possible without Reagan’s tax cuts and economic rule-changes. They didn’t continue for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was politicians coming off their diet plan.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  49. Farms are not liquidated to pay the estate taxes. Today, there is already an 11 million dollar exemption before any taxes are paid at all.

    Lets get real. I pay a lot of taxes on a $100,000 dollars income… from labor. You want people to pay nothing when they are given a billion dollars? Or a hundred billion? And then their kids don’t have to pay either? That is truly mad.
    Noel (b4d580) — 9/29/2017 @ 7:35 am

    Excuse me Noel, but don’t tell me my business. Many farms and ranches were liquidated to pay taxes. New Jersey alone lost about 30% of its farmland in the 80’s. I made a lot of money doing estate planning to cover that capital. So don’t tell me something I did for a living.

    Why is it with you radicals that everything is absolutist? Either I “want people to pay nothing when they are *given* a billion dollars” or the tax code should be used for economic warfare? First of all an 11 million dollar base isn’t much when you’re talking a 250k acre. It’s only 44 acres. Secondly, they aren’t *given* anything, the property was in their family to begin with. It was earned, invested and kept by their family. Boo-hoo it wasn’t you but too bad. Third, you don’t realize a gain until you sell the asset. Which means until it’s sold it’s worth what you paid for it.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  50. In theory and practice, the stepped-up basis rule is more troublesome than the estate tax. But it’s easier to demagogue the estate tax.

    And, again, the estate tax starts on value over $5.49M per decedent. Not $11M.

    DRJ (15874d)

  51. the obscene concentration of wealth

    The obscene concentration of wealth is in corporations, who don’t give a rat’s ass what you do to the shareholders.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  52. The problem is the gates Bennett and turners of the world don’t pay the tax because it’s tied up in foundations,

    narciso (4287be)

  53. A progressive tax is based on ability to pay, and is assessed on those who have more or “enough” so they can afford to pay. The estate tax is a good example.

    DRJ (15874d)

  54. Yes Mark felt is the one responsible for bill Ayers being free as a bird? And he almost ended up in jail for it.

    narciso (4287be)

  55. Alternatively, you could impose a 55% tax on the current value of all corporate assets every 50 years, while allowing them a step-up provision of course. This would raise a lot of money for government indeed. Perhaps enough to offset the damage done to capital formation and by the consolidation and downsizing that would occur. But probably not.

    If raking corporations over the coals like this (hopefully staggered) would be a bad idea, why is it a good idea when applied to real persons?

    Except for envy, perhaps.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  56. DRJ,

    But the EFFECT of the tax is NOT progressive as it gives economic advantages to corporations. IF you listen to progressives about business, they see it best done as family businesses or maybe worker collectives, but corporations are the Devil. Yet the estate tax harms those they would help.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  57. DRJ,

    Is the Trump plan to eliminate the estate tax AND keep the step-up? That does seem excessive.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  58. I remember a cattle rancher in Cayucos. 500 acres for 500 cattle equated to $50 to 60k annual income from land worth $2 million. Forget life insurance. Even a generation-skipping trust was too expensive. Nevertheless, the exception to the rule.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  59. I should mention the excluded amount with a living trust was $1.2 million at that time.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  60. “This is an island…surrounded by water..”

    DC: I swear I will sue if I get a hernia.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  61. 24. Patterico (115b1f) — 9/29/2017 @ 7:06 am

    Reducing the deduction for mortgage interest will hit us hard.

    They don’t want to reduce it – they want to eliminate it. At the sanme time they will increase the standard deduction.

    Right now, around 70% of all tax returns (the statistic is probably tax returns, not tax payers or filers) do NOT itemize deductions. This of course includes some very young people, as well as some high income people whose itemized deductions are capped.

    If the standard deduction were doubled, (and I think no other changes made) approximately 5/6 of the remaining 30% would also take the standard deduction. This is according to what the New York times says is an analysis by the Tax Policy Center of an earlier 2016 House Republican plan which included that.

    So it would only make sense to itemize deductions for 5% of all tax returns would

    Of course that would constitute unequal treatment of similiarly situated taxpayers (or in the case of a mortgage, a nullified tax benefit) but simplicity and fairness are two things that are at odds with each other.

    Sammy Finkelman (ee68f6)

  62. One rare place that tax law has, over the years, definiitely tilted in favor of simplicity over fairness is with the issue of the personal exemption for a child of divorced or separated parents.

    There used to be acomplicated complication hich was supposed to be made. Now either one of the parents can take the exemption (but not both) if both of the parents agree.

    If the parents disagree then the one with whom the child lived with longer gets the exemption; if the amount is equal (how can it be presicely equal? Read undermined or in dispute) the one with the higher adjusted gross income gets the deduction.

    But if a custodial agreement that indicated who could claim the deduction went into effect before 2009, the decree governs even without renewed agreement.

    Now in what kind of case are we talking about this? When the parent who takes the exemption supplies at least 10% of the child’s support (which does not have to be cash, but could include housing, and cooking and food) But since there is no audit, that means anything more than a an total or almost complete absence of financial support.

    (They didn’t want to make it 0%, but they did want to exlude some parents. But they set the bar so low than anything other than complete uninvolvement would enable one parent to claim the deduction if the other agreed. This 10% really only means not nonexistent or negligible.)

    Here you see an echo of another aspect of tax law – as well as means testing – it pretends to be precise, and it pretends to tax what it does not tax at all, for fear of what you would have if you didn’t state it that way.

    A lot of rules only apply if a dispute comes to the attention of the IRS. It is not really necessary for the parent who doesn’t take the exemption to sign anything if there is no dispute.

    If both parents file, the earlier return to file gets the deduction, and the second one is disallowed, unless the second parent wants to dispute it in which case I think neither gets it until either the one who doesn’t take it signs something – there’s a form but it is not strictly necessary – or until the IRS settles it, usually in favor of the one with higher adjusted income.

    Sammy Finkelman (ee68f6)

  63. Kevin M (752a26) — 9/29/2017 @ 8:15 am

    Is the Trump plan to eliminate the estate tax AND keep the step-up? That does seem excessive. </blockquote< the tax plan, at this stage, is only a framework, with many questions unsettled. It was negotiated by six people, from the Senate, the House and the Trump Administraition.

    Two big questions that are unsettled are the new size of the child tax credit, which will be increased from $1,000 ut nobody knows to what level (the tax credit instead of personal exemption for other dependents is fixed at $500) and at just what income levels, the 25% and 35% tax brackets kick in. Part of the reason may be that it depends on CBO scoring, but it also depends on what can get the votes.

    Sammy Finkelman (ee68f6)

  64. Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7) — 9/29/2017 @ 7:57 am

    Many farms and ranches were liquidated to pay taxes. New Jersey alone lost about 30% of its farmland in the 80’s. I made a lot of money doing estate planning to cover that capital. So don’t tell me something I did for a living.

    Here I think we see the influence of lobbyists.

    Nobody proposes treating different kinds of inherited assets differently.

    You could have an estate tax on liquid assets but exempt businesses. In fact doing that would create a great incentive to invest in small business. You could have a minimum period of holding after inheritance.

    The way it is now, there are forced sales (more than causes by a lack of a successor) This is not good for the consumer – it reduces competition, and not good for the employees of such abusiness.

    You could also exempt houses not rented out.

    The inheritance tax otherwise has some appeal, because it is kind of painless to pay. It doesn’t raise much money though and those who do pay a lot just simply didn’t consult lawyers.

    Sammy Finkelman (ee68f6)

  65. Trump singing “Green Acres” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCkmOCsI-hc

    Tillman (a95660)

  66. Well, if billionaires are not paying taxes for generations while you and your heirs are paying and you don’t object…

    Wait, what? How does the absence of a tax on unrealised gains (is this correct?) amount to “billionaires not paying taxes for generations?”

    JP (f1742c)

  67. 24. Patterico (115b1f) — 9/29/2017 @ 7:06 am

    But it’s just another rearrangement of winners and losers. Those of you who win (or don’t lose) won’t much care about the losers, but the losers do.

    Some of the losers may not have lobbyidts, but theer’s usually somebody who stands for any interest, and there are some groups affected by the change.

    Losers:

    1. Parents of college age children, who are at middle to upper middle class income levels.

    2. People over 65 or legally blind.

    3. People with incomes above about $75,000, who currenly itemize deductions but are not hit, or not severely impacted anyway, by the Alternative Minimum Tax.

    They are disproportionately from high income tax states, like California, New York and New Jersey.

    Winners

    1. People who are currently hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax.

    2. Owners of businesses who currently make more than about $400,000 a year in total.

    3. In general, people with incomes above about $400,000 a year.

    4. Corporate chief executives )their compensation will probably be higher)

    5. Rich people who want to pass on wealth – also employees and customers of any businesses they may own, and also some tenants.

    Sammy Finkelman (ee68f6)

  68. Also losers: People affected by cancellation of various special tax provisions.

    Sammy Finkelman (ee68f6)

  69. This is why we’re headed for a crash. But lowering taxes isn’t going to change things much at all. So this handwringing over rich people — even Trump! — benefitting from tax cuts is horse feces. It’s nothing more than Big Media’s usual excuse for opposing every tax cut ever proposed.

    40% of the current debt is attributable to the Bush tax cuts of the early 2000s

    source: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  70. the Club for Growth says this tax plan, it is good

    so there you go

    this is a good tax plan

    happyfeet (28a91b)


  71. 40% of the current debt is attributable to the Bush tax cuts of the early 2000s

    Tax cuts don’t cause debt. Spending more than what is taken in does cause debt. Must we teach basic economics and accounting every time? CUT SPENDING! We can have zero taxes if we spend zero.

    If your income is 100k a year and you spend 100k a year you have no debt. If your income drops to 80k a year and you continue to spend 100k a year you will incur 20k in debt every year. That’s not really hard to understand, Davethulhu. Golly.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  72. If you can’t solve things by jumping up taxes (decreasing economic output), and you can’t solve things by decreasing spending directly, then you have to do it by ramping up economic output so you get more taxes that way, and some of your spending (e.g. support for the unemployed) is reduced. Tax cuts can do this.

    That’s the dream. Whether or not one buys into the Laffer curve, the problem is still SPENDING. Increase revenues will result in increased spending unless you control the…gosh darn it…what’s that word…uhhh…SPENDING!

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  73. It is good only if the anger of the 75-200 K class is redirected at their state and local governments in the form of no longer willing to put up with increasing levies. This actually runs counter to trends in which local governments, particularly in maturing parts of red state metropolises, have been more willing to upgrade local use facilities and infrastructure.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  74. One thing is for certain – a corporate tax rate of 20% is going to set our economic Waring blender on ‘frappe’.

    Ingot (e5bf64)

  75. Tax cuts don’t cause debt. Spending more than what is taken in does cause debt. Must we teach basic economics and accounting every time? CUT SPENDING! We can have zero taxes if we spend zero.

    If your income is 100k a year and you spend 100k a year you have no debt. If your income drops to 80k a year and you continue to spend 100k a year you will incur 20k in debt every year. That’s not really hard to understand, Davethulhu. Golly.

    Well golly then why weren’t there spending cuts to go with the tax cuts? Because the tax cuts were sold as paying for themselves with increased economic activity. Which is Laffer Curve pixie dust that never actually works. See also Kansas.

    You’ll also notice that there are no spending cuts being proposed now as well.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  76. Because the tax cuts were sold as paying for themselves with increased economic activity.

    if the Club for Growth likes the plan that means if you do the plan all up in it, it will make it bigger!

    this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  77. Mr. nk has a recipe for frappe i’m a make it tomorrow cause by end of day i be out of nespresso

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  78. @45. The Big Dick deserved his dicking ad brought it on hizself.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. Some Other Places Surrounded By Big Water, Ocean Water:

    Guadalcanal.

    New Guinea.

    Tarawa.

    Saipan.

    Iwo Jima.

    Sicily.

    Some Places You Have To Reach Via Big Water, Ocean Water.

    North Africa.

    Italy.

    Normandy.

    Southern France.

    Inchon.

    Somehow, if I recall my History Channel correctly, American presidents managed to get a lot of people and equipment to all these places despite having to get the people and equipment there via Big Water, Ocean Water.

    I knew it was a mistake to laugh at Dan Quayle. We were just tempting the gods.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  80. @43. Uncle Sam had a Crooked Dick; Mark Felt set him straight and if there’s a Hell, Richard Nixon heads the head as PLO: permanent latrine orderly.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. you know what else is surrounded by water is the Sargasso Sea i never been there my whole life

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  82. “But he lies about everything.”

    Everything? Really? Truly?

    TDS.

    Fred Z (05d938)

  83. I don’t watch football but I think I’ll buy a ticket just for Chick-Fil-a and their wonderful antiboycott.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/29/nfl-favorability-gets-nearly-cut-in-half-after-anthem-protests/

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  84. @80. Oahu, too.

    “Hope Hicks, Donald Trump’s communications director, clarified Donald Trump’s relationship with the Hawaii hotel bearing his name. “He licenses his name for millions of dollars, meaning he has no downside but a lot of upside. There’s no risk for him, he makes a lot of money doing that,” she told CBS News. “And he also has a management contract with the owner, so he’s the operator of the hotel. And it’s operated by Trump Hotel Collections, meaning that when an employee gets a paycheck, [it’s from] Trump Hotel Collections. He manages the property. He employs the people that work there.” – CBS News

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  85. @83. Yes. Everything.

    TRUTH.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  86. ABSTRACT

    The Tax Policy Center has produced preliminary estimates of the potential impact proposals included in the “Unified Framework for Fixing our Broken Tax Code.” We find they would reduce federal revenue by $2.4 trillion over ten years and $3.2 trillion over the second decade (not including any dynamic feedback). In 2018, all income groups would see their average taxes fall, but some taxpayers in each group would face tax increases. Those with the very highest incomes would receive the biggest tax cuts. The tax cuts are smaller as a percentage of income in 2027, and taxpayers in the 80th to 95th income percentiles would, on average, experience a tax increase.
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/preliminary-analysis-unified-framework

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  87. This is why we’re headed for a crash. But lowering taxes isn’t going to change things much at all. So this handwringing over rich people — even Trump! — benefitting from tax cuts is horse feces. It’s nothing more than Big Media’s usual excuse for opposing every tax cut ever proposed.

    This is about ongoing shift in concentration of wealth and the widening gap between rich and poor. That’s not a prescription for a crash, but seeds for a revolution.

    Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart – The New York Times

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/…/leonhardt-income-inequality.html

    God Bless Big Media.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  88. Let’s see what Laffer and Club for Growth had to say about Kansas back in 2012:

    Laffer told more than 200 people at a small business forum at Johnson County Community College that there is a war among states over tax policy and that nowhere is that revolution more powerful than in Kansas. He said Kansas’ tax cuts and political shifts will produce “enormous prosperity” for the state.

    In a new paper handed out at the forum, Laffer and Stephen Moore, an economist who founded the conservative political group Club for Growth, dispute studies that say tax cuts don’t produce the economic activity politicians promise and they argue that lower taxes drive growth.

    http://www.kansas.com/news/article1097261.html#storylink=cpy

    :thinkingemoji:

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  89. http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/

    Federal Tax Rates by Year | Income, Corporate, and Highest Tiers

    “I Like Ike.” – Eisenhower campaign slogan, 1952

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  90. What the news coverage missed was that if Kansas hasn’t exactly catapulted into the front ranks in economic growth and employment, then it has at least moved a long way from the stagnation of recent decades. Consider:

    • In Mar 2013, unemployment in Kansas stood at 5.5%. It has since dropped to 4.2%, tied for 14th lowest in the country.

    • From 1998-2012, Kansas ranked 38th in private-sector job growth, according Bureau of Labor Statistics data crunched by the Kansas Policy Institute. In 2013 – the first year after the tax reform – the state climbed to 27th place, and in 2014 it moved to 21st, placing it in the top half of states.

    • In the second half of 2014, hourly wages in Kansas grew 3.5%, according to BLS data, far faster than the national average of 1.9%.

    Then there is the Kansas City metropolitan area, a living laboratory that straddles the border with Missouri. On Mr. Brownback’s side of the divide, the top personal income-tax rate is now 4.9%, beginning at $15,000 for single filers; in Missouri the top 6% rate starts at $9,000.

    “I just think Kansas City is a great study,” the governor says. “This is an unusual place, where you’ve got a city virtually equally divided between two states.” The results? Over the past two calendar years, private-sector jobs increased by 5.6% on the Kansas side and only 2.2% on the Missouri. In the same period hourly wages grew $1.22 on the Kansas side, compared with $0.61 on the Missouri side.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  91. @67. Sammy, these clowns has nearly 8 years to craft a ‘repeal and replace’ h/c plan and showed up for class w/o their homework. Now they’re mindlessly pitching more failure w/t ol’sucker bait of filing returns on a postcard. It’s a party which cannot govern and will not until its civil war is over– and given the election results in Alabama, you get a hint of which side is winning.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  92. Got anything more recent than 2015, happyfeet? How about this one:

    Just as President Trump is ramping up his push for a major tax cut that he believes will pay for itself through faster economic growth, the Kansas template for that approach has crashed and burned. After four years of below-average growth, deepening budget deficits, and steep spending reductions, the GOP-dominated Kansas legislature has repealed many of the tax cuts at the heart of Governor Sam Brownback fiscal agenda.

    Since Kansas enacted tax and spending cuts in 2012 and 2013, Brownback and his allies have argued that this fiscal potion would generate an explosion of economic growth. It didn’t. Overall growth and job creation in Kansas underperformed both the national economy and neighboring states. From January, 2014 (after both tax cuts passed) to April, 2017, Kansas gained only 28,000 net new non-farm jobs. By contrast, Nebraska, an economically similar state with a much smaller labor force, saw a net increase of 35,000 jobs.

    The tax cuts did produce one explosion, however. The state’s budget deficit was expected to hit $280 million this year, despite major spending reductions. Kansas falls well below national averages in a wide range of public services from K-12 education to housing to police and fire protection, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute’s State and Local Finance Initiative. Under order from the state Supreme Court, the legislature has voted to increase funding for public schools by $293 million over the next two years.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/06/07/the-great-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/#77d06f045508

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  93. why are you so upset about Kansas having a little budget deficit

    why so upset after food stamp piled on something like ten trillion dollars of debt only to deliver woefully subpar growth and an explosion of filthy food stampers (yucky people)

    i think that’s the rub of it really

    it’s hard to measure the effect of state-level tax policy in the context of a rapacious and anti-growth federal government doing extreme anti-growth crap like obamacare and global warming all up in it, piling on debt and regulations, while responsible states like Brownback’s Kansas try to do right by their taxpayers

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  94. “The Price Is Blight” — The Donald giving his HHS Sec., the reality TV treatment in WH lawn presser. The plane truth: toast for breakfast, soon, eh, Mr. Trump.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  95. this dr. price jack-off needs to cut a check yesterday and apologize

    that he didn’t understand this a week ago means he’s stupid

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  96. I’ll have Trumptoast for breakfast or snack.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  97. @97. Day late and $950,000 short. Seems the reservation has been made: he’s got a ticket to ride.

    @98. Ben: Melba or Melania? 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  98. well i don’t feel sorry for him he’s disgusting Mr. DCSCA

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  99. nitro cold brew, happyfeet

    mg (31009b)

  100. @101. Especially as he touted hizself as a ‘fiscal conservative’ for years.

    @98. Postscript: expect plenty of crumbs.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. why are you so upset about Kansas having a little budget deficit

    Once again, deficits apparently don’t matter when Republicans are in charge.

    On a percentage basis, Bush increased the deficit more than Obama, and Bush didn’t have the excuse of recovering from a massive economic downturn.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  102. i have a place for nitro cold brew they did us a free tasting it was smoov

    we were both fans

    Chicago – River North Café

    (scroll to the bottom for mine one)

    this is also my go-to place for sipping chocolate

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/29/16384274/big-six-tax-reform-congress-trump-tax-policy-center

    The richest 1 percent — households making at least $732,800 — would get an average tax cut of $129,030, the analysis finds. For the typical one-percenter (who earns much more than $732,800), that means 8.5 percent more income after taxes. The richest 0.1 percent, earning at least $3.4 million a year, would get $722,510 back on average, for a 10.2 percent average boost in after-tax income.

    By contrast, the middle class (households earning $48,600 to $86,100 a year) would get $660 back, a 1.2 percent income boost. The poorest fifth of Americans, earning $25,000 or less, would only get $60, a 0.5 percent increase.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  104. Especially as he touted hizself as a ‘fiscal conservative’ for years.

    yes yes he’s a disgusting and loathsome hypocrite and he’s dishonored himself and brought shame upon his family

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  105. pours slow with a foam
    reminds me of a Guinness
    more caffeine no acidity

    mg (31009b)

  106. fancy city slicker, you have it all,happyfeet.
    nice.

    mg (31009b)

  107. BREAKING NEWS- PRICE CUT!

    HHS Sec. tendered resignation- Trump accepted.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. i have to appreciate it while i’m here

    and while it’s here

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  109. that’s good news about Dr. Price

    he’s only 62

    there’s a chance he might be able to redeem and rehabilitate himself and still get into heaven

    but he needs to get started on that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  110. R BUDD DWYER!

    Should have been Ben Carson from the get go, HUD at best would be folded into HHS or Treasury, or cut altogether.

    urbanleftbehind (3c8eef)

  111. 110. DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/29/2017 @ 1:40 pm

    HHS Sec. tendered resignation – Trump accepted.

    That’s loyalty? That’s treating an employee fairly?

    Trump took him out of Congress. Price followed advice he was given as to what he could do. Others would have done it too. There were no questions about his ethics or taking too many flights while he was in Congress. (if any of that is not true, there is a problem) He reimbursed the government fair market value – maybe there is aquestion about that.

    Yes, he was supposed to write a replacement for Obamacare that could pass, and he failed on that job. Yes, maybe he embarassed the president, but that’s more an administrative failure and that’s on Trump, really. Is there a complaint that most of these trips were not needed? But were they vacation type trips?

    Sammy Finkelman (d7b8a6)

  112. “He reimbursed the government fair market value – maybe there is aquestion about that.”

    The final straw was reimbursing for his seat, not the plane (51000 dollars)

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  113. Ben burn (07eab3) — 9/29/2017 @ 1:18 pm

    By contrast, the middle class (households earning $48,600 to $86,100 a year) would get $660 back, a 1.2 percent income boost. The poorest fifth of Americans, earning $25,000 or less, would only get $60, a 0.5 percent increase.

    They don’t tell you, do they, that people at the lowest tax paying level benefit, if they have children high school age or lower, because the current $1,000 child tax creit is made fully refundable (unless they owe a penalty for not having health insurance, in which case any refund might be recaptured if they aren’t careful to minimize their withholding.)

    They are averaging all tax returns showing less than $25,000 reported income. That doesn’t really show you apicture.

    They are also missing the hit to the elderly and severely vsually impaired, or just averaging that in by income class.

    Also the benefit really begins at about $400,000 of inccome, not $700,000.

    Sammy Finkelman (d7b8a6)

  114. @115. Trump and loyalty mix like oil and water.

    Sammy, this southern conservative clown was toast before the loaf was baked and sliced. Plenty of tape of him doing the typical fiscal right wing whine about wasting tax $ on jet travel then doing same. The rest of the Cabinet, save DeVos (assuming she pays for her own jet fuel) might consider going Greyhound for a while.

    ____

    @116. Talk about adding insult to injury. The floater was finally flushed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  115. DC

    He plain looked smarmy and serpentine. Does Trump read polls? I know his zeitgeist meter runs like a Timex, but he also bathes in newscasts. I just wonder..

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  116. Dr. Price behaved very foolishly and stupidly and dumbishly

    this is why he ain’t got no job and this is why the Great Pumpkin will skip his house this year cause he’s a suck-ass and Mr. Pumpkin don’t got no time for a suck-ass

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  117. To be fair, Price may have been more product of the Pence-Ryan congressional pipeline than a unilateral Trump or hardcore pick…if it had to be southern doctor, why not Bill Frist or Phil Gingrey

    urbanleftbehind (3c8eef)

  118. with Price it’s his hypocrisy that stinks the most

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  119. @119. The Big Media /free ‘fake news’ press raised awareness on the teevee, he saw it and cancelled Price’s show. Same w/PR–until the video began rolling and he watched it w/his own eyes, he was oblivious to the extent of the disaster. Now the sound and pictures are rolling across the cablers, he’s catching the video wave. He musta clicked into a ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ Marathon on TVLand a while back– explains much; lots of Klink-ers on staff.

    “I know nothing!” Sgt. Schultz [John Banner] ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ CBS TV, 1965- 71.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  120. DC: Trump didn’t like the ‘optics.’

    It’s his raison d’etre and the new thread is orgasmic with his genius again.

    Ben burn (07eab3)

  121. @125. Image over substance; Trump 101. Makes Deaver’s Reagan look ‘Bush’ league.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  122. If you still live in California, own a home, and itemize deductions, I sure hope you enjoy paying for Trump’s tax cut Patty!

    When you write the check, you can say “Thank you sir, may I have another!”

    The millions of other Americans who have their taxes raised to pay for this fraud and the hundreds of millions of future taxpayers who fork over the $3,000,000,000,000 + interest needed to pay for this grift are probably not as enthusiastic about the program.

    Alex (a458e9)

  123. Learn how to read, Alexy.

    So you can put me down as a “hell no” as long as this provision is in place.

    Fortunately, people are already balking.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 9/29/2017 @ 7:07 am

    nk (dbc370)

  124. He actually thought that was a clever insight, trust me whatever comes out in the final bill will be myth worse like goose graham’s pet carbon tax. They want all your money, including the ones you havebt even thought of yet.

    narciso (d1f714)

  125. 127… I’ll take the push for a change in the California in the state legislature and in the Governor’s office for the win, Alex. California’s state income tax rate is out of line. The teachers and public employee unions have a death grip on the budget and we have Democrat clown politicians in full control. That’s where I put the blame. Blue Model EPIC FAIL.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  126. Rev.Hoagie says that family farms are indeed liquidated to pay estate taxes. No they aren’t. Not today. And we are talking about TODAY. Remember those huge existing exemptions before taxes are paid. (5 1/2 million for an individual and, more often, 11 million dollars for a couple)

    Do you know the number of family farms impacted by the estate tax? Come on. Tell us. The truth is that It is almost non-existent. But I think you already knew that. And tell us the percentage of estates in general that pay the estate tax. Last I read it was about one in 500!

    Family farms and small businesses? Baloney.

    Noel (b4d580)

  127. Sorry, Noel, I don’t think the government should get either my grandfather’s or my father’s wedding rings, which have devolved to me by inheritance. Nor should I be required to ransom them by finding the money for the tax elsewhere. Which is what you’re arguing for on a bigger scale. Inheritance is not immoral — the government looting the corpses of its citizens is.

    nk (dbc370)

  128. Thanks, nk.

    mg (31009b)

  129. Noel, you can read whatever you want but I was in the business. You don’t know jack sh!t about what these salt-of-the-earth folks go through when the time comes and the tax boys arrive, I do. I was there. So your opinion next to my personal experiences is worthless.

    I saw families forced to liquidate everything to pay taxes based on inflated prices for gains they hadn’t realized except on paper. And I helped many a farmer set up their estates to avoid that same fate. I worked with tax and estate attorneys and specialty accountants to avoid the devastating effects of death tax. These folks aren’t the super rich you seem to hate so much Noel. They are people who are “paper rich” but it still counts. These folks ran Christmas tress and grave blanket stands in the winter and road side produce and farmer’s markets in the summer. They weren’t rich other than land rich.

    As I said, you are allowing you bigotry to blind you. Taxes should not be used to punish people but to raise money. Your hate should not dictate public tax policy.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  130. Noel nails the propaganda.

    Ben burn (266dcf)

  131. When you own a small farm like mine 320 acres – 160 tillable the other 160 planted in habitat for the wild critters – no estate tax.

    mg (31009b)

  132. Taxes should be used the same way mg uses fertilizer for his fields. To produc services from the government useful to the people. The government has no more right to our taxes than mg’s farm has to fertilizer.

    nk (dbc370)

  133. And like mg’s field grow weeds as well as useful produce, the government grows waste as well as useful services. Taxes should not be wasted on useless government functions any more than fertilizer should be wasted on weeds.

    nk (dbc370)

  134. meanwhile the sleazy ballerina says we need to tax you butt for to do moar bike lanes all up in it

    Currently, just 1.3 percent of Chicagoans commute by bicycle, a number that, according to the city’s “Chicago Forward: CDOT Action Agenda,” needs to be much higher.

    […]

    Even CBS 2 Chicago’s traffic reporter Kris Habermehl chimed in during his report on the newly announced 33 miles of lanes to be completed this year (along with one that will have its own bicycle traffic signals). According to Habermehl, “each mile will cost about $140,000, but if it keeps the bicycles separate from the cars and bicycles a good and viable way to come into the city of Chicago, why not?”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  135. I wished the good Rev.Hoagie cared about me like he does the billionaires. I pay! So should they.

    You may HAVE BEEN in the business of estate planning but if you do not acknowledge current law and circumstance, you are simply deceiving yourself and the rest of us.

    Small farms and businesses do not currently pay estate taxes and you know it.

    Noel (b4d580)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4528 secs.