I'm guessing he'll cut tax rates for individuals and families by nearly half while drastically removing most, if not all, available deductions.

The strategy was purportedly to use $900 billion in savings from the repeal-and-replace of Obamacare to finance the tax plan. So...

(04-21-2017 09:23 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:18 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 05:49 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  Anybody have any thoughts or ideas about his tax plan? He said its gonna be massive. Any ideas as to how massive?

what are you expecting us to discuss here? unless I'm missing something it hasn't been released.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

What i am expecting is a discussion of what you think or feel his tax plans needs to be or should be. Some of the things I researched are very vague since his plan is not out yet.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, then discuss these plans. It's your thread isn't it?

You brought it up, tell us what your analysis is, or what you think about what you've seen.


Isn't that how this works?!?

(04-22-2017 02:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:23 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:18 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 05:49 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  Anybody have any thoughts or ideas about his tax plan? He said its gonna be massive. Any ideas as to how massive?

what are you expecting us to discuss here? unless I'm missing something it hasn't been released.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

What i am expecting is a discussion of what you think or feel his tax plans needs to be or should be. Some of the things I researched are very vague since his plan is not out yet.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, then discuss these plans. It's your thread isn't it?

You brought it up, tell us what your analysis is, or what you think about what you've seen.


Isn't that how this works?!?

]
Did my original post confuse you? A discussion usually starts with someone asking a question. And then there is a response. That's usually how it works

So I'll my take. It's really quite simple. Don't raise my taxes. Now if you will excuse, I am headed to Greenville for ECU Purple And Gold Game.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

(04-22-2017 02:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:23 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:18 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 05:49 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  Anybody have any thoughts or ideas about his tax plan? He said its gonna be massive. Any ideas as to how massive?

what are you expecting us to discuss here? unless I'm missing something it hasn't been released.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

What i am expecting is a discussion of what you think or feel his tax plans needs to be or should be. Some of the things I researched are very vague since his plan is not out yet.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, then discuss these plans. It's your thread isn't it?

You brought it up, tell us what your analysis is, or what you think about what you've seen.


Isn't that how this works?!?

My analysis in post #2 is how this works.

(04-21-2017 08:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 08:40 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 08:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 07:55 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 07:43 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  you act like you're the first one to tell me that.....

you know XACLY! what I was 'saying'....

Uhmmm nope. Can you send me your interpreter?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The interpreter program is only available to Deplorables. It's part of your membership packet. Sorry!

No apologies needed. Sorry to see you have accepted your deplorable title.

P.S. Great response by the way.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Proud to be a Deplorable. Much better than being a libtard.

FIFY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(04-21-2017 07:32 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  My guess is highest corporate rate goes from 35% to 20%. On individual rates, I have no idea.

Every Republican and 80% of the Democrats understand that our corporate rates are too high and cost us jobs to overseas competitors. But I doubt corporate tax reform gets any Democratic votes in the House. The question is whether they get enough in the Senate.

(04-22-2017 07:36 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 02:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:23 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:18 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 05:49 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  Anybody have any thoughts or ideas about his tax plan? He said its gonna be massive. Any ideas as to how massive?

what are you expecting us to discuss here? unless I'm missing something it hasn't been released.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

What i am expecting is a discussion of what you think or feel his tax plans needs to be or should be. Some of the things I researched are very vague since his plan is not out yet.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, then discuss these plans. It's your thread isn't it?

You brought it up, tell us what your analysis is, or what you think about what you've seen.


Isn't that how this works?!?

]
Did my original post confuse you? A discussion usually starts with someone asking a question. And then there is a response. That's usually how it works

So I'll my take. It's really quite simple. Don't raise my taxes. Now if you will excuse, I am headed to Greenville for ECU Purple And Gold Game.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Actually there are several ways to start a discussion thread. I believe the best threads are the ones where either 1) the OP makes a claim with a link attached (hopefully) that bolsters said claim and discussion ensues OR 2) the OP presents a link to a story, provides commentary and others follow up with their own opinions on the matter.

Based on my observations, threads started by asking a question are the least effective because you allow the thread to be too open ended. When that happens, it normally devolves into jokes, ridicule or critiques of the OP. I find that the discussion works best when you guide the discussion along the lines you are most interested in. If/when someone brings up an intriguing point that you may not have considered, then the conversation can migrate towards that line of thought.

Hope this helps.

(04-22-2017 08:26 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 07:36 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 02:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:23 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:18 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  what are you expecting us to discuss here? unless I'm missing something it hasn't been released.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

What i am expecting is a discussion of what you think or feel his tax plans needs to be or should be. Some of the things I researched are very vague since his plan is not out yet.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, then discuss these plans. It's your thread isn't it?

You brought it up, tell us what your analysis is, or what you think about what you've seen.


Isn't that how this works?!?

]
Did my original post confuse you? A discussion usually starts with someone asking a question. And then there is a response. That's usually how it works

So I'll my take. It's really quite simple. Don't raise my taxes. Now if you will excuse, I am headed to Greenville for ECU Purple And Gold Game.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Actually there are several ways to start a discussion thread. I believe the best threads are the ones where either 1) the OP makes a claim with a link attached (hopefully) that bolsters said claim and discussion ensues OR 2) the OP presents a link to a story, provides commentary and others follow up with their own opinions on the matter.

Based on my observations, threads started by asking a question are the least effective because you allow the thread to be too open ended. When that happens, it normally devolves into jokes, ridicule or critiques of the OP. I find that the discussion works best when you guide the discussion along the lines you are most interested in. If/when someone brings up an intriguing point that you may not have considered, then the conversation can migrate towards that line of thought.

Hope this helps.

Yes it does. Thanks for the info.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

(04-22-2017 08:27 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 08:26 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 07:36 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 02:09 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 09:23 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  What i am expecting is a discussion of what you think or feel his tax plans needs to be or should be. Some of the things I researched are very vague since his plan is not out yet.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

So, then discuss these plans. It's your thread isn't it?

You brought it up, tell us what your analysis is, or what you think about what you've seen.


Isn't that how this works?!?

]
Did my original post confuse you? A discussion usually starts with someone asking a question. And then there is a response. That's usually how it works

So I'll my take. It's really quite simple. Don't raise my taxes. Now if you will excuse, I am headed to Greenville for ECU Purple And Gold Game.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Actually there are several ways to start a discussion thread. I believe the best threads are the ones where either 1) the OP makes a claim with a link attached (hopefully) that bolsters said claim and discussion ensues OR 2) the OP presents a link to a story, provides commentary and others follow up with their own opinions on the matter.

Based on my observations, threads started by asking a question are the least effective because you allow the thread to be too open ended. When that happens, it normally devolves into jokes, ridicule or critiques of the OP. I find that the discussion works best when you guide the discussion along the lines you are most interested in. If/when someone brings up an intriguing point that you may not have considered, then the conversation can migrate towards that line of thought.

Hope this helps.

Yes it does. Thanks for the info.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Anytime. Just doing my part to try to make our community a better place!

Whatever the cuts are?....they will not be enough. I can tell you that.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-tax-co...le/2007716

Article on the current tax burden.

Top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes. Top 10% pay 71%. Top 50% pay 97%.

(04-22-2017 08:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Whatever the cuts are?....they will not be enough. I can tell you that.

Neither will introducing a consumption tax and/or a VAT.

What I don't understand about the tax debate is why the pro-reform side doesn't interject more about European tax rates into the debate.

As long as any efforts to reduce top rates are met with attacks claiming that they are "giveaways" to the "wealthy" and "greedy corporations" who are not "paying their fair share," they are a hard sell politically.

But put our top rates up against Europe and other OECD countries, particularly comparing them over time, and it becomes a lot easier to explain how our tax rates are driving investment and jobs offshore. And that hurts the lower and middle classes far more than it hurts the 1%.

And analyses of how much of the total tax burden is paid by the "wealthy" and "greedy corporations," compared to Europe and other OECD countries, establishes pretty clearly that, by world standards, they are paying considerably more--not less--than their "fair share."

Bringing these facts into the discussion gets the debate to where it should be had.

(04-22-2017 09:19 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 08:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Whatever the cuts are?....they will not be enough. I can tell you that.

Neither will introducing a consumption tax and/or a VAT.

Perhaps not directly, but ...

We are the only developed country (OECD member) without a national consumption tax (VAT or GST). As a result, although our total tax bite out of the economy is smaller, our income tax bite (both individual and corporate) is in many cases larger. This puts us at a disadvantage for attracting investment compared to other countries.

Note that a consumption tax never creates disadvantages for attracting investment. Within the domestic market all competitors, including importers, have to pay it. So there is no tax advantage to manufacturing offshore. With respect to export sales, embedded consumption taxes are refunded upon departure, so the effective tax rate is 0% on export sales, which will never be a disadvantage and can be a significant advantage.

We could impose a consumption tax at 15% (which would be lower than any other developed country, so an advantage there), and that would produce enough revenues to:

1) balance the budget (and the only way we are ever going to enforce any fiscal discipline on either democrats or republicans is to maintain a balanced budget),
2) fund Bismarck universal private insurance based health care and a guaranteed minimum income for every American (which would also realize some savings compared to current health and welfare programs, and those savings are included in this calculation), and
3) lower our top income tax rates to below world levels at about 15% (thus attracting investment and jobs in a major way).

That would strike me as a very useful approach.

Owl, I'm 1000% in your camp on this issue across the board....I have nothing more to add....well argued....

(04-22-2017 11:55 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  Owl, I'm 1000% in your camp on this issue across the board....I have nothing more to add....well argued....

If it's in defense of the VAT, it won't make a difference. But then, I'm just some no nothing shlub and you and Owl are freaking svengali's who know everything.

The real problem with VAT taxes is that they aren't transparent. They make it just too easy for the governments to raise money. And then to spend that money.

(04-22-2017 11:59 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 11:55 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  Owl, I'm 1000% in your camp on this issue across the board....I have nothing more to add....well argued....

If it's in defense of the VAT, it won't make a difference. But then, I'm just some no nothing shlub and you and Owl are freaking svengali's who know everything.

I wouldn't know about any of that.

Here's how I get to my position. I'm basically very much a fiscal conservative. I do think some social welfare makes sense as a practical matter, but as a safety net, not a massive redistribution scheme. So I like Bismarck health care plus some sort of guaranteed minimum income--either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund. With those pieces in place, there's a lot of current federal spending that would become redundant and could go away.

I think the only way to control spending is to have a balanced budget--you want to spend a dollar on X, you either raise another dollar of taxes or spend a dollar less on Y. It's only then that you can actually enforce any spending discipline.

No matter how much spending we cut--and there's a lot that needs cutting--we can't get from where we are today to a balanced budget without some increase in tax revenues. That being the case, I'd rather get those revenues from wherever they will do the least harm to the economy. And that's pretty clearly a consumption tax. That's why everybody else but us does it that way. When you factor in the impact on competitiveness in the global marketplace, it really moves into slam dunk territory for me.

I get the argument about transparency. There are ways to make it more transparent. I would include them.

(04-22-2017 12:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 11:59 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 11:55 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  Owl, I'm 1000% in your camp on this issue across the board....I have nothing more to add....well argued....

If it's in defense of the VAT, it won't make a difference. But then, I'm just some no nothing shlub and you and Owl are freaking svengali's who know everything.

I wouldn't know about any of that.

Here's how I get to my position. I'm basically very much a fiscal conservative. I do think some social welfare makes sense as a practical matter, but as a safety net, not a massive redistribution scheme. So I like Bismarck health care plus some sort of guaranteed minimum income--either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund. With those pieces in place, there's a lot of current federal spending that would become redundant and could go away.

I think the only way to control spending is to have a balanced budget--you want to spend a dollar on X, you either raise another dollar of taxes or spend a dollar less on Y. It's only then that you can actually enforce any spending discipline.

No matter how much spending we cut--and there's a lot that needs cutting--we can't get from where we are today to a balanced budget without some increase in tax revenues. That being the case, I'd rather get those revenues from wherever they will do the least harm to the economy. And that's pretty clearly a consumption tax. That's why everybody else but us does it that way. When you factor in the impact on competitiveness in the global marketplace, it really moves into slam dunk territory for me.

I get the argument about transparency. There are ways to make it more transparent. I would include them.

I agree. I believe wholeheartedly that a system close to HR25 would spur an economic boom of the likes we have not seen since post WW2.