http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277/...s-tax-plan

If I get this next promotion I am angling for this new plan would save me quite a bit.

(11-15-2016 03:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If I get this next promotion I am angling for this new plan would save me quite a bit.

edit: these tax plans are always hard for me to fully digest and understand because the examples are almost always way below, or way above, my tax bracket and family size.

Ok it sounds like as a single male with no kids this is good for me, but seems like if you are a single parent or have a large family this could be a negative.

(11-15-2016 03:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Ok it sounds like as a single male with no kids this is good for me, but seems like if you are a single parent or have a large family this could be a negative.

So do you think trump is keeping his word on what he plans to do about taxes?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

If those lower top tax rates cause people to invest more domestically instead of overseas, and that creates jobs for the middle class, then they are much better off under this plan. More jobs = more demand, and that means, in the short run higher wages, and in the long run more opportunities for those to move up from the lower class.

But here's the problem with that approach. 33% isn't low enough to make that happen. They'll still get greater tax efficiency in Estonia, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Hungary, Mexico, Turkey, Poland, and Chile. When corporate and dividends taxes are considered, for investment in a corporate venture, that list expands to include every developed country except France, Canada, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, Korea, and Portugal (note: that's doing the math quick and dirty, if we do it in more detail one or two countries might shift in or out, but the differences should not be huge).

Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin both recommended going into the 25% range for top rates on both individuals and corporations, believing that was the range we needed to get to in order to have a meaningful impact on growth and investment, in order to INCREASE total tax revenues. They made up the revenue shortfall by eliminating virtually all non-business exclusions and deductions ("loopholes"), and Domenici-Rivlin would have created a significant additional increase in tax revenues by adding a minor consumption tax.

How long will we continue to drive business investment overseas, tangibly doing great harm to our middle class, when neutral and bi-partisan analyses continue to recommend something else. Yes, I can find extremely partisan left-wing authors saying we should just "tax the rich" and I can find extremely partisan right-wing authors saying reduce tax rates while leaving all the exclusions and deductions in place, in order to starve the beast. But I can't find many, if any, objective or bi-partisan analyses suggesting either one.

This ain't rocket science. And the people making policy decisions--on both sides--sure as hell ain't rocket scientists.