Rant

Since "The Donald" claims to have "said it first"

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Since "The Donald" claims to have "said it first"
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Since "The Donald" claims to have "said it first"
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Whichever assumption you've guessed at

that makes you feel better..........ummmm, should that be 'speculation' instead of assumption? Since you have no proof of your speculation, perhaps you should just 'Let It Go' like Elsa.......

With ALL the news going on, THIS is what you post about after days on end without a peep? Poor you........your trigger gets tripped over nonsense, as usual.

BTW.....since many financial experts saying Trump's economical plan is something that can actually work, and work well, what do YOU think about it?

- Collapse -
RE:With ALL the news going on,
With ALL the news going on, THIS is what you post about after days on end without a peep? Poor you........your trigger gets tripped over nonsense, as usual.

NEWS?

Pope this, Pope that...I wuz too Poped to participate. I wuz Poped out.

Nonsense? The Donald thought it was important enough to throw a hissy fit, Does THAT sound like Presidential timber?

BTW.....since many financial experts saying Trump's economical plan is something that can actually work, and work well, what do YOU think about it?

MY Opinion?...I agree with this guy

Holtz-Eakin said, it would be a struggle to make up for its lost revenue.

"It's pretty aggressive," he said. "To get the top rate to 25 percent is a lot of work." Then to stack on top of that slashing the number of people paying income taxes and a lower corporate tax rate, Holtz-Eakin added, makes the plan all the more expensive.

It's a plan that tries to please a lot of people at once. But when it comes to tax reform, you can't make everyone happy. And in Trump's case, the plan could please people who both want to cut taxes and who aren't that worried about what the plan would cost


I can imagine there are many programs you would cut that I wouldn't, and areas I would cut that you wouldn't.
- Collapse -
Since 47% of the USA already

don't pay Federal Income Tax anyhow, this is actually better than what's going on now. You have to see the whole picture.........

Those making less than $25K (single) and $50K (married) have Fed taxes taken from their paychecks, then get an EIC check when they file.....minus what they have already owed. Trump's plan gives them back ALL of what they paid PLUS the EIC putting more into their actual pockets with THEM having all the power to decide where to spend it instead of the Feds keeping what they paid and spending it FOR them. That money goes back into the REAL economy.....mostly LOCAL spending in their communities.....and still pays the taxes on those purchases with the money going to the city/county/State more than the Feds (some would be spent on the Fed taxes on utility bills and gasoline).

Using that logic, one step further to take control away from the Feds is to stop the practice of the State collecting those funds, sending it all to the Feds, and have the Feds decide how much to send back to the State later on. The way it's done now is with the Feds in control, for example, the State of Virginia could be sending $30B to the Feds, the Feds then pick and choose, based on what other States have put the most pressure on the Feds with various bills passed in Congress, which States will get the largest and smallest portions doled out. (Spread the wealth again) If Maine got more bills passed than Virginia, a good portion of VA's funds would be sent to Maine instead of returned to Virginia.

As for the revenue your guy is talking about......if more people got to keep more of their own money, they would have a larger incentive to work (especially with Welfare Reform again coming into play like Clinton/Gingrich did), thus more people working means more revenue in all tax brackets. He also will be using a lower tax penalty bracket for corporations to bring back their money from overseas, giving THEM the incentive to invest here again, creating even more jobs for the middle class again, thus more revenue again.

As he said in his announcement of his tax policy....this area is HIS wheelhouse and he's looking at an entire package, which is what he is really good at.

- Collapse -
RE: Trump's plan gives them back ALL of what they paid
- Collapse -
If they make

less than the guidelines, then 'yes'....even them. Or at least until they're deported.

- Collapse -
RE: tax policy....this area is HIS wheelhouse

tax policy?...YES!!!...EVADING taxes is his wheelhouse...him AND all his business associates.

Who better to have watching the hen house than a wolf?

Keep your eyes on the wolf?

Trump’s Tax Plan Could Cost $12 Trillion, And Save Him Millions In Taxes Each Year

The lowest-earning 10% of Americans, meanwhile, would see their after-tax income increase by just 1.6% under the Trump plan. The second lowest-earning tenth would gain just 0.6%.

The reduced taxes at the top end are largely the result of Trump’s plan to deeply cut marginal income tax rates for high earners, from a top rate of 39.6% today to just 25%. Trump’s plan also reduces top rates on corporate and business income.

The Tax Foundation also estimated that the plan would cost the federal government $10.14 trillion in tax revenue over the next decade—assuming that the tax cuts spurred some additional economic growth. Assuming growth doesn’t change, the bill is $11.98 trillion.

The Tax Foundation says it was unable to precisely incorporate all of these assumptions, because the plan doesn’t specify them. However, it also says that none of these provisions would have “nearly the impact of the rate reductions.”


1.6% of $25,000 = $400
.6% of $25,000 = $150

Don't be so sure/positive about the TRUMPed up figures.

Get it "Trumped up" figures? The Donald's figures.

- Collapse -
The conservative's side of the plan
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/grover-norquist-breaks-down-trumps-tax-plan/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/grover-norquist-donald-trump-tax-reduction/2015/09/28/id/693774/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/29/donald-trumps-tax-plan-out-bushes-bush

By your own words from your link..."The lowest-earning 10% of Americans, meanwhile, would see their after-tax income increase ".........Trump's plan is that they would have ZERO percent tax rate so there would BE NO AFTER-TAX involved at all. I don't think your source bothered to even look at his plan before they jumped to conclusions/opinions, much like other Dems who told you 'you have to pass the plan to know what's in it' garbage.
- Collapse -
RE: By your own words from your link..."The lowest-earning 1
By your own words from your link..."The lowest-earning 10% of Americans, meanwhile, would see their after-tax income increase ".........Trump's plan is that they would have ZERO percent tax rate so there would BE NO AFTER-TAX involved at all.

You left out the last part of the statement

The lowest-earning 10% of Americans, meanwhile, would see their after-tax income increase by just 1.6% under the Trump plan. The second lowest-earning tenth would gain just 0.6%.

I know how YOU love to claim that I "can't read".

It's their "after tax" INCOME that would "INCREASE"(by 1.6%) not their taxes..They have taxes AFTER they make a certain amount...even under Trump.

Since they are only paying 1.6% NOW and Trump reduces it to ZERO...they would gain 1.6%...Approx $400 as I stated in above post.

So, NOW they are paying approx $8/week($400/yr) and get that money back at end of year...Under Trump they would get $8/week in their pay.

So they could buy 1 extra pack of cigs ($Cool a week/small bottle of booze...or at the end of the tax year($400)..and go away for a nice weekend.
- Collapse -
The last part of the sentence isn't the point

The POINT is that they will have that money in their pocket instead of having it deducted from their EIC entitlement check before that check is issued. I don't believe you have a clue about how our tax forms and requirements are met and filled out. Any funds taken from their paychecks week by week are automatically going to the Feds by the employer.....once they have to fill out their tax forms at the end of the year, they are 'taxed' based on their gross pay, and if they are lucky, they have 'overpaid' based on the chart and part or none is refunded (in some bases, they have 'underpaid' and still owe something more). Once that figure is determined, they look at another chart to see what EIC amount they are entitled to, and either their tax paid refund is added to it, or if they still owe something, that amount is deducted from the EIC.....then the check is cut and mailed or debited to them.

With the Trump plan, they would have a ZERO tax liability so ALL of what they have had deducted from their paychecks would be refunded along with the EIC.....OR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is a possibility that the employee and the employer knows ahead of time that the employee will already qualify for the $25/50K eligibility and the employer will deduct nothing from each paycheck so the employee gets their ENTIRE check each week, minus other normal deductions. It's not apparent yet which way this plan will go.......

Regarding your second last paragraph.....you assume that they WILL get all of that money back at the end of the year......that isn't necessarily true because ALL income is taxable by the Feds, including Social Security Benefits in many circumstances.

As for your LAST paragraph, it's disgusting to say the least. I always thought you were 'for' the poor and to have you disparage them as a whole as you did, and being a liberal, I'm surprised you would sound like you tried to make Romney sound when HE made the statement that half our population didn't pay taxes anyhow. You liberals went berserk over that statement, and yet here you are, assuming that they would spend their money on booze......says much for the hypocricy, doesn't it?

- Collapse -
Re: I don't believe you have a clue about how our tax forms
I don't believe you have a clue about how our tax forms and requirements are met and filled out. Any funds taken from their paychecks week by week are automatically going to the Feds by the employer...

What a "unique system"...If I didn't know better I would think the US copied that part of the Canadian Tax system.

Take taxes out as the money is earned and at the end of the year add everything up and give you back what they "overtook"..Is that a word?
- Collapse -
RE: Regarding your second last paragraph.....
Regarding your second last paragraph.....you assume that they WILL get all of that money back at the end of the year.

I was playing the roll of an employer...I can do that right?...You did.

there is a possibility that the employee and the employer knows ahead of time that the employee will already qualify for the $25/50K
- Collapse -
RE: I don't believe you have a clue

Since you're giving out clues here's a clue for you

The amount of income tax that an individual must pay is based on the amount of their taxable income (income earned less allowed expenses) for the tax year. Personal income tax may be collected through various means:

deduction at source - where income tax is deducted directly from an individual's pay and sent to the CRA.


CRA=Canada Revenue Agency...Known south of the border as Revenooers/Revenuer.

- Collapse -
And your point is?

Your link that I mentioned before refers to 'after-tax income'.....but those people wouldn't HAVE any taxed income.

And you have NO comment about your disparaging remark? Not even an apology to those people you said would spend that extra money on booze?

- Collapse -
RE: And you have NO comment about your disparaging remark?

Disparaging remark?

Spending money on cig or booze? What do you consider "disparaging" about that ...You've never smoked or drank?...Any friends family members that do?...Do you lecture them?...It's THEIR money...not yours.

Spend it on food and toilet paper...that make you feel better?

Disparaging remark?

From the person that considers an Obamaphone an unnecessary perk?

Any apologies forthcoming from you?

- Collapse -
You talked as if

low income people would spend their extra cash on booze and yet you don't think that's 'profiling'..........unbelievable..........

done............

- Collapse -
The other faces of Trump.
- Collapse -
RE: Since you have no proof of your speculation
- Collapse -
this is obviously so much "not news"

I'm not going to waste my time looking to figure out what it's supposed to be about. I'm sure it's very important in your world, but not in mine.

- Collapse -
RE: I'm sure it's very important in your world,
I'm sure it's very important in your world, but not in mine.

It warrants me making a post on the subject, just as you did.

no more....no less, well maybe more than one post.

Of course you've said previously that the subject was "childish"...so I guess it warrants more than one post from you also.

CNET Forums