Substance from Trump

[Boudicca]

After listening to tv pundits, and others, opine that Trump only bloviates and does not elucidate clear positions, and after listening to the aforementioned discuss Trump's tax plan, I thought of going directly to the source and ascertaining for myself whether or not his plans on immigration, taxes and Second Amendments rights were substantial or fluff.  Most likely the majority of you have already looked up the major candidates' websites but for those who haven't...


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

 The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals

    If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.
    All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.
    No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.
    No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it.

The plan then discusses HOW to generate the necessary funds to pay for the tax proposal, but I left it out in consideration of any copyright issues.  I don't know much about money, which is why Edward Jones manages our mutual funds and annuities, and Charles Schwab my husband's 401(k).  However, I do know that when the Five's Eric Bolling as well as Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist and Warren Buffet all seem to like the broad outlines, I like it too.

I plan to look at all the candidates' websites for their specific policy proposals.  Except for a few in the field, my mind is open to the rest of their ideas.  It is early days.  AND I do think it's past time other states besides Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina got the chance to see all the candidates up close and personal while the rest of us just go to the primary polls knowing the die has already usually been cast by these states who get all puffed up with their own importance in the primary cycle while the rest of us get the leftovers...

[thundley4]

No.  We don't need fewer taxpayers, we need more. There are already too many people living for free and voting for more freebies already.

Skin in the game.

[Lacarnut]

No.  We don't need fewer taxpayers, we need more. There are already too many people living for free and voting for more freebies already.

Skin in the game.

If more corporations return to the US from China, Mexico, etc., you will see more jobs/taxpayers created. As it stands, the job market is stagnant. 

[Boudicca]

No.  We don't need fewer taxpayers, we need more. There are already too many people living for free and voting for more freebies already.

Skin in the game.

Thundley, I copied this off the plan's info sheet:

When the income tax was first introduced, just one percent of Americans had to pay it. It was never intended as a tax most Americans would pay. The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money.

I know that's true about lots of people who file and end up not only owing nothing, but receive money back in the form of EITC or perhaps other subsidies.  I know my kids, when younger and poorer, never paid money in federal taxes even though they filed their tax forms because it was the law and because they'd get the little amount of tax withheld from their paychecks returned to them.  I believe they became more conservative, fiscally speaking, once their incomes rose a bit and the government took out cash.  There are already lots of people with no skin in the game; Trump' plan just clarifies that somewhat.  Of course, for any mildly ambitious person the point is to not remain in a state of owing no taxes due to low income! 
I know whenever I get extra money in my pocket, I tend to spend it.  I am assuming many Americans would also do the same, thus causing business to benefit and more people to be employed, particularly if said businesses aren't buried under a myriad of red tape bullshit regulations and if the competitive playing field between us and foreign countries is leveled. 

I really don't know much about economics, but when people like Eric Bolling of the Five, Grover Norquist and Warren Buffet all like this plan, it can't be bad.   Plus, it guts the Dem spurious argument that Republicans don't care about poor working Americans.

I'm one of those who doesn't believe the minimum wage SHOULD be enough to raise a family; it was meant as an entry to the working field, not as an employer's obligation to support a family man, or woman.  To that end, the last thing this country needs is more uneducated, unskilled illegals OR legal immigrants flooding the job market.  Perhaps after the economy rebounds we will have jobs to spare for those who came here LEGALLY.

[obumazombie]

No.  We don't need fewer taxpayers, we need more. There are already too many people living for free and voting for more freebies already.

Skin in the game.

Big Dog and I have commented how political influence should be based off what is payed in taxes.
No skin in the game, no political influence.

[Lacarnut]

Big Dog and I have commented how political influence should be based off what is payed in taxes.
No skin in the game, no political influence.

Sounds good to me. That would eliminate many welfare queens and slackers. Plus, the Democratic Party would go in the tank. 

[Big Dog]

Big Dog and I have commented how political influence should be based off what is payed in taxes.
No skin in the game, no political influence.

 

[Boudicca]

Sounds good to me. That would eliminate many welfare queens and slackers. Plus, the Democratic Party would go in the tank.

Well, isn't that basically the way the system works already that those with the money influence the politicians?  That's why Trump claims he gave money to one and all and is self-funding his campaign for the most part.
Now, if there's a way to limit the wealthy assholes from liberal cesspools like Hollywood being able to parlay their money into influence, to the point where an asshole like Leonardo diCaprio (too bad his career and any money didn't sink like his character in Titanic) can address world leaders with Bammy Boy to push for global warming, I'm all for that!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-decaprio-world-act-climate-change-article-1.1950209


We are SUPPOSED to have one vote, one voice, but politics has never worked that way.  George Washington lost his first election because he didn't purchase libations for the voters.  He learned his lesson and bought their votes the next time.  This tradition goes back at least to the bread and circuses, as well as the water fountains of old Italy running with wine whenever the Senators wanted the vox populi on their side.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/08/george-washington-plied-voters-with-booze

Money, whether it's dispensed by taxpayers in high doses to whore politicians, or bribes in the form of booze, entertainment or tax breaks, perks, welfare, etc. seems to have been the modus operandi of the world since people in government wanted the pretense of ruling by popular fiat.  Maybe I'm missing the point here, guys?  I am curious how paying more in taxes could translate into political influence; I do know that the very rich have a million and one loopholes to evade paying their fair share.  But even well-intentioned folks of conservative bent do the same because let's face it, who in their right mind WANTS to pay one dime more than necessary in taxes?  How can youall translate political influence in a direct formula from an idea into a reality?  I'm not looking for a food fight, Big Dog,  (since there's no rolled up newspaper bopping a puppy on the nose), but rather your vision of how this would translate into reality. 

I'd like to build a moat, fill it with alligators, and shoot any illegals coming across.  I'm sure the Supreme Court (not that it'd ever become policy) would, ahem, shoot down my idea, there's no way they would disallow legally qualified Americans from voting.  I  am not sure if that's what you might have meant by influence?
 

[The Stranger]

Didn't read the entire plan but does it eliminate those who get money from the IRS just for having kids. Think it the EIC REFUND or something like that? Went with a women once who would get $6-8,000.00 a year while I paid more then that. Needless to say we didn't last long .

[docstew]

Big Dog and I have commented how political influence should be based off what is payed in taxes.
No skin in the game, no political influence.

+1. It should be a requirement that they are a net tax payer, even if only $1.

[Boudicca]

+1. It should be a requirement that they are a net tax payer, even if only $1.

Interesting, this topic came up when Cavuto interviewed Trump on Fox Business News this afternoon.  Essentially, the one dollar premise was posited by Neil and Trump said, yes, but the bureaucracy involved in collecting that dollar would entail a whole lot more money than collecting that token.  It might make people feel better about everyone having skin in the game, but it's about as meaningful as the times I have gotten a bill for cents, not even one dollar, and the postage involved from the business sending it cost them more than it cost me, except back in the days when I had to pay via check (costs money) AND the cost of the stamp to mail it back.  Add in the time spent by the pencil pusher to address and send the bill and it's a lose, lose proposition, except by god, they got their half ounce of flesh. 
The second part of Trump's answer was, he wants to put people to work so they HAVE to pay money in federal income tax because their income is too high to be exempt.  And really, isn't that what's best for our economy?  Also, paying a dollar in tax while reaping hundreds or more every month in welfare related benefits doesn't exactly scream skin in the game to me.

PS:  OK, I see you are specifying net tax owed, not before exemptions.  Now, I'm not at all a fiscal genius, I leave that shit to our CPA, but I know enough to know the IRS would have to reconfigure the tax code (more bureaucracy) if for no other reason which I don't believe it would be this factor only, but whatever:  at this moment, according to IRS rules if you owe less than $10 you don't have to file.  I know that because I helped one of my kids years ago and she owed about $7 so, no filing involved.
It's my opinion that bottom line, the best way to get people to have a vested interest or skin in the game in the financial prosperity of this nation is to provide the mechanisms, trade agreements and tariffs and whatever other stuff the economic successes in the real world vs. the opinions of ivory league economic professors come up with and make every American successful enough to CARE about fiscal responsibility. 

[docstew]

Interesting, this topic came up when Cavuto interviewed Trump on Fox Business News this afternoon.  Essentially, the one dollar premise was posited by Neil and Trump said, yes, but the bureaucracy involved in collecting that dollar would entail a whole lot more money than collecting that token.  It might make people feel better about everyone having skin in the game, but it's about as meaningful as the times I have gotten a bill for cents, not even one dollar, and the postage involved from the business sending it cost them more than it cost me, except back in the days when I had to pay via check (costs money) AND the cost of the stamp to mail it back.  Add in the time spent by the pencil pusher to address and send the bill and it's a lose, lose proposition, except by god, they got their half ounce of flesh. 
The second part of Trump's answer was, he wants to put people to work so they HAVE to pay money in federal income tax because their income is too high to be exempt.  And really, isn't that what's best for our economy?  Also, paying a dollar in tax while reaping hundreds or more every month in welfare related benefits doesn't exactly scream skin in the game to me.

PS:  OK, I see you are specifying net tax owed, not before exemptions.  Now, I'm not at all a fiscal genius, I leave that shit to our CPA, but I know enough to know the IRS would have to reconfigure the tax code (more bureaucracy) if for no other reason which I don't believe it would be this factor only, but whatever:  at this moment, according to IRS rules if you owe less than $10 you don't have to file.  I know that because I helped one of my kids years ago and she owed about $7 so, no filing involved.
It's my opinion that bottom line, the best way to get people to have a vested interest or skin in the game in the financial prosperity of this nation is to provide the mechanisms, trade agreements and tariffs and whatever other stuff the economic successes in the real world vs. the opinions of ivory league economic professors come up with and make every American successful enough to CARE about fiscal responsibility.

I wasn't actually referring to tax after exemptions. More like amount going into the system versus being pulled out (i.e. your tax bill should be more than you receive in entitlements).

[Boudicca]

I wasn't actually referring to tax after exemptions. More like amount going into the system versus being pulled out (i.e. your tax bill should be more than you receive in entitlements).

Yeah, that works for me, except it still would have to be more than a symbolic dollar, or ten, if for no other reason than the logistics and the cost.  But, it would save a whole lot of our money if we could do a few things:  quit rewarding criminal behavior of illegals coming in this country.  NO freebies, no healthcare of ANY kind except true lifesaving emergency aid followed by a one way trip to the border; no free education for kids of illegals, who are ALSO illegal, in any of our schools, and NO food, housing or any other sort of benefits.  Draconian but effective as hell, or it would be except for all the damn bleeding hearts out there who think that law breaking should be rewarded and the only criminalization allowed is of US for having these opinions.
If someone can figure out a legal way to deport the legal American citizen crybabies who want to vote with our pocketbooks for their criminal illegal friends and fellow voters, I'm ALL ears.