Republicans plan massive tax code overhaul

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
good! Simplifying the tax code will make it easier to understand
 
jediliz said:
good! Simplifying the tax code will make it easier to understand
Click to expand...
But this doesn’t look very good:

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center says the plan would reduce revenues by $3 trillion over the first decade, with most of the savings going to the highest-income households.
 
M-Dent said:
I’m skeptical a tax reform is done within 2 years.
Click to expand...
There will be a tax reform. That’s pretty typical with a new party coming into the White House. Whether that reform is good for the country or not remains to be seen.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
There will be a tax reform. That’s pretty typical with a new party coming into the White House. Whether that reform is good for the country or not remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
The time frame is what I am skeptical. Certainly there will be tax reform. Yet, the project to dismantle the affordable care act will take years. A tax change that focuses only on large corporations may be done within two years.
 
Thorolfr said:
But this doesn’t look very good:

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center says the plan would reduce revenues by $3 trillion over the first decade, with most of the savings going to the highest-income households.
Click to expand...
Over the next decade, the federal government will spend close to $50 trillion, $3 trillion doesn’t seem unreasonable.

The top 10% of income earners pay 68% of all federal income taxes. It seems obvious that any tax reductions will go disproportionately to the people paying the most taxes.🤷
 
ucfengr said:
The top 10% of income earners pay 68% of all federal income taxes. It seems obvious that any tax reductions will go disproportionately to the people paying the most taxes.🤷
Click to expand...
It is worse than that. The report says:
Tax Policy Center Report:
The plan would cut taxes at every income level in 2017, but high-income taxpayers would receive the biggest cuts, both in dollar terms** and as a percentage of income**. (emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
The “common sense” conclusion you stated above would explain why the reductions in dollar amounts would go disproportionately to the people paying the most taxes. But it does not explain why reductions as a percentage of income should also go to this group. Doing so not only reduces taxes but also reduces the progressive tax structure, making it more like a flat rate tax. Now maybe an argument could be made why a flat tax is preferable to tax brackets. But that argument should at least be made out in the open where everyone can see what is being done, instead of trying to hide this retreat from long-standing policy in a tax cut.
 
I am all for a flat tax without any loopholes…as long as they exclude the first $80,000 in family income.

But to tax all the income of a family of 5 making $30,000 at the same % as those making $200,000 is just wrong.
 
I_trust said:
I am all for a flat tax without any loopholes…as long as they exclude the first $80,000 in family income.

But to tax all the income of a family of 5 making $30,000 at the same % as those making $200,000 is just wrong.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but the reason why so many folks are fine with high taxes is that they don’t have any or much skin in the game.

That point has to at least be considered…especially if those calling for a progressive tax say it’s “patriotic” to pay the “fair share”.

And actually, the 30K with 5 kids scenario is not very common. For one, most Americans are not (unfortunately) having such large families and second, families that are 2-parent households have very low poverty rates comparably.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is worse than that. The report says:

The “common sense” conclusion you stated above would explain why the reductions in dollar amounts would go disproportionately to the people paying the most taxes. But it does not explain why reductions as a percentage of income should also go to this group. Doing so not only reduces taxes but also reduces the progressive tax structure, making it more like a flat rate tax. Now maybe an argument could be made why a flat tax is preferable to tax brackets. But that argument should at least be made out in the open where everyone can see what is being done, instead of trying to hide this retreat from long-standing policy in a tax cut.
Click to expand...
If taxes are lowered, revenue to the government will increase because the tax base will grow from investment in the economy as opposed to the money getting whittled away in an inefficient bureaucracy.
 
SuperLuigi said:
If taxes are lowered, revenue to the government will increase because the tax base will grow from investment in the economy as opposed to the money getting whittled away in an inefficient bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
Lower tax rates mean higher revenues.
It works : see JFK and RWR
 
Thorolfr said:
But this doesn’t look very good:

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center says the plan would reduce revenues by $3 trillion over the first decade, with most of the savings going to the highest-income households.
Click to expand...
That issue could be solved by cutting spending enough to balance the budget and provide revenue to refund the social security trust fund and pay off the debt.
 
JonNC said:
Lower tax rates mean higher revenues.
It works : see JFK and RWR
Click to expand...
It does indeed, but you’ll never convince the liberals of that. They are all for taxing “the rich” and having people pay their fair share (whatever that is, you can never get an answer on that one.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top