Jump to content


Trump Domestic Policy - Budgets, etc


Recommended Posts

I don't know if that works. Generally speaking I'm not for punishing people for the sake of helping out corporations. Now, perhaps if the highest-paid people were the ones to take a hit...but at that point, isn't it a lot muddier? These are people whose net worth comes from their stake in the company, etc, not from salary. Meanwhile, suppose you do put the screws to them, flushing corporations with more wealth (or security). Doesn't that not trickle down to the next levels of employees who need it? Don't these burgeoning margins inevitably get seen as benefits primarily by the top execs, etc, anyway?

 

I don't think there's a real way "around" it. At least, I think this summarizes the argument against on this topic. I'm a bit ignorant in this area, so pardon that and correct me where I'm wrong, too.

Link to comment

1. End all corporate loopholes.

 

2. Pay 22.5% taxes for all net income  in business incentivizing money be spent on talent retention, wages, property, etc.

 

3. All personal income is taxed without regard to source with only the regular exemption, personal tax credit, child credit, and savings credit.

 

4.?

 

5. Profit!

Link to comment
14 hours ago, deedsker said:

1. End all corporate loopholes.

 

2. Pay 22.5% taxes for all net income  in business incentivizing money be spent on talent retention, wages, property, etc.

 

3. All personal income is taxed without regard to source with only the regular exemption, personal tax credit, child credit, and savings credit.

 

4.?

 

5. Profit!

Are investments (for example) income?

Link to comment

On 9/12/2017 at 0:16 PM, zoogs said:

On budget-cutting, etc:

 

 

Fair point. Put the budget-cutting mantra in perspective. It's not about outlandish and leftist, it's about red meat. What are the right kinds and amounts of it to dangle out there so that, supported by your voting base, you can achieve the top percentile wealth security that has always been the honest primary aim.

I use to think NPR and Public TV should be on the cutting board but I don't anymore.  I feel they give more stories, more variety, and are less prone to camp in or on one topic as the cable news networks.  One could argue that they may lean more left but if you are a more right leaner, you should be smart enough to figure it out and hopefully be 'enlightened' with another perspective.  Hearing  a different perspective is good - doesn't mean you have to be tossed around by every perspective but it helps with understanding which is important.  I've enjoyed listening to NPR on my commute and sometimes I end up shifting my ideas on a topic due to the new understanding. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, zoogs said:

Are investments (for example) income?

 

Yes. All income is income* with no need to know where it came from. 

 

This increase available income toward SS* and Medicare*, eliminates loopholes where individuals with large investment income have lower marginal rates than working class people, and greatly reduces workload on enforcement and paperwork related to sourcing income.

 

*SS and Medicare recipients may have their income counted differently depending on what these changes would do to those individuals and how their benefits would be effected.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, QMany said:

Before advocating for slashing corporate tax rates, I implore you to read up on Brownback's experiment here in Kansas. This was a Heritage Foundation/Koch family wet dream that has failed miserably for 99.9% of the state.

That would be needed if a)  I didn't already know what a miserable experiment that was....and b)  I wasn't proposing increasing other taxes to pay for the cut.

 

I am NOT for cutting corporate taxes and leaving everything else the same....or....God forbid cutting everything else too.

Link to comment

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

That would be needed if a)  I didn't already know what a miserable experiment that was....and b)  I wasn't proposing increasing other taxes to pay for the cut.

 

I saw your post about raising the rate on higher incomes in the corporation. That does seem great in theory. But this is Donald Trump and a GOP House & Senate we are talking about; they will attempt to cut the corporate rate and vehemently refuse to increase taxes on their high-income pocket-liners. Those will not be tied together under this Administration, no matter how many lies Trump tells.

 

I just want others to be educated what happens when that experiment is implemented without other ways to pay for it.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, zoogs said:

@deedsker, if I own 10% stock in a company for example, when and how is that taxed? To whom does the taxed portion go, and in what form? Maybe I'm not understanding correctly.

I'm not deedsker, but IMO would be the same as now with the capital gains tax except it would be at the income tax rate. So you'd pay when you sold the stock, and the amount you'd pay on would be the profit (sell price - buy price) times the marginal tax rate for that part of your income.

 

EDIT: So if you sold the stock at a loss or no profit, you wouldn't owe any tax.

Edited by RedDenver
clarifying
Link to comment
4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I'm not deedsker, but IMO would be the same as now with the capital gains tax except it would be at the income tax rate. So you'd pay when you sold the stock, and the amount you'd pay on would be the profit (sell price - buy price) times the marginal tax rate for that part of your income.

 

EDIT: So if you sold the stock at a loss or no profit, you wouldn't owe any tax.

Beat me to it. Thanks RD.

 

You could/would be liable for SS or Medicare taxes in my new method as well. 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...