What's the big deal with Trump's tax plan?

[nogooddeed]

Limiting the discussion to the plan to have no one earning $25,000 or less pay nothing in taxes.  Isn't that pretty much true already?  I'd be more interested if Trump would say no one would get back more than is withheld during the year.  That practice chaps my butt. Couples each earning up to $25,000 (so $50,000) total would pay no taxes.  Is that dollar amount a big change to current tax policy?

[Deleted]

Well, currently a couple with an AGI of 50K would owe about $3500 in taxes assuming no kids, a single person with AGI 25K would be about $1700. 

[emma1420]

Not much. The majority of people who wouldn't pay income taxes under Trump's already don't pay income taxes under the current system.   For those people earning $150,000 or less not much if anything will change.  Those making over $150,000 will have their tax rate reduced to 25%.  

I am kind of amazed that given the focus that the national debt has had over the last several years, that anyone would suggest increasing it further to provide tax cuts.

[giramomma]

Sept 29, 2015 8:42:57 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

I am kind of amazed that given the focus that the national debt has had over the last several years, that anyone would suggest increasing it further to provide tax cuts.

I'm not.

For the last budget cycle, our state had a two billion dollar deficit. They still cut taxes and gave out tax breaks. Our refund was $400 higher because we send our kids to private school (We're less well off than the target audience of the program.) Our property taxes were cut something like $8.

Our state gov't is also giving large tax breaks to corporations to entice folks to move to our state. Except it's really not working.

And the result is things like our university system getting a 250 million cut and PITA road construction projects being delayed another two years. Oh, but the ailing sports team gets a new arena.

I'd rather pay the extra $8 a year if it meant road construction wouldn't drag out another 2 years and the public actually contributing to public higher education in a meaningful way. (I think the state is now down to contributing 15-17% of the funds for our university system.)

According to my Phil Script, a lump sum investment of $8.00 bearing an annual return of 11% could grow to $183.14 in 30 years! Yes, that amount of money will elevate my financial situation beyond my wildest dreams in my retirement.

[Tiny]

Sept 29, 2015 8:30:15 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Well, currently a couple with an AGI of 50K would owe about $3500 in taxes assuming no kids, a single person with AGI 25K would be about $1700. 

Isn't there some chance that if Trump cuts taxes they will loose their Federal Refund? I would think the masses would scream when that happens...  I suspect they are thinking they'll have more in their paycheck AND still count on that yearly refund check.    I don't think they are aware of the connection between the taxes on their payroll stub AND their refund.

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2015 10:48:42 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Sept 29, 2015 8:30:15 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Well, currently a couple with an AGI of 50K would owe about $3500 in taxes assuming no kids, a single person with AGI 25K would be about $1700. 

Isn't there some chance that if Trump cuts taxes they will loose their Federal Refund? I would think the masses would scream when that happens...  I suspect they are thinking they'll have more in their paycheck AND still count on that yearly refund check.    I don't think they are aware of the connection between the taxes on their payroll stub AND their refund.

No idea.  I was just replying to the comment that 25K and 50K AGI had no tax liability as it is now, and they do. 

[tskeeter]

Sept 29, 2015 8:15:19 GMT -5 nogooddeed said:

Limiting the discussion to the plan to have no one earning $25,000 or less pay nothing in taxes.  Isn't that pretty much true already?  I'd be more interested if Trump would say no one would get back more than is withheld during the year.  That practice chaps my butt. Couples each earning up to $25,000 (so $50,000) total would pay no taxes.  Is that dollar amount a big change to current tax policy?

The thing that scares me about Trump's plan is that about half of the US population would have no skin in the game.  They wouldn't contribute to funding our government, or our society.  Yet, they would have the same say over how money is spent as the people who provide the money.  That might be pretty close to today's reality, but today's reality scares me, too.

I think that everyone should make some contribution to funding our government.  Even if it's only $10 a year.  And even if we have to increase other benefits to provide the $10.  Just the simple act of filing a tax return and paying a small amount of taxes helps people understand that there is no free lunch.  Someone, somewhere is footing the bill.

The risk that people who make no contribution funding our government can use the government and politicians to demand more and more and more from the people who do provide the funding, while doing less and less and less is just too high.  The Soviet block already tried that approach.  And we know how it went for them.  People had very little.  But they made almost no effort to provide for themselves.  Because it was someone else's job to provide for them.  That's not a path that I'd like to see the US go down.  The path the country's founders provided us has worked for nearly 250 years.  The Soviet approach failed in less than 1/3 of that time.

[tskeeter]

Sept 29, 2015 8:42:57 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Not much. The majority of people who wouldn't pay income taxes under Trump's already don't pay income taxes under the current system.   For those people earning $150,000 or less not much if anything will change.  Those making over $150,000 will have their tax rate reduced to 25%.  

I am kind of amazed that given the focus that the national debt has had over the last several years, that anyone would suggest increasing it further to provide tax cuts.

I think the reality is that Trump's plan doesn't really reduce taxes.  When all is said and done, I suspect that it'll cost taxpayers even more than it does today.  Income taxes could be lower.  But you could end up paying all kinds of user fees for things that used to be free.  Aint no free lunch. 

[Deleted]

People pay all kinds of taxes.  They pay some taxes indirectly.  Anyone making $25,000 a year is going to be paying taxes.  People who do not pay federal income tax still pay tax.  I have never understood why so many posters think that the income tax is the only tax that matters. 

[The Captain]

Ummm, maybe because this thread is about Trumps' plan for Federal Income taxes?

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2015 12:56:59 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ummm, maybe because this thread is about Trumps' plan for Federal Income taxes?

The OP said those making less then $25,000 will pay nothing in taxes.  I thought the  OP kind of set the agenda for what the thread was about.

[souldoubt]

I think you're arguing semantics when most people mean income taxes in these discussions.  Federal income taxes have been the biggest revenue source annually for the government for the last 60+ years and some people feel everyone should have skin in that game.  

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2015 13:02:05 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I think you're arguing semantics when most people mean income taxes in these discussions.  Federal income taxes have been the biggest revenue source annually for the government for the last 60+ years and some people feel everyone should have skin in that game.  

Some guy making minimum wage pays ~7% in social security and medicare directly and the same indirectly through the portion the employer pays.  So some guy on minimum wages pays ~15% of his earnings to the government.  15% of income is a lot of money to someone poor.  I do not think it is accurate to say some people will pay no taxes when they in fact do pay a lot of tax. 

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2015 13:07:41 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Sept 29, 2015 13:02:05 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I think you're arguing semantics when most people mean income taxes in these discussions.  Federal income taxes have been the biggest revenue source annually for the government for the last 60+ years and some people feel everyone should have skin in that game.  

Some guy making minimum wage pays ~7% in social security and medicare directly and the same indirectly through the portion the employer pays.  So some guy on minimum wages pays ~15% of his earnings to the government.  15% of income is a lot of money to someone poor.  I do not think it is accurate to say some people will pay no taxes when they in fact do pay a lot of tax. 

If you want to get real nitpicky.  The EIC can wipe out that 7% and then some for a lot of low income workers.

[souldoubt]

Again you're arguing semantics.  Everyone pays taxes but not everyone pays federal income taxes which are the largest revenue source for the US government.  Also I don't consider what my employer pays on my behalf for FICA as something I pay because that's a cost of doing business and they get to expense it.  Regardless if you want to add that or not it doesn't change the fact that some people don't pay federal income taxes.  Also as MPL mentioned individuals who qualified for EIC end up with money back and have a negative federal income tax rate so even taking into account FICA their effective tax rate between federal/state/FICA may be 0 or even negative.   

[Deleted]

Everyone pays taxes but not everyone pays federal income taxes

That is all I was saying.

[emma1420]

Sept 29, 2015 12:49:46 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Sept 29, 2015 8:42:57 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Not much. The majority of people who wouldn't pay income taxes under Trump's already don't pay income taxes under the current system.   For those people earning $150,000 or less not much if anything will change.  Those making over $150,000 will have their tax rate reduced to 25%.  

I am kind of amazed that given the focus that the national debt has had over the last several years, that anyone would suggest increasing it further to provide tax cuts.

I think the reality is that Trump's plan doesn't really reduce taxes.  When all is said and done, I suspect that it'll cost taxpayers even more than it does today.  Income taxes could be lower.  But you could end up paying all kinds of user fees for things that used to be free.  Aint no free lunch. 

It reduces them pretty significant for people making more than $150K.  It reduces the tax rate from 28% to 25% for anyone making between 150-190K, reduces it from 33% to 25% for anyone making between $190K and $411K, and reduces it from 39.6% for anyone making more than 414K.

[Tiny]

Sept 29, 2015 13:07:41 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Sept 29, 2015 13:02:05 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I think you're arguing semantics when most people mean income taxes in these discussions.  Federal income taxes have been the biggest revenue source annually for the government for the last 60+ years and some people feel everyone should have skin in that game.  

Some guy making minimum wage pays ~7% in social security and medicare directly and the same indirectly through the portion the employer pays.  So some guy on minimum wages pays ~15% of his earnings to the government.  15% of income is a lot of money to someone poor.  I do not think it is accurate to say some people will pay no taxes when they in fact do pay a lot of tax. 

But what do they get back as a 'refund' when they do their taxes?

I keep hearing that the 'average' person gets 2500 back as a refund.

I heard from my brother (who's prone to some exaggeration) that his just entering the workforce son earned just under 25K and got a 1K refund from Uncle Sam...   If his federal payroll taxes were approximately $1700 then he paid  approximately 3% in taxes - even though he paid 7% up front via payroll taxes.

The thing is there's a lot of "payroll deductions" -  the Federal income tax is just a part of it.

I think people just assume since the word tax is singular that there's just one tax that's taking up a big chunk of their paycheck... but it's not like that there's lots of little bites being taken.

I'm not sure eliminating the federal income tax for lower incomes is the panacea it's being made out to be.

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2015 14:01:14 GMT -5 Tiny said:

But what do they get back as a 'refund' when they do their taxes?

I keep hearing that the 'average' person gets 2500 back as a refund.

I heard from my brother (who's prone to some exaggeration) that his just entering the workforce son earned just under 25K and got a 1K refund from Uncle Sam...   If his federal payroll taxes were approximately $1700 then he paid  approximately 3% in taxes - even though he paid 7% up front via payroll taxes.

What you get back doesn't really say anything as to what you paid, lots of people over withhold.  

[tskeeter]

Sept 29, 2015 13:25:25 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Sept 29, 2015 12:49:46 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

I think the reality is that Trump's plan doesn't really reduce taxes.  When all is said and done, I suspect that it'll cost taxpayers even more than it does today.  Income taxes could be lower.  But you could end up paying all kinds of user fees for things that used to be free.  Aint no free lunch. 

It reduces them pretty significant for people making more than $150K.  It reduces the tax rate from 28% to 25% for anyone making between 150-190K, reduces it from 33% to 25% for anyone making between $190K and $411K, and reduces it from 39.6% for anyone making more than 414K.

What Trump's proposal says, and the real impact that it will have are two different things.  We're in the $150k - $190K range and to pay 25% in federal income taxes would be a fairly substantial increase.  Today, with mortgage interest deductions, reductions for 401K contributions, and tax free employer medical care contributions, our effective tax rate is less than 20%.  Depending on how many deductions and credits the Trump plan would eliminate, we'd have a good probability of getting a 67% increase in our effective tax rate.

Now, what I think Trump is doing is throwing around some pleasant sounding words.  With the full knowledge that Congress would never do everything that he's talking about.  Some changes, maybe.  Partial measures, probably.  But, when upper middle class folk's accountants start telling them that Trump's proposals are going to increase their federal income taxes by 50% or more, they're going to pick up the phone and start screaming at their Congressman not to let that happen. 

[billisonboard]

Sept 29, 2015 14:01:14 GMT -5 Tiny said:

... earned just under 25K and got a 1K refund from Uncle Sam...   If his federal payroll taxes were approximately $1700 then he paid  approximately 3% in taxes - even though he paid 7% up front via payroll taxes.

FWIW: the 7% (actually 7.65%) is Social Security and Medicare, none of which is refunded. The $1K would have been from whatever Federal Income Tax was withheld. There is no indication of how much was withheld so no way of knowing how much income tax was paid.

[Bonny]

LOL BOTH the left and right are agreeing that it doesn't make any sense.

us.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/donald-trump-tax-cost/index.html

FWIW I think he's an idiot. I don't know how Scott Pelly kept from laughing out loud when he interviewed him on 60 minutes.

DH and I are both concerned that there are even more idiots who will vote for him. I'm just praying that he implodes soon.

[Bonny]

Sept 29, 2015 13:15:36 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

Again you're arguing semantics.  Everyone pays taxes but not everyone pays federal income taxes which are the largest revenue source for the US government.  Also I don't consider what my employer pays on my behalf for FICA as something I pay because that's a cost of doing business and they get to expense it.  Regardless if you want to add that or not it doesn't change the fact that some people don't pay federal income taxes.  Also as MPL mentioned individuals who qualified for EIC end up with money back and have a negative federal income tax rate so even taking into account FICA their effective tax rate between federal/state/FICA may be 0 or even negative.   

You should. If you ever become self-employed you'll notice it.

[bobosensei]

Sept 29, 2015 18:40:17 GMT -5 Bonny said:

LOL BOTH the left and right are agreeing that it doesn't make any sense.

us.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/donald-trump-tax-cost/index.html

FWIW I think he's an idiot. I don't know how Scott Pelly kept from laughing out loud when he interviewed him on 60 minutes.

DH and I are both concerned that there are even more idiots who will vote for him. I'm just praying that he implodes soon.

And I still wonder what his real agenda is.  I have a pretty good guess that he's only interested in running for office to help his own business.  Now I have no idea how he'd do that- whether it is to use his status as president to help coerce foreign partners into doing favorable things or whether it is to put laws (or loopholes) in place that will benefit his financial interests.  Whatever it is I know it isn't because he is just some good samaritan.  He's already admitted to being just as shady as a politician the only difference was he used money to get his way instead of empty promises.  Why people think he would be any different than the establishment is beyond me.  The difference is the establishment does things to benefit their re-electability while Trump is going to do things to benefit his wallet.  He would be no better than Bush or Clinton.

[giramomma]

Sept 30, 2015 1:17:00 GMT -5 bobosensei said:

And I still wonder what his real agenda is.  I have a pretty good guess that he's only interested in running for office to help his own business.  Now I have no idea how he'd do that- whether it is to use his status as president to help coerce foreign partners into doing favorable things or whether it is to put laws (or loopholes) in place that will benefit his financial interests.  Whatever it is I know it isn't because he is just some good samaritan.  He's already admitted to being just as shady as a politician the only difference was he used money to get his way instead of empty promises.  Why people think he would be any different than the establishment is beyond me.  The difference is the establishment does things to benefit their re-electability while Trump is going to do things to benefit his wallet.  He would be no better than Bush or Clinton.

I'd assume at this point, that all politicians are self-serving. I can't really even think of anyone running for a position because they think they can actually make some positive changes.

[NoNamePerson]

Sept 30, 2015 8:23:23 GMT -5 giramomma said:

Sept 30, 2015 1:17:00 GMT -5 bobosensei said:

And I still wonder what his real agenda is.  I have a pretty good guess that he's only interested in running for office to help his own business.  Now I have no idea how he'd do that- whether it is to use his status as president to help coerce foreign partners into doing favorable things or whether it is to put laws (or loopholes) in place that will benefit his financial interests.  Whatever it is I know it isn't because he is just some good samaritan.  He's already admitted to being just as shady as a politician the only difference was he used money to get his way instead of empty promises.  Why people think he would be any different than the establishment is beyond me.  The difference is the establishment does things to benefit their re-electability while Trump is going to do things to benefit his wallet.  He would be no better than Bush or Clinton.

I'd assume at this point, that all politicians are self-serving. I can't really even think of anyone running for a position because they think they can actually make some positive changes.

And to get the great retirement/pension. Heck, I've thought about running just for the retirement plan.    Wish I had thought of it when I was much younger!!!

[Bonny]

Sept 30, 2015 1:17:00 GMT -5 bobosensei said:

Sept 29, 2015 18:40:17 GMT -5 Bonny said:

LOL BOTH the left and right are agreeing that it doesn't make any sense.

us.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/donald-trump-tax-cost/index.html

FWIW I think he's an idiot. I don't know how Scott Pelly kept from laughing out loud when he interviewed him on 60 minutes.

DH and I are both concerned that there are even more idiots who will vote for him. I'm just praying that he implodes soon.

And I still wonder what his real agenda is.  I have a pretty good guess that he's only interested in running for office to help his own business.  Now I have no idea how he'd do that- whether it is to use his status as president to help coerce foreign partners into doing favorable things or whether it is to put laws (or loopholes) in place that will benefit his financial interests.  Whatever it is I know it isn't because he is just some good samaritan.  He's already admitted to being just as shady as a politician the only difference was he used money to get his way instead of empty promises.  Why people think he would be any different than the establishment is beyond me.  The difference is the establishment does things to benefit their re-electability while Trump is going to do things to benefit his wallet.  He would be no better than Bush or Clinton.

I think he has an enormous ego (Did you see the 60 minutes piece and the cut to all of the magazine covers?) and is convinced that the US can be run like a giant business. I've seen this with folks who only have private sector experience. The government CAN'T be run like a business; it's more complicated than that with multiple stake holders.

You need a thoughtful intelligent person who represents our country well and who has the wisdom to hire smart experts (including people smarter than the President), who work together well as a team. He's too much of an egomaniac and he can't just fire anyone who doesn't agree with him.

[souldoubt]

Sept 29, 2015 18:42:09 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Sept 29, 2015 13:15:36 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

Again you're arguing semantics.  Everyone pays taxes but not everyone pays federal income taxes which are the largest revenue source for the US government.  Also I don't consider what my employer pays on my behalf for FICA as something I pay because that's a cost of doing business and they get to expense it.  Regardless if you want to add that or not it doesn't change the fact that some people don't pay federal income taxes.  Also as MPL mentioned individuals who qualified for EIC end up with money back and have a negative federal income tax rate so even taking into account FICA their effective tax rate between federal/state/FICA may be 0 or even negative.   

You should. If you ever become self-employed you'll notice it.

If I were self employed I'd be deducting half of it on my tax return just like an employer.  Also if I were self employed I'd be charging a higher hourly rate to cover some of the costs of being self employed.  

[OldCoyote]

Sept 30, 2015 9:42:37 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

Sept 29, 2015 18:42:09 GMT -5 Bonny said:

You should. If you ever become self-employed you'll notice it.

If I were self employed I'd be deducting half of it on my tax return just like an employer.  Also if I were self employed I'd be charging a higher hourly rate to cover some of the costs of being self employed.  

souldoubt, have you ever been self employed?  If you have not the is a very steep learning curve.

[tskeeter]

Sept 29, 2015 12:54:20 GMT -5 @hickle said:

People pay all kinds of taxes.  They pay some taxes indirectly.  Anyone making $25,000 a year is going to be paying taxes.  People who do not pay federal income tax still pay tax.  I have never understood why so many posters think that the income tax is the only tax that matters. 

It's not a questions of what matters and what does not.  It's a question of what matters most.  And when it comes to taxes, for the folks who post here, what matters most is federal income taxes.  Not sales taxes.  Not property taxes.  Not state income taxes.  Not even FICA.

Federal income taxes matter the most for two reasons.  First, it is most people's largest tax burden.  For us, about $25K a year.  FICA runs about $10K.  Property taxes, a little less than $5K.  And sales taxes about $4,500.  No state income tax.  As you can see, federal income taxes is more than 50% of our total tax burden.  For many people, the federal portion of their tax burden is much higher than it is for us.

The second reason that federal taxes matter so much is that it is the tax where most people feel that they get the poorest return for their contribution, where people feel that significant portions of the tax revenue is not spent appropriately.  And when they watch that bunch of dinglefritzes in Washington, people dont get a warm fuzzy feeling about the stewardship that Washington is providing over the taxpayer's contributions.