I'm Gonna Pay More Taxes--Thanks, Trump!

[Peter Parker]

According to this infographic, I will be paying more taxes as a "middle income earner" under the Trump tax plan.  I will be going from a 28% tax bracket to a 33% tax bracket.  At the same time, those making twice as much as me, will see a decrease.  Unfortunately, I can't earn more so I can pay less....

I was trying to find a silver lining to a Trump presidency.  Instead, the lining is lead paint.

How do you fair?


https://howmuch.net

[hoping2retire35]

So, I take it that you are making 112,500 or more and complaining? or your spouse and you together are making over $225k?

[Peter Parker]

So, I take it that you are making 112,500 or more and complaining? or your spouse and you together are making over $225k?

Not complaining.  Stating a fact.

Me, and those who are MFJ making less than $18,550, will pay more under Trump's plan.  Those MFJ making $413,350 to one bazillion dollars will see a decrease.

 I was under the impression Trump was going to lower taxes--and he is.  Just not for people like me and the poor.  We get to help pick up the tab.

Hopefully you fare better than me.

[tomsang]

I should save $135,000 or so.  The poor and middle class will really get the shaft if his tax plan goes into effect by minimally affecting their taxes or increasing them, while decreasing the expenditures that they use.  If the tax revenues drop by a significant amount to fund the windfall wanted by the 1%, the GOP will want to balance the budget by saying that they can not afford the programs that the poor and middle class use.  Social Security will need to be less lucrative, Medicare will be decreased, funding for education, infrastructure, health care will not have the funds and therefore will be cut.  Those that keep companies honest will be gutted, allowing the 1% to pollute our environment, take resources that they should not be taking, and put employees and customers at risk.  The elimination of the estate tax will allow dynasties to grow and consolidate the wealth to the top 50 families in the US.  Crazy, that the poor and uneducated voted to shoot themselves in the head, but it is great for my tax and financial situation.  I don't think it would be fair, but it is the will of the people so I will take it.     

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

anyone sit down and figured out how this will impact a post FIRE plan where you are earning ~$30k per year?

[Yankuba]

Peter Parker - remember how taxes work. If you move from the 28% bracket to the 33% bracket you don't pay 33% on all your income. You only pay 33% on your income above the peak of the bracket below. So under Trump you will pay 33% on your income from $225k and above.

Under the old system you were paying 28% on income between $152k and $231k but under the new system you will pay only 25% on income between $152k and $225k.

So you will be paying 5% more on your income from $225k to $232k but you will be paying 3% less on your income between $152k and $225k. Everything above $232k is a cut under Trump. Overall, you're going to be paying less!

[dandarc]

anyone sit down and figured out how this will impact a post FIRE plan where you are earning ~$30k per year?

30K income.  No state tax.  No dependents.  No itemized deductions

MFJ - Current - 30K less 20700 standard deduction + 2 exemptions = $9,300 taxable income * 10% = $930 federal income tax
MFJ - Trump - 30K less 30000 standard deduction = 0 taxable income = $0 tax

Single - current - 30K less 10350 standard deduction + 1 exemption = $19650 taxable income (9275 @10%, 10375 @15%)  = $2,483.75 tax
Single - trump - 30K less 15000 standard deduction = $15000 taxable income * 12% = $1800 tax

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

MFJ - Current - 30K less 20700 standard deduction + 2 exemptions = $9,300 taxable income * 10% = $930 federal income tax
MFJ - Trump - 30K less 30000 standard deduction = 0 taxable income = $0 tax

Thanks DD!

[dandarc]

The chart ignoring the expansion of the 0% bracket is the big problem.  But, by eliminating exemptions, your household composition matters too - back of the napkin tells me more than 2 kids is going to get dinged unless some other changes are made to offset this.  HOH elimination is potentially going to hurt certain people as well.

But all of this is in the abstract - who knows if the taxes will change or exactly how they will once they actually put together a bill?

[dandarc]

This is a misleading chart - the line at the bottom gives it away.

The graph does not take into account other aspects of the Trump tax plan not directly related to the changes to income tax bands, such as the increase of standard deductions and a cap on itemized deductions, although of course these would also have an impact on net incomes.

So for MFJ with no dependents, standard deduction, you've got $9300 more of 0% space compared to current tax setup - that changes the math on everything above it in the chart.  Pretty confident that alone makes it less taxes for everyone in that particular situation.

Basically, they deliberately exclude some critical things to elicit OP's reaction, even though OP will likely save on taxes under the trump tax plan.  We'd have to know OP's full tax situation to know for sure, of course.

[fattest_foot]

Congress is in charge of taxes.

Once again I'll repeat that.

Congress is in charge of taxes.

Presidential candidate tax plans are a red herring and are almost entirely irrelevant. It's obnoxious to say you're going to pay more in taxes when nothing has even been proposed. The man isn't even President yet.

[moof]

No telling what his plans actually are, let alone what they will look like after the congressional/lobbyist blender.  Everything changes depending who the target crowd is, and whether he is currently trying to distract from something truly awful he has grabbed, dodged, lied about, or caused international crisis over.

My taxes are too low.  I want folks like me to pay more and for our school to be well run and our roads in good repair.  I'd like my military shrunk, a lot.

As they say:  Wish in one hand a crap in the other.  See which hand fills up first.

[OurTown]

It looks like we (MFJ) will go down from 28 to 25 top marginal rate, and we won't itemize.  We should save a few bucks.  The world will go straight to hell, but we will still save a few bucks. 

[FiguringItOut]

For my income level for single person there should be minimal impact.
However, right now I am filing HOH which is much better than filing Single.  And I will lose that benefit, so overall, my taxes will increase. 
Not happy

[human]

You must have posted the wrong link because those tax brackets (28 and 33% that is) don't show middle income earners . .

[Peter Parker]

Peter Parker - remember how taxes work. If you move from the 28% bracket to the 33% bracket you don't pay 33% on all your income. You only pay 33% on your income above the peak of the bracket below. So under Trump you will pay 33% on your income from $225k and above.

Under the old system you were paying 28% on income between $152k and $231k but under the new system you will pay only 25% on income between $152k and $225k.

So you will be paying 5% more on your income from $225k to $232k but you will be paying 3% less on your income between $152k and $225k. Everything above $232k is a cut under Trump. Overall, you're going to be paying less!

I like the way you think.  I hope you are right.  I suppose I will also pay a slightly higher amount on the money up to $18,500.???

[Peter Parker]

Congress is in charge of taxes.

Once again I'll repeat that.

Congress is in charge of taxes.

Presidential candidate tax plans are a red herring and are almost entirely irrelevant. It's obnoxious to say you're going to pay more in taxes when nothing has even been proposed. The man isn't even President yet.

I think we all know the three branches of government.  But all three branches are under the control of the same party now.  I hope the other branches of government will not rubber-stamp all of Trumps plans.  But we have all seen, and you can ask 15 other republicans, what happens when you cross Trump.   Trump may be able to do as he pleases.  I always like it when one party does not control all three branches to help curb any crazy ideas.....

[Peter Parker]

I was more concerned with the increase in income that falls under SS taxes this coming year...from 118,500 in 2016 to 127,000 in 2017.

Never understood why Social Security tax was capped at certain income levels.  If we had a flat Social Security tax, regardless of income level, we could go a long way to shore up Social Security and reduce the tax on the majority of people.

[Gunny]

The issue with SS isn't the income cap to which one pays taxes, it's that congress keeps syphering off SS money to pay for other spending without repaying SS. 

[intellectsucks]

Congress is in charge of taxes.

Once again I'll repeat that.

Congress is in charge of taxes.

Presidential candidate tax plans are a red herring and are almost entirely irrelevant. It's obnoxious to say you're going to pay more in taxes when nothing has even been proposed. The man isn't even President yet.

Threads like this aren't created to have a serious discussion, they're thinly veiled political rants.  You'll find a hundred or so similar threads about Obamacare.

[Sisyphus]

I'm in the 28% marginal bracket now like the OP but instead of going to 33%, I plan to adjust my withholdings to drop down to 25% so I think I'll pay less taxes, but who knows what the final tax changes are going to be. 

[Davids]

Yeah but if this Trump rally sustains then your NW increase should more than offset any tax increase.

[gimp]

At least the dems promise me shit before they take my money. I'll be paying more taxes if donnie gets his way, with jack shit to show for it.

[Can't Wait]

I should save $135,000 or so.  The poor and middle class will really get the shaft if his tax plan goes into effect by minimally affecting their taxes or increasing them, while decreasing the expenditures that they use.  If the tax revenues drop by a significant amount to fund the windfall wanted by the 1%, the GOP will want to balance the budget by saying that they can not afford the programs that the poor and middle class use.  Social Security will need to be less lucrative, Medicare will be decreased, funding for education, infrastructure, health care will not have the funds and therefore will be cut.  Those that keep companies honest will be gutted, allowing the 1% to pollute our environment, take resources that they should not be taking, and put employees and customers at risk.  The elimination of the estate tax will allow dynasties to grow and consolidate the wealth to the top 50 families in the US.  Crazy, that the poor and uneducated voted to shoot themselves in the head, but it is great for my tax and financial situation.  I don't think it would be fair, but it is the will of the people so I will take it.   

That's why I think people should have to pass a basic intelligence test to vote. Or prove that they have some knowledge of how the govt works.

[cincystache]

Are you maxing out 401k, IRA, and HSA contributions? Do you have charitable causes you are passionate about that you could give money towards in an amount that will lower your marginal tax rate while supporting something you believe in rather than the gov?

If you start a small business won't you pay 15% instead? Could you talk to your employer about being an independent contractor and structuring your income so it is business income instead?

Also, use it to motivate you towards FI faster so you can lower your taxable income by using dividends and cap gains instead of earned income to fund your lifestyle.

Look on the bright side. Trump, or any single politician, has limited impact on your personal situation (Thankfully!)

good luck

[Peter Parker]

The issue with SS isn't the income cap to which one pays taxes, it's that congress keeps syphering off SS money to pay for other spending without repaying SS.

Well you may want to take a look at some of the plans that are being proposed with funding/saving Social Security.... https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gop-introduces-plan-to-massively-cut-social-security-222200857.html

[aspiringnomad]

Yeah but if this Trump rally sustains then your NW increase should more than offset any tax increase.

Since we're in a post-fact, truthiness world anyway, I prefer to call it the Obama eight years of steady governance dividend rally.

[marty998]

If you start a small business won't you pay 15% instead? Could you talk to your employer about being an independent contractor and structuring your income so it is business income instead?

This is exactly what Trump and his ilk want. For everyone to give up their employee protections and have to sue through the courts where the biggest pockets win every dispute.

[Mr. Green]

Political plans are garbage until they happen because they change on a dime. I'll believe it when it passes. Until then its not worth wasting brain power on.

[GetItRight]

Everything I've read, and from a quick google search this calculator (http://www.clark.com/tax-calculator-clinton-trump) indicate a savings across the board for everyone if Trump can get his plan passed.

I still think if there's going to a federal tax it should just be the entire federal budget for the year divided by either working age adults or the entire population, everyone pays their fair share.

[MilesTeg]

Everything I've read, and from a quick google search this calculator (http://www.clark.com/tax-calculator-clinton-trump) indicate a savings across the board for everyone if Trump can get his plan passed.

I still think if there's going to a federal tax it should just be the entire federal budget for the year divided by either working age adults or the entire population, everyone pays their fair share.

You want to tax everyone ~$25k a year (3.7 trillion/150 million), even those who make less than that? What about those who could never hope to pay that much? Debt slavery? Flat taxes (what you propose) are simply not workable.

Put another way, how is it "fair share" to make some people pay nearly all (or more than) their income while others pay only pocket change?

[crentist]

Check out who actually contributes income tax dollars.  Almost 46% of people pay no income tax.  The top 20% pay for 86.8%.  The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes.

The top 1% pay for the bottom half of the population! 

These people complaining of there tax bill possibly going up $500 are driving me nuts.

[GetItRight]

Everything I've read, and from a quick google search this calculator (http://www.clark.com/tax-calculator-clinton-trump) indicate a savings across the board for everyone if Trump can get his plan passed.

I still think if there's going to a federal tax it should just be the entire federal budget for the year divided by either working age adults or the entire population, everyone pays their fair share.

You want to tax everyone ~$25k a year (3.7 trillion/150 million), even those who make less than that?

Absolutely not, there should be no federal income tax at all. I am opposed to all forms of slavery. Compulsory income tax in slavery at a certain percen, but slavery nonetheless.

What about those who could never hope to pay that much? Debt slavery?

There are any number of ways to account for that, perhaps a running tab. Either way, it would be a truly fair tax if you accept the premise that income tax is just and like many here believe that it is a good and virtuous thing. Regardless, the current federal government spending plan is debt slavery for the unborn via high debt, borrowed money, and inflationary monetary policy. The masses seem to want lots of free stuff now and to let the unborn pay for it. Won't somebody think of the children?

Flat taxes (what you propose) are simply not workable.

Put another way, how is it "fair share" to make some people pay nearly all (or more than) their income while others pay only pocket change?

That's teh cost of living in the "land of opporunity" as some here say, there is opportunity so if some can't pay their fair share they need to take advantage of some of that opportunity. It would resolve itself within 1-4 years as the masses would not vote for people that give them "free stuff" paid for with money stolen from others, debt, or printing money. A balanced federal budget would come very quickly.

[MilesTeg]

Absolutely not, there should be no federal income tax at all. I am opposed to all forms of slavery. Compulsory income tax in slavery at a certain percen, but slavery nonetheless.

Randian nonsense. Building a stable society requires resources, and those resources have to come from the productivity of the people in that society.

There are any number of ways to account for that, perhaps a running tab.

Ahhh, a running tab of entirely unpayable tax! What a great "solution". Let me guess, the next step is generational debt and/or prison?

Either way, it would be a truly fair tax if you accept the premise that income tax is just and like many here believe that it is a good and virtuous thing.

Let's keep the straw men out of this, shall we?

Regardless, the current federal government spending plan is debt slavery for the unborn via high debt, borrowed money, and inflationary monetary policy. The masses seem to want lots of free stuff now and to let the unborn pay for it. Won't somebody think of the children?

Red herring. No matter how the budget is or is not done, some amount of tax must be applied.

That's teh cost of living in the "land of opporunity" as some here say, there is opportunity so if some can't pay their fair share they need to take advantage of some of that opportunity. It would resolve itself within 1-4 years as the masses would not vote for people that give them "free stuff" paid for with money stolen from others, debt, or printing money. A balanced federal budget would come very quickly.

What you are describing is how feudal societies operated. Flat taxes, generational debt, and debt prisons/debt slavery.

[GetItRight]

That's teh cost of living in the "land of opporunity" as some here say, there is opportunity so if some can't pay their fair share they need to take advantage of some of that opportunity. It would resolve itself within 1-4 years as the masses would not vote for people that give them "free stuff" paid for with money stolen from others, debt, or printing money. A balanced federal budget would come very quickly.

What you are describing is how feudal societies operated. Flat taxes, generational debt, and debt prisons/debt slavery.

I didn't realize feudal societies were a democracy in which the masses could vote for politicians and policies. Either way, you don't seem to understand debt and inflation. These are mutigenerational debt which enslaves the unborn. That is the current system in America.

[Indexer]

Old system VS new. Lets use the top of the current MFJ 28% bracket, 230k of taxable income.

Current:
18550 X 10%  = 1855
75300-18550 X 15% = 8512.5
151900-75300 X 25% = 19150
230000-151900 X 28% = 21868
Total: 51385.5

Trump:
75000 X 12% = 9000
225000-75000 X 25% = 37500
230000-225000 X 33% =  1650
Total: 48150

It saves you money.
To be clear, only the tiniest amount of income is being taxed at 33 instead of the 28 but a lot of income is now taxed at 25 instead of 28.

I think the only people who will see their taxes go up will be the people who had most of their income taxed at 10%, and now it will be 12%.

[MilesTeg]

That's teh cost of living in the "land of opporunity" as some here say, there is opportunity so if some can't pay their fair share they need to take advantage of some of that opportunity. It would resolve itself within 1-4 years as the masses would not vote for people that give them "free stuff" paid for with money stolen from others, debt, or printing money. A balanced federal budget would come very quickly.

What you are describing is how feudal societies operated. Flat taxes, generational debt, and debt prisons/debt slavery.

I didn't realize feudal societies were a democracy in which the masses could vote for politicians and policies. Either way, you don't seem to understand debt and inflation. These are mutigenerational debt which enslaves the unborn. That is the current system in America.

Ahh yes, now a sloppy attempt to pivot away from the issue of flat taxes to more silly Randian nonsense. The issue of government debt has no bearing on the ethics or practicality of a flat tax and the implications I have pointed out, such as being assessed more tax than you could ever possibly pay.

[tomsang]

Old system VS new. Lets use the top of the current MFJ 28% bracket, 230k of taxable income.

Current:
18550 X 10%  = 1855
75300-18550 X 15% = 8512.5
151900-75300 X 25% = 19150
230000-151900 X 28% = 21868
Total: 51385.5

Trump:
75000 X 12% = 9000
225000-75000 X 25% = 37500
230000-225000 X 33% =  1650
Total: 48150

It saves you money.
To be clear, only the tiniest amount of income is being taxed at 33 instead of the 28 but a lot of income is now taxed at 25 instead of 28.

I think the only people who will see their taxes go up will be the people who had most of their income taxed at 10%, and now it will be 12%.

The major problem is not that people's taxes will go up, it is that they will go down significantly for the wealthiest in this country.  You do realize that the US currently creates yearly deficits, right?  And that the top 1% pay a significant portion of the taxes.  You do realize if you cut the 1%ers tax bill by half or more, that the deficit will increase significantly.  You do realize, that when they come back and say that certain programs are not sustainable and that we need to balance the budget, that they will be cutting the programs that are used by the poor and middle class, right?  The wealthy do not need Social Security, they don't need Medicare, they don't need public schools, they don't need libraries, they don't need universal healthcare, they don't need agencies to protect them from corporations polluting their water, air, land, environment, rights, they don't need this stuff because they can pay for it all with the tax savings.

I have been to Mexico and other third world countries.  The pollution and incredible poverty next to palaces is sickening.  They wealthy have their own private armies to protect their wealth.  This is not the direction that we want to go.  Fortunately, I am in the 1% with income and assets.  I just think it is incredibly unfair that those ignorant to the ramifications were voting against their best wishes, because one man was able to lie and con his way to the presidency. The fact that the GOP pushing policies that hurt the poor and middle class won the House and Senate is going to be challenging.  That Trump is putting together a cabinet of the worst offenders to dismantle the progress that we have made over the past 100 years.  Hopefully, some GOPers will join the democrats in stopping the worst picks, but it is not looking good.  If Trump pushes through his Tax bill, which is supported by Ryan and the GOP, then you will see programs slashed in the near future.  We will be going back to trickle down economics which directly magnified income and wealth inequality in the past two decades.  Crazy times ahead.     

[mr_orange]

For those complaining about taxes that are in the top 1% in this thread why not just mail ALL your money in to the government?  I'm sure they're likely to cash the check.

If the rules are unfair and you think the government is doing a great job with the money why not send all your income in to balance the scales?  This is meant to be a serious request. 

----------------------

The tax system in this country is completely screwed up.  Anything that can be done to encourage companies to keep work here would be a good start.  A tax system that doesn't encourage work to be done abroad would be a good start.  I don't think this will fix all our problems, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. 

[Indexer]

Old system VS new. Lets use the top of the current MFJ 28% bracket, 230k of taxable income.

Current:
18550 X 10%  = 1855
75300-18550 X 15% = 8512.5
151900-75300 X 25% = 19150
230000-151900 X 28% = 21868
Total: 51385.5

Trump:
75000 X 12% = 9000
225000-75000 X 25% = 37500
230000-225000 X 33% =  1650
Total: 48150

It saves you money.
To be clear, only the tiniest amount of income is being taxed at 33 instead of the 28 but a lot of income is now taxed at 25 instead of 28.

I think the only people who will see their taxes go up will be the people who had most of their income taxed at 10%, and now it will be 12%.

The major problem is not that people's taxes will go up, it is that they will go down significantly for the wealthiest in this country.  You do realize that the US currently creates yearly deficits, right?  And that the top 1% pay a significant portion of the taxes.  You do realize if you cut the 1%ers tax bill by half or more, that the deficit will increase significantly.  You do realize, that when they come back and say that certain programs are not sustainable and that we need to balance the budget, that they will be cutting the programs that are used by the poor and middle class, right?  The wealthy do not need Social Security, they don't need Medicare, they don't need public schools, they don't need libraries, they don't need universal healthcare, they don't need agencies to protect them from corporations polluting their water, air, land, environment, rights, they don't need this stuff because they can pay for it all with the tax savings.

I have been to Mexico and other third world countries.  The pollution and incredible poverty next to palaces is sickening.  They wealthy have their own private armies to protect their wealth.  This is not the direction that we want to go.  Fortunately, I am in the 1% with income and assets.  I just think it is incredibly unfair that those ignorant to the ramifications were voting against their best wishes, because one man was able to lie and con his way to the presidency. The fact that the GOP pushing policies that hurt the poor and middle class won the House and Senate is going to be challenging.  That Trump is putting together a cabinet of the worst offenders to dismantle the progress that we have made over the past 100 years.  Hopefully, some GOPers will join the democrats in stopping the worst picks, but it is not looking good.  If Trump pushes through his Tax bill, which is supported by Ryan and the GOP, then you will see programs slashed in the near future.  We will be going back to trickle down economics which directly magnified income and wealth inequality in the past two decades.  Crazy times ahead.   

Tom, I stated facts about the tax plan to correct misconceptions that other posters had. I never stated that I agreed that it was a good idea.

I am not a fan of Trump's plan even though it 'pretends' to save me money. It saves me a little money today, it saves the rich a whole lot of money today, but it will increase the deficit... We are borrowing money from our future selves, to buy what exactly? A tax break for the rich? Shit, if we are going to borrow trillions from our future selves, our kids, and our grand kids can we at least get something out of it that we can benefit from in the future? Slowing down climate change would be a good start!

The tax system in this country is completely screwed up.  Anything that can be done to encourage companies to keep work here would be a good start.  A tax system that doesn't encourage work to be done abroad would be a good start.  I don't think this will fix all our problems, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. 

I agree with your conclusions around the problems in our tax system. I disagree that Trump's plan is the solution.

Less tax brackets, and limited deductions do make the tax system less complicated and more fair. However, that doesn't mean you increase the deficit and put TRILLIONS of more dollars of debt on your grandkids. I would love a similar plan if you moved the brackets slightly so that is was deficit neutral and not just a giant giveaway to the rich.

Side note, companies move their HQ because of the tax system. They move jobs because of labor costs & the skills they need. If you want the best jobs with the best pay you have to have the best skilled workers. The US had that in the 50s and 60s. Now the best we have are still some of the best, but the average fell behind. I know no one likes to hear that, but the data backs it up. You can't expect a high salary if you don't have something to bring to the table. College educated people in the US continue to see their incomes rise. The uneducated(to coin the term used in the election) continue to see their incomes stagnate, and it has only gotten worse since '08. A tax break to the rich and corporations won't fix this, and Trump knows that.

If our workers want jobs paying over $15/hour they need the necessary skillsets to justify that. If an immigrant who can't speak English can do your job with less than an hour of training... you need a new job.

It isn't an instant fix... but improving our education system would go a lot further towards rising incomes than Trump's tax plan.

[mr_orange]

If "the rich" pay virtually all the taxes under our current system ANY cut will obviously disproportionately favor them. 

I didn't vote for Trump and I think he is a royal jackass.  He may just be the bull in the china shop needed to break things and get something of substance done though. 

To have a meaningful conversation about taxes you should ignore the headline marginal tax rate numbers and look at what people actually pay and to whom they pay them.  This is outlined here:

http://www.pgpf.org/blog/2016/04/what-kinds-of-taxes-do-americans-pay

Our system of taxation is progressive.  We can argue until we're blue in the face about who should pay taxes and how much, but I find it hard to have a serious conversation with anyone that complains about tax cuts favoring those that pay the most in taxes.  The lowest quintile pays virtually nothing right now.  You can't benefit from tax cuts if you pay almost nothing.

My overall bias is toward broadening our tax base and cutting spending.  The government has loads of waste and overall does a pretty poor job in many industries that the private sector or the states can do much better.  Cutting a lot of wasteful defense spending and reworking entitlement programs would be good places to start. 

I know full-well what the issues are for skilled labor.  I operate several companies and employ software developers.  I'd much rather employ people locally, but many of the best software developers reside in other countries now.  I also graduated from a top ten engineering school and know WHY people with the skills necessary to employ themselves in these professions don't do so.  They are competing with labor that is willing to work for at most 1/4 to 1/5 of what they're able to get in other industries.  Nobody can blame these people for taking bs jobs moving money around or pursuing other professions that arguably add much less value for our society; like tax lawyers. 

The people in our country are not idiots and they have far more options and resources than those from other countries have to operate with.  If you force them to compete globally for their jobs at 1/5 the wage they're just going to find other industries to work in and avoid those types of industries entirely. 

[chasesfish]

If "the rich" pay virtually all the taxes under our current system ANY cut will obviously disproportionately favor them. 

I didn't vote for Trump and I think he is a royal jackass.  He may just be the bull in the china shop needed to break things and get something of substance done though. 

To have a meaningful conversation about taxes you should ignore the headline marginal tax rate numbers and look at what people actually pay and to whom they pay them.  This is outlined here:

http://www.pgpf.org/blog/2016/04/what-kinds-of-taxes-do-americans-pay

Our system of taxation is progressive.  We can argue until we're blue in the face about who should pay taxes and how much, but I find it hard to have a serious conversation with anyone that complains about tax cuts favoring those that pay the most in taxes.  The lowest quintile pays virtually nothing right now.  You can't benefit from tax cuts if you pay almost nothing.

My overall bias is toward broadening our tax base and cutting spending.  The government has loads of waste and overall does a pretty poor job in many industries that the private sector or the states can do much better.  Cutting a lot of wasteful defense spending and reworking entitlement programs would be good places to start. 

I know full-well what the issues are for skilled labor.  I operate several companies and employ software developers.  I'd much rather employ people locally, but many of the best software developers reside in other countries now.  I also graduated from a top ten engineering school and know WHY people with the skills necessary to employ themselves in these professions don't do so.  They are competing with labor that is willing to work for at most 1/4 to 1/5 of what they're able to get in other industries.  Nobody can blame these people for taking bs jobs moving money around or pursuing other professions that arguably add much less value for our society; like tax lawyers. 

The people in our country are not idiots and they have far more options and resources than those from other countries have to operate with.  If you force them to compete globally for their jobs at 1/5 the wage they're just going to find other industries to work in and avoid those types of industries entirely.

What he said...and yes, Trump is a jackass and I didn't vote for him either.  You can't give a "cut" to the 50% or so that pay no federal income tax.  I hope they'll stop issuing tax refunds/credits to people who choose not to have health insurance.  It would both help with the deficit and get more healthy people paying into the system.

[GetItRight]

That's teh cost of living in the "land of opporunity" as some here say, there is opportunity so if some can't pay their fair share they need to take advantage of some of that opportunity. It would resolve itself within 1-4 years as the masses would not vote for people that give them "free stuff" paid for with money stolen from others, debt, or printing money. A balanced federal budget would come very quickly.

What you are describing is how feudal societies operated. Flat taxes, generational debt, and debt prisons/debt slavery.

I didn't realize feudal societies were a democracy in which the masses could vote for politicians and policies. Either way, you don't seem to understand debt and inflation. These are mutigenerational debt which enslaves the unborn. That is the current system in America.

Ahh yes, now a sloppy attempt to pivot away from the issue of flat taxes to more silly Randian nonsense. The issue of government debt has no bearing on the ethics or practicality of a flat tax and the implications I have pointed out, such as being assessed more tax than you could ever possibly pay.

I don't understand what you mean by "Randian nonsense", perhaps you can clarify as you keep using that term. What is "Randian" and how is it "nonsense"? Are you denying that the current system in America is one of multigenerational debt slavery? What then do you consider a national debt that is highly unlikely to be repaid in the lifetime of the current generation?

I find it highly unlikely that every person in the country couldn't afford $62,000 over some period of time to pay off the national debt. $12,000/yr for every man, woman and child to pay their fair share of the current annual federal spending would be a tall order for many particularly if only put on working age adults, but government spending would have to be reigned in quickly and everyone would be for it.

Some years ago I thought this over and did an analysis of this based on the 2010 federal budget and census data. I'll summarize based on 2010 data and cutting only the easy things like welfare and military, and that's only eliminating the big line item welfare spending and 2/3 of military spending, much more could be cut from the federal budget in those categories as unnecessary or simply not something that is legal for the federal government to do at all.

Population:          308,745,538
Excluding children:       234,564,071
Excluding children+elderly: 184,591,890

2010 Federal budget: $3,552,000,000,000

Eliminate Social Security: $724 billion savings
Eliminate Medicare: $462 billion savings
Eliminate Medicaid: $293 billion savings
Eliminate unemployment: $158 billion savings
Eliminate food stamps: $69 billion savings
Cut military spending by 2/3 (probably could do more): $482 billion savings

Easy cuts (entitlement and defense): $2,188,000,000,000
New proposed Federal budget w/ cuts: $1,364,000,000,000

Tax burden spread fairly and equally among adults age 18-62: $7,389.27
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among all adults: $5,815
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among everyone: $4,417.88

[crentist]

Old system VS new. Lets use the top of the current MFJ 28% bracket, 230k of taxable income.

Current:
18550 X 10%  = 1855
75300-18550 X 15% = 8512.5
151900-75300 X 25% = 19150
230000-151900 X 28% = 21868
Total: 51385.5

Trump:
75000 X 12% = 9000
225000-75000 X 25% = 37500
230000-225000 X 33% =  1650
Total: 48150

It saves you money.
To be clear, only the tiniest amount of income is being taxed at 33 instead of the 28 but a lot of income is now taxed at 25 instead of 28.

I think the only people who will see their taxes go up will be the people who had most of their income taxed at 10%, and now it will be 12%.

The major problem is not that people's taxes will go up, it is that they will go down significantly for the wealthiest in this country.  You do realize that the US currently creates yearly deficits, right?  And that the top 1% pay a significant portion of the taxes.  You do realize if you cut the 1%ers tax bill by half or more, that the deficit will increase significantly.  You do realize, that when they come back and say that certain programs are not sustainable and that we need to balance the budget, that they will be cutting the programs that are used by the poor and middle class, right?  The wealthy do not need Social Security, they don't need Medicare, they don't need public schools, they don't need libraries, they don't need universal healthcare, they don't need agencies to protect them from corporations polluting their water, air, land, environment, rights, they don't need this stuff because they can pay for it all with the tax savings.

I have been to Mexico and other third world countries.  The pollution and incredible poverty next to palaces is sickening.  They wealthy have their own private armies to protect their wealth.  This is not the direction that we want to go.  Fortunately, I am in the 1% with income and assets.  I just think it is incredibly unfair that those ignorant to the ramifications were voting against their best wishes, because one man was able to lie and con his way to the presidency. The fact that the GOP pushing policies that hurt the poor and middle class won the House and Senate is going to be challenging.  That Trump is putting together a cabinet of the worst offenders to dismantle the progress that we have made over the past 100 years.  Hopefully, some GOPers will join the democrats in stopping the worst picks, but it is not looking good.  If Trump pushes through his Tax bill, which is supported by Ryan and the GOP, then you will see programs slashed in the near future.  We will be going back to trickle down economics which directly magnified income and wealth inequality in the past two decades.  Crazy times ahead.   

How much do you pay in taxes? I think the income for top 1% is half million

[crentist]

Well said Mr Orange

[Indexer]

If "the rich" pay virtually all the taxes under our current system ANY cut will obviously disproportionately favor them. 

I didn't vote for Trump and I think he is a royal jackass.  He may just be the bull in the china shop needed to break things and get something of substance done though. 

To have a meaningful conversation about taxes you should ignore the headline marginal tax rate numbers and look at what people actually pay and to whom they pay them.  This is outlined here:

http://www.pgpf.org/blog/2016/04/what-kinds-of-taxes-do-americans-pay

Our system of taxation is progressive.  We can argue until we're blue in the face about who should pay taxes and how much, but I find it hard to have a serious conversation with anyone that complains about tax cuts favoring those that pay the most in taxes.  The lowest quintile pays virtually nothing right now.  You can't benefit from tax cuts if you pay almost nothing.

My overall bias is toward broadening our tax base and cutting spending.  The government has loads of waste and overall does a pretty poor job in many industries that the private sector or the states can do much better.  Cutting a lot of wasteful defense spending and reworking entitlement programs would be good places to start. 

I know full-well what the issues are for skilled labor.  I operate several companies and employ software developers.  I'd much rather employ people locally, but many of the best software developers reside in other countries now.  I also graduated from a top ten engineering school and know WHY people with the skills necessary to employ themselves in these professions don't do so.  They are competing with labor that is willing to work for at most 1/4 to 1/5 of what they're able to get in other industries.  Nobody can blame these people for taking bs jobs moving money around or pursuing other professions that arguably add much less value for our society; like tax lawyers. 

The people in our country are not idiots and they have far more options and resources than those from other countries have to operate with.  If you force them to compete globally for their jobs at 1/5 the wage they're just going to find other industries to work in and avoid those types of industries entirely.

I agree with most of what you said. My biggest problem with Trump's plan, as outlined in my previous post, is that it adds to the deficit. Everyone talks about wasteful spending, and it exists but you could cut every other program outside of the big three and it wouldn't be enough to pay for these tax cuts. This next part isn't directed at you, but at the Republican party & Trump. I'm tired of all of the talk about cutting waste in government, and how we need to cut spending & lower taxes but at the same time a complete refusal to cut the military, SS, and medicare/medicaid. You can't reform our tax system in a way that lowers taxes unless you also cut waste in those three programs.

I understand the rich pay far more in taxes. You're right. We can argue till we're blue in the face how much is too much. However, I'm not ok increasing the deficit with tax cuts until we identify what we will cut in spending to offset it. Until we identify those cuts I still believe in tax reform that uses less brackets & less deductions, but I want that tax cut to be deficit neutral.

[mr_orange]

As much of as ass as Trump is at least he is wealthy and pompous enough to not care about satisfying those that benefit from the revolving door system our political system works under.  Hopefully he'll be bold enough to help push through legislation to reduce bloated defense spending and reform Medicaid.  Simplify our tax code, encourage domestic investment and job creation, reduce taxes, and get government out of our lives to the largest degree possible. 

[tomsang]

Our system of taxation is progressive.  We can argue until we're blue in the face about who should pay taxes and how much, but I find it hard to have a serious conversation with anyone that complains about tax cuts favoring those that pay the most in taxes.  The lowest quintile pays virtually nothing right now.  You can't benefit from tax cuts if you pay almost nothing.

My overall bias is toward broadening our tax base and cutting spending.  The government has loads of waste and overall does a pretty poor job in many industries that the private sector or the states can do much better.  Cutting a lot of wasteful defense spending and reworking entitlement programs would be good places to start. 

The trouble with discussing taxes is everyone wants to pay less.  We currently are spending more than we take in.  Trump and the GOP use the Bogeyman of massive waste in the government without identifying this waste.  The uneducated, take this as gospel and vote to hurt themselves.  Our country's tax burden is one of the lowest of the developed countries, yet people want to pay less in taxes.  We should be talking about how to tax more to balance the budget and provide services to our citizens, which would reduce the income and wealth inequalities. 

So anytime someone talks about a plan that taxpayers save taxes, the first reaction should be, "This is not a viable plan".  The 1%, can and will self fund all the programs that will be cut.  The middle and poor will be screwed.  Once the tax base is cut, it is an easy and a defendable argument that we can't afford "Social Security, Medicare, funding schools at the level that is needed to compete globally, infrastructure, etc. as we don't have the dollars to fund these programs"  We can't afford it!  Of course we can't afford it if we cut our taxes.  Well we can't afford it because our taxation is lower than most other countries and our military spending is greater than the next nine countries combined. 

If we went back to the tax rates prior to when Reagan was president, we would balance our budget and have less income inequality.  Trickle down has been a huge scam, and now it is in vogue again.  When Obama added the .9% tax on wages above $250,000.  It did not impact my spending.  It just impacted how much I invested.  It reduced wealth inequality and it was just a fraction of what the tax rates were a decade or more in the past. 

When the GOP say there is waste in the system, the interpretation is that Social Security and Medicare are not supportable at the current taxing rates.  That is the waste!  The welfare mom is a strawman bogeyman used to incite the base to justify cutting the taxes for the 1%, while needing to cut the other programs because they are not supportable.  Crazy, but if you are not educated and taxes, budgets and finances are way over your head you go with the talking points and how it is not fair that the freeloaders that the GOP talks about are not paying their fair share in taxes. Again, when they are saying that the freeloaders are not paying their fair share in taxes they most likely are talking about people making less than $250,000 a year even though they make it sound like the welfare moms.

The GOP has done a great job at messaging to get the uneducated to vote against their best interests.  It is genius, but is like watching a person stealing from a mentally handicapped individual.  It is not right, but it currently is favoring me nicely.

Edited to fix tax rate on wages about $250,000.     

[Peter Parker]

How much do you pay in taxes? I think the income for top 1% is half million

I guess, this is the part that really gets me...

Apparently, I pay considerably more than Trump.  He hasn't paid anything (if reports are true) for years.  His plan, as far as I can tell, doesn't change the fact that he (and others like him) will not be contributing to the infrastructure that makes him billions, the education that provides him with workers, the military that protects his assets throughout the world....

Shouldn't those with the most to lose, contribute more to ensuring they keep it?  If we believe in the military, education, infrastructure, etc.  someone has to pay for it.  Under Trump, that burden (which existed under Obama) falls more greatly on those making less money than him....

[mr_orange]

We should be talking about how to tax more to balance the budget and provide services to our citizens, which would reduce the income and wealth inequalities. 

This is the part where you lose the vast red portion of the electorate.  If you substitute "uneducated" with "disinterested in having the government involved in every facet of their lives" you may be able to alter your perspective a bit and figure out the values of much of our nation.  You may, instead, see the "services" you're referring to above as waste that that people are unwilling to fund.  These people think they're much better at investing their money in the services that are best for their family than bureaucrats in Washington are.  For any services that demand bargaining power these voters would much prefer to deal with state and local government than having it filtered through the wasteful GIGO federal government. 

The 2nd part of your statement is dubious at best.  It is rather hard to tax your way to prosperity or equality.  Instead of whining about one's circumstances those with less should focus on working their way up and gathering the skills needed to increase their earning power.  There is plenty of opportunity in our country to make the ascent to the higher levels of the economic ladder.  The trouble is that people are unwilling to put forth the effort to do so and wish for someone else to solve their problems.