Of course it could be, don't be silly. It's probably not a smart move to try and pay off the national debt, but we could certainly do so if we wanted.
Of course it could be, don't be silly. It's probably not a smart move to try and pay off the national debt, but we could certainly do so if we wanted.
Indus
Lifer
- May 11, 2002
- 16,014
- 11,136
- 136
I don't like trump but I like the 1 - 5 - 10 - 50 plan. Hopefully it encourages the dems to cut tax rates on the middle class more. That is about the only conservative philosophy I like.
But knowing this.. he would probably put a 30% VAT on everything to counterbalance it so it just wouldn't work with the 1-5-10-15.
But knowing this.. he would probably put a 30% VAT on everything to counterbalance it so it just wouldn't work with the 1-5-10-15.
MiniDoom
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 5,305
- 0
- 76
It's a great plan so long as you're willing to massively cut federal tax revenues. If that's the case, what are we cutting?
Tax cuts always sound good until you try to figure out how to pay for them. That's why people never seem to get around to that part.
Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,862
- 17,403
- 136
There are "some" problems that would occur if the worlds leading economy and issuer of the worlds leading reserve currency simply disavowed it's debt and abandoned it's currency....lol. Even Ron Paul would call this statement pure lunacy, even though it's Ron Paul that convinced people like you to feel empowered to have opinions on things you know absolutely jack shit about.
Under his plan this is the income tax and there are no tax breaks for the wealthy... What he is advocating is flushing current individual income tax code down the toilet and keeping it simple.
So my thoughts...
1. His rates aren't high enough. I paid $27,657 in federal income taxes last year. Under his plan I would pay almost $10k less.... That is great for me, but I don't think it helps the country by giving me that big of a break...
2. Simple would certainly clean things up a bit and I think simple is something all could get behind.
I'm pretty sure he is being unrealistic, but his plan is populist in nature and therefore people are all excited by it.
Last edited:
Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,684
- 5,228
- 136
I do believe you're quite incorrect on that point....by a lot. Or maybe you meant to say that the share of federal tax revenue paid by corporations has declined substantially over time, not individual income taxes.
In the 1950's, individual income tax paid for ~47% of the federal budget. Want to guess what portion of the federal budget is paid by individual income tax today?
If you said 47%, you'd be correct. Same as 60 years ago. Imagine that.
In 2015, total federal revenues in fiscal year 2015 are expected to be $3.18 trillion. These revenues come from three major sources:
- Income taxes paid by individuals: $1.48 trillion, or 47% of all tax revenues.
- Payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers: $1.07 trillion, 34% of all tax revenues.
- Corporate income taxes paid by businesses: $341.7 billion, or 11% of all tax revenues.
And here's a representation of taxes paid into the fed. govt. by percentage, since 1950:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from
(Actually, if you follow my first link, it has a nifty interactive graph similar to the one above that traces the percentages of the fed. budget since the 1940's.)
Is that based on any sort of data, or is it just conjecture? I'm trying to find numbers that show what that plan would do to tax revenue, and have been unable to find any estimates. Lot's of wild assumptions, but nothing based on facts.
It's based on common sense. Assuming things are relatively similar to 2012, this represents a massive decline in revenue:
It's pretty obvious that Trump put about as much thought into this as he has anything else that he's said in his campaign.
It might be a bit over-simplistic to assume that nothing has changed in effective tax rates & revenues over the last 4 years, especially when it comes to the top tax brackets.
Though I see your point, I think the only way we can make generalizations like it "would never work" would be to see some numbers that are based on our current situation. I haven't seen those, but I'm sure we will if Trump's candidacy picks up steam tonight.
Though I see your point, I think the only way we can make generalizations like it "would never work" would be to see some numbers that are based on our current situation. I haven't seen those, but I'm sure we will if Trump's candidacy picks up steam tonight.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
If anything tax rates on the rich have gone up over the last 4 years, making his plan even more unfeasible.
Look at this breakdown:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
You're going to be giving huge tax cuts to groups that pay approximately 75-80% of federal income taxes, and there will be no group (outside of maybe the bottom couple of percent) that will be getting a tax increase.
This is just math. Unless he plans to include drastic spending cuts with it his plan is babbling nonsense. If he does plan to include those I would love to see what they are, because I bet he's full of shit on them too.
I totally understand the disparity between the tax rates of the top wage earners, and everyone else. I've seen the numbers on who accounts for what when talking about tax revenues. While I know what the tax rates are, I don't know what that actually comes out to in collections.
I know the effective rates you posted for 2012, but is that still accurate? If you set a flat tax rate at 15% but don't allow for any fancy accounting, does that equate to 25% in today's system with all the loopholes? 35%? More?
Maybe 15% isn't enough to cover the nut, but the idea is sound... especially if it's partnered with aggressive spending cuts.
I know the effective rates you posted for 2012, but is that still accurate? If you set a flat tax rate at 15% but don't allow for any fancy accounting, does that equate to 25% in today's system with all the loopholes? 35%? More?
Maybe 15% isn't enough to cover the nut, but the idea is sound... especially if it's partnered with aggressive spending cuts.
K7SN
Senior member
- Jun 21, 2015
- 353
- 0
- 0
The tax solution which will never happen would be to streamline our both our Corporate and Personal Income tax system in some sort of 1-5-10-15 system (I opt for a 0-1-2-3-4-5-8-10-15-20 system), require a balanced budget + 0.5% to reduce the current debt (paying each years debt costs with a 0.5% reduction from with the balanced budget would in a couple centuries get us out of debt)
Now comes the part that won't fly in our current political system; the corporate and personal tax would not be fixed but adjustable (each level while retaining deductions for medical, loss, taxes paid elsewhere, even mortgage interest on the primary residence) upward probably and sometime eventually downward. This would to assure we have a balanced budget.
An efficient, trustworthy part of our federal system is the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and they could accurately predict the actual revinue needed to have a balanced budget between the end of the government fiscal year and before next years tax period (That gives them from Oct 1st to about December the 10th) and our actual taxes woul;dn't be say 6% for an income of $100,000 but 6% plus the amount to balanced the budget (say 7.5% for this example).
We, as voters, could then hold our big spenders (Congress and the White House) accountable for what they did last year. We, as the public, would be able to scrutinize every thing from domestic asssitance to Foreign policy. If responsible people like many of the posters can live within their budget, our freaking government should also be responsible enough to do that.
A system like above that rewards innovation and hardwork (Inspiration and Persperation) ,would help stabilize our economy, and grow our GNP.
This would in time ,allow taxes to come to a year when GAO says we will reduce the tax urden from sya the 6% example to maybe 5.8% adjusted. I can always dream of a fiscally responable governemt, sadly in my lifetime I probably won't see it..
Now comes the part that won't fly in our current political system; the corporate and personal tax would not be fixed but adjustable (each level while retaining deductions for medical, loss, taxes paid elsewhere, even mortgage interest on the primary residence) upward probably and sometime eventually downward. This would to assure we have a balanced budget.
An efficient, trustworthy part of our federal system is the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and they could accurately predict the actual revinue needed to have a balanced budget between the end of the government fiscal year and before next years tax period (That gives them from Oct 1st to about December the 10th) and our actual taxes woul;dn't be say 6% for an income of $100,000 but 6% plus the amount to balanced the budget (say 7.5% for this example).
We, as voters, could then hold our big spenders (Congress and the White House) accountable for what they did last year. We, as the public, would be able to scrutinize every thing from domestic asssitance to Foreign policy. If responsible people like many of the posters can live within their budget, our freaking government should also be responsible enough to do that.
A system like above that rewards innovation and hardwork (Inspiration and Persperation) ,would help stabilize our economy, and grow our GNP.
This would in time ,allow taxes to come to a year when GAO says we will reduce the tax urden from sya the 6% example to maybe 5.8% adjusted. I can always dream of a fiscally responable governemt, sadly in my lifetime I probably won't see it..
Last edited:
Whenever i see someone make a statement like this I know the rest of the post is not worth reading.
I posted a link with updated average rates for 2014. They are basically the same.
Insofar as a flat tax goes, those are usually done through a consumption tax, which needs to be somewhere in the 30%+ range to match current revenues.
15% on the highest earners and 10% or less on everyone else is not just insufficient to cover current revenues, it is comically insufficient. There is no way someone with an understanding of federal revenues would seriously propose this. (Although since I doubt donald trump is a serious candidate I guess he doesn't face that burden)
K7SN
Senior member
- Jun 21, 2015
- 353
- 0
- 0
It's not any simpler. I see this misunderstanding all the time. There is nothing complicated at all about tax rates. It's a simple table - look up your taxable income and then slide over and there's your rate.
The complicated part is defining what is and isn't income. That's why our tax code is 75,000 pages long. Changing the applicable rates from a page-long table to a 5-10-15 jingle does not a goddamn thing to simplify the U.S. income tax system.
I've been trying to explain this fact to "Flat Tax" advocates for years now and I always get the same blank stare.
Linux23
Lifer
- Apr 9, 2000
- 11,374
- 741
- 126
pretty much this. currency is like the matrix, it's only real because the mind makes it real.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
You lend someone $1000. They declare money obsolete and your loan is now void.
Would you do business with them again?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter