IMO I think Trump is someone who, if elected, could bring the world to an end. I think he is racist and sexist. He does not have a grasp of foreign policy and has never mentioned environmental issues. There are lots of areas where he seems to just have no real knowledge.
Not a Trump supporter, but I fail to see how this is any different than any of the other bozos running on both sides in the last several elections. Do you really think Obama had any real knowledge of foreign policy? He still doesn't after 7 plus years on the job. The one thing I can say for certain is that I cannot foresee any middle ground or mediocrity with Trump. If elected he will either be incredibly great or a disaster of epic proportions.
Yeah, you're real good at math. Budget. Submitted annually. 1.6 trillion, income from personal taxes. (Clearly you haven't read it...try this ... when you grow up, the real budget is available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_federal_budget) You aren't even good at the English language. Revenue neutral only means cuts offset by increased income. No one says you could eliminate the income tax altogether, and raise 1.6t Which is what you posit above. Learn English. Then we can get back to the budget.
Oh, you're talking 1.6T for total income tax revenues. Guess what? The Trump budget reduces personal income tax revenue by about 1.2T per year and does nothing to offset it aside from "economic gains." The economic gains add up to about 0.2T per year. There will be a deficit of about 1T per year from the Trump budget. Our current annual deficit is about 0.45T for perspective. In other words, Trump's budget is not just not revenue neutral, but it's insanely not revenue neutral. In fact, I thought you when you said 1.6T you meant the PI revenue lost from Trump's budget because it's actually pretty close to the total PI revenue. If you want the details, look here: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
Aaaaaah then you missed the narrative. I didn't read the specifics--actually I didn't read any of it-- but as someone pointed out, there aren't enough numbers in the plan to actually make that assumption- it's just a general framework. But that wasn't the point. If one side claims "my side has specifics, your side doesn't" and the other side claims "your side's specifics are a load of hooey so the specifics are bullshit --but here are my side's specifics" and you claim "those specifics are hooey", the argument is a tad stupid, no? What I'm suggesting is, having an argument on a football fan forum about politics and trying to convince the other side that your side is right, is more virtuous, is more intelligent, is less evil is like an argument on a badminton forum between a Shiite and a Sunni. It's all mental masturbation. I checked out of the political argument crap a long time ago for personal reasons- I used to be any angry political combatant on another Jet board a long long time ago. Now I just observe from the sidelines as the naive trot out the same crap that's been trotted out for years all the while feeling good about themselves because of their imagined superior whit and intelligence. It's sad but cute. _
It seems as if you are discussing what are called "specifics". That you agree or disagree with them is besides the point. Thanks for clarifying that. _
I've never said which side I'm on, and I'm not going to. You can assume, but you know what happens then. I merely said that that tax plan isn't close to revenue neutral as it claims. Had a Hillary supporter gone on here and said her plan will significantly increase economic growth, I would have called that out too.
I wasn't questioning what side you were on, just pointing out the sophistry that one side HAS specifics and the other side does not. You're posts illustrates what I was trying to convey. Thanks. _
No. English is a wonderful language learn it. It does not reduce the PIT by 1.2 It reduces total federal revenues by 1.2T per year over 10 (which is absurd on it's face) considering the annual fed intake is 3T. More simply, that is like saying he's eliminating the entire corporate tax, (473B) and 50% of the PIT(1.6T) then there's this little gem. So, the economy grows by 11% (from 18T GDP to 20 per yr), Wages rise 6.5%, and 5 million full time jobs are created. (their words, not mine) yet...the dynamic model is the same as the static, and produces a trillion dollars of extra deficit a year....interesting. That actually defies history. Growing the economy leads to greater revenues, even at reduced rates, the ensuing deficits are usually due to profligate spending. Also laughably, the analysis assumes higher service on anticipated debt (which, is not borne out by their conclusions), due to crowding out. However on that note so, in effect, using heir methodology, a 1 trillion dollar per year deficit, would equal 5% of GDP (1/20 th) would equal a .015 rise in interest rate on the debt. None of their analysis makes sense. Maye this is why rmfe. The author.
To prevent royalty from re-establishing itself. If you keep all the money at the top of society generation after generation you're depending on some of the people up there to voluntarily redistribute income to the lower classes. While some people will do that mostly wealth accumulates in ways that are harmful to society. If it wasn't a fact that the best way to make money is to already have money we'd be in a different situation.
There shouldn't, much like paying income tax on dividends, it's double taxation on capital. Secondarily, look at the amount collected, annually, versus the actual wealth passed on, only suckers pay it.
The estate tax was not enacted to prevent Royalty. Stop making shit up.. The modern estate tax was enacted in 1916. And the people at the top of society, keep their money.... Take a look back through our political spectrum alone. Notice how the same family names keep popping up. How about the Rockefeller Clan, or the Hiltons? sheesh Br4d, that was a bush league answer for someone of you capacity. FCOL, anyone with money already taxed could move it to fucking Belize, and pass it on...ummm no death tax.
So you want only the middle class to pay taxes.........LOL. From your ramblings, it looks like you very much believe in the trickle down fairy tale BS. 30+ years of this since the Reagan times and the middle class still getting screwed but millions of folks in this middle class don't realize that their own party (GOP) has not been acting in their own interests and still don't care. No they can't. They are still a US citizen and when you give up US citizen, you have to pay an exit tax based on the value of your holdings.
