# Trumps tax Plan....



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here are two Opinon Pieces that just came out on it. One for and one against it....

The for:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/t ... id=DELLDHP

Few Bullet points and quotes:



> I've predicted from the start that if Trump gets his tax cut passed, we will see 3% to 4% growth for four years. That will not only create several million new jobs, but it will also generate nearly $2 trillion of added revenues for the feds, the states and cities. Show me any tax increase that could generate that kind of tax revenue?





> There are 27 million small businesses that will benefit from the cut. This isn't intended to enrich the owners but to recapitalize these businesses so they can expand and bring on more workers. It's simple: You can't have jobs without employers -- and the more profitable the business, the more people it can employ.





> The critics say that business tax cuts won't work, but then why has every nation in the world -- except the United States -- cut their corporate rate over the last 25 years? The rest of our competitors are at 25%, and we are at 40%. This is a 15% head start program for China, India, Germany, Mexico and many of the nations with which we compete.


The article for against....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/w ... id=DELLDHP

Bullet points/quotes from article:



> This is the so-called "small business" tax cut Trump is trumpeting. But that's a sham. It's really just a tax handout to hedge fund managers, Wall Street lawyers, real estate magnates like Trump and other high-earners. Because 96 percent of real small business owners already pay taxes at 25 percent or less, they get no benefit from the rate cut. To emphasize, only 4 percent of business owners will see any benefit from this so-called "small business" tax cut.





> All that Main Street businesses will get from this handout to millionaires are the crippling reductions in public services - such as street repairs and small business loans - that would come from losing between $390-$660 billion in federal tax revenue over 10 years.





> Axing the alternative minimum tax will undoubtedly save Trump hundreds of millions of dollars over the years - but it will cost the American people nearly $450 billion in lost revenue over the next decade. That's money that could be used to shore up Medicare and Medicaid, and improve our schools, among many other vital public investments.





> A third huge gift to Trump and his family is repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax only affects the richest 1 in 500 families, since it only kicks in when an estate is valued at $5.5 million or more ($11 million for a couple). It's one of the few antidotes to our nation's dangerously widening wealth gap.


Comments and discussion below...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ok... if you read the articles. The first one talks about the plan a little and the other one is basically an attack on Trump. So it shows you how slanted the media can be.

Now if you look at the numbers in each article and if we "assume" they are "correct".... One says a growth in 4 years of $2 trillion in new tax revenue generated.... the other talks of "cuts" to funding of $1.1 Trillion in ten years ($660 Billion + $450 billion). So just by the math alone one will increase $900 billion (this is in 4 years). The "loss" in the second article says over a decade.... so the $2 trillion mark should be $4 trillion... but I just made it all work in a 4 year marker. So Trumps tax plan makes money for the USA and not cuts it. By the numbers presented in both articles. :thumb:

It also will make our corporate tax rates more inline with other countries. :thumb:

Then one thing the second article states and attacks is the "estate" tax. That part of the article attacks Trump big time. Yet it says peoples who estates are at $5.5 million. Well just look at any farmer out there with land and nice set ups. I bet dollars to donuts those are at or above the $5.5 million mark.

If you don't believe me... Lets say land is going for $2000 an acre ( In some area's this is way low others it is a tad bit high depending on your the state live in.) 1000 acres of bare land = $2,000,000.

Equipment (Newer 4 wheel drive tractor $200,000 and combine $200,000, misc. equipment and heads for combines $100,000) = $500,000.

Farm building site $500,000 (Home, sheds, shops, barns, grain storage, dryers, etc)

Now look at live stock if they have 100 head is roughly $1000 per head = $100,000

any corn/beans/hay in storage.....(Market Price).....

As you can see right there I am over $3 million.

Now look at personal assets in an estate (vehicles, boats, 4 wheelers, stocks, bonds, 401K's, IRA's, saving/checking accounts, personal items (jewelry, clothes, etc), second home or if a house is off the farm site.....

As you can see a family farm can be at that $5.5 Million. So leaving the "farm" to your kids will hammer them with taxes!!!

In many area's of the country just the acreage is well above the $5.5 Million mark.

So keeping the "family" farm in the family isn't cost feasible for many. especially when hit with estate taxes. Yet alone if your parents/grandparent/yourself invested smartly. You can't hand big chunks of family money with out them getting hammered with an estate tax.

But yet this is only for the "super" rich as the second article states... yet I just showed a simple example of hitting the family farmer. I know my numbers are not correct for all area's of the country. But just look at your area... things might surprise you and how much Equity you or people have in your area.

Chart that shows average land per acre only 12 states have a price below $2000 per acre. Also don't know how up to date it is.
https://www.howmuchisit.org/acre-of-land-cost/

Also one thing not talked about in these articles is the simplifying of the tax codes/brackets down to 3 and minimum deduction raises and elimination of some deductions. I have not seen anything yet on these but some of it sounds good. I know it hasn't touched Mortgage interest deductions. So those are still there which most home owners take advantage of when itemizing taxes.

But again I am not 100% sold but I think so far it looks good. IMHO


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... id=DELLDHP

An article with a little more detail.... yet it doesn't say where the 3 tax brackets and income levels will be??

But more info than the opinion pieces.

Again... I think it looks ok.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

What about a consumption tax and throw the rest in the crapcan?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I don't think just a consumption tax would work.... but I also don't know enough about it as well. The thing is we have "social security".... which I don't know how you can fund or have a basis off of with just a consumption tax. Like now if you work and pay into social security you get a chunk of that back when you start to draw on it. The less you paid in the less you get... in theory. Now how can a consumption tax help with that?


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Off hand, the only way I can think of is a certain percentage would be mandated just for that.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

As more comes out about this tax plan I am again not for or against it.

The main thing I could see happening is lost revenue. So politicians hopefully will be forced to "cut the fat" in the budget. Which has been needed for a long, long, long time.

I don't want to see the USA go further into debt (because the government owes it citizens the most of it... Social Security).... so cutting tax revenue is always a gamble and will increase debt unless off set with cutting of budgets. So to see if this tax plan will work we also need to know what the budget will look like?

So as you can see cutting tax rates are always a double edge sword.... good and bad.

Now to North1 with the % given for social security...... yes and no on that as well.

Just like tax brackets what if you are right on the edge of those brackets... top end and bottom end.... you could be getting screwed compared to what you are doing now. Because now you get a portion of what you pay in. When you bracket things you can get screwed. Again I didn't say it was a bad thing just making a possible point for some.

This discussion between North1 and I is the reason why tax plans are so hard. On one had you will help some and others you will screw over. But I hope the plan trying to be good for all!!! Like I have stated before our country and elected officials need to try and do what is good for most people not just a select few (party lines and that BS that is happening now).


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

We need to scrape Social Security, and let the people invest in that how they see fit. I think SS needs to be shut down slowly, say over 50 years, so it is still funded so people who have paid in, get what they are owed, but its an old out dated system. Besides, its not enough to live on anyways and so we have to have other forms of retirement planning anyways.

We need to cut down or get rid of death taxes, capital gains tax, and anything that stifles growth. Taxes are killing us very slowly, put surely. The government also need to cut their own spending and quit taxing us to death. They need to live like most of us, a balanced checkbook. We need to get out of foreign wars that give us nothing in return, we need to quit sending money to other countries that give us nothing in return. We need to focus on border security, but back it easier for qualified people to get in and work here and stay here. We need to allow small business to grow and pay good wages. We need to get rid of minimum wage and get rid of unions that protect poor employees and control the means of production.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I hear you and agree 100%. I am afraid, however; we are too far down the road to socialism to turn back. The government has too much power and will not relinquish it. A large percentage of the population gets too much free stuff and won't relinquish it. The education system from the bottom to the top indoctrinates our young to expect more and do less. It pounds into young minds that humans can solve all their problems through governmental policy and science. I try to be an optimist but suffer from realism.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

.


> I try to be an optimist but suffer from realism.


 I wish more people suffered with your affliction. :x


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

The second schools quit teaching how to balance a checkbook is when the government started over spending and over taxing. Schools need to teach how taxes work ( don't work in my opinion), and how to manage money. They also need to quit telling students that you have to have a four year degree to do something with your life. That's a bold face lie.

The government needs to reign in the spending and figure out how to utilize money more efficiently, and it needs to be run like a business. They also need to quit icing money to bull crap grants that accomplish nothing. The government needs to learn how to live with less, like we the people.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

BL you hit the nail on the head...

The government needs to run like a business. Only spend what you have. Cut the fat and stupid spending. There are a lot of programs that are getting money that are useless or should be getting private funding.

BL... you social security and getting rid of it. Well getting rid of it as a retirement account.. YES. Getting rid of it to help take care of the needy, handicap, elderly and disabled, etc... NO.

The food stamp and assistance program... I think we need in this country. But if you are on those programs you only get certain things. Powdered milk, beans, rice, soy based proteins, etc. You don't get to buy what you want. Sorry life isn't equal and if you want to have better things you need to pay for it. The cell phone programs.... you get a flip phone with X number of minutes. You don't need a smart phone. If you want to use the internet... public library! If you want to "text".... get a job and buy a better phone or plan! All you need is a phone number so you can get a job.

Cap the number of kids or assistance for kids. What I mean is stop increasing the amount of assistance per child. That will keep people from having more children so they get more "welfare" money. I know people will say it is cruel for any kids. But hey stop getting pregnant or give the child up for adoption!

You see if you are on any assistance you get the basic needs and that is it.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

If Social Security was used as its intended purpose, I am fine with that, but its not, like anything the government does, it dips into a fund with no intention of paying it back. Then they tell everyone, you will just have to learn to live without. No, they can learn to live without.

I also wish that, us as taxpayers could decide up to a point where I want my hard earned tax money spent. I do not want it to go to corporate welfare, or to fund another war, or to fund a failing education system. I would rather I dictate how its spent.


----------

