30 Sep 15
Originally posted by PhrannyI assume you mean the mortgage interest deduction (there is no deduction for mortgage tax). Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would depress real estate values and hurt the middle class. There are much better ways to increase taxes on the wealthy if that's what you're after,
It is an appealing idea. He would not eliminate the mortgage tax deduction. Of course the difficult part is eliminating the numerous tax deductions that go to the wealthiest. In theory, I do believe this could work but in truth, I am not optimistic that enough deductions could be eliminated due to the political influence the 1% have purchased from both sides of the aisle.
30 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76This is bunk. The benefits of the MID flow mostly to higher income individuals:
I assume you mean the mortgage interest deduction (there is no deduction for mortgage tax). Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would depress real estate values and hurt the middle class. There are much better ways to increase taxes on the wealthy if that's what you're after,
Households earning over $100,000 in 2012 claimed 77.3 percent of the total MID tax savings, essentially the same as in 2010.
Meanwhile, homeowners earning between $30,000 and $40,000 saved an average of $587 in 2012, or $49 a month off their mortgage.
For households making between $40,000 and $50,000 the average tax savings was $54 a month.
Combined these groups represented just 8 percent of MID claims.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23940
It's primarily a tax dodge for the wealthy that encourages the purchase of higher priced properties while giving little benefit to the median income homeowner. Only about 20% of American households earn more than $100,000 (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/16/156688596/what-americans-earn) yet this relatively small group gets 77% of the benefits of the MID.
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauderPeople making 30k are buying houses?!
This is bunk. The benefits of the MID flow mostly to higher income individuals:
Households earning over $100,000 in 2012 claimed 77.3 percent of the total MID tax savings, essentially the same as in 2010.
Meanwhile, homeowners earning between $30,000 and $40,000 saved an average of $587 in 2012, or $49 a month off their mortgage.
For households maki ...[text shortened]... 688596/what-americans-earn) yet this relatively small group gets 77% of the benefits of the MID.
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauder$100,000 for a household in a major metropolitan area is very much middle class, especially if, for example, you happen to have a few kids. Every homeowner with a mortgage benefits from the MID, so I don't know what you mean by "little benefit to the median income homeowner." Of course in raw dollars richer people get a larger benefit from any deduction, but the deduction is hardly for the "rich."
This is bunk. The benefits of the MID flow mostly to higher income individuals:
Households earning over $100,000 in 2012 claimed 77.3 percent of the total MID tax savings, essentially the same as in 2010.
Meanwhile, homeowners earning between $30,000 and $40,000 saved an average of $587 in 2012, or $49 a month off their mortgage.
For households maki ...[text shortened]... 688596/what-americans-earn) yet this relatively small group gets 77% of the benefits of the MID.
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by bill718The problem isn't the 1%. The problem is Congress. Presidents almost never get their legislation passed "as is". Various interest groups get exclusions and waivers added, and the situation gets worse than it was or is.
This all sounds great, but it won't work for 2 reasons:
1. If elected president, Trump will never get this through Congress. The 1% loves their tax loopholes, and won't give them up without a fight, and since the 1% owns and operates many conservative lawmakers, they will vote against it.
2. If by some miracle this passes Congress and is signed into la ...[text shortened]... ance the budget. America's national debt is very large now, Trumps plan will only make it worse.
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe reason that a few super wealthy don't pay taxes is shelters, deductions and waivers, not low rates. The majority of the income tax is already paid by upper level wage earners. The change at the bottom isn't much, as about 48% don't pay any income tax already.
So a tax cut across the board, then? How will he pay for it? And why does he think that cutting the already far too low top tax rate even further is a good idea?
A flat tax with no deductions would yield more than the current progressive tax with loads of exceptions.
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by bill718Trumps plan will only make it worse.
This all sounds great, but it won't work for 2 reasons:
1. If elected president, Trump will never get this through Congress. The 1% loves their tax loopholes, and won't give them up without a fight, and since the 1% owns and operates many conservative lawmakers, they will vote against it.
2. If by some miracle this passes Congress and is signed into la ...[text shortened]... ance the budget. America's national debt is very large now, Trumps plan will only make it worse.
It can get worse? Worse than no plan at all?
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by PhrannyThe problem with Trump's plan at the bottom end is that it doesn't really do a lot. How much do people have to spend, when their tax bill was zero last year.
Trump's idea of giving the lowest earners more money in their pocket to spend will stimulate the economy. Businesses do not create jobs. People with money to spend on goods and services create jobs.
The only answer to that is more EITC which is really just a welfare check.
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by finneganRegrettably for the corporations, they have accumulated immense financial assets in places where they can get no value from it.
It is not an income tax that is proposed for corporations' overseas earnings.
In general, a multinational can shift its earnings, profits, losses, revenues, cashflows anywhere it likes in the supply chain without moving any tangible assets whatever. The amount of economic activity in places like the Irish Republic, the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas (f ...[text shortened]... en a surplus, the worse things will get for everyone. The Tea Party Taliban have a death wish.
Sure, you know more than the CEOs operating these multinationals.
The reality is that corporations have huge cash surpluses which are not circulating productively in our global economy,
And you know this how?
The Tea Party Taliban in the USA has the idiotic notion that Government deficits and taxation are the problem but that is nonsense.
When you spend so much more than you have, it doesn't take a Taliban to find the truth.
[b}The heyday of Laissez Faire and balanced budgets in the US and Britain was the 19th Century and culminated in huge instability,[/b]
That was the heyday of merchantilism. Laissez Faire never had a heyday.
The problem is the failure to tax wealth and the failure to invest in infrastructure.
Governments tax but don't invest. Leave the investing to people who understand and do it well. The whole notion of stealing money that others have earned, has never worked out well, and it wouldn't this time either. Whether it works or not, it is totally immoral, and the work of demented criminal minds.
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by finneganFrom first principles, if you impose a consumption tax then people will buy less.
A pure flat tax, or a consumption tax eliminates all that whining. If you buy you pay. Buy more, pay more.
From first principles, if you impose a consumption tax then people will buy less. Your proposal would impose a severe impediment to much consumer spending and I am not clear why you imagine that will be economically healthy.
Also from fi ...[text shortened]... ost people enjoy decent lives in modern, western economies.
The American Taliban is suicidal.
Perhaps people should buy less, what they can afford, not everything they want. They take the que from the government, and buy with debt.
Also from first principles, a flat tax will increase the spending power of the wealthy (they will save more on the removal of progressive income taxes)
BS! Progressive taxes don't produce revenue, if there are shelters, deductions and waivers. You complain about the 1%ers not paying, but high rates don't assure any payment.
The poor, under $50k annually 😀, don't pay taxes now, and some get tax welfare (EITC). How do you get a sensible discussion among an electorate where the majority or close to it are immune?
Your proposal will destroy decent and productive public sector jobs - from engineers to teachers - and the private sector will only replce these jobs with insecure, low paid and low skilled work.
BS. Support your claim. It can't be done. Show me how teachers and engineers can be replaced by Walmart employees. Skilled people will still be skilled people, who would be taxed in a more fair and transparent manner.
30 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by PhrannyPlease, I don't know much about Sanders, but I do know about Clinton, and she's hardly more intelligent than any of the GOP candidates. You may agree with her positions more, but that doesn't equate to intelligence.
Both Clinton and Sanders are far more intelligent and a better choice than any of the the GOP candidates.
Think about it for just a moment. Is Hillary's desire for wealth, and willingness to do anything to get it any different that that of Trump. She's always sought to get it via government and connections. Trump, probably to a lesser degree.
30 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76Claiming someone who is at least in the top 20% of earning households (and usually much higher) is "middle class" is rewriting the English language. I gave the figures above; a household with median income (around $50,000) gets peanuts compared to those with higher incomes who reap the vast majority of the benefit.
$100,000 for a household in a major metropolitan area is very much middle class, especially if, for example, you happen to have a few kids. Every homeowner with a mortgage benefits from the MID, so I don't know what you mean by "little benefit to the median income homeowner." Of course in raw dollars richer people get a larger benefit from any deduction, but the deduction is hardly for the "rich."
77% of the benefit goes to the highest 20% of earning households. How this is some boon to the "middle class" is incomprehensible.