Republican front-runner Donald Trump began to flesh out his economic vision for America, and it includes raising taxes on the wealthy. Trump said during a Wednesday interview on Bloomberg's With All Due Respect that he would like to change the tax code.
"I would change it. I would simplify it," Trump told hosts Mark Halperin and John Heilemann from the lobby of Trump Tower on New York's 5th Ave. Specifically, Trump targeted hedge fund profits, which are currently taxed at a lower rate than regular income.
"I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars-a-year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it's outrageous," Trump said. "I want to lower taxes for the middle class."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...trump-says-he-wants-to-raise-taxes-on-himself
Trump Favors Raising Capital Gains Tax Rate on Wealthy
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by InTheLight, Aug 28, 2015.
Page 1 of 2
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
First thing he has said that makes sense.
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
That sentence right there is why it makes sense. No reason that someone making their money from hedge funds should pay less tax on those profits than someone like me working a 9-5. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Trump is wrong on this one--the key is lowering government spending and cutting taxes. If hedge funds have a loophole (and I don't know), then the rates should be lowered for everyone else to whatever hedge funds pay. The lower the rates, the higher the revenue.
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If you actually want to raise taxes on the wealthy...just go to a flat tax with no loopholes.
-
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo with Tapatalk Pro. -
I would prefer something more like a national sales tax that would be added on to the price of the product or service when it is purchased.
That way, you wouldn't have to wade through that bunch of complicated tax forms to figure how much tax you have to pay for the previous tax year.
Additionally, I'd add on to the suggested national sales tax a more simplified tax return sheet, and make your essential items such as medications that your doctor(s) prescribe as completely tax deductible.
There could be other "essential" items such as certain food items that your doctor(s) prescribe for certain illnesses that require a certain type of diet regime in order to stay healthy.
These are just a few standard deductions that could be applied to this national sales tax.
Moreover there needs to be a much higher amount of the current standard deduction the government currently allows to be taken that would be based on one's annual taxable income so that the people whose annual income falls below a certain amount.
All told, I believe this would be a much more equitable kind of federal tax system than the one we now have.
Additionally, I'd have every non-civil service federal employee put under the same medical benefits plan as the rest of us are--especially all the higher ranking federal officials from the POTUS on down.
The retirement benefits that former POTUS's get are unreasonably high compared to what the average American retiree gets.
I don't know of too many average retirees that get as much in the way of retirement benefits as people such as the POTUS and the former members of both the House and Senate get.
Of course, since it'd be up to the members of the House and Senate to pass such legislation as this, I'm not about to start holding my breath waiting for such drastic retirement benefits as the DC fat cats now get to be slashed to become comparable to what us "average" American retirees get!
Also I propose that a much higher tax exemption status be granted to encourage Americans to put away a much larger percentage of their incomes into medical IRAs. That way, when a retiree becomes ill and is faced with a large amount of co-payments for certain medical procedures, he'd have a lot more money available in his medical IRA than he now does.
Additionally, while most medical co-payments are about 10-20 percent of one's total medical bill(s), when you add up the ever-increasing costs with which many retirees are often required to pay, that 10-20 percent can wind up becoming a rather huge amount of $$$. -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Besides, I don't believe it is our business to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than everyone else. I do believe that anyone making below the poverty line for their region shouldn't have to pay taxes. -
The True Story of Taxes
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for lunch and the bill for all 10 comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, using the progressive tax formula, the billing would go like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, the majority of the men voted democratically to do that.
The 10 men ate in the diner every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the diner owner surprised them.
"Since you are all good customers," he said,
"I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily dinner by $20.
Lunch for 10 now cost just $80.00?
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes,
so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so everyone would get his fair share??
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
if they subtracted that from everybody's bill,
then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat. That didn't seem fair.
So, the owner suggested reducing each man's bill using the US tax formula. Then he presented the amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (savings 33%).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (savings 28%).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (savings 25%).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (savings 22%).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (savings only 16%).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to eat for free. But outside the diner, the men compared their savings without any sense of thanks.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed enviously to the tenth man,
"but richie got $10!" "That's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only got a dollar back. It's unfair that the richest guy got ten times more than I got!"
"Yeah!" shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2?
The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.
"We did not get anything at all. The US system exploits the poor!"
Then the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next day the tenth man didn't show up for lunch, so the nine ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.
They didn't have enough money from all of them for even half of the bill!
And that boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start eating in Canada where the atmosphere is friendlier -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Again, people below the poverty line don't pay income taxes. They do pay FICA, Medicare, and sales taxes. Should they be exempt from these taxes as well? -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
When lunch cost $100 the richest guy paid 59% of the bill; the next richest guy paid 18% of the bill; the next guy 12%, and so on.
So now that lunch costs $80 the richest guy should still pay 59%, the next guy 18%, the next guy 12%, and so on. Therefore,
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $.80 instead of $1.
The sixth would pay $2.40 instead of $3.
The seventh would pay $5.60 instead of $7.
The eighth would pay $9.60 instead of $12.
The ninth would pay $14.40 instead of $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $47.20 instead of $59. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The wealthy would not pay more with a flat tax. A flat tax would be a tax cut for the wealthy. With all the loopholes they now enjoy they still pay about 18% to 20% of their gross income in taxes. You are proposing eliminating the loopholes with a 10% flat tax and therefore cutting their taxes in half.
Page 1 of 2