The Trump tax cut is a con too ...

[oxmixmudd]

I noticed this in the nyt today, and looked at some other data on it. Many of you will no doubt reject this analysis. But it seems only fair that its reality at least be brought out of the shadows prior to the election, not that any lost in Trumpian fantasy land can benefit from that knowledge.

As it turns our, the Trump tax cut has built in tax increases that begin - you guessed it - in 2021, after the election of course. Increases that progressively raise taxes on the middle class while granting a permanent cut to corporations and those earning more. A 2.3% cut for those earning a million or more, a raise over 2017 levels for all earning less that 100,000 a year. Indeed, the first raise in 2021 puts those below the poverty line paying more than in 2017 from the very first incremental increase in 2021.

Contrast that with Biden who plans to increase taxes only on the most wealthy people. No wonder Trump keeps distorting what Biden has said about taxes! It's a smokescreen to hide his own con!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/31/o...gtype=Homepage

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-tax-plan-comparison-trump/

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/...ary/index.html

[Watermelon]

I noticed this in the nyt today, and looked at some other data on it. Many of you will no doubt reject this analysis. But it seems only fair that its reality at least be brought out of the shadows prior to the election, not that any lost in Trumpian fantasy land can benefit from that knowledge.

As it turns our, the Trump tax cut has built in tax increases that begin - you guessed it - in 2021, after the election of course. Increases that progressively raise taxes on the middle class while granting a permanent cut to corporations and those earning more. A 2.3% cut for those earning a million or more, a raise over 2017 levels for all earning less that 100,000 a year. Indeed, the first raise in 2021 puts those below the poverty line paying more than in 2017 from the very first incremental increase in 2021.

Contrast that with Biden who plans to increase taxes only on the most wealthy people. No wonder Trump keeps distorting what Biden has said about taxes! It's a smokescreen to hide his own con!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/31/o...gtype=Homepage

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-tax-plan-comparison-trump/

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/...ary/index.html

How come this wasn’t picked up earlier? Or was it but just got buried by continuous chain of scandals?

[Watermelon]

How come this wasn’t picked up earlier? Or was it but just got buried by continuous chain of scandals?

Oh I see it was reported back in 2017. Surprised it didn’t make much of a splash. Even more surprised that people earning less than $20,000 a year have to pay any tax at all.

[Mountain Man]

I noticed this in the nyt today, and looked at some other data on it. Many of you will no doubt reject this analysis. But it seems only fair that its reality at least be brought out of the shadows prior to the election, not that any lost in Trumpian fantasy land can benefit from that knowledge.

As it turns our, the Trump tax cut has built in tax increases that begin - you guessed it - in 2021, after the election of course. Increases that progressively raise taxes on the middle class while granting a permanent cut to corporations and those earning more. A 2.3% cut for those earning a million or more, a raise over 2017 levels for all earning less that 100,000 a year. Indeed, the first raise in 2021 puts those below the poverty line paying more than in 2017 from the very first incremental increase in 2021.

Contrast that with Biden who plans to increase taxes only on the most wealthy people. No wonder Trump keeps distorting what Biden has said about taxes! It's a smokescreen to hide his own con!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/31/o...gtype=Homepage

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-tax-plan-comparison-trump/

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/...ary/index.html

Um... you might want to read your sources again:

A lot of households under the GOP tax plan, which President Trump is set to sign into law this week, will see a lower tax bill in the next several years.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2019, more than half of filers making $40,000 and up will see an average tax cut greater than $500. That trend holds for income groups over $50,000 in the subsequent years measured through 2025.

The Tax Institute at H&R Block provided some scenarios of people with young children, for instance, who could see their tax burden drop by roughly $2,000 or more next year.

But here's the thing: After 2025, all individual tax cuts are set to expire. At the same time, corporate rate cuts are made permanent under the bill.

As a result, by 2027 a large majority of people making less than $200,000 will either see little change in their tax bill or a tax increase relative to what they pay today, the JCT estimates.

Republicans made individual tax cuts temporary so they could meet budget rules that let them pass their tax overhaul with no Democratic votes.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/...ary/index.html

So the tax cuts won't expire until after 2025, and the temporary measure was only necessary because Democrats refused to agree to a permanent cut.

[shunyadragon]

Oh I see it was reported back in 2017. Surprised it didn’t make much of a splash. Even more surprised that people earning less than $20,000 a year have to pay any tax at all.

I paid more taxes after Trump's tax bill because they charged more taxes on Social Security. The formula became amazingly contorted. I make less than $20.000. My friends paid less, but it was pocket change maybe a couple tanks of gas.

[Gondwanaland]

Um... you might want to read your sources again:

A lot of households under the GOP tax plan, which President Trump is set to sign into law this week, will see a lower tax bill in the next several years.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2019, more than half of filers making $40,000 and up will see an average tax cut greater than $500. That trend holds for income groups over $50,000 in the subsequent years measured through 2025.

The Tax Institute at H&R Block provided some scenarios of people with young children, for instance, who could see their tax burden drop by roughly $2,000 or more next year.

But here's the thing: After 2025, all individual tax cuts are set to expire. At the same time, corporate rate cuts are made permanent under the bill.

As a result, by 2027 a large majority of people making less than $200,000 will either see little change in their tax bill or a tax increase relative to what they pay today, the JCT estimates.

Republicans made individual tax cuts temporary so they could meet budget rules that let them pass their tax overhaul with no Democratic votes.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/...ary/index.html

So the tax cuts won't expire until after 2025, and the temporary measure was only necessary because Democrats refused to agree to a permanent cut.

Exactly, and it's not going to 'raise' those taxes in 2025, it will simply have the cuts expire and return to what they were before the cuts (again as you said, because Dems refused permanent cuts).

[shunyadragon]

Exactly, and it's not going to 'raise' those taxes in 2025, it will simply have the cuts expire and return to what they were before the cuts (again as you said, because Dems refused permanent cuts).

The Trump bill was enormously favored the wealthy and corporations, and at best maybe peanuts for the rest. I sure hope Biden can resolve the unethical and embarrassing text breaks for the rich. I believe he plans to not raise takes for incomes below $400,000. All the Republican TV ads lie ans falsely claim Biden proposes raising the taxes on everyone.

[oxmixmudd]

Um... you might want to read your sources again:

A lot of households under the GOP tax plan, which President Trump is set to sign into law this week, will see a lower tax bill in the next several years.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2019, more than half of filers making $40,000 and up will see an average tax cut greater than $500. That trend holds for income groups over $50,000 in the subsequent years measured through 2025.

The Tax Institute at H&R Block provided some scenarios of people with young children, for instance, who could see their tax burden drop by roughly $2,000 or more next year.

But here's the thing: After 2025, all individual tax cuts are set to expire. At the same time, corporate rate cuts are made permanent under the bill.

As a result, by 2027 a large majority of people making less than $200,000 will either see little change in their tax bill or a tax increase relative to what they pay today, the JCT estimates.

Republicans made individual tax cuts temporary so they could meet budget rules that let them pass their tax overhaul with no Democratic votes.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/...ary/index.html

So the tax cuts won't expire until after 2025, and the temporary measure was only necessary because Democrats refused to agree to a permanent cut.

I was mostly quoting the nyt article. And its a rolling repeal of various components of the plan in intervals of 2 years with the first iteration affecting the poorest taxpayers and the last in 2025 or 2026 . The different time frames i'm attributing to some looking at when the law changes and others looking at when the effect of the law on income will be fully realized in a workers paycheck or end of the year tax bill.

[oxmixmudd]

Exactly, and it's not going to 'raise' those taxes in 2025, it will simply have the cuts expire and return to what they were before the cuts (again as you said, because Dems refused permanent cuts).

You can claim it because the dems refused permanent cuts, but the reality is the cuts for the wealthiest and corporations are permanent. So the end effect then is that after Trump is gone he and his cronies sit back and enjoy the fruit of his con, while the people he bamboozled into electing him are back paying the same or more taxes than ever before.

He basically was just bribing you guys by temporarily undercutting tax revenue and giving only the richest of the rich and corporations any long term advantage.

[Gondwanaland]

You can claim it because the dems refused permanent cuts,

It's fact.

but the reality is the cuts for the wealthiest and corporations are permanent.

Given that democrats are also well-funded by wealthy and corporations, that's not particularly surprising.

So the end effect then is that after Trump is gone he and his cronies sit back and enjoy the fruit of his con, while the people he bamboozled into electing him are back paying the same or more taxes than ever before.

He basically was just bribing you guys by temporarily undercutting tax revenue and giving only the richest of the rich and corporations any long term advantage.

*shrug* I'll gladly take any cut in the amount of money government decides to steal from me each year.

[oxmixmudd]

It's fact.

Given that democrats are also well-funded by wealthy and corporations, that's not particularly surprising.


*shrug* I'll gladly take any cut in the amount of money government decides to steal from me each year.

Standard response from a Trump supporter. You'll take any immediate benefit regardless of the cost to others or the long term cost to the country. You could care less if he is stealing your birthright, as long as today you get some good tasting stew.

[Gondwanaland]

Standard response from a Trump supporter. You'll take any immediate benefit regardless of the cost to others or the long term cost to the country. You could care less if he is stealing your birthright, as long as today you get some good tasting stew.

Typical response of a TDSer - anyone that disagrees with them is a 'Trump supporter'.

In reality, outside of your poor mindreading attempts, it has nothing to do with who I do or do not support (didn't vote trump in 2016, haven't yet decided who I'm voting for this year). It has to do with being a libertarian who knows that taxation is theft. If someone is stealing from me, I prefer they steal less (though preferably not at all) than more. As does any sane human being.

[oxmixmudd]

Typical response of a TDSer - anyone that disagrees with them is a 'Trump supporter'.

In reality, outside of your poor mindreading attempts, it has nothing to do with who I do or do not support (didn't vote trump in 2016, haven't yet decided who I'm voting for this year). It has to do with being a libertarian who knows that taxation is theft. If someone is stealing from me, I prefer they steal less (though preferably not at all) than more. As does any sane human being.

You've been echoing trump supportive disinformation. So you're rhetoric is that of those that support Trump. I can only respond to what you write here G. So characterizing that as 'mind reading' is essentially the inverse of reality. There is nothing I have seen you post here that would reveal you have anything but praise for Trump.

As for your views on taxation, it's a bit absurd. Even the founding fathers understood taxation is a necessary part of government. the issue is excessive taxation, and taxation without representation.

[Gondwanaland]

You've been echoing trump supportive disinformation. So you're rhetoric is that of those that support Trump. I can only respond to what you write here G. So characterizing that as 'mind reading' is essentially the inverse of reality. There is nothing I have seen you post here that would reveal you have anything but praise for Trump.

I'm quite willing to bet I'm more liberal than you on a good number of positions (or at least as liberal). Borders/immigration. Drug legalization. Etc.

As for your views on taxation, it's a bit absurd. Even the founding fathers understood taxation is a necessary part of government. the issue is excessive taxation, and taxation without representation.

You're talking about something other than income tax or corporate tax, which is something that was created well after the founding fathers (1900s). Excise taxes on commodities/goods, etc., which were the primary taxes out there wrt the founding fathers, are something one enters into willingly (don't want to pay it, don't buy the good/commodity).

Income tax is forced on us by threat of caging, and thus theft.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm quite willing to bet I'm more liberal than you on a good number of positions (or at least as liberal). Borders/immigration. Drug legalization. Etc.



You're talking about something other than income tax or corporate tax, which is something that was created well after the founding fathers (1900s). Excise taxes on commodities/goods, etc., which were the primary taxes out there wrt the founding fathers, are something one enters into willingly (don't want to pay it, don't buy the good/commodity).

Income tax is forced on us by threat of caging, and thus theft.

You did not define the type of taxation. You said taxation is theft. That is all. As I said in the first part of the post. I'm not a mind reader, nor do I try to read minds. I respond to what you say here on this website.