Having already failed miserably at health care, infrastructure and immigration reform, Trump is barreling down the road toward tax reform failure.
The most notable aspect of his tax reform outline is the doubling of the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples. Nearly 70 percent of households already chose to take the standard deduction now and this should increase that exponentially, especially since most deductions except for charitable donations and mortgage interest would be eliminated.
As The Wall Street Journal notes, millions will be able to file on a postcard.
But the usual suspects are already wailing about their special-interest tax deductions oxen being gored.
While Trump and his ilk say his $5 trillion in tax cuts will be covered by economic growth generating enough tax revenue to cover that, many economists question this conclusion. Of course, hardly anyone is calling for cutting spending by $5 trillion. Trump himself has allowed the debt to balloon beyond $20 trillion.
4TH ST8 
Sadly, the swamp creatures will fail Americans again, they are in near full rebellion against Trump, he is basically alone because he broke the order of events they had in mind. They were prepared to work with a Clinton administration, she being more their kind than the outsider Trump.
I think I’ll be in the 25% tax bracket…The only nonstarter I see is the real estate property tax one pays on a homeowners personal residence…Would it make sense to allow a business owner to deduct RE taxes on an income property owned as a business expense but not letting the that same deduction be made for a personal residence…Understand that one generates income the other does not…OR…is the the proposal such that it disallows the deduction in either case???
State and local tax deductions are a sop to blue states. Eliminate them and cut the overall rate. People in Nevada would come out ahead.
https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/editorial-nevadans-would-benefit-from-trumps-tax-deduction-change/
Raising rates, according to the guy primarily responsible for Reagan republican supply side tax cuts, is the only way to go.
“PostEverything Perspective
I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.
The best growth in recent memory came after President Bill Clinton raised taxes in the ’90s.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/?utm_term=.7cf51f7825bb
“Would it make sense to allow a business owner to deduct RE taxes on an income property owned as a business expense but not letting the that same deduction be made for a personal residence.”
As I understand it, the “deduction” for most business properties does not exist. It is instead, a common terminology people use to describe the definition of net income. If a business has a gross income of say, $100,000 dollars, but has to pay $25,000 in property taxes to make that money, then the profit is not $100,000 dollars, but rather, $75,000. The $25,000 is not a deduction; it is money that was never available for any individual to spend and so, cannot be taxed as income. It is a business expense, but not a deduction.
Interesting article, deleted. Hats off to Bartlett for admitting his mistake.
The article is nothing but left wing ideology. According to the Tax Foundation which examined past tax legislation enacted from the Kennedy administration to the Bush II administration:
“The Taxes and Growth model predicts that the 1981 Reagan tax cuts had the largest effect on both the U.S. economy and federal revenue of any of the seven tax changes examined in this paper: an 8.0 percent increase in the long-run size of the U.S. economy, and a $83.06 billion static revenue loss. The majority of the predicted economic and revenue effects was due to the individual income tax reductions, which greatly decreased marginal and effective tax rates on wages, dividends, capital gains, and pass-through businesses. The estimates above are likely somewhat overstated, because the investment tax credit increase and the faster depreciation schedules in the 1981 Act were curtailed shortly thereafter. On the other hand, we did not model several other important provisions in the 1981 Act: an increase in the maximum contribution to Individual Retirement Accounts, the creation of the research and experimentation tax credit, a large increase in the federal estate tax exclusion, and (perhaps most importantly) a provision that indexed individual income tax brackets to inflation. Had these provisions been modeled, the results would likely have shown a greater static revenue loss and a larger economic effect”
Reagan pushed for reductions in spending, including the elimination of whole departments. Sadly, both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress failed to enact his spending cuts. They also scale back many of his tax cuts as the above article documents.
The Tax Foundation is yet another far right wing Koch Brothers funded organization associated with ALEC, intent on lowering the Brothers obligations, and killing the government so that their own fiefdom may be established for them to do to others as they will.
Think maybe the man who actually established the far right wing plan knows more about it than the sonar driven far right wing foundation trying to deny it happened?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tax_Foundation
https://www.thenation.com/article/who-else-koch-brothers-billionaire-donor-club/
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2017/04/26/20843/big-tax-cuts-rich-less-poor
“The time is long overdue for people to ask themselves why it is necessary for those on the left to make up a lie if what they believe in is true.” Thomas Sowell
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367682/trickle-down-lie-thomas-sowell
Lest we forget, Koch money funds NOVA. therefore Patrick must hate NOVA.
“The Taxes and Growth model…” So you don’t believe climate change models based on the laws of physics, but you go hook, line, and sinker for an economics model based on the laws of….er, what laws is it based on? Just remember, economists exist to make the weather man look good. Fact is, Reagan went along with tax increases later in his administration, putatively because the federal deficit continued to grow at a rapid clip after the tax cuts.
The National Review article utilizes an entirely unethical smoke screen. According to Wikipedia, “Trickle-down economics”, also referred to as “trickle-down theory”, is a term associated with laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. The term is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged, while being framed as good for the average citizen.” Since supply side economics is apparently nearly synonymous with trickle down, the Review is incomplete by intentionally ignoring this fact. Supply side and consequently, trickle down economics are still with us as Republicans continue to champion lower taxes for the rich.
“A January 10, 1982, Washington Post article stated the following about Stockman’s Atlantic Monthly interview:
David A. Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, in his now famous conversations with Washington Post editor William Greider recorded in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, agreed that a key element of Reagan administration economic policy — reducing the top personal income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent — was “trickle down.”
In order to get Congress to go along with cutting the top rates, the same logic that lower rates would provide incentives to taxpayers whatever their income level had to be devised, Stockman indicated. “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory,” he said.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2005/03/29/columnist-sowell-claimed-no-one-has-ever-advoca/132963
More selectively chosen excerpts made by Rincon to reach another unfounded result.
Reality is, very little of what any President does has substantial effect on economic cycles.
But Rincon would have you believe all the Democrats are spot on while all the Republicans are bullshit.
And there you have it.
Economics according to Rincon.
And we have Patrick with the double down.
I hope you guys aren’t investing your retirement funds based on your politics!
laugh.
As usual you either intentionally or ignorantly miss Dr. Sowell’s point. Name one economist (Wikipedia is hardly an economist) who has ever advocated “trickle down” theory. Another lie invented and repeated often by the left.
As Dr. Sowell points out, lower tax rates have been supported by Democrats, namely Kennedy and the progressive icon, Woodrow Wilson. Now, the left always uses tax cuts as a class issue conveniently rewriting history and inventing the “trickle down” lie as a Republican invention.
Barbara, David Stockman is an economist. As you probably know, David Stockman was Reagan’s budget director and was the mad scientist behind enacting the trickle down theory. He not only used the term, he admitted that it not only didn’t work, but that it was merely a Trojan horse intended to get tax cuts for the wealthy.
And to top it off, even though Sowell knew or should have known that Stockman admitted it, and specifically used the term trickle down to describe the policy, he lied and said that it was some creation of the left.
“Trickle down” was never used as an economic theory by Reagan or Bush.
“In the first place, as Sowell has indicated, the trickle-down trope promotes an image of money flow that is back-asswards. Money invested in business enterprises goes first to employees, contractors, and suppliers. If the enterprise is successful, then the profits trickle up to owners and stock holders (or in the case of Gates, et al., gushers up). However, in the absence of a profit motive, which is reduced in the aggregate by a raise in marginal tax rates in the upper tiers, this activity does not occur. The argument for “reducing” taxes kicks in when taxes are so high as to stifle the incentive for entrepreneurial risk for those with access to capital. It is a risk capital (hence jobs growth) argument and not a trickle-down argument or trope that is the basis for limiting taxes.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_trickle-down_hoax.html#ixzz4u8mjGr8z
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Sowell lied when he said no economist used the term. Stockman was Reagan’s Budget Director and admitted he not only used the term, but that it was intended to fool people so that they would allow Reagan to cut taxes, which Stockmqn knew would lead to lower revenue, and he admitted this, to widespread acclaim, in 2004.
Sowell wrote his lies, alleging that no one other than someone from an insane asylum ever suggested that term, in 2014.
This is not Sowells first lie, hopefully though, now that he has been put out to pasture, that it will be the last one published.
To repeat my quotation, ” According to Wikipedia, “Trickle-down economics”, also referred to as “trickle-down theory”, is a term associated with laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics.” Do you disagree with this, Barbara?
Let me try another source. According to Investopedia, “Trickle-down economics, or “trickle-down theory,” argues for income and capital gains tax breaks or other financial benefits to large businesses, investors and entrepreneurs in order to stimulate economic growth.” According to dictionary.com, “supply-side economics definition. An economic theory that holds that, by lowering taxes on corporations, government can stimulate investment in industry and thereby raise production, which will, in turn, bring down prices and control inflation.” Do you feel that these are not extremely similar terms? Do you at least agree that both advocate reducing taxes on business? I do agree though, that trickle down and thus, supply side economics is bass ackwards
And, although few economists believe that supply side economics is/was valid, here are a few more that did support it: Arthur Laffer, Robert Mundell, Alan Reynolds, and George Gilder