Donald Trump to bypass congress to give working people a tax cut

Tax Laws in the Country?

You exempt $250K gain on your principal residence ($500K if married).

Most retirements are pre-tax when put in, so basis is irrelevant. Even Roth which is post-tax is wholly tax free after 59.5, so an increase in basis doesn't help for retirement.

This would help people with taxable investments, which most people have a very limited amount of.

 

HW's loss is why Republicans won't support a tax increase again.

 

just remember -

what's good for the goose is good for the gander. for anybody who think this is appropriate, the next ultra-liberal pinko president will have the same, now established power to arbitrarily adjust tax rates as they see fit.

I don't want to hear your b****ing about seperation of powers when President Lenin uses his perogative to arbitrarily sets tax rates at 90% for the top 1%.

 

I think Trump figures that he better keep delivering for the Repubs in the Senate if does not want to be impeached.

 

Yeah, I think this is what it's about, especially if the Kochs are definitely going to turn away from the dumpster fire. I guess this is another last ditch effort to secure Congress in 2018. Otherwise, 45 is getting impeached.

So less of a favor to the Senators themselves but more to the owners of certain Senators.

 

I didn't know about that exemption for primary residence. I've never sold my house before.

Maybe I'm being dumb but I don't understand why the cost basis is irrelevant for pre-tax IRAs? You are taxed at ordinary income rates when you withdraw money in retirement. They are still taxable investments along with the pension aspect that I mentioned as well. Less of a capital gain then less of a tax.

 

For Roth IRAs, you don't pay taxes upon withdrawal, so cost-basis is irrelevant.

For Traditional IRAs, you don't pay taxes upfront, but you do at the end, even on the original amount. So you pay taxes on ALL withdrawals rather just the profits. The cost basis is effectively $0.

 

You weren't taxed on the money you put it, the money grows tax free, and then when you withdraw it it is 100% taxable.

 

The poor get pissed on thru taxes like the lottery, other vice, and regressive state and local taxes that no one ever seems to complain about anywhere near as much as federal tax changes.

 

Quit pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

 

Ahh I gotcha. I've never really investigated IRA taxation since I'm not allowed to start one due to the fact that I don't have any earned income. All my taxes are short term capital gains or dividends. I just assumed the money made within the IRA had some sort of capital gains taxation component. Also, I guess you'd automatically benefit from the lower tax rate since you aren't making any money in retirement.

 

Aren't govt tax rev increasing?

https://www.investors.com/politics/...hs-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paying-for-themselves/

https://taxfoundation.org/congressi...-spending-growth-will-outpace-revenue-growth/

Why does the balancing act have to be more federal taxes? Why can't it be changes in spending?


Also, I'm curious...could you generate carry forward losses with the potential tax change? It would probably be a very rare situation unless inflation gets out of control at some point in the distant future.

 

Not remotely. That article is from March and arbitrarily picked a tiny time frame. Tax revenues being collected in January and February are partly payroll taxes and partly people paying 2017 taxes, but they don't remotely represent the effects of the tax cuts in 2018, nor does the claim that the "growth would pay for itself" make any sense given that the economy hadn't even had a chance to grow yet in January/February. Whether that claim was true or not, you wouldn't see it until after the economy actually grew. That article is just total clickbait nonsense.

You're cutting $100B in taxes, primarily on the wealthy. What are you going to cut to balance it, and is it going to come from cutting services for the wealthy or everyone else?

 

The second article was from late June and dealt with long term projections...whatever those are worth.

The top 10% pay like 70% of the federal taxes if I recall correctly. I don’t think they use many federal govt services so yes it would be by cutting or adjusting programs so they match up a little closer with our federal revenues. You don’t even need to cut spending just reduce growth slightly.

 

What does this have to do with tax cuts for the rich again?
Everyone knows the first thing that gets cut from the government budget is healthcare, welfare and education, all that greatly affect the poor and not the rich.

If a small minority get 100 billion in tax breaks, of course they won't be using government services.

 

The 2nd article says the tax cuts will increase the deficit, separate from spending. In other words, it reduces revenues:

The effects of the TCJA on the long-term budget outlook
The long-term projections include prior CBO estimates that the TCJA would increase investment, employment, and output, offsetting an estimated $571 billion of the law’s costs. The CBO estimates with this macroeconomic feedback, the TCJA will increase the deficit by $1.854 trillion (including interest expense) over the 2018-2028 period.

Growth is projected to offset $571B in lost revenues, but still leave $1.85 trillion in lost revenues over 10 years. It does project revenues to go up dramatically after 2028, since the individual tax cuts are set to expire. Realistically, that won't happen, of course.

That 70% is true of income taxes, but it does not include other things like payroll taxes which are highly regressive and a huge part of total federal revenue. But in a time when income inequality is skyrocketing and all new wealth is going to to the top 10% or so, do you think it makes sense to cut taxes on the group that is doing great and cut services to the middle and lower classes that are struggling?

 

What is the spin he's putting on it? The extremely wealthy will use the saved money to stimulate the economy? How will this help poor people living in rural parts of the US with no job opps?

 

Payroll tax, sales tax...

 

Traitor Trump's idea for a $100 billion tax cut---by indexing capital gain to inflation---that would give 63% of its benefit to the top 0.1% is shaking legal grounds


To implement the tweak---bypassing the Congress--the Treasury Department would adjust the meaning of the word "cost" from the Revenue Act of 1918.

But in 1992, the administration of President George H.W. Bush considered making the same change Trump has now proposed and found that

the Treasury Department had no legal grounds to make the switch.​

In a report from the Justice Department , Assistant Attorney General Timothy Flanigan determined that the meaning of the word "cost" was not ambiguous, since the term had been defined over time by a series of legal rulings and additional legislation from Congress.

"The Department of the Treasury does not have legal authority to index capital gains for inflation by means of regulation," the report concluded.



https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-capital-gains-inflation-index-tax-cut-is-it-legal-2018-7

 

I'll save myself some time by referring you back to @Major.

This is the game I expected. Fiscal conservatives want budget cuts to shrink government so they create a budget crisis by cutting revenues to force spending cuts. And those spending cuts will be on social programs and safety net stuff, which will increase the country's economic disparity and flush us down the toilet. How about no? How about we restore tax revenues so we can pay for the things we need to maintain the country's stability, high standard of living, and broad sharing of the fruits of our labor.

That is an interesting question I hadn't considered. I would think it would be the implication of a switch, that taxing real gains instead of nominal gains would also mean tax assets for real losses. Also makes me wonder if we got into a high inflation period (or a deflationary period), who would we want to wear the risk, the government or the investor?