@TRayB said: @CalvinAndHobo , I am simply trying to provide some information so your opinion might be more informed.
I believe most people who itemize their deductions because itemization increases their deductions beyond the Federal Standard Deduction are doing so in an honest manner, and simply utilizing the tax code for its intended purpose, which in the case of charitable deductions is to encourage people to be generous. I don't believe we should place too many limits on encouraging generosity.
What if they donate to planned Parenthood?
I am only talking about legal, non-fraudulent donations. But you know that.
I think that all too often the focus is on the wrong aspect, it's not the taxes, it's the spending, and where that spending takes place. We've done great things with our taxes, mostly for people who live in other parts of the world. How about we spend that money at home for a while?
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Harris and Trump on taxes
Today, we are starting a series called The Stakes covering the major issues of the campaign.
Regardless of who wins the election, the next president will quickly have to deal with major changes to the tax code. That’s because a set of tax cuts enacted by Donald Trump in 2017 will expire next year, and Congress will decide which tax cuts to keep, end or expand.
Of all the campaign policy issues, this one is the most likely to hurt, or help, your finances. Trump has proposed tax changes that would largely benefit the wealthy and corporations. He has also called for new tariffs — taxes on foreign goods — that would raise prices for everyone. Kamala Harris, like President Biden before her, has promised to reduce taxes for lower and middle earners and increase taxes on the rich. She has not proposed new tariffs, although she has not ruled them out.
Below, I’ll explain how these plans could affect you. This newsletter is the first in a series we’ll run between now and Election Day. In it, Times journalists will focus on the policy stakes of the 2024 election — and how life would be different under a Harris administration or a Trump administration. We’ll examine other subjects, including abortion, democracy and immigration, in future newsletters.
The tax cuts
Trump campaigned in 2016 on a promise to slash tax rates. He delivered tax cuts in his first year in office.
The 2017 cuts largely benefited the wealthy and corporations. But they also included some reductions for low- and middle-income Americans. Most of the 2017 cuts will expire next year, and members of Congress are preparing for a fight.
Trump wants to extend everything — and go further. He has proposed eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security benefits and reducing the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 21 percent. He argues the cut would leave businesses with more money to grow, spend and hire, helping the economy.
Trump’s plan would add $5.8 trillion to the debt over 10 years, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. That would expand a national debt and a budget deficit that many economists already consider concerningly large.
Harris says she would leave the 2017 tax cuts in place for people earning up to $400,000 per year but raise rates for those who earn more. She argues that the rich can afford higher taxes to pay for policies that help everyone else, including an expanded child tax credit for parents. Like Trump, she favors eliminating taxes on tips.
Harris’s plan would add $1.2 trillion to the debt over 10 years, the Penn Wharton Budget Model found. She has promised to reduce the deficit but has not specified how she would make up for the budget shortfall in her current proposals.
Kamala Harris speaks onstage at a podium with the seal of the vice president.
Vice President Kamala Harris Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times
The tariffs
Over the past decade, Democrats and Republicans have shifted from the bipartisan free trade paradigm of the 1990s and 2000s. They have increased tariffs on foreign industries that produce cheaper goods than their U.S. counterparts. For example, Biden has imposed a 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric cars.
Trump wants to go further. He has suggested a 10 to 20 percent tariff on all foreign goods, along with a 60 percent tariff on all imports from China.
Harris comes from the Biden administration, which has used tariffs on a more limited basis than Trump has proposed. She has criticized Trump’s tariffs as too broad — describing them as “a Trump tax on gas, a Trump tax on food, a Trump tax on clothing, a Trump tax on over-the-counter medication.”
Supporters of tariffs argue that they would not increase prices — that foreign businesses would eat the cost instead of passing it on to consumers. But historically that’s not true.
In fact, the purpose of a tariff is to increase prices. American products are generally more expensive than those made in China, Mexico and other low-income countries because labor costs are higher here. Tariffs try to level the playing field by increasing prices for foreign goods. In a recent interview with NBC News, JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, argued that the tariffs would reinvigorate U.S. production. “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you’re ultimately much better off,” Vance claimed.
New tariffs could also raise revenue, but not enough to make up for the deficits from either candidate’s tax cuts.
The plans’ impact
How would the tax plans affect actual people? A middle-class household with $80,000 in income would gain $1,700 after taxes under Trump’s plan and $2,200 under Harris’s, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. A household in the top 0.1 percent, with $14 million in income, would gain $377,000 under Trump and lose $167,000 under Harris.
Those numbers, however, do not include the impact of tariffs. If they are included, Trump’s plan would actually reduce a middle-class household’s after-tax income by $1,700, the Peterson Institute for International Economics found. Wealthy households’ after-tax income would still increase. Since Harris hasn’t proposed new tariffs, her numbers are unchanged.
How much of this will happen? Federal law allows the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, making at least some new ones likely. The tax cut extensions are less certain. They require congressional approval, so the winners of this year’s 468 House and Senate elections will play a big role in dictating your future tax rates.
Doesn't camel Harris want to tax unrealized capital gains? That bítch is a fraud. She won't even talk to the media. She's already being sheltered like Biden has been his whole term. They don't want you to hear her ignorance. Also, Foghorn leghorn... lmao
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form." -- Winston Churchill "LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
"I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form." -- Winston Churchill "LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
Yeah that's really gonna put you out since you make +$100M....
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
I'm certainly not rich, got a pension and SS. Taxing unrealized capital gains on my farm would put me into bankruptcy and remove anything I was planning to leave to my son.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
@Bob_Luken said:
Pretty sure Frank was trolling because, well, I know him and I can confirm he ain’t as dumb as that last post.
Hence, the disclaimer in his signature.
But that doesn't stop me from giving him a WTF even though I know he's trolling.
I read his disclaimer once. Forgot everything I read after I read it and seldom noticed it again. Same as all the others who have "signatures" that appear on every post. It's just white noise.
Regarding the proposed tax on unrealized capital gains....
As I understand it, it is the "billionaire tax" proposal. A 25% tax on accrued value of investments of $100 million or more. Probably not too many.of fit that category.
I seem to recall reading once that during the debate over whether or not to pass the original income tax one of those against the passage said words to the effect: "Suppose we pass this 0.5% tax on income? Then we've set a precedent, haven't we? And then, God forbid, this tax could rise, couldn't it? Perhaps as high as TWO percent!!"
So, I suppose that some of us might be suspicious of supporting yet another way of removing income from the pockets of citizens to an already proven succubus of seemingly insatiable appetite.
Perhaps if they'd shown more caution with the incredible amount of money they've already taxed? Then, maybe there would be more support? Probably not, because it would never have needed to come up, would it?
Of course, the rapacious appetite of the billionaire's comes into play as well. They might do well to support this idea, since they know that it will only be a matter of time before they have their minions transfer the bulk of the burden to, guess who?
The rest of us.
Post edited by Amos_Umwhat on
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Yeah sure on all of that above. Bottom line is that the rich have ways to hide income and avoid tax that the regulars don't have. This won't solve it, btw, because they'll just figure out the next way to hide it.
Ultimately, there are two systems in America. One for the rich and one for everyone else. It's a caste system designed as freedom.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
The bottom line on all this (for me) is that the ultra-rich and all their money - not just the taxes on their money but all of it - is not enough to help for very long. The Feds don't know how to manage money; it's like having a crackhead kid; you think giving them money for rent is gonna help things, but it's not. Let the government stop spending and show us some proof that the taxes we're paying now are being used wisely and I would be happy to entertain a tax hike... as it is now, no bueno.
We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. People and corporations, for the most part, pay taxes that are owed. I get so tired of people blaming the rich for not paying there "fair share". It's the politicians that make the tax code we live with. Blame them.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
@d_blades said:
It's the politicians that make the tax code we live with. Blame them.
I do. I still pay to much.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
IMO they need to just change it to a national sales tax. One rate for everyone, even those who are making their money under the table will still have to pay anytime they buy something. Not sure how that would work for corporations though. And having both a state sales tax and property taxes is BS!
Politicians will extract their pound of flesh one way or another. Here in AZ I think they have perfected it. Income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, tobacco tax, marajuana tax, alcohol tax and I'm sure a few more.
@Rhamlin said:
IMO they need to just change it to a national sales tax. One rate for everyone, even those who are making their money under the table will still have to pay anytime they buy something. Not sure how that would work for corporations though. And having both a state sales tax and property taxes is BS!
Now you want to add a sales/VAT tax? I know it sounds like a good idea, until you dig into the specifics. I hate paying the local sales tax of almost 10%. You'll end up with a system that's every bit as complex as the current one. You need exemptions or credit's for B2B sales, possible low income exemption etc.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
National sales tax, or a VAT hurts the consumer, and so only benefit those who spend very small percentages of their cash on "stuff i.e.- rich people. That's why they propose it.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
Comments
I am only talking about legal, non-fraudulent donations. But you know that.
They put people is space, then need Elon Musk to bring them back. Just sayin'.
Extort is the wrong word but you get the point.
I think that all too often the focus is on the wrong aspect, it's not the taxes, it's the spending, and where that spending takes place. We've done great things with our taxes, mostly for people who live in other parts of the world. How about we spend that money at home for a while?
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The spending of our tax dollars is the devil.
from the NYT newsletter
Harris and Trump on taxes
Today, we are starting a series called The Stakes covering the major issues of the campaign.
Regardless of who wins the election, the next president will quickly have to deal with major changes to the tax code. That’s because a set of tax cuts enacted by Donald Trump in 2017 will expire next year, and Congress will decide which tax cuts to keep, end or expand.
Of all the campaign policy issues, this one is the most likely to hurt, or help, your finances. Trump has proposed tax changes that would largely benefit the wealthy and corporations. He has also called for new tariffs — taxes on foreign goods — that would raise prices for everyone. Kamala Harris, like President Biden before her, has promised to reduce taxes for lower and middle earners and increase taxes on the rich. She has not proposed new tariffs, although she has not ruled them out.
Below, I’ll explain how these plans could affect you. This newsletter is the first in a series we’ll run between now and Election Day. In it, Times journalists will focus on the policy stakes of the 2024 election — and how life would be different under a Harris administration or a Trump administration. We’ll examine other subjects, including abortion, democracy and immigration, in future newsletters.
The tax cuts
Trump campaigned in 2016 on a promise to slash tax rates. He delivered tax cuts in his first year in office.
The 2017 cuts largely benefited the wealthy and corporations. But they also included some reductions for low- and middle-income Americans. Most of the 2017 cuts will expire next year, and members of Congress are preparing for a fight.
Trump wants to extend everything — and go further. He has proposed eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security benefits and reducing the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 21 percent. He argues the cut would leave businesses with more money to grow, spend and hire, helping the economy.
Trump’s plan would add $5.8 trillion to the debt over 10 years, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. That would expand a national debt and a budget deficit that many economists already consider concerningly large.
Harris says she would leave the 2017 tax cuts in place for people earning up to $400,000 per year but raise rates for those who earn more. She argues that the rich can afford higher taxes to pay for policies that help everyone else, including an expanded child tax credit for parents. Like Trump, she favors eliminating taxes on tips.
Harris’s plan would add $1.2 trillion to the debt over 10 years, the Penn Wharton Budget Model found. She has promised to reduce the deficit but has not specified how she would make up for the budget shortfall in her current proposals.
Kamala Harris speaks onstage at a podium with the seal of the vice president.
Vice President Kamala Harris Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times
The tariffs
Over the past decade, Democrats and Republicans have shifted from the bipartisan free trade paradigm of the 1990s and 2000s. They have increased tariffs on foreign industries that produce cheaper goods than their U.S. counterparts. For example, Biden has imposed a 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric cars.
Trump wants to go further. He has suggested a 10 to 20 percent tariff on all foreign goods, along with a 60 percent tariff on all imports from China.
Harris comes from the Biden administration, which has used tariffs on a more limited basis than Trump has proposed. She has criticized Trump’s tariffs as too broad — describing them as “a Trump tax on gas, a Trump tax on food, a Trump tax on clothing, a Trump tax on over-the-counter medication.”
Supporters of tariffs argue that they would not increase prices — that foreign businesses would eat the cost instead of passing it on to consumers. But historically that’s not true.
In fact, the purpose of a tariff is to increase prices. American products are generally more expensive than those made in China, Mexico and other low-income countries because labor costs are higher here. Tariffs try to level the playing field by increasing prices for foreign goods. In a recent interview with NBC News, JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, argued that the tariffs would reinvigorate U.S. production. “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you’re ultimately much better off,” Vance claimed.
New tariffs could also raise revenue, but not enough to make up for the deficits from either candidate’s tax cuts.
The plans’ impact
How would the tax plans affect actual people? A middle-class household with $80,000 in income would gain $1,700 after taxes under Trump’s plan and $2,200 under Harris’s, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. A household in the top 0.1 percent, with $14 million in income, would gain $377,000 under Trump and lose $167,000 under Harris.
Those numbers, however, do not include the impact of tariffs. If they are included, Trump’s plan would actually reduce a middle-class household’s after-tax income by $1,700, the Peterson Institute for International Economics found. Wealthy households’ after-tax income would still increase. Since Harris hasn’t proposed new tariffs, her numbers are unchanged.
How much of this will happen? Federal law allows the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, making at least some new ones likely. The tax cut extensions are less certain. They require congressional approval, so the winners of this year’s 468 House and Senate elections will play a big role in dictating your future tax rates.
Doesn't camel Harris want to tax unrealized capital gains? That bítch is a fraud. She won't even talk to the media. She's already being sheltered like Biden has been his whole term. They don't want you to hear her ignorance. Also, Foghorn leghorn... lmao
-- Winston Churchill
"LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
-- Winston Churchill
"LET'S GO FRANCIS" Peter
Obviously, it's far too dangerous for them to let either of them speak without a teleprompter.
34 to 1 is ridiculous.
It could force sale of many homes just to pay the taxes. Just opening another lane on the road to "you'll own nothing."
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
Yeah that's really gonna put you out since you make +$100M....
Isn't that how income tax started out, just a tax on the rich?
I'm certainly not rich, got a pension and SS. Taxing unrealized capital gains on my farm would put me into bankruptcy and remove anything I was planning to leave to my son.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
Pretty sure Frank was trolling because, well, I know him and I can confirm he ain’t as dumb as that last post.
I love this thread....
Hence, the disclaimer in his signature.
But that doesn't stop me from giving him a WTF even though I know he's trolling.
I read his disclaimer once. Forgot everything I read after I read it and seldom noticed it again. Same as all the others who have "signatures" that appear on every post. It's just white noise.
Regarding the proposed tax on unrealized capital gains....
As I understand it, it is the "billionaire tax" proposal. A 25% tax on accrued value of investments of $100 million or more. Probably not too many.of fit that category.
I seem to recall reading once that during the debate over whether or not to pass the original income tax one of those against the passage said words to the effect: "Suppose we pass this 0.5% tax on income? Then we've set a precedent, haven't we? And then, God forbid, this tax could rise, couldn't it? Perhaps as high as TWO percent!!"
So, I suppose that some of us might be suspicious of supporting yet another way of removing income from the pockets of citizens to an already proven succubus of seemingly insatiable appetite.
Perhaps if they'd shown more caution with the incredible amount of money they've already taxed? Then, maybe there would be more support? Probably not, because it would never have needed to come up, would it?
Of course, the rapacious appetite of the billionaire's comes into play as well. They might do well to support this idea, since they know that it will only be a matter of time before they have their minions transfer the bulk of the burden to, guess who?
The rest of us.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Yeah sure on all of that above. Bottom line is that the rich have ways to hide income and avoid tax that the regulars don't have. This won't solve it, btw, because they'll just figure out the next way to hide it.
Ultimately, there are two systems in America. One for the rich and one for everyone else. It's a caste system designed as freedom.
The bottom line on all this (for me) is that the ultra-rich and all their money - not just the taxes on their money but all of it - is not enough to help for very long. The Feds don't know how to manage money; it's like having a crackhead kid; you think giving them money for rent is gonna help things, but it's not. Let the government stop spending and show us some proof that the taxes we're paying now are being used wisely and I would be happy to entertain a tax hike... as it is now, no bueno.
We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. People and corporations, for the most part, pay taxes that are owed. I get so tired of people blaming the rich for not paying there "fair share". It's the politicians that make the tax code we live with. Blame them.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
I do. I still pay to much.
IMO they need to just change it to a national sales tax. One rate for everyone, even those who are making their money under the table will still have to pay anytime they buy something. Not sure how that would work for corporations though. And having both a state sales tax and property taxes is BS!
Politicians will extract their pound of flesh one way or another. Here in AZ I think they have perfected it. Income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, tobacco tax, marajuana tax, alcohol tax and I'm sure a few more.
Now you want to add a sales/VAT tax? I know it sounds like a good idea, until you dig into the specifics. I hate paying the local sales tax of almost 10%. You'll end up with a system that's every bit as complex as the current one. You need exemptions or credit's for B2B sales, possible low income exemption etc.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
National sales tax, or a VAT hurts the consumer, and so only benefit those who spend very small percentages of their cash on "stuff i.e.- rich people. That's why they propose it.