Posted on 09/29/2015 12:44:11 PM PDT by GIdget2004
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump's tax plan would cost just under $12 trillion over a decade, according to an analysis from a conservative-leaning group.
The Tax Foundation found that Trump's proposal would lose around $10.1 trillion when accounting for the potential economic growth that would be spurred by the tax changes.  The $12 trillion figure comes from more traditional scoring methods, akin to those employed by official federal scorekeepers. Trump himself has said that the plan — which slashes the top tax rates for both individuals and all kinds of businesses — won't add to the deficit.
But after the billionaire businessman released his plan, tax analysts were quick to question that claim and said that the top 1 percent of earners would be most likely to gain under Trump's proposals. Trump had said for weeks that his plan would go after Wall Street types who paid little to nothing in taxes.
The Tax Foundation found that the top 1 percent of earners would see their after-tax income rise between 21.6 percent and 27 percent under Trump's plan. The bottom 30 percent of taxpayers, on the other hand, would gain anywhere from 0.6 percent to 11.5 percent in after-tax income.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
As far as I know Conservatives don’t refer to tax cuts as costing anything.
Try scoring in in conjunction with a 12 Trillion reduction in welfare programs.
“I’m surprised that Karl Rove hasn’t asked for equal time on Faux News to say that Satan has gotten a bad rap over the years. “
Rove should know, he LIVES it.
What if Trump really intended to work with a Republican Congress to radically cut taxes and spending? That would come as quite an interesting surprise—a welcome surprise to many like myself, who would very much like to see those cuts along with numerous department closings and cuts against pork to useless local regulatory offices and public education propagandists.
Cutting spending on millions of tyrants at every level of government to make way for millions of men’s production jobs in the private sector. Imagine that.
We need to fire 500,000 federal employees. They need to work for a living like everyone else.
Cost???
What does that mean and what are their assumptions?
These are the same commies who always provide numbers that are , “unexpected”.
Anytime tax rates drop the inflows to government go up.
Open secrets is a great source for people if they would take one or two hours after a football game, and read it. I have used it for years.
“Cost?”
Eff you a-holes! It will GIVE BACK 12 trillion to the TAX PAYERS!
The assumption that government has an effective right to the current confiscatory levels of taxation, and that therefore any reduction is a ‘cost’ to the government tells me a lot about the source...
That will be gone. Just watch.
There is a 10% tax rate provision for repatriating funds from overseas.
*******
That will be gone. Just watch.
????
This is lower than they would pay, otherwise (30%). This 10% will help bring back monies/companies to US. It’s what Forbes, et al, have been suggesting for years....to get companies/jobs back.
I may be missing something in your post, LS.
A lot of people pay more FICA and self-employment tax than they do income tax. FICA (7.65% employee half + 7.65% employer half) and self-employment (15%) is a percentage of the gross (capped at, I think around $95,000). The income rax is a percentage of the adjusted gross (taxable) AFTER many possible deductions, some deductions would be eliminated with Trumps plan.
There are no deductions before FICA and self-employment taxes are calculated.
Don't worry about "skin in the game", there will still be too much as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to pay more, go right ahead.
I thought you meant there was a 10% surcharge.
Static and dynamic analysis. From the article:
"The Tax Foundation found that Trump's proposal would lose around $10.1 trillion when accounting for the potential economic growth that would be spurred by the tax changes.  The $12 trillion figure comes from more traditional scoring methods, akin to those employed by official federal scorekeepers."
In fact, they almost are wrong all the time. No one, not even Andrew Mellon, would have predicted his tax cuts in 1921 would have led to 1.6% unemployment in 1926. Utterly unheard of in the modern industrial world.
What if Trump really intended to work with a Republican Congress to radically cut taxes and spending? That would come as quite an interesting surpriseWhere have you been? Trump is not your problem here. The problem is finding the "Republican Congress to radically cut taxes and spending"...
We had a Republican president with a Republican house and senate not that long ago because we were told that's what we needed...What did we get?
WE GOT SCREWED with increased spending, debt and then ridiculed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.